I weclome the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, to the House. He is most welcome.

Cuirim fáilte ar ais roimh gach duine. Go mbeirimid beo ar an am seo arís. I thank the Cathaoirleach for choosing this Commencement matter and I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, for taking time out of his very busy schedule to come to us here in the Upper House today. I had requested last week that the Minister, Deputy Heydon, attend today to give us an update on the discussions about the rate of nitrates derogation in Ireland. To be fair, his office contacted me to say he is not available and I thank the Minister of State for taking up the baton. I will be asking the Minister of State for an update on the discussions and what he thinks is going to happen.

It is not that long since the then Minister for agriculture encouraged farmers to expand. Because of this, many farmers and processors went into large debt and now many farmers could be faced with the prospect of herd reduction or acquiring more land. Yet many of these farmers are already in debt. The discussions on the derogation rates are reaching a crucial stage. It is essential for our agricultural industry that the present rate is maintained. Otherwise, the consequences for individual farmers and the whole farming industry will be catastrophic.

It is very unfair that farmers are getting such blame for the condition of our waterways when it is obvious that there are many other bodies contributing to these problems. I suggest that these bodies be asked to get their houses in order before our farmers are asked to take such drastic steps.

Denmark is often used as an example of how farming should be done. Not a week goes by in which the media do not say Denmark is doing this or Denmark is doing that. However, it must be noted that Denmark has now reapplied for a derogation. That shows how important it is.

Our water quality is on the up but it is a very slow process. We need to give it time. Despite having the greatest number of derogation farmers, the area I am from in west Cork is showing an increase in water quality, but this all takes time. At a time when generation renewal is being encouraged, it is very unlikely that any of our talented young men and women are going to come home to take over a farm if the first thing they will be told is that they have to reduce their herd or acquire more land. It is also very unfair for Ireland to be compared with other European countries. We have an outdoor system that is unique in Europe so we cannot be compared with other countries. It is like comparing apples with oranges.

Reducing the derogation rate will also have a detrimental effect on tillage farmers. It will have a domino effect. We must remember that tillage farmers are already on their knees. They are getting the same prices they got 40 years ago. It is incredible that could happen. I am not talking about four years ago but 40. If dairy farmers are going to try to acquire more land, it will put pressure on tillage farmers, many of whom will be unable to compete. Farmers are finding it very hard to manage the bureaucracy involved in calculating phosphorous levels in animal feed. Even the farm advisers are finding this very difficult to manage. One solution would be to allow dairy farmers to export their slurry but there needs to be a financial incentive for tillage farmers to take part in this. This would also reduce the use of chemical fertilisers.

I thank the Senator for raising this very important matter. On behalf of the Minister, Deputy Heydon, I thank her for allowing us to discuss the importance of the nitrates derogation. As the Senator has correctly said, the Minister is in Brussels today to meet with Commissioner Roswall, who has responsibility for the environment, on this very matter, so the Senator's timing is brilliant.

Securing an extension of Ireland's derogation remains a key Government priority. Irish agriculture is different from farming on the Continent. Our outdoor system of livestock farming, coupled with the high yielding crop of grass, high rainfall and a long growing season, is central to our justification for the derogation we so desperately need. Maintaining the derogation is critical not only for the economic sustainability of farm enterprises currently availing of it but also for the broader rural economy.

Ultimately, the rules on nitrates are about protecting water quality. Led by Government, there is unprecedented engagement across the entire agrifood sector to protect our water quality. This work will continue as farmers, the agrifood processing industry and the Government share a common objective and commitment. In addition, we will have to demonstrate that we are doing what is necessary to protect valuable habitats under the habitats directive.

In many cases, the Government is providing financial and other supports for farmers going beyond regulatory requirements to improve water quality. For example, the Farming for Water European Innovation Partnership, which has a budget of €60 million and which commenced last year, provides financial support for specific targeted actions. To date, more than 4,200 farmers have applied for this support. Our aim is to support 15,000 farmers by 2029, which is very significant. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is also providing TAMS grant support for capital investments in low-emissions slurry spreading equipment and manure storage.

Since 2015, a total of more than €138 million has been paid to support significant investments in family farms in manure storage and low-emissions slurry spreading technology. Almost 54,000 farmers are participating in the agri-climate rural environmental scheme, ACRES, which includes water protection quality and using the principle of the right measure in the right place. The Minister of State, Deputy John Cummins has also made significant progress towards the introduction of a targeted exemption threshold for stand-alone manure storage under the exempted development regulations. This will be in place in the coming weeks. This is also very significant.

There have been a number of significant developments in securing an extension of Ireland’s derogation and it is important to update the Seanad accordingly. First, a Cabinet committee on water quality chaired by an Taoiseach was established in March to co-ordinate efforts to secure the derogation. The Taoiseach raised the importance of our derogation with the EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. The Minister, Deputy Heydon has also discussed the matter with Commissioner Roswall and is meeting with the Commissioner today in Brussels to advance the case for renewal, as I already stated. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is in ongoing contact with its commission and member state counterparts in Brussels, most recently making the case for the renewal at the EU nitrates committee on Friday last. On Monday, 15 September, the Minister welcomed the delegation of senior commission officials to Ireland to discuss the renewal and that team visited a dairy farm to see the work under way to protect water quality.

The programme for Government states that the Government will do everything in its power to make the case at EU level to secure retention of the derogation. The Government continues to work intensively on this. Although this will be a challenging process, the Government remains fully committed to working with farmers and the broader industry to develop the best case possible for the renewal of the derogation from 1 January, 2026. It is critically important that we all get behind the twin objectives of improving water quality and securing Ireland’s next derogation.

It is great timing that the Minister is in Brussels. Perhaps at some stage I might take credit that when I brought it up in the Seanad he took off to Brussels.

It would not happen only for the Senator.

It would not be my first time. No better woman to claim that.

It is on the record.

We all support that.

I thank the Minister of State and the other Ministers for their commitment to the retention of the derogation rate. I pointed out, and I know he is very aware, how important this is to the Irish farmer. It is important not only to the dairy farmer; it has a huge domino effect across all farming sectors and therefore to the local economy. I ask the Minister of State to continue to do his best and acknowledge the work he and others have done.

This morning I met with IFA leadership who have young farmers and people who are interested in agriculture for a multitude of reasons. They were in Agriculture House. They realise, as we all do, the importance of what is happening in Europe today. We discussed all of these issues. I have nothing but the utmost confidence in the reliability and wherewithal of the Minister to lead us on this matter. The Taoiseach, Tánaiste and everybody from there down across all parties realise the importance of what this will mean in the future. The Senator said it in jest but it is very important that this House and every one of its Member is seen to be uniting behind this effort. We are on the head of a pin. We must focus our efforts on getting this derogation. It will mean so much in the future. Do we have a good case? I believe in the quality of our way of farming and the way we carry on our farming practices. I am passionate about that. In the past every one of us had practices we would not be proud of today, for example, our methods of storing and spreading slurry and of outwintering cattle. Every one of us did it. We were up to that height in gutter. Where was the water and seepage going?

That is the way we were but look at the way we are now. Now farmers can go out at night, turn on a light and feed their cattle in a pair of shoes like the ones I am wearing. We have come on an awful lot in comparison with the way we were, especially the few of us who might have grey hair or no hair. We remember what it was like.

We are all trying to achieve the same thing. I thank the Senator for what I would call a timely debate on this matter. I sincerely thank her and her colleagues in the Seanad for rightfully having a debate on this matter.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Thomas Byrne, to the House.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in to represent the Minister, Deputy Burke, and I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this important matter. The Minister of State, Deputy Healy-Rae, said earlier that the last matter raised was timely and he was correct. I hope this matter is similarly timely and appropriate.

The Government is in the process of preparing an action plan on collective bargaining. This is mandated under the European directive on adequate minimum wages but the Minister has been very forthcoming and said that he will publish it at the end of October, which is to be welcomed. This action plan provides a pivotal opportunity to bring Ireland closer to European norms. As the Minister of State will be aware, Ireland is an outlier in this area in that the rest of Europe has collective bargaining as a legal right. We need that too and we need to introduce it in a balanced and constructive way. The action plan is about that and is not something threatening.

Right now fewer than one in three Irish workers is covered by a collective agreement. This is one of the lowest rates in Europe. Under the EU directive, as I said, Ireland is obliged to take active steps to expand collective bargaining. This is not just about compliance. It is about fairness in the workplace, stability in industrial relations, which is important to employers as well as to everyone else, and building a more resilient economy. It is good for everyone. This is not something that is threatening or specific. We know from international evidence that collective bargaining helps to deliver better pay equality, stronger productivity and more stable workplaces. It also gives workers advice on the major changes ahead, from digitalisation to the transition to a low-carbon economy. It is very good for compliant and good employers. It means that other employers cannot engage in practices outside the law that would put the good, compliant employers in an adverse or uncompetitive position in the context of tendering and so on. It is important for proper employers that collective bargaining exists.

From a moderate trade union point of view, the action plan needs to do a few things. First, it must build on genuine social dialogue with unions, employers and independent experts around the table as part of the normal bargaining process. Second, it must contain a real bargaining roadmap, not just aspirational language. Legislation to support collective bargaining must be in line with European Union requirements. That is the first thing I would like to see in the action plan. Does the Minister envisage the action plan referring to legislation to put collective bargaining on a statutory footing? The action plan must also contain stronger protection for workplace representatives. It is very important that those who stick their heads above the parapet, who are usually very good people on a number of fronts in terms of being creative and interesting and being leaders, are not put in an exposed or damaged position.

There should be protections for these people, similar to other sets of rights. They should have the right to do this and not be sacked, sidelined or denied promotion because of it. There should be no exceptional treatment for them but they should not be disadvantaged. There should also be a clear right of access for workers to engage with their trade unions in the workplace without obstruction. They should have the opportunity to do that. It would be in their own time but they should have the ability to do it.

It must recognise that collective bargaining is not a threat, it is a tool. It reduces inequality, boosts consumer demand and provides certainty for both workers and employers. When collective bargaining takes place, the machinery of Government, the Labour Court is there. In other words, if there is not agreement - and there will not always be - it will go to proper due process and this has worked very well in the past.

I am very grateful that the Minister of State is here. I would like to hear how he sees the action plan developing and that he sees it as protecting workers who seek to have unionisation and represent their colleagues, and that he sees it as allowing the right of access and the right to collective bargaining, and that it will all be done within the machinery that exists.

I thank Senator Joe O’Reilly for submitting this Commencement matter which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Deputy Peter Burke.

Ireland’s long-standing voluntarist system has served us well over the decades, helping to contribute to industrial peace and stability. It has also enhanced Ireland’s attractiveness as a major investment location and led to a co-operative environment for resolving disputes.

The programme for Government sets out a commitment to publish an action plan on the promotion of collective bargaining by the end of 2025. This will be in line with the EU directive on adequate minimum wages. Although the directive is currently before the European Court of Justice, Ireland has reaffirmed its strong commitment to workers’ rights by proceeding with the development of the action plan, regardless of the outcome of the case. As outlined in the directive, the action plan will establish a clear timeline and concrete measures to progressively increase the rate of collective bargaining coverage. The process will have full respect for the autonomy of the social partners and ensure ongoing engagement with all relevant stakeholders.

As part of the Government’s consultative approach, a public consultation was held from April to May of this year to gather broader input on its content. A working party has been established with Department officials and the social partners to examine what will be considered for inclusion in the action plan. This group has met regularly this year and its work is essential in developing the content of the action plan. In the view of the Minister, it is too early to comment on the content of the action plan but it is his intention that a balanced and evidence-based approach be undertaken in considering any legislative or policy changes arising from the action plan. Both legislative and non-legislative options may be considered as part of the broader development of the action plan, depending on the outcomes of the consultation and ongoing policy formulation with the social partners.

The European Commission expert group's report on transposition of the directive is clear that the design of the framework of enabling conditions and the content of the action plan is entirely up to member states in consultation with the social partners.

I appreciate the line that the Government has progressively increased the rate of collective bargaining. To truly do that properly, we just need that three things that I set out: the legislation to support it; stronger protection for workers' representatives - it is very important that people are not disadvantaged in this sphere for seeking to represent their colleagues; and a clear right of access for workers to the bargaining process and their trade unions. Those are the objectives. I ask the Minister of State to convey to the Minister, Deputy Burke, the importance of incorporating those basic, simple principles.

I will certainly say that to the Minister, Deputy Burke. It has been the clear and consistent policy of successive Governments to promote collective bargaining through both legislation and the development of an institutional framework that supports a voluntary system of industrial relations. It is therefore hugely important that we continue to protect the measures that were put in place to support collective bargaining within a voluntary industrial relations framework that has served us well to date.

The Minister believes that a strong and well-functioning collective bargaining system supports productivity and fair wages, especially in the low-paid sectors.

Furthermore, the capacity to engage effectively in collective bargaining is a key element of the adequate minimum wage directive. The Government hopes to further support the social partners in this area.

I thank the Minister of State for being in the House today. I think it is the first time I have addressed him since his elevation. I congratulate him. He was a great Senator when he was here and I am sure he is doing equally well as a Minister.

Respiratory syncytial virus, RSV, is a common and highly contagious virus that affects the lungs and respiratory tract. While it can affect people of all ages, older adults, particularly those over 60, face a significantly higher risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death. Across Ireland and Europe, RSV contributes to tens of thousands of hospitalisations and thousands of deaths annually in this age group. Adults with underlying health conditions such as COPD, asthma, diabetes and heart failure are especially vulnerable.

The rationale for introducing RSV vaccine for older adults is clear, to protect this high-risk population from serious lower respiratory tract infections. Clinical trials of the vaccine, like GSK's trials, have shown strong efficacy of over 80% overall and more than 90% in adults with comorbidity, alongside a favourable safety profile, with mostly mild and temporary side effects. From a cost-benefit perspective, the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, estimates that to vaccinate all adults aged 65 and over would cost approximately €146 million for the 2025-26 season. It is important to say that the vaccine has a three-term span, so that is once every three years. Targeting those aged 75 and over would cost around €76 million. While direct costs offset from reduced hospitalisation are modest, at around €1 million, the broader benefits are substantial. These include fewer severe illnesses, reduced medical complications and improved quality of life. RSV also exacerbates chronic conditions and disrupts daily activities in older adults. Vaccination could ease the burden on the healthcare system and enhance patients’ well-being. International experience supports this, with the early data showing promising reductions in hospital admissions following the vaccine. Specifically, there is research from Scotland which is absolutely astounding in respect of the reduction in hospitalisation as a result of RSV, which we heard about last week in Buswells Hotel.

In conclusion, the introduction of RSV vaccine for Irish adults over 60 is a sound public health measure despite the upfront cost. The vaccine is of strong efficacy and safety and offers potential to prevent serious illness and complications, especially in those with underlying conditions. This makes it a worthwhile investment in protecting Ireland’s ageing population. In the UK, the RSV vaccine is now available for adults between the ages of 70 and 79 or 80; I think you can get it up to one day before your 80th birthday and it is free. I inquired the other day to get the vaccine myself. Having spoken to some people in Buswells, I am totally convinced that it is a worthwhile endeavour. It would cost €235 for me to get the vaccine myself. I am anxious to hear what the Department has given the Minister to say.

RSV is a common virus that causes respiratory infections. The risk of severe infection is highest in very young infants. RSV is a seasonal virus with outbreaks typically occurring in the winter months, with the highest numbers of infections usually reported in December and January. Each winter in Ireland, one in two babies will get RSV and many will need medical care from their doctor or the emergency department of a children’s hospital. Four out of 100 babies are hospitalised due to RSV, with some babies needing special treatment in intensive care units. Following on from the successful RSV immunisation pathfinder programme, an expanded RSV immunisation programme will run throughout this coming winter. This immunisation will offer protection ahead of the seasonal upsurge in infection with RSV. Last winter, there was an estimated 57% reduction in emergency department presentations, a 76% reduction in hospitalisations and a 65% reduction in ICU admissions compared with the previous year.

This highlights just how effective immunisation has been in protecting our youngest and most vulnerable.

The immunisation will be given to all babies born between 1 September 2025 and 28 February 2026; babies who are six months old or younger on 1 September; and premature babies and other higher risk infants born during the RSV season. I encourage every parent to take up this opportunity to protect their young child's health. High uptake not only protects individual families but will also ease pressure on the health service over the busy winter period, allowing valuable resources to be directed to where they are most required. Immunisations will be administered to newborn infants in maternity hospitals until the end of February. For infants six months and younger, the immunisation is being administered in clinics during September. Further information is available on the HSE website.

I can confirm that a health technology assessment, HTA, on RSV immunisation for infants and adults is being undertaken by the Health Information and Quality Authority. This health technology assessment will include advice to the Department of Health to inform a policy decision on the most appropriate strategy for immunising adults aged 65 and older. This health technology assessment will include an assessment of the clinical effectiveness, cost effectiveness and budget impact of alternative strategies for adults aged 65 years and older against RSV. It will also consider the organisational, resource, ethical, patient and social implications associated with alternative strategies. The outcome will inform future decision-making on this matter in relation to whether any amendments are required to the national immunisation programmes.

I thank the Minister of State for the results regarding children. I hear that the take-up is not as good the Minister of State and the Department would like so, like him, I would encourage parents to get their babies immunised as quickly as possible.

The last paragraph of the Minister of State's reply is the one that really counts for me. Among people over 65 years of age, an equal number, if not more, are being admitted to hospital with RSV and many of them die as a result of it. Let us hope that we get that research and advice from the Department as quickly as possible and see a roll-out for over 65s.

I thank the Minister of State for his time and for delivering the results.

I thank the Senator. Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective and successful public health interventions that exist. It is quite discouraging to see so many people sceptical about vaccines. There is never scepticism about a new curative drug and instead people say, "Please, we need this drug as soon as possible." With a vaccine, people are hesitant and say they do not know what is wrong with that.

When you look at the statistics, it is incredible how many lives have been saved. Cervical cancer, for example, will end because of the vaccination programme. With all the immunisation that has happened since 2010, all those young women, and then young men who started it at a later point as well, will be immunised. There are so many other examples as well.

The immunisation programme in Ireland is science based. All of this is science based. The Senator has outlined science as well. We have this national immunisation advisory committee. The recommendations are based on the prevalence of the disease and international best practice. It is vital that this be robust and fit for purpose and that is why this health technology assessment is so important. The outcome will inform the Government decision on this.

I agree with the Senator. I implore parents to get their child vaccinated if the child is eligible. We can see the hospital admissions reducing and, more importantly, children not dying, but also massive pressure on the hospital system not being there because of this. Vaccinations, in this area like so many others, have had such a positive impact. We need parents to get their child vaccinated against RSV. It will be something that their child will be grateful that their parent did.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in today to debate my Commencement matter. As a former Member of the Seanad on the cultural and educational panel, I am sure he will be interested in what I am talking about here.

As an employer and having spoken to parents, I have noticed the unfair nature in which holiday earnings are calculated for the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grant. At present, if you are a student registered on a full-time course and you are working, SUSI can deduct a portion of your income earned outside of term time. These are classified as holiday earnings and, for the 2025-26 academic year, the maximum deduction is €8,424 and applies to income earned during Easter, summer and Christmas holidays.

Do not get me wrong: this is great as it allows people to work some hours at a time they are off college. However, the way the SUSI grant is calculated no longer reflects the true cost of being a student. Rent is higher than ever for students, food costs are increasing, and this is before we consider transport, books, materials, and basic living expenses. While income thresholds that determine the grant a student receives have changed, they have not changed enough. Students are currently unfairly penalised if they are working too much while they study. Students should be encouraged to work part-time as much as they can while in college without risking any cuts to their SUSI grant and, obviously, without it negatively affecting their course, but let them decide that. As an owner of a small business, we have staff, particularly those in secondary school moving on to college, worried about working hours as they do not want it to affect them obtaining grants through SUSI. Many businesses have staffing issues and many students need money to support their studies and lifestyle. We must consider extending the holiday earnings deduction to allow for a percentage of part-time work throughout the year. This would benefit students and businesses alike.

Like many, when I was in college, I worked during holidays and weekends to support myself living away from home. It is important to promote hard work and to instil in our young people the benefits of getting up and going to work. The SUSI threshold is a barrier to those students who want to stand on their own two feet as much as they can while still in full-time education. I am calling for the threshold for students working to increase to €12,000 as a starting point and allow it for the entire year, not just holiday earnings. I would, of course, like to see this increased to €14,000 in next year's budget. This will allow students to work a couple of days per week or perhaps a couple of evenings without impacting their SUSI grant. It is an absolute win, win, win, for students, for parents, and for businesses. For students, they are learning a trade and earning money. I worked in Dunnes Stores. In the 1990s you worked very hard when you were in Dunnes Stores. It was a great lesson in life, and it was great for wages. I also worked in a chemist, which was another great job, and it helped me keep my social life going too. For parents, it will help relieve some of the stress they have with all of the costs, and for businesses, they are getting staff, particularly in hospitality and leisure, when they are busy at weekends.

College is a great opportunity for young people to learn and grow and is, ultimately, a path to building a career and contributing to the economy. It is time for a common-sense approach to calculating the SUSI grant and to provide supports, while also enabling students to ultimately support themselves.

I thank Senator Nelson Murray for raising this issue. It is a matter that has been brought to the attention of the Department on a number of occasions. The main financial support available to students is SUSI. Reckonable income includes all sources of household income, including income from a student’s employment. However, holiday earnings is income that a student can earn outside their term time that can be deducted from their total family income assessment, up to a certain limit. This is designed to support students who work during the holidays while also ensuring that work commitments do not interfere with their studies. That limit has increased in recent years, reflecting an increase in the minimum wage.

The issue of holiday earnings has been raised by various stakeholders and by students' unions. Over the past few years, the Department has published an annual options paper which outlines the costs and potential impacts of a range of policy options aimed at reducing the cost of higher education. The Minister recently published this paper, and options around holiday earnings have been costed for consideration. The options paper is available to view the Government website. The options outlined in the paper note that any potential removal of the provision which limits the deduction of holiday earnings to earnings outside of term time and the limit remaining at €8,424 would have a potential full year cost of €26 million. Increasing this limit to €12,000 could have a potential full-year cost of up to €35 million. SUSI estimates that circa 20,500 students could benefit from this change and could also see some students qualifying for the special rate of maintenance grant. Any amendments to this must be considered in the overall budgetary context and the large number of competing demands on funding.

Okay, so it is going to cost €35 million to do it, but there is a tax gain to the Government, there is a gain for businesses, there is a gain for students, and there is a gain for parents. We should not even have to think about this. The minimum wage is €12.15 for a 19-year-old. If they earn that, or the current full minimum wage of €13.50, and work the summer, Christmas and Easter holidays, they are covered for their holiday earnings. I do not know whether the Minister of State worked during college or not, but students should not be penalised in their SUSI grant for working at weekends throughout college. What I am proposing allows students to work a further 290 hours throughout the year. That spread throughout all the other weeks is only one day per week.

It is one eight-hour shift or two four-hour shifts that we are allowing students to work without it coming off their SUSI grant. I want to see this and I will be pushing for it to happen in the budget.

As the Minister has said, there are competing demands. I know the Senator and other colleagues were looking for the student contribution to be reduced again this year as well. The Minister has a certain amount of money and he is trying to balance all of the competing demands. They are all worthy. Nobody could be against any of them, but the simple fact is that it is a financial calculation. It would work for students, but it would come at significant cost. If the Senator has ideas about where the cost could come from or what else could be done if she does not want to go ahead with the €1,000 cut in the fees, I am sure the Minister will consider them. Choices have to be made by the Department. This is just like increasing the income thresholds to avail of the grant. The Minister has done that this year. That will help this situation and it will also help on a broader basis.

The funding allocation for the student grant scheme is determined in the context of the overall Estimates and the budgetary process undertaken by all Departments. The Minister is very positive about this. I do not think he is against doing this in any principled way. In fact, he has not stated his position. What I think he has said is that this is all under discussion in the context of the budget and the various competing demands. The Minister wishes to emphasise his commitment to examining all the options carefully. He has published these as options from his Department. They have not come out of thin air. The Minister is open to progressing changes that can make a meaningful difference for students and their families. We want to make sure that we explore the most effective ways to support students in managing these costs and ensuring they receive all the necessary help to get ahead.

The reason for the limit is to prevent students working so much during their higher and further education that it negatively impacts on their ability to fully participate in their course. If we were to raise the disregard to €12,000, it is basically the same thing as increasing the income thresholds. The Minister has, in fact, already done that this year. Standard rate thresholds have increased by at least 15%. It is food for thought from the Senator and from the options paper. I have no doubt that in the context of the discussions the Ministers are having, probably as we speak, and in the coming weeks, that the best possible solution will be achieved.

I thank the Minister of State for coming in today.