No, I will withdraw it based on what the Minister has said.

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. (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 renta…

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 …

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 happen…

As I mentioned, the Minister is new to the finance brief. However, he may or may not know that the only way for us to put down this amendment-----

-----is to seek a report and all of his predecessors would acknowledge that what is behind the amendment is a proposal to restrict the PRSI exemption to the Social Insurance Fund. If we put down an amendment that gave effect to that without seeking a report, it would be ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle, and that is no fault to her. They are the rules of the House. That is why it is required. My issue stands. We have campaigned on this for quite a while. It makes sense. I am frustrated by the go-slow nature…

I welcome the Tánaiste's response to this issue. In fairness to his predecessor, Paschal Donohoe acknowledged there was an issue. It was a mistake for the Government to bring forward an amendment to the Finance Bill that included Russia, as Deputies Timmins, Nash, Cian O'Callaghan and I highlighted. As the Tánaiste said, there was unanimity on this issue and it is to be welcomed that Russia is not included. There is a broader issue with the foreign earnings deduction. It has been expanded repeatedly. I have a map o…

I move amendment No. 17: In page 33, to delete lines 30 to 32, and substitute the following: ""(II) €10,000 for each of the years of assessment 2023 to 2028 (both years inclusive)",". These proposals apply to benefit-in-kind. There was an issue with a number of previous Finance Bills when the Government tried to do what it is doing here, which is reform the benefit-in-kind scheme. This will ultimately lead to a tax increase for many workers who are availing of company cars. The solution at that time was to introduc…

I understand the Government’s point that this is reverting back to the original provision in the Act. When it was tried originally, obviously, there was huge uproar at what the Government was attempting. The Minister stated that this is for environmental reasons and so on, but this applies to electric vehicles and electric, carbon-neutral vehicles as well. Will it not increase the tax liability on individuals who are driving the cars that fall into that category as well?

I hear what the Minister is saying regarding tapering, but that can be translated into different language. It means that, for individuals, they will see their tax increase in 2027, 2028 and 2029. It will continue to go up because the OMV will basically increase each of those years because the offset is being reduced. It also applies to carbon-neutral cars, which means we are going to tax individuals. I have said before to the Minister that when you look at motorists and what is happening at the minute, the Governme…

I move amendment No. 18: In page 35, to delete lines 10 to 13, and substitute the following: “ “(B) €10,000 for each of the years of assessment 2023 to 2028 (both years inclusive)”,”.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 35, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “Report on costs of increasing standard fund threshold to €2,800,000 25. The Minister shall, within one month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the costs of increasing the standard fund threshold to €2,800,000 taking account of behavioural change, clearly outlining the cost to the Exchequer, as well as the number of likely beneficiaries.”. I have raised the issue of the increase in the st…

The Minister reached for public sector workers in relation to this massive tax break. A figure of €320,000 is unheard of. When you think about it, most people in the country do not earn anywhere near that and this is a tax break worth €320,000 to a really wealthy individual. It is unbelievable. The de Buitléir report, which the Minister may have had a chance to read-----

-----actually dealt with how we deal with public sector pensions, especially the issues with members of the Garda and fast-accruing pensions. The way he suggested doing that was to change the valuation rate for defined pensions. That is not what the Government has done, so do not be going into the box and saying this is about gardaí and all the rest and public sector pensions. If the Government wants to deal with public sector workers, de Buitléir has proposed a change to the valuation rate, which used to be a fact…

The Minister did not have to bring forward other amendments in respect of the SFT. The Government has legislated for it to increase every year. That is why people are getting this €320,000 tax cut from Fine Gael. I must have missed that promise the Minister made. Which plinth was he standing on? During which press occasion during the general election campaign did he tell people he would provide a €320,000 tax break to people who have gold-plated pensions? I did not see anything like that in the run-up to the electi…

It was legislated for in the Finance Bill just before the election, during the campaigning. That was a promise the Minister did not even make, but it is one he kept. He broke all of his promises to ordinary people. I will press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 43, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “Report on policy objectives and financial safeguards for Living Cities Initiative 30. The Minister shall, within 1 month of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on policy objectives and the financial safeguards that are in place given the scale of the reform and expansion of the scheme in terms of eligibility and granting access to developers to the scheme.”. This amendment relates to the living …

I will leave it at that.

I raised this issue earlier. We have later amendments in relation to the reduced VAT rate on apartments that have been ruled out of order. This amendment from Deputy O'Callaghan deals with the tax reliefs that have been brought in by the Government for property developers. The former Minister made the claim at the start of the debate on this Bill that this measure was designed to reduce the cost of apartments. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not about reducing the cost of apartments. I will again put…

No, we did not.