Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jul 2024

It is almost two years since the Future of Media Commission published its report recommending the abolition of the television, TV, licence and having a system based entirely on Exchequer funding for public service media and content. The Government has dragged its heels on this issue for far too long. In the meantime, RTÉ has lurched from crisis to crisis and public confidence has waned. It is time for a decision. Will the Minister rule out the introduction of a new household charge to be collected by the revenue as a replacement to the licence fee? Will he instead adopt the recommendations of the Future of Media Commission and ensure that the TV licence is scrapped and that public service media and content is funded through the Exchequer?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 69 and 70 together.

As has been stated on numerous occasions, the Government is committed to the reform of the TV licence. A long-term funding model is needed to deliver effective reform and ensure that a secure, sustainable model of funding is put in place for our public service media. The Government is committed to the introduction of a new sustainable and fair funding model in its term of office. The Future of Media Commission was established to, among other things, consider sustainable public funding models and noted three main funding models, which are a TV Licence, a universal charge, or direct Exchequer funding. In its 2022 report, the commission recommended replacing the TV licence funding model with a direct Exchequer funding model.

Following consideration of the report of the commission in 2022, Government decided not to accept its recommendation to replace the TV licence model with direct Exchequer funding of public service media. Instead, Government decided to reform and enhance the existing funding model, thereby maintaining the link between public service content providers and the public, retaining and building on the existing annual revenue, and guaranteeing the continued independence of the broadcasting sector. To this end, the Government established a technical working group to examine other potential options for the reform and enhancement of the existing system. I understand that the working group submitted its report to the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, last year. While initial discussions on the matter had commenced, the events regarding RTÉ last summer paused a decision on the future direction of public service media funding. Since then, two independent reviews into RTÉ have been completed, carried out by expert advisory committees appointed by Government, the reports of which have recently been published. As the Minister, Deputy Martin, has stated, discussions on the matter are continuing and a final decision on this matter will be made in the coming weeks. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the future of this or any reform measures until the Government has completed its full consideration of the matter.

Regarding a tax on large multimedia corporations, which has also been referred to in one of the parliamentary questions, Deputy Murphy will be aware that in 2018 the European Commission proposed a digital services tax based on a €750 million global revenue threshold and an EU-wide €50 million revenue from in-scope services threshold. This proposal, together with other digital taxes proposed elsewhere, was received negatively and as inconsistent with principles of international taxation. Subsequently, negotiations by the OECD and the G20 on reforms to the international system of taxation led to the OECD two-pillar solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy in October 2021. I note that pillar 1 of the OECD agreement provides for the standstill and removal of unilateral measures such as digital services taxes. It is important that any proposal for additional taxation avoids raising trade tensions and does not undermine the ongoing development and implementation of the OECD agreement. I believe that a global approach is preferable to unilateral measures like a targeted tax on corporations as is suggested.

I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that public trust in the national broadcaster has been shattered following crisis after crisis and scandal after scandal. We can see that reflected in the licence fee. Of those who are eligible to pay the licence fee, approximately one in three do not pay. That is how much of a drop-off we have, mostly brought on by the RTÉ scandal. The Future of Media Commission identified this is a problem in the future anyway, since fewer people will pay and with a growing population and so on, the State would be paying their portion. It also noted that it is an unfair and regressive charge. It said the fee is the same whether the person earns €20,000 or €200,000. These are the experts that the Government put in place. They recommended that the Government abolish it and fund public sector content through Exchequer funding. The Government has had the report for three years, it has been published for two years and it has still not taken any decisions. I will put it to the Minister directly. As Minister for Finance, has he or is he aware of his Department engaging with Revenue with the potential of collecting a new charge that would apply to TVs?

This is a regressive tax no matter how it is looked at. The poorest eligible household in the country pays €160 and the richest household in the country pays €160. It is a regressive, unjust tax that hundreds of thousands of people are refusing to pay, a number that has increased in the context of the outrage at what was happening at the very top of RTÉ, with massive pay for those at the very top and the behaviour with the spending of public money on flip-flops, exclusive clubs and all the rest. The Minister says here that he cannot comment but he has commented to RTÉ, saying that his preference is for keeping some form of TV licence. Is it not time to stop dragging 60 people to court a day for non-payment of the TV licence, to see the writing on the wall, to scrap this regressive tax, and instead to properly fund RTÉ as opposed to pursuing a privatisation and outsourcing agenda?

I thank the Deputies for their contributions. As I and the Minister, Deputy Martin, have stated, we will make a decision on this in the coming weeks. As a Government, we appreciate and understand the importance of public service media for a well-functioning democracy. It is also essential for cultural development, social cohesion and well-being. As such, it requires a funding model that provides long-term certainty, is sustainable and, vitally, protects the independence of media providers. Such funding is not only crucial for our public service broadcasters, TG4 and RTÉ, but also for independent producers and the wider national, local and community broadcasters.

Any new funding will need to reflect that in the context of public service content. There have been a number of reports and there is ongoing reform of RTÉ, which is important as to why a decision has not been made in the past 12 months. I stated publicly that the vast majority of people continue to pay for their TV licence and should continue to in the system we have at present. This year up to 21 June, 358,000 licences were sold while more than 800,000 were sold last year in total. A majority of people pay and contribute. Both Deputies said to abolish the fee and pay for it centrally but there are pressures on public expenditure across all Departments. When we have a system of contribution for which the majority of people pay, we should not abandon it and look for central government funding. That is why, in my public remarks, I said an ongoing contribution from the public is important in reform.

To answer Deputy Doherty's question, we have not yet decided what that model will be. We are sincere about trying to bring this to a conclusion in the coming weeks. That is what we will do, working with the Ministers, Deputies Martin and Donohoe, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste.

I asked the Minister a simple question and I ask for a simple answer: has he or his Department engaged with Revenue about the potential of collecting a new charge? Do not force me to put down a freedom of information request; these are questions to the Minister.

This system is broken. One third of households do not pay for the TV licence and 9,000 people are dragged before the courts every year for not paying for the TV licence. The numbers are getting worse as the year goes on. Before there was ever a scandal in RTÉ and confidence in it was shattered, the Government's commission considered international best practice and the best way to fund future media content to make sure there are proper revenues to support jobs in the industry and public service broadcasting. It recommended abolishing the TV licence and funding public service content through Exchequer funding. That is exactly what Sinn Féin would do; we would abolish the TV licence and ensure that the money comes from the Exchequer licence, which would ensure RTÉ and other broadcasters could continue, knowing there is secure funding. Three years on, we still do not have a clue about what the Government plans to do. It has had this report for three years. Has the Minister's Department engaged with Revenue to look at collecting a new charge? Will he answer that question truthfully on the floor of the Dáil? It is not acceptable that he gives more information to RTÉ than to TDs in this House.

The Minister gave the figures for payment levels, suggesting they indicated that the vast majority pay. I think he said 800,000 paid last year and 358,000 had paid halfway through this year. In total, there are 1.8 million households in the State, approximately 500,000 of which are exempt. That leaves 1.3 million households. The Minister said that over a half-year period, 400,000 people paid. That indicates that more than a third refuse to pay the TV licence. People are voting with their feet. He should take the advice given a number of years ago by the Future of Media Commission to get rid of the TV licence. Multiple European countries such as Belgium, France, Iceland and others have scrapped their versions of the TV licence over the past five or six years. The Government should get rid of this regressive charge. I warn the Minister not to replace it with another regressive charge, this time simply collected by Revenue. While we need to increase funding for public service broadcasting, who pays? Is it a regressive, unjust tax on the poorest families in our society or should we tax big social media giants that are parasitical in respect of our main media and effectively suck up advertising? We need a big tech tax on them to fund proper public service broadcasting.

What I said publicly is what I am restating here: a discussion is ongoing. We are committed to the introduction of a new sustainable and fair funding model and will make a decision on that in the coming weeks.

In reply to Deputy Doherty's question, we are exploring all options for a new and reformed funding model with a contribution. As I said, we have not landed on any particular model or system of payment collection regarding the licence fee. We need to fix the system and strengthen compliance. The majority of people pay the TV licence fee, despite the Deputy speaking about a certain number who do not.

The vast majority do pay the TV licence fee. That underpins independence in public service media. We need ongoing support for that to be in a sustainable and long-term funding position. As I said in other domains, I support the ongoing contribution by the public to public service media and the TV licence. We are committed to making a decision on this matter in the coming weeks.

In fiscal terms, the solution to everything is not to just abandon the contribution people make, whether that is tax or the TV licence. We have to pay for the wider expenditure in our State, including public service media. If we were to remove the TV licence or ongoing contribution, that money would have to be found elsewhere. There is not an endless amount that can be allocated to new expenditure lines.

Perhaps this will be the trend from the new Minister for Finance. It is a simple question. Did he engage with Revenue or not? It is a yes or answer. What is he trying to hide? He and his Department either did or did not engage with Revenue. He said they are exploring all options. He did engage with Revenue. Why did he not just say that? What is he trying to hide?

There are, I think, five sitting days left before the summer recess. That means a resolution has to be brought before this House to stop the Government's plans to increase the prices of petrol and diesel on 1 August and again on 9 October. People are being hammered. Prices are still significantly higher than they were a number of years ago. They are 23% higher than they were three years ago. Petrol stations on which employment depends in Border communities are struggling to survive. They need a signal from the Government. Will the Minister indicate that he will bring a resolution before the House to stop the planned increases in petrol and diesel on 1 August and October?

I will not go back to the previous question but I referenced that we are exploring all options for a funding model. That is the position. I will engage with Government colleagues on that.

The Government is conscious of the implications of fuel costs for all sectors of society. This is reflected in the fact that in 2022, in light of the acute impact rising prices were having on households and businesses, the Government provided for temporary cuts in excise rates which, inclusive of VAT, amounted to 21 cent, 16 cent and 5.4 cent per litre on petrol, auto-diesel and marked gas oil, respectively. These temporary cuts to excise rates were initially due to end on 31 August 2022 but following review and monitoring of fuel prices, were extended until February 2023, with a phased restoration of rates in June and September 2023. A final restoration of excise rates was due to take place on 31 October 2023 but budget 2024 provided for a further extension until 31 March 2024, with phased restoration in April and August 2024. The first of these restorations took place on 1 April 2024, adding 4 cent per litre to petrol, 3 cent to auto diesel and 1.7 cent to marked gas oil.

The Government is conscious of the implications of fuel costs for all sectors of society. This is reflected in the fact that in 2022, in light of the acute impact rising prices were having on households and businesses, the Government provided for temporary cuts in excise rates which, inclusive of VAT, amounted to 21 cent, 16 cent and 5.4 cent per litre on petrol, auto-diesel and marked gas oil, respectively. These temporary cuts to excise rates were initially due to end on 31 August 2022, but following review and monitoring of fuel prices, were extended until February 2023, with a phased restoration of rates occurring in June and September 2023. A final restoration of excise rates was due to take place yn 31 October 2023, but Budget 2024 provided for a further extension until 31 March 2024, with phased restoration occurring in April and August 2024. The first of these restorations took place on 1 April 2024 adding 4 cent per litre to petrol, 3 cent to auto diesel and 1.7 cent to marked gas oil.

A number of factors affect the final retail price of fuels, including energy market dynamics, wholesale pricing, individual retail pricing policy, transport costs, exchange rate fluctuations and taxation. It is important to note that despite the restoration of excise rates in April 2024, national average retail prices have shown steady decreases in recent weeks. While national average prices in May 2024 were approximately €1.84 and €1.78 per litre for petrol and diesel, respectively, more recent prices as of 1 July were approximately €1.77 for petrol and €1.69 for diesel. While I recognise that households and businesses continue to face challenges, the Government must strike the appropriate balance between providing support and avoiding fuelling cyclical inflationary trends.

The Government has provided relief to consumers and businesses since 2022 through a number of support measures, including temporary reductions in excise. These measures were introduced as temporary support measures and involve an ongoing cost the Exchequer while they are retained. There are no current plans to change the planned restoration rates. I will, of course, keep this matter under review in the coming weeks.

So the Minister will push ahead with pushing up petrol and diesel prices on 1 August and again in October despite his predecessor giving indications that this was likely not to happen. That would be my reading of it in terms of the language and tone he was using. That is really disappointing. Petrol prices are 23% higher than three years ago. Diesel prices are 28% higher. We have never brought in as much tax on these two areas than we have now. I am aware that the Government's policy is to push up these prices on ordinary families but we disagree with the Government on that policy. It is the wrong thing and it is just making families poorer. I urge the Minister to bring a resolution before the Dáil.

I heard him say on radio this morning that he was bringing the budget forward to 1 October and suggesting that it was due to a calendar clash in Europe. That is laughable. I have been the Opposition finance spokesperson for 14 years. September is the crucial month for taxation and the Minister knows that. Companies have to file for September. The reason a White Paper is not published until the Friday before a budget is the input of the September tax results is needed. The Government is going into this budget without sight of the September expenditure or revenue figures. That is okay but let us not pretend that it is for anything else. Let us not pretend it is for anything other than to potentially pave the way for an early election. There is a reason other finance Ministers were very clear on this down throughout the years. September is crucial. It is a time when companies pay their corporation tax rates-----

Two years ago it was Covid and exceptional circumstances so there was an early budget. I am making the point that the Minister is deciding to go into the budget without sight of the crucial September tax returns, which every previous Minister for Finance has said is crucial to the input of the budget. That is fine if they want to bring it forward but let us not pretend it is because of a date clash in European Union meetings.

I am not sure what question the Deputy is asking. Is he talking about the actual parliamentary question he asked or is he asking about the date of the budget? As he knows, Sinn Féin called for an earlier budget two years ago when we were responding to the cost-of-living challenges. We have to submit our wider fiscal and budgetary framework to the European Commission, as he will be aware, and our medium-term fiscal plan by 15 October. That is the basis of our preparation. As I said earlier this morning, the Government is committed to running the full term and responding properly to the wider issues we have in the context of budget 2025.

To clarify, every Minister for Finance knows that the September returns are crucial. Deputy Chambers knows this as well. We know the importance of corporation tax here. Companies have to file by September. Is he telling this House that he is bringing forward the budget without sight of the September returns? This is what it appears to be. That is fine if he is making that decision but why is he making that decision? That is the question. The Minister is taking us and the public for fools.

He is taking the public for fools. If he does not want to answer the question that is fine but it is not for the Minister of State; it is for the Minister for Finance. He is taking us for fools. That is a major decision to take. Yes, it is absolutely a decision the Minister can take but it actually reduces the data he has in framing the budget. Every single finance Minister has crucially said that. The Committee on Budgetary Oversight has been demanding that the White Paper be published weeks earlier and every Minister for Finance has said it cannot be published until midnight on the Friday before the budget on the following Tuesday because the September tax receipts are crucial to the formation of the budget. If the Minister has decided to bring it forward, let him be truthful about it. It is to give himself options for an early budget instead of actually coming up with this cock-and-bull story about a clash. Is he going to a European Union meeting on 8 October? Is that what is happening? Is that why we cannot have the budget on 8 October as normally scheduled?

What will set the wider budgetary and fiscal parameters is the summer economic statement, which we announce next week. That will set out the position on taxation and expenditure, and what is possible for budget 2025. The Deputy is posing a complete contradiction. First, he is calling for an election every day of the week in here. Second, we are actually committed to political stability and running our full term. Again, the Deputy dismisses a European Union meeting as just some European meeting. This shows the scepticism-----

-----that is reflected by his party and its opposition to every European treaty and its opposition to our pro-trade and pro-enterprise policies, which actually reflect in the strong corporation tax figures, the strong income tax figures, and the strong tax figures we have seen more generally in June this year. Sinn Féin's policy is to abandon all fiscal prudence, spend as it likes and increase taxes on people. We know Sinn Féin's budgetary policy. We will set out a clear framework next week that will set the wider fiscal parameters and budgetary policy for the budget, which will be announced on 1 October. That is where we form the parameters and the framework . That is where the preparations will be progressed from.

I am sure the Minister will be aware of the higher prices being charged in the tourism and hospitality sectors over recent years. The increasing costs of operating a business in the industry ultimately mean that the customer has to pay more for goods and services. At the moment the Government is playing a three-card trick on businesses. On the one hand, it is providing grants to businesses to help them offset the rising costs but, on the other, it is responsible for raising those costs in the first place. Every transaction in our tourism and hospitality sector is made at least 13.5% more expensive by this Government. What consideration is the Minister giving to the reinstatement of the 9% VAT rate?

As the Deputy will be aware, the 9% VAT rate was applied on a temporary basis to the hospitality and tourism sectors until 31 August 2023 when it reverted to the 13.5% rate. The 9% rate was introduced on 1 November 2020 in recognition of the fact that the tourism and hospitality sectors were among those most impacted by the public health restrictions put in place throughout the pandemic. The economic rationale for a VAT rate reduction at that time, as it was in 2011 when it was also reduced to 9%, was to lower consumer prices, encouraging higher demand, more output and an increase in employment.

Despite facing successive headwinds over recent years, the domestic economy has proven to be remarkably resilient. Looking ahead as inflation eases, the real disposable income of households should recover and support consumer spending. As a result, households are on a stronger financial footing and this will support demand for contact-intensive services, including the tourism and hospitality sectors.

With regard to employment, between the end of 2020 when the 9% rate was reintroduced and the final quarter of 2023 total economy-wide, employment expanded from 2.3 million to reach a record high of 2.7 million, an increase of more than 17%. The fourth quarter 2023 labour force survey indicated that employment in the accommodation and food service sector stood at 183,000. It is important to remember that VAT reductions, even temporary VAT reductions, have a cost to the Exchequer. The estimated cost of the 9% VAT rate for tourism and hospitality from 1 November 2020 to 31 August 2023 was €1.2 billion. This represented a very substantial support by the Government to those sectors. The cost of a further VAT reduction to 9% for a full year is estimated to be €764 million. Even when the measure is restricted to food and catering services, the cost is €545 million. In making any decision on VAT rates or other taxation measures, the Government must balance the cost of the measures in question against their impact in the overall budgetary framework.

Finally, the Deputy should note that any decision about VAT rates for this area is a matter for consideration as part of the budget 2025 process.

I know it is part of the consideration. The Minister just accused Deputy Doherty of being a eurosceptic. Maybe he is one himself, given that the VAT rate for hospitality is lower in other European countries and most major European cities. It is only 7% in France and Germany. In destinations such as Portugal it is 6% and Greece it is 6.5%. Spain and Italy are at 10% and yet we persist with 13.5%.

I received an email from a concerned business owner who is a very reputable operator in the hospitality sector in Rosslare, who says that the Government's increases have cost his business €1 million a year. Apart from the VAT increase, there is the 12% increase in the minimum wage, changes in parental leave, an extra bank holiday, higher PRSI, and statutory sick leave, all of which have served to increase the wage bill.

On top of that, from yesterday, we now have auto-enrolment for pensions. The further cost burden being experienced by this person is a 15% rise in food costs. To be fair, waiting until the budget will mean it will be too late for many. More than 200 restaurants have already closed in recent months.

To give some context, the VAT rate for hospitality in Ireland compares favourably to our nearest neighbour, as Britain and Northern Ireland maintain a 20% VAT rate for the sector. Across the whole EU, Ireland is one of 14 countries with a rate at 12% or higher for hospitality. On accommodation, Ireland is one of seven member states that have a rate at 12% or higher. The Government has provided significant support to businesses throughout a period of increasing costs. Budget 2024 contained a number of measures that will support businesses facing increased costs, including the increased cost of business, ICOB, grant, which aims to provide financial support to small and medium-sized businesses operating from a rateable premises, at a cost of €257 million. Additionally, other measures have been outlined by my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Burke, including increasing the employer PRSI threshold from €441 to €496 with effect from 1 October. This will ensure that employers with employees earning the weekly equivalent of the national minimum wage will pay the lower rate of employer PRSI of 8.8%. The measures also include launching a second phase of the ICOB scheme targeted at businesses in the retail and hospitality sectors and doubling the innovation grant scheme from €5,000 to €10,000. We have provided other supports for businesses throughout the year. As I said, we have not yet made any decisions relating to budget 2025.

With due respect, clearly everything I outlined in my first contribution highlighted that those business supports are only able to counteract the rising costs. They are not actually assisting businesses, which are going bust, for the want of a better expression, simply because we do not have people with high-end jobs and residual income to be able to go out and spend on a night out due to the Government's increase in the VAT rate. It is anti-competitive. We are seeing lower rates all over Europe. Regardless of the 14 countries mentioned by the Minister, some of our main destinations, including France, Italy and Spain, have much lower rates. We are trying to compete as a country. We do not have the weather. I come from the sunny south east but we have not had much sunshine. Businesses and their employees are extremely concerned. I am one of them. Unfortunately, waiting for this measure, which we have asked for before as a group and I have asked for independently, will mean it is going to be too late for many. Responsibility for that will rest strictly with what has happened during the Minister's term of office.

We will engage with the business community. It is important to say that the context now is different from it was during the Covid pandemic and the very high and difficult levels of inflation we experienced in the economy. We are entering a more regular budgetary environment. We will set out more on that the summer economic statement next week. With inflation easing, we expect the domestic economy and the real disposable income of households to strengthen and improve during the year, which will help retailers and the hospitality sector through the year. That will make a difference too.

Separately, my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Burke, is doing a great deal of work on the cost of running a business and the supports we have put in place, which I outlined. As part of budget 2025, we will engage with everybody. It is important to note that we are entering a different budgetary framework from what we had in the previous four years. We must ensure we are careful because we have risks in the economy. We cannot continue to have repeated temporary interventions in the years ahead. We have to enter a more regular position to plan for the medium to long term.

I thank Deputy Pringle for asking this question about the disabled and disabled passengers scheme, DDS. This scheme provides relief from VRT and VAT on the use of an adapted car, as well as an exemption from motor tax and an annual fuel grant. The scheme is open to severely and permanently disabled persons, as defined, who meet one of six medical criteria as a driver or as a passenger and to certain organisations. To qualify for relief, the applicant must hold a primary medical certificate issued by the relevant principal medical officer or a board medical certificate issued by the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal.

The Deputy should note that my Department and I share concerns that the DDS is no longer fit for purpose and believe it should be replaced with a needs-based, grant-led approach for necessary vehicle adaptations that could serve to improve the functional mobility of the individual. However, this is very much a matter across government because, while my Department has oversight of the DDS, I do not have specific responsibility for disability policy. As the Deputy is aware, the national disability and inclusion strategy, NDIS, transport working group recommended that the DDS be replaced with a modern, fit-for-purpose vehicular adaptation scheme. This is in line with the general view that we need to move away from a medical criteria-based approach to a needs-based approach.

Under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, officials from relevant Departments and agencies are meeting to discuss the issues arising from the NDIS report and to map a way forward. One of the issues being examined is how the DDS can be replaced. The Department of Finance submitted a note to the group with my predecessor's approval in mid-January 2024. This outlines a proposal for a replacement scheme for the DDS, which would be a needs-based, grant-led approach for necessary vehicle adaptations that could serve to improve the functional mobility of the individual. It is in line with what the NDIS transport working group report. Further consideration is being given to the principles and parameters for a new scheme in line with best international practice through the establishment of another group of the Department of Taoiseach. This group will start its work shortly and is now expected to report in the autumn.

At least the Department has changed the wording around a wee bit in this answer. Everybody who has asked a question about what is happening as regards changes to this scheme in recent years has received the same answer. At least a bit of initiative was shown to make it sound a bit different. In reality, however, basically nothing is happening. What is going to be done now is that another group is to be set up towards the end of the summer. The only chance for this Government to resolve this issue will be in the budget and we are in the run-up to the budget now. Nothing is going to happen this year, so this matter will have to wait until a new Government is in place. I know this is not the responsibility of the Minister, but this issue has been going on since 2012 or 2013 and every Minister for Finance has basically given the same answer during that time. Essentially, we can look forward to nothing happening between now and the budget. Is that what the Minister is saying?

I accept and acknowledge that this matter has been going on for too long and too many years without an outcome and that it is impacting many people across our country. As I said, I have been informed that significant work is now ongoing on this issue, led by the Department of the Taoiseach, and we expect a report on that in the autumn. It is about giving effect to and trying to make progress from that report. While I acknowledge that the issue has been ongoing for too long and is affecting many people, what has been raised previously was whether any change to the existing scheme would address the issues. We know the current scheme is not fit for purpose in respect of any or all of the different parameters and does not meet the standards of a modern administrative model. This is why reform and bringing about a new scheme in line with international best practice, led by that group in the Department of the Taoiseach, is the way forward. As I said, we expect a report in the autumn.

Would a new scheme in line with international best practice take 12 years to design and put in place? I do not think that is in line with any best practice anywhere along the way. If the report the Minister referred to is prepared and ready for the autumn, will this be in time for the budget and for provisions to be made for a new scheme to be in place in January 2025?

Is that what the Minister is saying or is it a matter of wait and see what happens?

I will pursue a timeline on this. It is in the interests of my Department and the collective interests of people we represent in our constituencies to find a way forward on this. I assure the Deputy I will pursue that with the group established in the Department of the Taoiseach. The group will report in the autumn and we need to see progress on it in the aftermath of that. I take the Deputy's point that other reports and structures in the past have not delivered an outcome. It is about trying to structure something new to deliver for people who have not seen progress for many years. I will pursue that.