I move recommendation No. 2:

In page 99, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“Report on tax expenditures for property developers

71.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Seanad Éireann a report on the fiscal and housing-market effects of tax reliefs and incentives available to property developers, and on alternative approaches to achieving housing-supply objectives without such tax expenditures.”.

This is a very simple amendment. It simply seeks that within six months of the passing of this Bill, the Minister shall prepare and lay before Seanad Éireann a report on the fiscal and housing market effects of tax reliefs and incentives available to property developers and on alternative approaches to achieving housing supply objectives without such tax expenditures. I believe the Government thinks this is going to deliver radical change in the delivery of housing. I do not believe that. However, in the interests of evaluation, assessment and making a clear judgement call, this is simply having a report so that we can see. If the Minister of State believes the evidence is there and is credible that this is increasing housing supply and reducing costs for ordinary people so be it. Let us see that in the form of a report. I believe the public should know exactly who benefits from these tax breaks, how much they cost and what return the State receives. I think this will not work and the Minister of State thinks it will but having a report will be a very clear way for us to make that evaluation within six months so we can make that assessment.

While I very much appreciate the need for a comprehensive set of reporting on all aspects of housing in this country, the reality is that we have no end of housing reports. We have the Departments of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Finance and the CSO publishing documentation. The Housing Agency publishes reports examining the housing market. These are only the State agencies. We then have all the private entities that deliver reports such as Goodbody Stockbrokers and Davy Stockbrokers. A plethora of organisations deliver reports. To put in another statutory obligation in the legislation for another set of reports that are already covered by existing bodies does not make sense. A better use of taxpayer's money would be to examine the existing reports published by all those agencies instead of creating an obligation for another set of reports. Those of us in Fine Gael are against this amendment.

This recommendation is not about general housing supply. It is about specific tax breaks, so it is very different from general reports we might be getting on everything else. Being against the idea of having a discussion based on the facts of this tax break and an evaluation of its impact seems nonsensical. How can we review the legislation, evaluate matters and see if things are working effectively without a report? Does the Senator believe it is effective? I do not, but having this report would be a way to ascertain that.

It is a no-brainer and just good practice. If we were giving money to anybody, such as a charity or NGO, we would expect them to do reviews like this. I do not see why we should not review our own legislation to see its impact. It seems like good governance.

The Senator has recommended a report on the fiscal and housing market effects of tax reliefs and incentives available to property developers and on alternative approaches to achieving housing supply objectives without such tax expenditures. I reiterate that the commencement of reports is not a matter that should be dealt with within legislation.

It is important to note that all decisions regarding taxation measures must have regard to the sound management of the public finances and the Department of Finance's tax expenditure evaluation guidelines. Those guidelines make clear that any policy proposal that involves tax expenditures should only occur in limited circumstances where there are demonstrable market failures and where a tax-based incentive is more efficient than a direct expenditure intervention. The guidelines, as well as other reports and information regarding the evaluation of tax expenditures, are available on the Department of Finance's website. The guidelines, most recently updated in 2024, also set out the criteria that should be considered as part of reviews of tax expenditures, including assessing whether a tax expenditure is the best approach to address the relevant market failure.

Targeted tax incentives to encourage developers to build more apartments and increased capital investment in infrastructure to support new schemes form the main housing measures of budget 2026. The root cause of viability issues in relation to apartments is structurally high costs. Accordingly, sustainable progress on improving viability requires a relentless focus on cost reduction that maximises private sector participation, while optimising interventions on the public side. This is essential to improving supply of apartments and delivering a sustainable housing system that allows us to reach both our social and economic goals.

Where data are available on the Exchequer cost of tax reliefs for housing market development, they are publicly available and included in the Department of Finance's report on tax expenditures, which is published annually in advance of the budget, as well as Revenue's publication on the cost of tax expenditures. The Senator will be aware that the Finance Bill 2025 is providing for the changes to the tax system announced on budget day that are intended to complement direct expenditure and capital investment in housing. Going forward, as data are available for these new schemes, they will be included in the annual report on tax expenditures the Department publishes each year. In line with the Department's guidelines for tax expenditure evaluation, any expenditures that are expiring will be subject to a detailed review. Those reviews are published by the Department and, as I have mentioned, are available on its website.

As raised on Committee Stage in the Dáil, the former Minister, Paschal Donohoe, committed to continue to review the interplay of different tax schemes. That commitment was repeated on Report Stage in the Dáil and I reiterate that I am happy to support it. However, having regard to the fact indicative costings have already been prepared and published for new measures, which will be included in the annual report on tax expenditures into the future and as data are available, I do not believe an additional report is necessary or useful at this time.

With regard to alternative approaches to achieving housing supply objectives without tax expenditures, such measures do not fall under the remit of the Minister for Finance but are, rather, the responsibility of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

For the reasons outlined, I do not propose to accept the recommendation.

I move recommendation No. 3:

In page 99, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“(2) Section 46(1)(d) of the Principal Act is amended, with effect from 1 January 2026, by the substitution of “4.5 per cent” for “4.8 per cent”.”.

I will withdraw this recommendation with a view to reintroducing it on Report Stage.

I move recommendation No. 4:

In page 99, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

“Report on VAT cut for hospitality and hairdressing services

72. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Seanad Éireann a report on the consequences for employment, prices and Exchequer revenue arising from the reduction in the VAT rate applying to hospitality and hairdressing services.”

I am withdrawing this recommendation.

We oppose this section as it places an unfair burden on farmers. This measure will, in effect, mean that a farmer who has any element of commercial poultry on the farm will have to set up two different systems. Some farmers have estimated that this measure could cost up to €30,000. The other fact is the timeframe for the introduction of the measure. Farmers have not had enough time to decouple their businesses. In removing the flat rate from poultry so quickly, the legislation creates a viability issue for farmers. The Government will say that there has been engagement on this measure but we feel that the speed of its introduction and the administrative changes proposed will create an unfair complexity for farmers and, therefore, we oppose the section.

This section amends section 86 of the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 which deals with special provision for tax invoiced by flat rate farmers. It confirms the budget reduction in the farmers flat rate addition from 5.1% to 4.5% with effect from 1 January 2026. The new 4.5% rate will continue to achieve full compensation for farmers under the flat rate scheme. The farmers flat rate scheme is reviewed each year in the run-up to the budget in accordance with criteria set down in the EU VAT directive. The rate is based on macroeconomic data relating to agricultural inputs and production and the prevailing VAT rate structures averaged over the preceding three years. Revenue's calculations based on data from 2023 to 2025 indicate that full compensation can be achieved by decreasing the rate to 4.5%. As overcompensation is not permitted under EU law, the change must be introduced in line with the relevant macroeconomic data. Were Ireland to leave the rate at 5.1%, it would lead to overcompensation and would likely trigger a state aid investigation. In addition to likely infringement proceedings against Ireland, the possible consequences of such an investigation include the Commission seeking to recoup any payments made to farmers and potentially restricting the operation of the flat rate addition scheme in Ireland. As macroeconomic data informs the rate that is set, I do not propose to accept the recommendation.

As it is now past 5.20 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the Seanad of this day: "In respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed to in Committee; the Schedule is hereby agreed to in Committee; and the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee." Is that agreed? Agreed.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.