Pearse Doherty
Donegal · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad recommendation No. 2: To delete from the row dated "1 September 2026" down to and including the row dated "1 May 2030" and substitute the following: " 15 July 2026 €502.88 €502.88 €371.85 €371.85 €371.85 €0.00 €210.45 €172.14 €167.25 €79.17 €11.48 14 October 2026 €502.88 €502.88 €371.85 €371.85 €371.85 €0.…”
“Next week, this House will rise, the doors of Leinster House will be locked and Ministers will head off on their summer holidays. Their parting gift to ordinary Irish people across the State will be to have locked in fuel price increases that will hit them in their pockets.”
“That is not acceptable and it is why we in Sinn Féin have tabled this amendment to say that these price increases should not be going ahead and that prices should be properly monitored at the appropriate time.”
“This is tied to the latter amendment and I will speak further at length on that. Recommendation No. 1 deals with the diesel rebate scheme, which operates within a window that closes on 1 October.”
“Hope is what we rely on when we have no control. It is not a substitute for prudent economic planning. There is zero certainty here. There are no guarantees that the Strait of Hormuz will remain open or that global supply lines will not be choked tomorrow morning.”
“As if that were not good enough, the Government is not just hitting people with increases on petrol and diesel. On top of that, it is going to hit them with an increase in the cost of home heating oil, natural gas and a basic bag of coal.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,554 lines we hold for Pearse Doherty, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 32.
“Saying that the Government will not accept the amendment because it is considering a report which was published a year and a half ago is an example of a Government go-slow.”
“Everybody reported it and agreed with the Credit Review Bill being put on a statutory footing; there is no issue there. I had ideas to strengthen the Bill, but it took four years to bring it to Committee Stage and it will probably not pass into law until next year, which is really frustrating. I have raised the issue of share-based remuneration over a long period. The Department has had a report for a couple of years. Why does it take so long to make the decisions that are required? Decisions have to be made. I understand the Minister is new to the brief and all the rest, but his party has been in government and he has been in senior positions during those times. It is very frustrating. The public constantly tell me that it is frustrating that the Government takes so long to make decisions and effect change.”
“We have raised the issue of share-based remuneration for a number of years in terms of restricting the measure to SMEs. We have since had the reports. In the finance committee, I mentioned that we have waited for four years for the Credit Review Bill to be given a statutory footing. It was announced on 6 July by Government that Cabinet had approved putting the Credit Review Bill on a statutory footing. Today, we finally had Committee Stage, which coincided with the Finance Bill. It is ridiculous that this is happening four years later. The slow pace of Government is frustrating. What was more frustrating was that just as we were on section 2, the Finance Bill clashed with it, which was a major problem for me because my amendments had to lapse. It is an example, with respect, of a Government decision with press all over the place.”
“I am all for that, tax sovereignty and all the rest. However, there is an argument that this generosity does not need to be extended to large corporations. The Social Insurance Fund is important as we have an ageing population. This is one way to ensure that funds are maintained and replenished.”
“The figures for micro-companies and small companies are quite small considering the value of the share-based remuneration scheme - it is growing for small businesses but staying static for micro ones. That is what the amendment is about. It is not about eliminating it completely. Rather, share-based remuneration would continue to exist and would be an issue for companies. It is about ensuring that the PRSI exemption does not apply to large corporations and the benefit is restricted to SMEs. This issue was identified by the Department of Finance in the Indecon review commissioned by the Department just two years ago. The report identified that we are a wee bit out of line and more generous compared with other countries. That is okay. Sometimes we can be more generous. We have to have tax advantages.”
“There are very strong arguments for share-based remuneration in relation to investment and buy-in of staff and so on. It is actually asking whether we need to exempt PRSI for share-based remuneration for large multinational companies, many of which are in scope of pillar 2, which means they have turnover in excess of €750 million, or whether it is better to ensure, given the Social Insurance Fund and making sure it is sustainable, that those larger companies continue to do share-based remuneration but have to pay PRSI on the share-based remuneration, although not small and medium enterprises where we would like to encourage more of that type of activity.”
“We also see the value of share-based remuneration schemes has increased substantially in the past number of years. For example, in 2019 the value of share-based remuneration schemes stood at €945 million whereas the last figures I have data for shows that has more than doubled in those four years. In 2023 it reached over €2.1 billion. Where has that growth occurred? It has occurred in the multinational, the large company, sector where it has gone from €749 million - that is €749 million out of €945 million, so it was always those companies that dominated the area, which was understandable - to nearly €1.8 billion. Obviously, we imagine the figures for 2024 and 2025 will have further increased. What is this about? It is about ensuring that share-based remuneration can continue and that it is there.”
“Those countries include Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Israel, the United States, Germany, Poland and Italy. It found that attractive tax advantage schemes are provided for small enterprises in many important competitor countries and they included Portugal, Denmark, France, Spain, Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United States. The Indecon review on taxation of share-based remuneration found that: ... detailed analysis suggests that aspects where Ireland’s approach is out of line with some competitor countries include lower eligibility levels, the treatment of benefit in kind and the tax treatment of restricted stock units. Ireland’s PRSI exemption however appears generous compared to many countries where such exemptions are more focused on SMEs.”
“This is brought forward on the basis of the sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund, which is obviously very important. It is important that fund is replenished and that we have an adequate amount in that fund to meet the needs of workers and citizens in the future. This amendment is about share-based remuneration and we have seen a number of reports done by the Department of Finance and, indeed, by Indecon on behalf of that Department on share-based remuneration and looking at international practices or competitors, what is available and what is not available. The Indecon report which focused on this was published last year. The Department of Finance found that some countries treat benefit accruing from share-based remuneration as taxable salary and is subject to social security contributions.”
“Tairgim leasú Uimh. 12: In page 28, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: "Report on the restriction of share-based remuneration to SMEs 19. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the impact of the PRSI exemption for share-based remuneration for large corporations on the sustainability of the social insurance fund.". Molaim leasú Uimh. 12 ó thaobh PRSI agus nach bhfuil PRSI i bhfeidhm ó thaobh íocaíochta atá déanta do chomhlachtaí móra nuair atá scaireanna tugtha dá chuid fostaithe in áit airgid thirim. I propose this amendment in relation to restricting the PRSI exemption to SMEs and not having the PRSI exemption available to large corporations.”
“(2) (a) This subsection applies to an individual who has relevant income chargeable to income tax. (b) An individual referred to in paragraph (a) shall be— (i) an owner of the qualifying residence, and (ii) a natural person. (3) Relevant income shall be exempt from income tax and shall not be reckoned in computing income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.”.”
“(1) In this section— ‘qualifying residence’, means a residential premises situated in the State constructed prior to 2023 which has not been subject to a rental agreement in the three years prior to the year of assessment; ‘relevant income’ means all income arising in respect of rent paid under a rental agreement from a relevant person for the use a qualifying residence; ‘relevant person’ means a qualified applicant under a scheme administered by the Minister for Housing, Heritage and Local Government and known as the Enhanced Defective Concrete Blocks Grant Scheme; ‘rental agreement’ means an agreement or arrangement under which one party grants to a qualifying individual the right to occupy all or part of a dwelling, subject to the payment of money; ‘residential premises’ means a building or part of a building used as a dwelling.”
“I move amendment No. 11: In page 18, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Amendment of Principal Act 13. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 216F: “216G.”
“We could have that argument about the rent tax credit and so on, but I think most people will recognise that there is a uniqueness in relation to health issues and that there should be a differentiation based on your income and the support should be available to you regardless. This is not just about dialysis. It relates to other health-related schemes as well. We should make sure that nobody falls foul of the rules simply because they are too sick to work and to have a tax liability, they are caring for somebody else in a full-time position and do not have a tax liability, or their employment does not allow them to earn enough to have a tax liability.”
“There you go. Róisín will kill me. Many people do not claim this. I would really encourage people, particularly in terms of the cost-of-living crisis, to claim for the flat rate expenses if they are on home dialysis, if they have a child with a disability or a life-limiting condition, if they are making those journeys, if they or a family member has CAPD, or if they have health expenses or other expenses that they have not claimed for. I will finish on the following. It is something I will revisit. I said this at the start and I just want to make the point again. I have focused on home dialysis, but this is broader than home dialysis. There are a number of health-related schemes. You could actually argue that all tax credits should be refundable and so forth.”
“That is helpful. The beauty about flat rate expenses is that they are flat rate expenses. Revenue has determined the figure and you do not have to provide the receipts, although you can be called on by Revenue to provide receipts. Actually, a question I must put down is how many times Revenue has asked for the receipts from individuals. I have never been asked so far, although they are all there.”
“Both have the same costs. Therefore, I note what the Minister has said but I ask him to genuinely take this issue forward with his colleague to see if we can address this.”
“For this year, you go through home dialysis but it is next year you can claim this. There are people out there who cannot wait, even if they are working, even if they have the tax liability and so on. The refundable tax review by the tax strategy group is way broader than what would be health-related issues, but it is possible to do something with refundable tax credits. I understand that the Government may be reluctant to go there because it opens up the door for other arguments. I would make those arguments, but anyway. I genuinely think that these health measures should be universal. You cannot have a situation where two neighbours are both availing of home dialysis and, because one is working more than the other and has a tax liability, they can get support of €2,800 and the other cannot. It is not fair. It is not appropriate.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I brought this into the Finance Bill because this is where you prompt the debate and so on. As I mentioned to his predecessor, Paschal, the intention here is for Ministers to actually start this conversation. I am not on the health committee, and there is a wider issue in terms of public expenditure. This issue really makes sense. I do not have the data for the 344 individuals, and we only know about them in terms of home dialysis, but there are people with CAPD as well. They are entitled to this relief, which costs less than €1 million, but the HSE estimates that they are saving the HSE over €10 million, so this makes sense in the first instance. Another issue was raised with me. As the Minister knows, these reliefs are claimed in arrears.”
“Most people do not even claim this relief. However, if you have a child with a life-limiting condition, there is an expense for the trips you do to your hospital appointments, which are unfortunately too frequent for many of these parents. Some of these parents are the full-time carers of the kids and do not have a tax liability. On the tax code, if it is not refundable, it is not the way to sort this and we should move it to a grant system, for example, in terms of the living donor scheme, which is part of this legislation. The living donor scheme is administered by the HSE with a grant available for expenses if you miss work and so on. The taxation code exempts that payment from income tax. We need to do something with regard to that.”
“Most of those are able to avail of the tax benefits, but others are not. That is not right. The system is not fair for those individuals. Within the collective wisdom of this House, we are surely able to recognise that it is appropriate to give people support, and we now need to make sure everybody availing of this scheme is able to benefit from it. The reason it was brought to my attention is a family member is doing home dialysis, but through networks and the rest, you hear that some people are not able to get any support because they are part-time working or they might be too sick to work. They may be waiting for that transplant and may be at a weak stage. There needs to be something done. I argue strongly that we make this tax relief refundable. It would not just apply to dialysis. CAPD obviously has a similar situation.”
“Maybe the tax code is not the way to support these individuals and it should be done through direct grants, which I think there is a strong argument for. I understand why we would introduce credits like this, in that they are better than nothing. You could introduce a scheme that allowed for these types of support to be refundable, which is within the gift of Revenue, which is an excellent organisation and refunds taxes all the time. I did my tax returns recently, and I encourage people to do them. You get a nice amount into your account. Most people overpay tax and do not claim health expenses and so on, so I encourage people to do that. Going back to this issue, these are big numbers. It is saving the State €10 million. It is 51,000 visits to the hospital. We are dealing with 344 people.”
“That helps people, particularly as electricity prices are going through the roof. The problem is that if you do not have a tax liability, you get nothing, and that is wrong. I started the conversation by saying there was a recognition, even though it is a small number of people, that they should be supported through the tax code. They are supported to the tune of a couple of thousand euro per year, and rightly so. That is a huge saving to the State. However, if you are the mother and full-time carer of one of the 16 children getting home dialysis and you do not have a tax liability, or you are working but it is part-time and you do not have a tax liability, you get nothing. There are two problems here.”
“The issue is that, through the tax code, there is a flat rate expense regime that recognises that if you are availing of home dialysis, there is an additional cost burden on your household. You have to be hooked up to the dialysis machine for between and eight and nine hours depending on your circumstances. It is running through electricity and pumps. Therefore, there is a flat rate expense of €4,425 provided. There are also issues with laundry and clothing. For that reason, there is a €2,305 flat rate expense provided for individuals. There is also a €370 flat rate expense for telephone calls. Overall, there is a flat rate expense of €7,100. You do not obviously get all of that. It depends on your tax rate and, therefore, you get a portion of that. However, you can get up to close to €3,000.”
“There are 344 individuals who are currently involved in home dialysis. We probably think that is not a huge number of people in the State. However, the fact that they are doing dialysis at home saves the HSE €10 million per year. It is a huge amount of money being saved as a result of the fact that technology and healthcare have changed and allow for that care to be provided at home. It prevents 51,000 visits to our hospitals, hospitals that are already clogged up and overcrowded in many cases. It saves the individuals 300,000 hours of their time either travelling to the hospital, waiting in the hospital, getting dialysis in the hospital and so on. Those 344 individuals include 16 children.”
“It did get me thinking about the number of people who are on home dialysis and how the State supports some of them but does not support others. I made the point to the previous finance Minister that, rightly, the Houses of the Oireachtas identified that those who are participating in home dialysis needed support from the State and the support was offered through the taxation system. Currently, there are 344 people who avail of home dialysis. This could also be replicated with other issues like continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, CAPD. You could argue that the support provided through Revenue for a parent with life-limiting conditions where the travel expenses are also provided as flat rate expenses could also be affected. For the sake of this argument, I will focus on home dialysis.”
“I move amendment No. 10: In page 13, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “Report on relief on medical expenses 5. The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the inability of persons without the adequate tax liability to benefit from relief on medical expenses, making reference to the substantial burden facing individuals using home dialysis.”. I brought this amendment forward on Committee Stage of the Bill. It deals with the issue and unfairness that exists in relation to individuals with health challenges. I am involved with this issue because a connected person, a family member of mine, is on home dialysis. I will declare that in the first instance, even though they would not benefit from this amendment if it were there.”
“I move amendment No. 6: In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on rent tax credit 4. The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the changing real value of the rent tax credit in relation to rent prices and the decision not to increase the rent tax credit.”.”
“He makes commitments during election periods or times he is under pressure - we know about other commitments such as on scoliosis, among others - but he has no intention of ever fulfilling them.”
“Is Fine Gael so impotent that Fianna Fáil just ran roughshod over it, or is it just that the election is over, Fine Gael does not care, it is in government, happy days, and will get its way in looking after the big boys? The landlords are going to get looked after under the Government's policy. One in four of them do not even pay tax. Developers will get €2.5 billion of a tax cut. Happy days. Two banks made a profit of €5 billion last year. They do not pay taxes. That is who we are going to look after. We can forget about the promises Fine Gael made. It is either that Fine Gael's negotiations skills on the programme for Government are really shoddy or it is just a case of this is what Simon does.”
“He did not even state whether he actually asked for it. Was it the case that Fianna Fáil got its way on not increasing the renter's tax credit - the promise that the Minister broke? Did Fianna Fáil also get its way on the promise that the Government would bring a childcare plan within 100 days? Did Fianna Fáil also get its way on the promise the Minister broke - to reduce income tax for people every year? Did Fianna Fáil get its way on that one? Did it get its way on college fees as well? What about the promise that, if Fine Gael was elected to government, people's energy bills would be cheaper? They have gone up. Did Fianna Fáil get its way on everything?”
“Maybe I missed it, but did the Minister explain why he broke his promise to the electorate that he would increase the renter's tax credit by €100? He was going to extend it and increase it by €100. Did I miss that part or did he just avoid explaining why he broke another promise to the electorate? I will give him an opportunity to respond to that.”
“There is a requirement to increase the renter's tax credit, something the Minister personally promised the people he would do. Lo and behold, he is now the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste and, if everything goes according to his plan, he will be Taoiseach. In addition to the Minister's promises in respect of tax cuts, a childcare plan within 100 days and a reduction in student fees, he is also breaking this promise to the 300,000 renters out there. They are not getting the €100 that Simon promised them because the Government has decided to put €2.5 billion into the pockets of developers, landlords and investors instead. They are the priorities the Government has chosen in this budget. They are the wrong priorities and that is why I propose this amendment.”
“Tenants are being fleeced left, right and centre. I do not know where the endpoint is. On some occasions, Government Ministers have been embarrassed into saying that rents should actually decrease. I am not sure if that is the Minister's position. Does he want to see rents come down? There is no policy here. The Government has no plan to do that but it is introducing new legislation to allow rents to increase every six years, even in rent pressure zones. This is about identifying that the measure that was introduced, which I campaigned on for a number of years before the Government eventually acceded to half of it, is not working because the Government only introduced half of the measure and that rents are increasing at a faster rate than the benefit of the credit itself.”
“The Government increased tax credits for landlords and, as a result, one in four of those eligible for that credit, over 40,000 landlords, will not pay a penny in tax. It is amazing. Under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, we have tens of thousands of landlords who do not pay a penny in tax because of all of the tax incentives. The Government introduced more incentives, even though all of its advisers said that it was not the right thing to do, that a lot of landlords were not even paying any tax and that this was not the reason landlords were selling up, as they were selling up because prices had gone through the roof, which was obviously a consequence of the Government's own policy. Over and over again, they argued against the introduction of this measure but the Government introduced it anyway. Let us go back to tenants.”
“If the Government had banned rent increases at the end of 2023, without even introducing a tax credit, tenants would be better off today than they are with the renter's tax credit. That is why this amendment looks at the real cost of the renter's tax credit with reference to the increase in rents. I am the person who convinced the Government to introduce the renter's tax credit but it made a half-arsed job of it because it only introduced half of the policy. Perhaps that was by design because, in introducing only half the policy, the Government transferred taxpayers' money into the pockets of landlords. Landlords will benefit again next year as the result of what one of the professors called the stupidest tax measure in the history of the State.”
“The commission found that it ended up pushing up rents, with the benefit ending up in the pockets in the landlords, so there was merit to that argument. That is why, when I argued for the renter's tax credit, I always made it clear that a two-pronged approach had to be adopted. A renter's tax credit needed to be introduced but there also needed to be a ban on rent increases. Without a ban on rent increases, all you are doing is putting more profit in landlords' pockets because that is where it ends up. The statistics show that to be the case. We do not even have to go back to 2020 or 2021, when it was introduced. If we compare the first quarter of this year with the last quarter of 2023, we will see that rents increased by a sum in excess of the renter's tax credit.”
“It is the wrong decision but there is a wider issue in relation to the renter's tax credit. When I argued for the introduction of the renter's tax credit and convinced Government there was a real issue in that its housing policy had resulted in runaway rents and had put huge pressure on individuals, the argument I heard from the Minister's party and from Fianna Fáil was that if you reintroduce the renter's tax credit, it would end up in the pockets of landlords. There was merit to that argument. The Commission on Taxation and Welfare looked at the old renter's tax credit, which was introduced in the 1980s and only phased out a number of years ago. The argument for its introduction at that time was that there was pressure on elderly persons who were renting.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “Report on rent tax credit 4 . The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the rent tax credit operating in the absence of a cap on rents, making a direct comparison between the amount of the credit and rent increases across the State for each year that the credit has been in operation.”. This is another area where the Minister broke a personal promise he made to the electorate. I am sure he will acknowledge that if he wants to be honest with the House tonight. He made a commitment that the renter's tax credit would increase by €100 each year. In his first budget, he decided to break that promise to the people.”
“I am not even going to argue for that at the minute. I am arguing for this part. The Minister has not given one reason not to support this amendment now. I recognise that he has said he will engage constructively but he has not offered one reason not to support the amendment now. The families affected by defective blocks deserve the same treatment as other people in my county and elsewhere when they are going through this nightmare. I will push amendment No. 11 when we come to it.”
“I have been in homes that no family should be living in. I have been in homes whose owners have told me they cannot use any of the plugs in the kitchen and have had to move stuff into another room, an old bedroom or something like that, because every time the plug goes on, the fuseboard trips. You can see water ingress. In some cases, you can see daylight. Nobody should be in these homes. Why are they in these homes? There are a number of reasons. One is the scheme itself but, in some cases, there is no other accommodation. I am not saying this is a silver bullet. I have never suggested it is. However, if this releases one, two, ten or 20 properties and takes a bit of the nightmare away for individuals, we will have done a good job. It is so much wider than this. There should be proper planned accommodation and a phased rebuild of houses.”
“I will reiterate the point. This is the unfortunate reality. I understand that people want to make profits and all of the rest but, if you are a landlord in Donegal, you can rent to a Ukrainian family and are guaranteed the money because the State provides it. It is the equivalent of €1,200. It is different if you rent to a family whose home is affected by defective blocks. On the €15,000, that €15,000 comes off the money the family has to use to rebuild their home. If it takes 18 months to demolish and rebuild their home, they cannot do €1,200. It is too much. It is way above the market rent in Donegal. I have stood in many of these homes. We talked about compassion. When I stand in these homes, I think about myself and my kids. A lot of TDs think like that. We step into the shoes of the person we are talking to.”
“Do they rent to a family who cannot pay €1,200 or do they rent to a Ukrainian family which means they will get the benefit of €1,200 because it is tax-free and they will not have a registered tenancy and all the rest? There is a displacement here, so the Government has a serious issue. As I said, there are 2,124 properties rented in Donegal under the Ukrainian scheme and that is supported by the State. Is the Minister going to make a decision tonight – or did he do so previously given that this amendment was notified to him – not to support this? This a humanitarian crisis these individuals are in and this is about trying to find a solution to try to release properties. It is a nightmare for these families and an ounce of compassion would mean people would support this.”
“I have talked to people and really pleaded with them to consider renting out a property for 18 months to X, Y or Z and they are just not interested. It made sense to them in a way because it was not a long-term rental lease. This is about trying to see if we can just nudge them across the line. There is going to be a major crisis. I mentioned the ARP for two reasons. The first is that there is a precedent and it is always easier to convince government to do something when there is a precedent. However, the Government needs to recognise this issue. I know people who rent properties under the ARP scheme and I know why they do it. Under that scheme, even with the reduced cost, it is the effective €1,200 rental income. That is higher than the rent in Donegal. People have to make a decision at the minute about who to rent to.”
“I note the Minister said he would constructively engage, and I hear that. There is legislation coming up. He indicated he is going to oppose the amendments, which I am really disappointed with. I raised this with his predecessor and it is a sensible solution that does not cost the State any money because it is trying to release properties into the system that are not currently in it. As I said, I hope it would have a long-term impact in that, after the homes are rebuilt, it would encourage people to rent out these properties. I have talked to so many people. Deputy Conway-Walsh made the point that in Donegal, Mayo and other counties, there are a lot of vacant properties and a lot of holiday homes as well.”
“It would be time-limited obviously because these houses have to be demolished and rebuilt and it will have an automatic sunset clause when the scheme comes to its conclusion.”
“This is a serious issue. It is one small part of the overall nightmare families are experiencing in relation to defective blocks. Even if there was 100% redress, and we in Sinn Féin will continue to campaign for 100% redress, we would still have an accommodation crisis. That is what we are trying to deal with in this amendment. How do we incentivise more properties coming onto the market without competing with young families? People coming to my clinic are telling me they are being evicted, have been given notice to quit and cannot find rental properties. This is about making sure we do not affect them and looking specifically at homes that are not on the market. It is a fair thing to do. There is precedent for it in the ARP scheme.”
“In fairness, the Minister and the Government have acknowledged belatedly that there is an issue with the rental market as a result of that scheme. There are 2,100 individuals who are able to avail of the scheme and the State pays the rent and the landlord is tax exempt on that rental income. We have a humanitarian crisis involving people living with defective blocks. As more and more of these houses have to be demolished in Donegal, Mayo and elsewhere, it would make sense to target homes that are not on the market. They can only be vacant homes that are not being rented out or holiday homes. I hope that after the house is rebuilt and the family moves into the house, the individual might decide to continue to rent out the property under normal market circumstances, which would increase the housing stock as a result.”
“This is aimed at doing two things. First, it will, hopefully, suppress the cost that would be charged by these homes. Second, it would not include new build houses, new build rental stock or any property that was rented in the past three years. It is fair. I raised the issue of the accommodation recognition payment, ARP, scheme. I have issues with this scheme and how it is applied. If I look at what is happening in County Donegal, there are 2,100 Ukrainians who avail of the ARP scheme in the county. That is 2,100 homes in the main - because most of them are in their own properties - and they are competing with the rental market. There are no provisions like the ones I built into the amendment in the ARP scheme.”
“We are literally phoning around people who may have a holiday home or maybe a mother, father, brother or relative died and the house is left empty to ask them whether they will rent their house to this or that individual. In many cases, it is really challenging. That puts another burden on these families. This amendment would exempt from income tax the rent that would be received by an individual who rents a house to somebody availing of the scheme and who is in the process of demolishing and rebuilding their home. As the Tánaiste knows, there are significant gaps in the support provided to families in this situation but there is support of €15,000 for rental accommodation. It does not meet the costs any more because it takes quite a while to demolish and rebuild a home. That money comes out of the overall cap that is available.”