Committee on Budgetary Oversight debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jul 2024

We have not received any formal apologies. We will have a short private session following the public session.

This engagement is to discuss the summer economic statement. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure, National Development Programme Delivery and Reform and their officials to the meeting. Before we begin, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practices of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentation they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Chair to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

Before I invite the Minister for Finance to make his opening statement, I must invite Deputy Moynihan to take the Chair. The Dáil is moving rapidly through its business and I note that is now dealing with Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 to which I have tabled the first two amendments. I ask Deputy Moynihan to take the Chair and I invite the Minister for Finance to make his opening statement.

For the record, committees of these Houses, and I sit on a number of them, do not accept it when external witnesses come before them without submitting copies of their opening remarks beforehand. Ministers of this House should have the courtesy to provide their opening remarks so that they can be scrutinised and we can get the best out of the meeting. For the Minister to circulate his opening remarks two minutes after the start of this meeting is not just acceptable. It is not just the Minister for Finance, Deputy Chambers; I understand that the opening remarks from the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, have not been circulated either.

First, I will briefly outline the economic and fiscal context for the budget. Over recent years, the economic backdrop has been defined by a series of successive external shocks. These shocks saw global supply chains upended, inflation surge to multi-decade highs and monetary policy rapidly tighten. One of the most important lessons we have learned from the past few years is that the world is becoming more shock-prone. Fortunately, our economy has weathered these shocks remarkably well and now appears to have entered a period of relative stability.

The brightest spot in our economy is undoubtedly in our labour market. There are now more people at work in our country than ever before. By any reasonable estimate, we have been operating at full employment for some time now. Going forward, it is clear the main constraint on the growth of our economy is supply.

Inflation, which has weighed so heavily on businesses and households over recent years, has now thankfully abated. At its peak, the annual rate of inflation was close to 10%. The latest data shows that inflation stood at just 1.5% in June, the lowest rate since April 2021. Ireland now has one of the lowest rates of inflation in the euro area. Given the relative stability in global energy and commodity markets, my Department expects inflation to remain on this sustainable trajectory over the coming years, averaging close to 2% this year and next. The easing in inflation will have a meaningful impact on the everyday lives of many households and should support an improvement in real wages, enabling economic activity to gather momentum as the year progresses.

On this basis, modified domestic demand is expected to grow by close to 2% this year with a further pick-up in growth next year. However, I am, of course, acutely conscious there are many more challenges facing our economy and our society. What is more, we are living through a time fraught with uncertainty. The escalation of geopolitical tensions, a new era of subsidies and tariffs and the fragmentation of global trade have come to define the economic backdrop over the past year. While we cannot prevent external shocks of this nature from occurring, we can ensure we are on the best possible footing to respond to these shocks when they do occur. It is against this economic backdrop that budget 2025 will be framed, this Government’s fifth, and final, financial statement.

At the headline level, our public finances are performing well. Significant budgetary surpluses are in prospect over the coming years. The Exchequer returns, which my Department published last week, show a surplus of €3.1 billion in the first half of the year, underpinned by growth in tax receipts, which is a clear reflection of the strength of our economy and a result of the careful management of the public finances since the Government took office.

However, the headline fiscal position masks the underlying vulnerabilities present in our public finances. My Department and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, have consistently said the public finances remain exposed to a potential over-reliance on corporation tax receipts, the recent growth of which has been unprecedented. In the first half of the year, we are, broadly speaking, where we expected to be in terms of tax revenue with the exception of corporation tax. Corporation tax is now €1.2 billion ahead of target. These receipts are welcome but will not last forever. The month-to-month volatility of this tax head emphasises the need to ensure these windfall receipts are not relied upon to fund permanent expenditure commitments.

To put these potentially windfall receipts into context, my Department estimated at the time of the stability programme update, SPU, that around half of the entire corporate tax yield this year would be windfall in nature. Furthermore, over half of the total corporate tax yield was paid by just the top ten companies. In other words, ten companies accounted for €1 in every €7 euro of tax collected by the State, an extremely narrow tax base, further emphasising that this is not a suitable basis upon which to build permanent spending.

This means that a sector-, firm- or even product-specific shock could have a large impact on our public finances. Furthermore, in the medium to long term, there are structural changes firmly on the horizon which pose threats to our public finances. These take the form of the four Ds of demographics, decarbonisation, digitalisation and deglobalisation. Financing an ageing population, climate change mitigation, the digital transition and the impact of the transition away from globalisation will all put pressure on the public finances in the years to come.

The combination of these challenges in the medium term highlights the importance of the Government following a fiscal strategy that strikes the right balance by allowing for continued investment in our public services and infrastructure but also prepares for the challenges we know we will face. I believe the strategy which the Government set out in the summer economic statement achieves this. Budget 2025 will comprise a total package of €8.3 billion, consisting of €1.4 billion in taxation measures and new expenditure of €6.9 billion. This brings spending growth in budget 2025 to 6.9%. I recognise this is above the original 5% target that was set out in the Government’s medium-term strategy back in 2021. However, this adjustment is to provide for the necessary increases in capital expenditure and further investment in our public services in the context of a larger population.

The package set out in the statement also ensures the Government has the scope to once again adjust tax credits and bands to ensure workers do not find themselves paying a higher rate of tax because of higher wages. I would also emphasise that even with increased expenditure, we remain on track to run healthy budgetary surpluses over the medium term. One of the key mistakes made in the past has been to use transitory revenue to fund permanent expenditure. My Department is preparing for the establishment of the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund to help to ensure we do not follow these past mistakes. The strength of the headline position provides us with the resources to invest in our economy and boost our long-term potential while also allowing us to prepare for the future structural and fiscal challenges we know are on the horizon. Furthermore, the introduction of better medium-term planning from the new European fiscal framework will pivot the focus of fiscal planning from the short term to the medium term. This autumn we will submit our first medium-term plan under the revised framework.

The strategy I have outlined today, which was announced in the summer economic statement, builds on the progress we have made. It prioritises support to households and firms, the provision of additional public services, boosting the resilience of the economy and enhancing our public infrastructure, while maintaining the sustainability of the public finances. There are many challenges on the horizon but there are also opportunities. It is crucial we use the window of opportunity presented by the relative health of our economy and public finances to seize them. I thank the Chair.

I thank the Chair very much.

Last year’s summer economic statement and budget 2024 was framed in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. Having peaked at over 9.5% in mid-2022, thankfully, inflation rates are returning to their historical norm, with a projected rate of 2.1% for this year.

Our economy continues to perform very well, with record levels of employment projected for 2025. Next year it is expected that almost 2.8 million people will be in employment compared with just over 2.3 million before the pandemic. Unemployment remains low too and is expected to do so out to the medium term. This growth in employment has been accompanied by strong growth in the population that is well above previous estimates. We now have approximately 180,000 more people than would have been anticipated back in 2021.

From an expenditure perspective, the budget is framed with the need to continue to improve public services and capital infrastructure to support a growing population and the need to ensure an expenditure strategy that will help sustain growth in our economy in the time ahead. While we are in a strong position, that does not mean challenges do not exist. We are not immune to an uncertain international environment as recent pressures on our international protection accommodation services and other agencies have shown. With horrific wars in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa, our country has a part to play, in line with our international obligations, in accommodating those less fortunate than ourselves. These events, while taking place in distant countries, have and will continue to have an impact closer to home and we must plan for that. This is why we included a contingency reserve in the stability programme update, the level of which will be determined each year as part of the overall Estimates process. At this time, it is already expected the full amount of the contingency reserve will be required to meet commitments in 2025.

With regard to budget 2025, this year’s summer economic statement outlines an expenditure package of €6.9 billion. Of this, €3.7 billion is attributed to the costs of covering existing levels of service, ELS, requirements in 2025, with a further €1.4 billion required in respect of decisions already taken around capital allocations in the NDP. ELS requirements for 2025 reflect the unwinding of temporary cost-of-living measures included in the Revised Estimates for 2024, the full-year cost of the public service pay agreement of €1.2 billion for 2025 and funding in respect of demographics and the carryover impact of budgetary decisions.

A key element of the overall expenditure amount for 2025 is agreement in relation to the level of health funding for 2025. Taking into account demands for better quality healthcare, the complexity of providing health services and the legacy impact of a post-pandemic and heightened inflationary environment, significant additional funding is being provided for the Department of Health. An additional €1.5 billion is to be provided for the health sector this year, with a further €1.2 billion to be allocated within the overall existing level of service costs for next year. As set out in the summer economic statement, this will bring the overall current expenditure provision for health to almost €24.2 billion for next year. This additional funding has been agreed with the Minister for Health and the HSE. All parties recognise the importance of demonstrating the link between funding and delivery of improved outcomes and have agreed that this provides an opportunity to strengthen financial planning and governance within the HSE.

Overall, total expenditure will increase by €6.9 billion, or 6.9%. This will be comprised of a current resource ceiling of €90.9 billion and a capital expenditure ceiling of €14.5 billion. For the first time in the history of the country, our investment in public services and infrastructure will exceed €100 billion. This total expenditure ceiling of €105.4 billion will facilitate a budget that will provide further increased levels of investment in the NDP through an increase of €1.4 billion over the 2024 allocation; accommodate new measures in line with Government priorities, including work ongoing with regard to the National Training Fund; cater to demand for increasing levels of public service delivery due to a changing demographic profile, especially in population

terms; and provide an increase of €5.5 billion on current expenditure. It will also continue to fund measures required to respond to external shocks from the contingency reserve.

Regarding additional capital funding, where the provision of capital infrastructure is concerned, my Department recently commissioned the ESRI to carry out an independent review of the

national development plan. It focused on the capacity to deliver current Government priorities, sectoral needs, ongoing delivery constraints and an approach to support prioritisation. This report informed the setting of an updated NDP capital allocation out to 2026, which was agreed in March 2024. Significant uplifts were provided to key sectors such as the Department of housing and local government, increasing from €3.87 billion in 2024 to €4.34 billion in 2026, a 12% increase over two years; transport going from €2.7 billion to €3.4 billion; and education going from €1 billion to €1.3 billion. Within the overall amount of €14.5 billion for 2025, €4.2 billion is allocated to the Department of housing and local government, €2.5 billion of which is specifically for the housing capital allocation. This has now doubled since 2019. This level of unprecedented State investment has been reflected in strong delivery. Just under 30,000 new housing units were delivered in 2022 and 32,695 new homes in 2023. In terms of commencements, 32,121 homes were commenced in the first five months of this year, a 147% increase on the same period in 2023. In the 12-month period from June 2023 to May 2024, 51,935 units were commenced, an increase of 86%. The remaining €1.8 billion in the expenditure package announced yesterday will be subject to new measure announcements as part of budget 2025. On a like-for-like basis, this is in line with the amounts provided for new current spending.

The first four budgets of this Government delivered significant increases in access to healthcare, savings in childcare, a huge increase in the number of homes and other infrastructure projects being built, and significant increases in the number of teachers, nurses and other front-line public servants. All of this was done while managing the shocks of Covid, wars, inflation

and the huge growth in our population. This necessitated adapting our budget strategy and moving the expenditure ceilings for three years. It means another increase above and beyond what we anticipated a year ago. However, these increases have been done in a prudent and planned manner. The unwinding of Covid expenditure, down from €15 billion to just over €1 billion in four years, is evidence of this. We avoided fuelling inflation with a balanced approach and are confident that the expenditure and tax package proposed for the forthcoming

budget will keep us on this path.

While 2024 has presented challenges, the forecasts and outlook are again tending towards the positive. Our economy is strong, we have a record number of people in work and tax revenues continue to outperform expectations. As I indicated, the careful management of our economy and public finances over the past four years has allowed us to increase resources for core public services, increase capital investment in the national development plan and provide support measures that assist households and counter the effect of inflation. I am satisfied that the parameters outlined in the budget documentation and summer economic statement are appropriate, safe and sustainable for the taxpayer. I thank the Acting Chair and look forward to the questions of the committee.

The reason is we did the summer economic statement last night. The statements were prepared today; all of the statements the Deputies have are completely consistent with the public information made available yesterday. The figures and narrative are the same. I accept that Deputies could and should get it earlier but the document prepared last night and made public and the statements are entirely consistent with what we already communicated yesterday. I accept in the time ahead we should try to get statements to the committee a few hours beforehand, as we normally do when we appear at this committee.

I welcome the Ministers to the meeting. As it is Deputy Chamber's first appearance as Minister for Finance, I wish him good luck in his role. The Minister stated, "With increased expenditure, we remain on track to run healthy budgetary surpluses over the medium term". What are those surpluses, beyond 2025?

I am not asking when they will be set out.

Does Deputy Chambers, as Minister for Finance, know what the budgetary surpluses are for the years beyond 2025? This is the first time a summer economic statement has ever, to my knowledge, been published without the surpluses, the general Government balance, having been indicated in the summer economic statement. Does the Minister have that information?

We set out the projections in the stability programme update in April on the surpluses beyond 2025. That is public information. We will set out further forecasts and projections as part of budget 2025. The most recent set of projections for the general Government balance, GGB, extend to 2027 and the intention is to publish projections out to 2030 in the budget this year.

First, as I am sure the Minister is aware, as we have raised this issue with the Department in the past, this is simply not acceptable. We are going into an election cycle and Opposition parties have to prepare alternative budgets. This is the first time the general Government balance has not been set out in a summer economic statement. As the Minister stated they are set out in the stability programme update, SPU, why are they not repeated here? The SPU only contains three years of provisions. Are they still the general Government balance? Is that the same general Government balance? It could not be, because the expenditure has been increased so the balance has had to change. Why has it not been set out? Is it because of the revenue and fluctuations as regards corporation tax? If I submit a parliamentary question, will the Minister give us that information because how can any political party prepare a manifesto for an election that it expects in October when the Department and Ministers have, for the first time, not provided general Government balances to Opposition parties? It is simply not acceptable.

The Department produces projections of the GGB twice per year, in the SPU and in the budget publications. That is based on a survey of extensive bodies within the general Government sector. As the Deputy is aware, the most recent set of projections for the GGB extended out to 2027 and we will publish projections up to 2030.

Yes, €2 billion. Therefore none of us on this side of the House know what the surpluses will be in 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030, which should be provided. It was provided last year, the year before and right back to 2019 and the years before that. We cannot go into a manifesto process, which all of the parties are doing and which the Minister's Department has opened up the costings for all parties to cost proposals, without allowing general Government balances. The question I ask is very simple-----

The Minister of Finance stated there will be a healthy budget surplus over the medium term. The original question is, does the Minister for Finance know what the budget surplus will be, based on the summer economic statement and the expenditure plans he outlined? Does he know what the budget surplus will be for 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029? Does he have an indication of that?

It is simply not acceptable. The Department published these figures in spring for three years and now they are completely and utterly missing. It is not acceptable and I say that in the strongest terms. This goes to the core issue of fairness in terms of democracy and allowing Opposition parties to be best equipped to put forward their platforms. If this happened anywhere else, there would be outrage. This information is available to the Department.

I am happy to allow the chief economist to set out the factual position on how the Department is working through updated projections that will be objectively provided to everybody. I do not accept the Deputy's characterisation of any sort of internal politicisation. That is a very serious charge to make as the Opposition spokesperson on finance-----

-----as if information is being hidden or withheld. It absolutely is not. I am happy to have the chief economist set out the factual position for the committee to clear that. It is important the Deputy does not make any political charge against people who are providing and preparing those wider projections objectively that will be provided to everyone properly. I am happy to allow the chief economist to set that out factually for the committee.

The Minister does not have the information, okay.

In relation to the assumptions-----

The answer is we have not provided the Government with updated numbers beyond 2025. The reason for that is there have been so many changes since we undertook the SPU. If you think about it this way, when we did the SPU we had corporate tax figures for quarter 1, which was down 25% year over year. It is now up nearly double digits year on year. There has been a massive change in the space of a couple of months. In previous iterations of the summer economic statement, there have only been modest changes on the tax side, spending and the economy.

What we have also seen is lots of economic changes. Inflation has come back much more rapidly. Then we have had additional measures announced as per the SPU. The Department felt we could not give the Government, in the short space of time since the end of quarter 2 when we had the additional information, any more figures beyond next year because we could not stand over them without having rigorously gone through 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030. What we did, and were absolutely clear and the Government made the formal commitment in chapter 3 of the document, that it will set out the EBR and GGBs in September or 1 October when the budget will be. There have just been so many changes over the last couple of months that we could not incorporate them into later years. That is the reason for stopping the GGB forecasts in 2025.

The final issue I should mention is the whole base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, process-----

I have raised this before, umpteen times. In the summer economic statement - which I think the Minister, Deputy Donohoe set out in fairness to him - we have had a range of general Government balances previously when we were dealing with the pandemic. The OECD BEPS process is a major issue. There is no doubt about that. Our assumptions are old ones. They have to be updated. The pillar 1 deadline has passed and therefore, if pillar 1 does not go ahead, it changes the numbers dramatically, by billions of euro. That should have been provided in the summer economic statement. That is my point. We need that information. I have had this conversation with Mr. McCarthy. It is seriously important for Opposition parties to have this information and it needs to be provided.

I have a couple of questions. With regard to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, I asked him before about the defective concrete blocks scheme.

When the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, was before the committee he said he did not have the information. I asked the Minister whether, as the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council had pointed out to him, there was provision after year one. The Minister said he would check it out and come back to the committee. We have not received the information from him. Will the Minister tell the committee whether there is expenditure in the base for each of the years under the summer economic statement for the defective concrete blocks scheme? What are the allocations each year?

Will the Minister also inform the committee about the €4.5 billion that was non-core spending that is now core spending, or contingency as we used to call it. Is this all in the base and what are the component parts? In the past the Minister would have broken it down helpfully in terms of Ukraine, Covid, EU funds and other non-core expenditure. Will the Minister also provide that breakdown to the committee?

If that information is available to the Department of housing, which I assume it is because it would have to lay out what it believes is the expenditure profile, I will share it with the committee. I thought I had done so. I apologise to the Deputy because I know it is an issue the Deputy raised with me previously. I remember when he did that but I do believe it is accounted for in the NDP ceiling.

On the €4.5 billion, which is the non-core contingency reserve, out of that €4.5 billion we estimate that around €3.5 billion will be left aside to deal with the mix of Ukraine and international protection issues that we expect to still develop across next year. The majority of the further €1 billion is set aside for Covid measures we anticipate we will still have to fund in 2025. That is the best estimate we have in relation to it at the moment.

I thank Ministers Donohoe and Chambers, and their teams, for their time in coming to the committee. I wish the Minister for Finance, Deputy Jack Chambers, well in his position and in the throes of preparing a budget.

I will concentrate some of my questioning on capital expenditure and how it is going. I had a very disturbing conversation today with an engineer in Galway County Council on transport and roads. Effectively, there is a stop being put to funding for roads from Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, but not alone in Galway County Council. It seems as if their three-year payments plan has run out of money or there is a stall going on them. Very serious projects are left in abeyance at the moment. Do the Ministers know what is going on in terms of funding for TII? There are a number of projects for safety on roads and a number of projects to help maintain the national and regional roads where funding has stalled. The expectation is that next year funding from TII for this type of work will be down 40%. Where is this coming from? Is it because of inflationary pressures or that the budget is blown? Is there an awareness of this first of all? Does anyone have any enlightenment on that?

I will deal with that. Before doing so I will very quickly complete the record to the committee as I was dealing with the questions put me by Deputy Doherty. I do have a more exact read in relation to the non-core expenditure. I will provide that information to the Deputy later on in the committee

On the transport question, at the moment transport spend for the government is running significantly ahead of where it was a year ago. Transport expenditure is now 31% up versus a year ago according to the June 2024 figures. Out of that, capital expenditure is up 41% at the end of June versus a year ago. There is not a case at all - far from it - that capital expenditure has been anyway constrained within the Department of Transport. It is up 41% versus one year ago. Overall we are expecting to see very strong growth in capital expenditure for transport this year.

On the particular question regarding what could be happening, in truth I cannot tell Deputy Canney what is happening with Galway County Council and its relationship with TII but it could be simply TII and the NTA having to stay inside the budgets that were allocated to them. The budgets allocated to them are very significantly up versus a year ago.

I am aware that money has been spent and that maybe more money has been spent. The Minister said it is up 41% but is that because of the additional cost in getting works done? Is it through budgetary problems? A project on the N17 is realignment and safety works where there have been accidents and fatalities. This work is now stalled. I believe €1 million was allocated this year. I do not believe this issue affects just Galway County Council. Other local authorities are finding the same thing. I will have to take up this with the Minister for transport but there is something going on when engineers who are dealing with this on an ongoing basis going back a long number of years are, for the first time, being told funding is being stalled right now and that these projects will not be funded until next year. It is a concern especially when we are talking about health and safety and road safety. Perhaps I will take up this again. I accept that extra money is being spent but my concern is that we need more money in transport, roads and rail, and I just want to see where that is at.

It is reasonable that if projects are costing an awful lot more than anybody was anticipating then there will be an effect on our ability to deliver those projects. It is not an unreasonable point to make if the cost of delivering a project has significantly increased. In the past two years in particular that increase has been for reasons that are beyond the control of nearly anybody in this economy. If the costs go up of course it does have an effect on our ability to deliver projects in the way we would have wanted. That is just a general point. Even with that issue, capital expenditure in transport up to June was massively up versus where it was a year ago, which shows to me the efforts that have been made to maintain the delivery of projects despite the fact the cost of them has increased.

That is the point I was trying to make. Inflation is probably eating into a good bit of the budget at the moment. I have even received correspondence from people who are providing the services such as haulage and the quarries. Some of them are in a situation where orders are not coming in and we could see lay offs in that industry at the back end of this year. This is probably as a result of more of the money in the budget being spent than last year while the same amount of work is not being done. That money has been spent because of inflation. We need to watch this very carefully and see how we can pull back on the inflation and the inflationary issues. It is settling but it is of concern.

Another area I wish to raise relates to current spending and social protection. Where do we see ourselves going in budgets for next year given the high demands from the areas of disabilities and in trying to sort out carers and all of the social issues we have in the country, which are coming hard and fast against us? This is even in times where we say our financial status is good, we are stabilised, we have money and surpluses, and so on. How will we deal with these legitimate demands from people with disabilities? For instance, the new criteria for the primary medical certificate has still not been sorted out.

I could, on the one hand, say to the Deputy that there is a strong story to tell with the increase in funding that has been made available to disability in recent years.

We can point to how we have increased investment in the disability sector and in the social welfare payments which those who have a disability need. For all I could offer the Deputy in those figures, I also know he will be able to point to many cases where the services are not as we would want, and where families, while receiving payments, do need more.

On how we will deal with the issue, it will be how we always have to deal with it on budget day, which is I will look at the resources available. I will engage with the Ministers, Deputies O'Gorman and Humphreys, and we will do our best to prioritise funding for the disability sector and the income support that is available to those, whether they be carers or citizens who have a disability. That is what we do, and I can point to the fact that funding has gone up year after year.

The Deputy did. The aim of all of this is to sustainably and differently fund our health services across this year and next. We are seeing, particularly in the emergency departments of our hospitals, a very significant increase that is ahead of my expectations with regard to the number of older people who are presenting to hospitals. That is combined with difficulties that continue to be there with regard to how money is spent. What I aim to do in the summer economic statement is to deal with the day-to-day funding of health for this year and the next in a different way.

I thank the Ministers and their teams for their contributions. I want to follow on from some of the questions I asked yesterday evening about the housing element of all of this. The statement says that €4.2 billion is to be allocated to the Department of housing, €2.5 billion of which is specifically for the housing capital allocation.

Last year - I am just reading the website here - there was a €5.1 billion capital investment in housing, of which €2.6 billion was in Exchequer, €978 million for the LDA and €1.5 billion for the Housing Finance Agency. I assume money in budget 2025 for the LDA and the Housing Finance Agency will be dealt with separately? Will we see that? The €2.5 billion the Minister has here is marginally less than what he gave last year.

I just cannot get my head around that. At that level of funding, there is going to be no change to the Housing for All plan with regard to what is made available to the Department to address a housing crisis, and I do not need to tell the Minister how bad it is. It is getting worse. Am I reading that correctly? Is that what we are looking at here - that the allocation for capital, as set out in the Minister's statement, is marginally less than it was last year? I am reading from the Department of housing here that it was €2.6 billion and the Minister's statement says €2.5 billion.

Then there is the question of the Housing Commission report, which the Government has determinedly refused to debate. It says that there needs to be a dramatic increase in the housing targets - almost a doubling of them - and that a very significant portion of that should be increased provision of social and affordable housing, which logically would follow on with a requirement for a fairly dramatic increase in the capital housing allocation to the Department, which is clearly not there. Can the Minister riddle me this?

The figures available to me for capital refer to the total capital allocation for the entire Department. Based on the decisions I made earlier on in the year, a further €280 million will be made available to the Department of housing and local government, which will bring its overall funding allocation for next year to €4.19 billion. Based on the capital allocations that have already been made, it is an increase of just under €300 million, or €280 million.

On the Deputy's question regarding what the decision for further and higher housing targets could mean for the future level of capital funding for the Department of housing, my expectation is that if and when the Government makes a decision regarding higher levels of housing targets, it will take time to get to that point. If further capital allocations are needed for that - and I am sure they will be - it will take place for the years after 2025. If we are going to get to the point of building up to a higher level of output in housing, which we will do, that will take place across 2026, 2027, 2028 and beyond. The Government will deal with capital funding for that when we get to that point.

No, I do not accept that premise. All I am outlining to the Deputy is that if you are increasing capital investment, it is difficult to increase it very quickly within a single year and have that translate into additional homes or outputs. To be really clear, I do not accept the premise of the Deputy's question. I do not accept that. I am making the point that if we are increasing capital investment, which I am confident we will do in housing, it takes time to increase it and to increase the higher level of spend into more homes.

I accept that you cannot necessarily do everything overnight but also, it is clearly set out by the commission that there needs to be a dramatic increase, and it starts that increase from the coming year - 61,000, if you include student accommodation, is what it is setting out. If you add in student accommodation, it has it at 61,000, and that is up from 33,000. That is almost, in units per year needed, pretty close to a doubling. The Government cannot necessarily - or at least, the Minister can argue it cannot - do that overnight, for all sorts of reasons such as capacity constraints and so on but surely the Government has got to start.

The Minister said there is some extra money overall for the Department but on the specific capital housing allocation, let us be clear - €2.5 billion is what is written in the Minister's statement, which he read out. That is for housing capital, that is, the building of housing. Last year, on the Department of housing's website, on budget day, €2.6 billion was allocated, which is €100 million more than the Minister appears to be allocating this year. To me, that is stunning. Even if the Government cannot do it all overnight, there is less of a housing allocation in 2025 than there was last year for capital to the Department, and the Minister is not factoring in any increases whatsoever on foot of the Housing Commission report, which says we need to nearly double housing output. Presumably, that would mean a very significant increase in capital expenditure by the Department.

We are starting. The Deputy can look at the increase to which we have referred. The Department of housing will make the decision regarding where that allocation goes but I imagine the majority will go into housing. If we look at the increase in capital investment in recent years, total funding for the Department of housing has gone from €1.7 billion to a planned figure of €4.2 billion next year. In that period, funding has doubled. The Deputy is talking about the need for funding to double in the future. I am saying it has doubled in the past. The way it has doubled is that, year by year, we have put in place a significant increase in capital investment. I am confident we will be able to maintain that investment in the future.

The Deputy is making the argument that if additional funding goes into the Department of housing and local government and if other budget lines, not just the housing line, go up, that the other budget lines are irrelevant to where we on housing. All the money that goes into the Department of housing and local government plays a role in more homes being built. That is not the case only in respect of the direct line for local authority and public housing. All the money that goes in plays a role. Whether money is going into local property taxes or into our local authorities, it all plays a role to a varying degree.

Yes, although I could mention water infrastructure and so on. Direct capital allocation is slightly reduced and the Minister has not refuted that point. It seems, on foot of what the Minister is saying, that the only increase the Department of housing is getting relates to the housing assistance payment, HAP. That is probably what it is. The Minister is factoring in that there will be more HAP tenancies.

I do not accept that. When we complete the budgetary process, the Deputy can be confident that the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and I will point to increased capital funding for the Department of housing, which we will have announced. I can say that today. When we get to completing the budget, I am certain that the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, will be pointing to the fact that the funding to the particular housing subhead for his Department will go up. The Department will be getting more money next year. That will be part of the phased approach we have put in place as to how we will increase capital investment in housing to build more homes, which we have already done.

The Minister is saying that capital investment has increased over the past while. That is true; it has. However, based on the allocation for housing capital specifically, what the Minister has read out is less than what was provided last year. Is the Minister disputing that fact? I take his point that money is going elsewhere in the Department of housing. There will be some increases that may have some impact somewhere. The actual capital allocation is less than last year's. Is there any prospect that the Housing for All targets are going to be revised upwards without the Minister having an additional housing capital allocation above what he has outlined here? He said yesterday that he was going to stay within these parameters so I do not see how we can get any higher targets for next year even though there is an acceptance that we should have higher targets.

I am staying within these parameters. How do we then make progress on delivering higher outputs for housing? There are two ways to do so, in particular. It will be done through the funding made available to the Housing Finance Agency and the Land Development Agency. Those agencies play a role in the delivery of additional homes within our country from the point of view of the State. Where I differ from the Deputy on the pathway to the credible delivery of more homes in the country is that we cannot do it all within a single year. Capital expenditure for the Department of housing will continue to increase year by year. By any measure, €280 million of additional overall funding for the Department of housing in 2025 is significant.

I wish the Minister for Finance, Deputy Chambers, well in his new role. The Housing Commission has stated that we are 250,000 homes short at the moment. On the basis of the allocations and performance so far, what year do the Ministers expect us to be in a situation where there is no shortage of housing?

The Deputy knows I cannot answer that question because the Government has not made a decision on the revision of our Housing for All targets and what that will mean for what can be achieved when. The Deputy knows I cannot give her a truthful answer to that question because I am not the Minister for housing and he has not yet brought forward recommendations to the Government. The Deputy can be assured that when that discussion reaches a final point, I will be able to tell her.

I cannot see how we are going to address the shortage of 250,000 homes. I will move on to my other questions, if that is okay.

My first question relates to public sector pay. The current agreement will run until halfway through 2026. We can see there are quite consistent allocations for budgetary decisions that will be allocated out to 2030. Can we take it that a future pay agreement is baked in and will not come out of the amounts to be allocated from 2027 onwards? I understand it is a sensitive issue and is subject to negotiation and all of that. We simply need to know at this stage a rough estimate and if a deal has been baked in.

I can deal with that question and I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. Within the documentation members have to hand, we deal with the cost of public pay for 2025, as one would expect. From 2027 onwards, we do not have a wage agreement in place. The current agreement will come to an end at the end of 2026. There is a large degree of provision for public pay in the existing level of service, ELS, estimate for 2027 and beyond. However, I expect that in the context of reaching agreement on the future of public pay, it is likely to cost more than an estimate we would have. That figure will then have to come out of the to-be-allocated figure.

I understand. I was wondering if a figure was baked in or is to come out of the to-be-allocated funding.

I wish to talk about the health budget and what was done yesterday, which I welcomed. Will the Minister admit at this stage that everybody, including members of this committee, the representatives of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, IFAC, and the CEO of the Department of Health, was right in saying that last year was underfunded?

Every budget I do receives criticism and focus in respect of different elements of the public service needing more funding. The way in which we handled the health budget for last year was consistent with how it has been done in every other year. In my efforts to deal with the issue now, I have tried to recognise that we have a level of spending within our health service that is far higher than I believed was going to happen in 2025. I have tried to deal with that in a new and different way.

The difference is that the health sector was deliberately underfunded. I will tell the Minister why I am asking. Since then, we have had a moratorium on the hiring of staff.

I cannot understand why there would be a deliberate underfunding because we know that, when there is a moratorium on staff, not only does it add to the pain and distress of patients and staff in the system, it also causes issues in terms of cost. For instance, taking on an agency nurse will cost one third more than appointing the person who is on the panel waiting to be appointed in full. I cannot understand why we would leave that gap, only to incur additional costs. It is facilitating waste in one sense. We are leaving people on recruitment panels, who are contacting me every day of the week, and filling vacancies with people who are coming in on a temporary basis, because they have to, and we are paying them one third more. I just cannot get my head around that.

The further reason I do not accept that premise is that in the funding that was provided for the Department of Health, in the budget decisions that were made and communicated, there was an additional €1.9 billion. How can additional funding of €1.9 billion being provided be described as underfunding? Since 2019 alone, an additional €6 billion has been provided by me for our health service and there are now 27,000 more people working within it. That is the record of the commitment of funding to the Department of Health.

Were we to do that, it would create risks for our ability to fund our public services in the future. Moratorium is not the word I would use. All I asked, which I believe was reasonable, was that the health sector would only go ahead with recruitment that is funded and that it has the money to fund. To use the Deputy's word, since the introduction of the moratorium, the number of people hired in our health service has increased. The service has hired more people and more people are now working in the health service.

Why are there so many people waiting on panels? Even in my own county, Mayo University Hospital, Belmullet hospital, and Ballina hospital are all waiting to fill positions but have been told they cannot do so because there is a moratorium in place. The same is true of a whole lot of other areas in primary care.

We have to ensure the posts that are being filled are funded by the taxpayer. I take great solace from the fact our waiting lists have fallen for the second year in a row. We are one of the few countries in Europe where that is happening. My constituency clinics are as full as the Deputy's with people wanting to get into our hospitals quicker, but surely Deputy Conway-Walsh can understand the point I am making. I am sure she does understand, given the knowledge and expertise in these matters she clearly has, that we can only allow a role to be filled if it is funded and the money is there to do it. Does the Deputy accept that premise?

What I do not accept is that the CEO of the health service warned the Minister that there was deliberate underfunding and then it happened. Now the Minister has sought to correct it. I am seeing forced wastage there because we knew from last year this was going to have to be done. It was going to have to be corrected. The Minister sought to correct it yesterday with the €1.5 billion and the €1.2 billion for ELS, but that leaves very little room for expansion or for new measures.

He made the case that he wants more money, as does every leader of every State body and agency and as does everybody who appears before an Oireachtas committee. They say they acknowledge what they have but they will always make the case for more. To every charge that is made of deliberate underfunding on my behalf, including by the Deputy, I simply point to the fact that €1.9 billion of additional funding was made available to the health service.

What was presented in last year's budget presented punitive risks to the health service and the health of people in my constituency and elsewhere. I do not think there was a need for it and I welcome the fact the Minister corrected it yesterday. It should have been corrected a year ago. There was a gaping hole in the budget but we will agree to disagree on that.

The Minister claims in his statement that the Government has been successful in addressing inflation and public infrastructure deficits. In terms of inflation, 671,000 people are still living in poverty in this State and more than 188,000 of them are children. Pensioners, carers and people with disabilities are worse off today than they were four years ago. That is what the evidence shows. People are actually worse off because wages and social welfare benefits have not kept pace with inflation.

The ESRI and my Department have published independent data showing we have been successful in protecting those on lower incomes from the effects of inflation, in particular through a combination of one-off measures and core social welfare increases. I did not say in any presentation that we do not have people who are still living in situations of low income. I did not deny for a moment the existence of poverty within our country still, although I want to alleviate it. I did make the case, which we can back up independently, that a combination of one-off measures and an increase in core social welfare rates did insulate many people from the increase in prices that happened across the two-year period of high inflation.

My apologies for arriving late. There was another meeting I had to attend.

We need to have a look at ourselves in relation to the state of the nation, the state of different Departments and the country at this time with a view to occasionally presenting a more forthright and positive view. We all tend to concentrate on the negative and what is not happening, but there are lots more beneficial than negative things happening. This is despite the fact this country has had to come through a very challenging ten- to 12-year period. It was a huge achievement to be able to do that and to be as stable as we are at present. It is important from here on to ensure we have sufficient recognition of the demands in the first instance to allow different Departments to present their requirements in budgetary terms. We should be cautious and careful not to spend the family jewels or the rainy day fund in a mad race, with everybody getting involved on the basis they have the right to do this. Unfortunately, in the not so distant past, we found out very quickly we did not have the right to do anything and we were at the bottom of the ladder. Far from being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, as was said many times, we were suddenly one of the most vulnerable because we had an open economy and were dependent on many issues outside. That situation continues and my hope would be we have a good budget.

We must congratulate all of those who provided support to the various Ministers who have steered our economy and their Departments through rough waters to smoother times. We need to be cautious not to do what a lot of people are now advocating, which is to spend our national reserve. They say this on the basis that we have the money so we should spend it. Unfortunately, anybody who studies the period from 2002 to 2011 will remember very vividly that what we thought we had in reserves was dissipated in two or three days and in some cases in two or three hours. Far from living in the lap of luxury we have to continue to strive to do the best we can in every area and through every Department to address every issue, be it hospital services, health or disability. We must address these issues. We should not pretend for a moment that all is well and we have plenty of money now so we can afford to spend what we think we have.

Let us not forget that on the previous occasion we had to face reality, we had all kinds of experts from all areas throughout the country and the globe offering advice. There were people who told us we would have to have a second bailout and a third bailout and maybe go into insolvency. I remind them we have heard it all before. It was helpful to have a backdrop and a sounding board but it was not right and it was incorrect . It was proved so.

As we proceed into this particularly important time, we must consider the people. This means we have to cater for them in every which way possible insofar as we can. We must, however, also have our eyes reverting to the times that were not so brilliant even though we were deemed to be in a very advantageous position then.

I congratulate the Minister for Finance, Deputy Chambers. I wish the Minister the best. I thank the Ministers and their officials for being here today.

The percentage of people aged 65 and over living in rented accommodation has increased by 83% according to the 2022 census. In view of that, has the Government put any provisions in place to protect those over 65 and living in rental accommodation from unaffordable rent levels when they move onto fixed incomes upon retirement and where their incomes may exceed social housing thresholds but fall significantly short of affording huge and expensive private rents? In the closing part of the Minister's statement he mentioned providing increased resources for core public services and investing in a higher quality of life in Ireland for people into the future. I do not see a light at the end of the tunnel for these people who are not going to be able to get out of that. Will the Minister elaborate on this, please?

The Minister, Deputy Chambers, and I are aware of this issue of people who, late in life, find themselves in a position where they do not own their own home, do not qualify for social and affordable housing, and rent is going up or maybe their rental accommodation is uncertain. With regard to what we are doing in relation to it, this is why funding we are making available to the Department of housing matters so much and it is why we are trying to increase the availability of social and public housing year after year. It is also why the rent control measures brought in by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and measures brought in previously by the then Minister, Eoghan Murphy, are an important part of how we try to maintain the affordability and stability of rent. I point to those two particular measures as the way in which we are trying over time to deal with the very urgent matter the Deputy referred to.

I take the Deputy's point but I know the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is aiming to do that. The plans I would be most familiar with in Dublin City Council, and the mix of homes being built by the city council, are predominantly focused on one- and two-bedroom units. In many cases the focus is on one-bedroom units to provide support for people who need the kind of accommodation the Deputy refers to. The answer to the Deputy's question is that by providing a housing mix that is mostly focused on one-bedroom units, it tries to provide stable accommodation for those who may find themselves homeless or at risk of being homeless at the end of life, which of course is something we want to avoid happening.

At an affordable price, obviously, as well. With regard to the increase in the ageing cohort, and again I am speaking up on this because of my brief, our age bracket is going to be very high by 2051. What provisions have been put in place for the State pension fund? What is envisioned to ensure funds are available and properly ring-fenced to cover this?

This is why existing level of service, ELS, funding is going up by so much. It is one of the big reasons. It is very clear to me that the demographic transition, which we used to think about being in the medium term or happening at some point in the future, is happening now and in many different ways. It is happening in our health service and in our schools. We do ELS forecasts and ask what money we will need to continue to be able to provide the same level of public services for a bigger population. The ELS forecasts are made available to the Department of Social Protection and include the ability to continue to pay pensions at their current level to a large number of people in the future.

I did not say they will be ring-fenced because when we start ring-fencing funding for one group of people, then we are always faced with demands to ring-fence funding for other groups of people. The way in which we try to deal with the Deputy's point, which is an important one, is through the ELS funding that is made available to different Departments and we have a forecast for what that would be for a few years in advance. We try to deal with it that way. There is brilliant work done by the Department of Finance in setting up the two different funds. One of the funds that has been set up is exactly to deal with the impact of demographics and particularly when we get into the 2030s and 2040s. The Minister, Deputy Chambers, will explain it better than I can. They are setting up a fund and the return from that fund in the years ahead will be used to deal with demographic costs we will have at that point. I believe that is an essential thing to do. In the absence of that, the people doing budgets in the 2030s and 2040s would not have money for new policy measures and would barely have the money to stand still. This is why putting money into these funds, while it is a difficult and complex argument to make, is essential for the long-term future of this country.

As the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, has said we have a major demographic challenge in our country. Our population pyramid over previous years was defined as being very much a young and wide base, but this is now ageing quickly and we are seeing our population ageing comparatively in a very accelerated way compared with European countries that have a higher age demographic. This is why the establishment of the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund are there for the medium to long term so future governments have the ability to intervene with savings from today in addressing the demographic challenges of tomorrow. As the Minister said, we are seeing those demographic challenges present right now even in terms of acute hospital admissions. We absolutely must provide for that in the context of existing levels of service, but it is very important we get a balanced budgetary strategy so that we put the excess tax receipts aside to deal with the challenges the Deputy has referenced.

It is also why in the context of housing policy and other areas of expenditure we must drive progress to ensure that our ageing population is provided for. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has sought to address this aspect through the Housing for All plan. This is why when we are discussing budgetary policy I think it is important we do not enter into the domain of spending the moneys in these funds to finance current expenditure measures. This is why the Government has established the funds and we will have €10 billion put aside this year and €16 billion next year. We want to add to these sums in future so we will be able to address the demographic and other challenges that exist, including deglobalisation and the disruption of our trading position that could occur in future. Another element of this context will be how digitalisation and AI impact the labour force. There is then the absolute need to address climate change and invest in the future. There are wide challenges we must address, demographics being one. I appreciate the fact that the Deputy has raised this aspect as an issue.

I appreciate that and I take on board the points made by the Minister. I get what was said but we are talking about homeless people. This is an ageing population as well. We have a lot of homeless people who are older too. While the Minister mentioned homelessness and health, we have many people who cannot get into hospitals as well. We need to do better in this regard too.

It was said that health spending will be almost €24.2 billion next year and that the Minister for Health, the HSE and all parties "recognise the importance of demonstrating the link between funding and delivery". I get hives when I think of a health budget now when I look at the national children's hospital. Will one of the Ministers elaborate on this aspect for me, please?

The €24.2 billion refers to where we are with current funding and does not take any account of where we are with capital funding. Regarding the national children's hospital, I am confident that despite the many difficulties we have had with that project and the many issues that we acknowledge we need to handle in a different way, when that hospital is open and running it will make a massive difference to the health of children.

Yes, but sure I said in my answer to the Deputy that I accepted we had to learn lessons from it. On the other hand, now that we publish a cost span for huge projects, we receive commentary in respect of their cost being too big. We acknowledged what went wrong with the national children's hospital project and we have learned to fix it. While I deeply regret some of the issues that happened in the hospital along the way, and I have acknowledged my role in it on multiple occasions, I equally know that when we have the hospital opened and staffed, children will be getting better healthcare, will recover quickly and will have healthier and better lives. I think this is a goal worth going for.

I am thankful to have the opportunity. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Chambers, on his new appointment and wish him well. It is a big task. I wish him well with the Ministry and, indeed, continued success to the Minister, Deputy Donohoe. They are the two Ministers charged with the finances of our country, how our taxes are spent and how our social welfare benefits are paid out. To that end, housing is one of the biggest issues facing the country.

I wish to put something to the Ministers that I have raised numerous times in the Dáil Chamber. This is the fact that there are so many vacant houses in the country. To give one example, from the top of the town of Kenmare, along the main road out to Kilgarvan, through the town and down to within 10 miles of Killarney, I counted 55 houses vacant along the road. There are two main reasons those houses are not being let. The first is that people are so afraid now that if they do let people into their houses, they will not be able to get them out again. This is the number one reason. The other reason is that in this kind of scenario, the most rent anyone could hope to get for these houses, although the situation is different in the towns of Killarney, Kenmare and Dingle, is €700, €800 or €900 a month. It is not worth people's while doing that because many of them have other incomes and they would finish up paying half the income they would get from rent, up to 52%, in tax. Right away, they would be down maybe around €400 in terms of what they might finish up with. The liability that they may not be able to get back their houses is the other obstacle, as I said. The Government has devised a scheme in the last couple of years where people who own houses and rent them to Ukrainians can earn up to €800 tax-free. Would it not make sense to extend that exemption to people owning houses who would rent them to our own people?

The Government is getting very little out of these houses anyway in terms of property tax or whatever. It will be said to me that the Government will lose so much tax if people are exempted. Would the Government not be achieving two things, though, if it did take this approach? It would lower the pressure on local authorities to provide houses. I see great merit in this. I will give an example of a road, and it passes my own door, that goes on for about 17 miles. It is not necessary to go off the road at all to access these houses. Buses are now passing each other going both ways on the road from Kenmare to Killarney. If people do not have cars or whatever, there are schools along the way. There is Kilgarvan, Glenflesk and Knockanes and so many places like these.

The story is different if you go in around Killarney town - you cannot get houses at all because they are not there. If you could, they would cost anything from €1,200 to €1,500 a month. Someone has even been asked for €2,000. This man who came to me last night, who has four children, is supposed to have been out of where he is living before now but he cannot find a house. He was asked by one person for rent of €2,000. I ask the Ministers to consider this proposition. I would like to know what they think of it.

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for his kind words at the start. I appreciate it.

Turning to address the points made by the Deputy, significant work is ongoing across government on the Housing for All plan. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, is working on it. Action has been taken specifically concerning landlords. The Deputy will be aware that in the Finance Act 2023 a measure was introduced called the residential premises rental income relief. This is a tax relief for individual landlords of residential rental properties at a standard rate of 20% against private rented residential income of €3,000 in the 2024 tax year, and increasing to €5,000 in 2027. This equates to a tax credit of €600 in year one, €800 in year two and €1,000 in years three and four. This measure will have an estimated full-year cost of €160 million. Separately, there is an allowance for deductible expenses, which the Deputy will be aware of.

Separate from that measure, we have also tried to support tenants with a tax credit. In the context of budget 2025, we will have an overall tax package of €1.4 billion. Of this amount, I expect a significant portion of it to go towards helping workers who have rising wages and ensuring they are not levied with additional taxation as a result of these increases. These are the questions we must consider in the context of budget 2025. Providing for a very specific measure, such as that referred to by the Deputy, must be taken in the round in the context of increasing housing supply and how we will prioritise wider Government expenditure.

As the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, set out earlier, there is increased provision for housing next year and that trajectory is positive. Our focus, obviously, is on doing more around housing supply, not only around the direct involvement of the State but also in ensuring through the national planning framework, which is being reviewed and a draft was outlined this week, we can have increased targets in the context of increased targets.

We also want a supply within the private sector as well. There is a role that the State can play through direct funding, but there is also an important role for private capital in our housing market. We are clear about previous measures that have been taken to provide support for landlords, but also for tenants. It is a matter of striking that balance in the context of a very limited tax package for budget 2025.

I will make another point about this. This is working as far as the Ukrainians are concerned because people like the idea that they do not have to pay any more tax. These people are in the 52% bracket and they do not think it is worthwhile to do up the house, spend money or go to the trouble. The problem they have is that they cannot get people out. It is weighed totally against the landlord or the householder. The RTB seems to be weighing down against the landlord.

I am not saying that the Government should stop this incentive for Ukrainians, but in the interest of fairness, our local people are having serious difficulty in finding places to rent and there is discrimination here. I am asking the Minister to treat our own people the same as the Ukrainians. If he will not do it for any other reason, he should do it for that reason. We cannot be seen to be discriminating against our local people who are finding it hard. I had a woman from Firies bawling and crying to me on the phone half an hour ago. She has one child and has to get out of her house. She cannot find a place to rent. The damning thing about it is that the houses are there. If there were tax exemptions for house owners, such as those that are given to the Ukrainians, fellows would go all out to put these houses into suitable condition so that tenants could go into them. As it is, they are not bothered. I am sure the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Moynihan, also has this over the border on the Cork side. He and I are not too far away from each other. There are several houses like that, and that is the way they are going to say until the Government does something like this. I was before the agriculture committee and I did not know this meeting was going on, so I am glad to get the opportunity to put this into the Ministers' heads. They should consider it in the interests of fairness. We have to be fair to our own people who are seeing this going on around them. They cannot compete now and that is the truth. I ask for an answer to that.

If I may respond to that, I have great respect for Deputy Healy-Rae. He has been elected to Dáil Éireann many times and I recognise that on many different topics, with all the experience he has, he speaks an awful lot of sense. However, I have to honestly say to him that when I hear him speak about "our people", I flinch. He speaks, for example, about the Ukrainians. Of course, they have not been born in Ireland and of course we still have a duty to people who live in our country and were born here. We have the deepest of duties to them. The people who are coming from Ukraine are leaving a country that is in the middle of a war. They do not know when they will be able to go home and if they do go home, they do not know what they will be going back home to. We have some duty to them as well to try to help them. I just want to put that argument to the Deputy. I do not believe he is trying to do this, but when he uses that language, and when that language becomes the normal part of how we describe migration, it begins to lessen significantly the experience of that person who is coming to our country.

I live in a constituency that has housing difficulties that are every bit as intense as those in the Deputy's constituency. I have visited international protection centres in my constituency. I meet those people. They are coming to Ireland from conditions that I cannot even imagine, at times and in ways I cannot even imagine. I will make a point to the Deputy, and I do so while respecting him and the points he makes. I put it to him honestly that that kind of language he uses when he talks about "our people" implies that there are other people as well. There are consequences to that and I think we should consider them.

On the Deputy's specific point - and I am not calling him anything or having a go at him - I will make a point back, which I think I am allowed to do. On the point that Deputy makes about the €800 payment, he is correct that it is a payment as opposed to a tax-free allowance. The Deputy is correct that there is no tax to be paid on it. In many of those circumstances, the payment is being made available to people who have Ukrainians living with them in their homes. That is different from renting out accommodation. There is a difference. In many cases, that €800 is going to somebody who will have somebody living with them in their home. We are recognising what that does and the effect it can have. We are saying that in the absence of that, there is a risk that the Ukrainian person might not have accommodation and could be homeless. I think there is a difference.

If the Deputy will allow me to make a comment, I opened my contribution saying how much I respect him. That should indicate to him that the last thing I am trying to do is banish him. I believe that would also be completely unhealthy. We have to be able to have a debate and discussion, and this is what we are doing.

If you take 5% of GNI, it gets you to a figure that I am sure is lower than our total capital investment at the moment. It is up to the Government to try to figure out how we get up to that figure of 5% and how quickly we can do it.

It is simply not achievable to get to that target in a single go because were we to get to that figure in capital, everybody would raise lots of current spending issues with us, including the Deputy. We are trying to get a balance right in the total rate of expenditure growth.

This is part of the question. Our committee has looked at a lot of tax expenditures. We have generally suggested that they should be scrutinised as much as the budget day measures, ongoing expenditure measures, etc. What will the Minister do in terms of the presentation of information on tax expenditures for the budget material and budget day?

I have just one or two very quick questions on this. I am conscious that voting is ongoing as well. Regarding the top ten corporation taxpayers, their share of spending in tax seems to be diminishing compared with previous years. Is that because they are paying less or because other taxpayers are coming in that are also paying corporation so there is a broadening or a change in that tax band?

We received answers on the 6% share that will go towards new measures and catching up.

On corporation tax, that demonstrates the volatility of the ten companies and why we are putting the money aside in the context of the future Ireland fund and the infrastructure, climate and nature fund. Depending on their profitability in a particular year, that will have an impact on the concentration. What we do know is that that concentration risk is continuing or becoming even greater now and potentially in future years. That context needs to be central in the wider budgetary and fiscal decisions we take with respect to corporation tax.