TheStory.ie

A Department of Finance research paper warned the government needed to be cautious about increasing the rate of stamp duty that applied for the bulk purchase of homes.

Research by officials said a plan to hike the 10 percent rate that applied for the purchase of more than ten homes could drive out international investment that was needed to make property development viable.

It said that while the state was providing an “unprecedented level of funding” into housing, it still would not be enough by itself to meet Ireland’s ambitious housing targets.

The paper said private investment was especially important “at development stage to ensure the provision of social, affordable and private homes.”

It said if policy and rental regulation policy was constantly changing, international investment would be put off by “uncertainty and increases [in] risk profile.”

The paper added: “The mislabelling of institutional capital with the pejorative ‘vulture funds’ is also seen as a further deterrent for institutional investment.”

The research was prepared in September after Taoiseach Simon Harris wrote to the Department of Finance last May looking for a review of stamp duty on bulk purchases.

Mr Harris said figures had shown the number of houses subject to the 10 percent stamp duty rate had risen from 181 to 623 in 2023.

He wrote: “I believe we need to take further action, but we need to base that on good information.”

In the research carried out, officials estimated that the higher rate had applied to around 1 percent of residential property transactions in 2023.

They said this equated to 3 percent of sales of new homes completed that year with €44 million collected in tax by Revenue over a twelve-month period.

Civil servants were told to print out official records and use a black marker before scanning them again amid fears of sensitive material being released.

In the aftermath of a major data breach in 2023 where the PSNI accidentally released the details of around 9,500 police and staff, public sector workers in the Republic looked for advice on how to avoid a repeat.

A cross-government group was told the risk around redaction now “comes up regularly” and that it was not uncommon for people to try and “un-redact” material that was sent to them under FOI and other laws.

A presentation said this had already resulted in the inadvertent release of “sensitive personal information” of third parties.

The documents explained how the Information Commissioner – which decides on FOI cases in Ireland – had asked public bodies to look closely at how they blacked out portions of records.

One slide from the presentation in November 2023 said: “[It’s] important that redaction tools, particularly electronic ones, are permanent and irreversible.”

It said there was no standard way of doing this and it depended on what tools were available in each public body.

The presentation advised: “[It] can sometimes be necessary to print and use a black marker.

“When this is not possible and if other tools weren’t available, material could be overwritten or deleted then rendered to [a new computer file].”

It said public bodies needed to be particularly careful of redaction that only hid material and did not erase it.

Asked about the discussions, a spokeswoman for the Department of Public Expenditure said the massive PSNI data breach had illustrated the need for “robust safeguarding of sensitive exempt information.”

She said: “To preserve the integrity of the system and ensure access to information to the greatest extent possible, it is important that public bodies can effectively, efficiently and reliably protect sensitive information identified as exempt under the legislation. “[This includes] private information of third parties, which in turn facilitates the release of other parts of the same records.”

The bill for fencing, clean-up and patrols for dealing with asylum seeker encampments along the Grand Canal reached almost €800,000 last year.

Waterways Ireland confirmed they had run up bills totalling €790,769 in bills in 2024, which included €566,718 in fencing costs.

Asylum applicants repeatedly set up camp along the canal in Dublin after being moved on from a controversial ‘tented village’ near the Mount Street office which deals with international protection applications.

Waterways Ireland said a further €95,170 had been spent on tent removal operations while €128,881 was paid for patrols.

These patrols began in September to try and avoid new encampments being set up along the banks of the canal after an earlier removal operation.

Tents along the waterway were a source of bitter controversy last year with asylum applicants regularly subject to vile abuse from far-right agitators.

The erection of long stretches of fencing also proved divisive with people saying it closed off access to the canal for pedestrians and tourists.

Waterways Ireland said they had been left in a difficult situation where their “over-riding concern” was always the health and safety of those camping.

A spokesperson said: “The canal is a wonderful amenity for responsible recreational use – it is not a safe place to sleep.”

A Revenue review of a glaring pension loophole found some businesses were transferring over €500,000 per year into funds for the owner, their spouse, their children, or parents.

An analysis of suspected misuse of the PRSA scheme found that in 2023, 125 companies had moved at least €100,000 into someone’s pension fund to benefit from generous tax relief.

The review found that seventeen of these cases involved payments of at least half a million euro and that the numbers involved appeared to be rising.

It said that in nearly 80 percent of the cases, the employee that benefitted was personally connected to the employer “i.e. owner or spouse, child, [or] parent.”

The Revenue review also found that for thirteen of the transfers, the person who benefitted had only taken up employment that year.

The review found some cases where the contribution to the pension fund exceeded €1.3 million in a twelve-month period.

It said: “The level of salary and service suggests that these contributions would have exceeded Revenue maximum funding limits had they been made to occupational pension schemes.”

The loophole on PRSAs – commonly used by people to save for their retirement – was closed in last year’s budget.

The review by the Revenue Commissioners also found that a small number of businesses were responsible for an outsized proportion of contributions.

It said: “Whereas the 125 cases in 2023 represent 0.3 percent of the total number of employments with employer PRSA contributions, the contributions paid in respect of these cases represents 20 percent of the overall amount of employer PRSA contributions.”

A deeper analysis of the 125 cases involving employer contributions of over €100,000 found that 61 percent went directly to the owner of the business.

A further 12 percent of cases involved spouses while children and parents accounted for a smaller proportion of the payments.

It said in cases involving payments of over €1 million, there was blatant evidence of “salary sacrifice” to maximise pension contributions and avoid tax.

A separate report on the scheme said this sort of “salary sacrifice arrangement” was prohibited under tax laws.

The Revenue analysis also found that there were no payments of this type prior to the introduction of the Finance Act of 2022.

That legislation had created the loophole where the pension top-ups avoided an income tax charge, which had in turn been seized on by some accountants and their clients.

Notes of one case, which was redacted, said: “This situation is clearly abusing the lack of limits on the tax relief applicable to employer contributions to PRSAs.”

A separate briefing note said it was clear that the loophole was “giving rise to what could be considered as behaviour that is over and above and contrary to the policy intention.”

It explained how employing family members was not unusual; however, some of the cases uncovered were highly questionable.

These included instances where a spouse or child was hired on a “relatively moderate salary” with multiples of their salary then being siphoned off into pension funds.

“Revenue’s concern is that there could be an increase in cases such as those above, whereby those with the means to do so utilise the provision as currently operating to gain favourable treatment for themselves or members of their families,” said the briefing.

Asked about the records, the Revenue Commissioners said they had nothing further to add to the contents.

https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/25479717-prsa-abuse/?embed=1

Right to Know has won a case over access to a dataset from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the location of waste crime sites across Ireland.

Under the AIE Regulations, our co-director Ashley Glover had sought a copy of the information which had been compiled by the Office of Environmental Enforcement of the EPA.

The EPA refused saying the information was incomplete, might disclose personal information, and that release was not in the public interest.

We argued that publication of this information should happen by default and that the location of environmental hazards was core to the Aarhus Convention.

In a submission, we added that such waste sites can contaminate household wells and pollute waterways and that adjoining properties had a right to know about such sites.

The EPA argued that the intent of the dataset was “not to categorically document” the extent of illegal dumps or waste sites around the country.

They claimed it had been gathered from local authorities to try and identify trends and that the information “was not validated.”

The EPA said it could involve disclosure of personal information in a scenario where the data is “incomplete, not validated, is inaccurate and cannot be stood over.”

They later argued that release of the information would “be irresponsible and would be misleading to the public.”

In a decision, the Commissioner for Environmental Information (CEI) said it was clear the data was ‘complete’ in the sense that the EPA had no further plans to change it or use it.

They could not argue it was unfinished even though the agency had indicated their wish was to delete it in the future.

On whether it was personal information, the CEI pointed out that some of the withheld data related to public amenity and commercial sites.

The decision acknowledged however that some of the data related to “personal information” such that it could be used to identity an individual.

The CEI Ger Deering wrote however: “I consider that the public interest in disclosure of information concerning the location of ‘unauthorised waste disposal activity’, or even ‘alleged’ activity, outweighs the interest in preserving the privacy of relevant data subjects.”

You can read the full decision at the following link.

The EPA still has until mid-February to consider whether to appeal the decision to the High Court.

Ireland’s generous corporate tax environment was the single biggest factor for multinationals in business here even as nearly three-quarters of companies struggled to find skilled staff.

A client survey by the IDA found the four biggest advantages for companies were corporation tax, the third-level education system, water supply and the flexibility of the workforce.

However, the housing crisis is proving a challenge with availability and costs listed as the most negative factors for doing business in Ireland.

Housing cost and availability were highlighted as two of four ‘red’ issues for firms along with the perceived high levels of personal tax and the planning process.

There were five factors ranked ‘pink’ in the IDA survey where satisfaction ratings were below 50 percent by companies.

These related to the cost and availability of commercial property, transport infrastructure, support in managing environmental impact, along with gas and power supply costs.

A review of the client survey said there were clear “decreases in satisfaction evident for energy costs and housing.”

However, it said firms remained uniform that the corporate tax environment was the single most attractive part of doing business here.

The summary added: “While strong overall satisfaction levels are again evident with the Irish education system, only 16 percent of clients are very satisfied that the system is producing graduates with the skill sets that their business in Ireland requires.”

It said the number of clients reporting difficulties in hiring talent was the highest it had ever been since their surveys began.

A summary said: “76 percent [of companies] report difficulties sourcing skills for their company in Ireland with engineering being the key area of difficulty.”

The 2022 client survey had been withheld by the IDA for close to a year and a half and was only released following an appeal under FOI laws to the Information Commissioner.

Asked about that delay and the findings in the research, a spokesman said they had no further comment to make.

A key case on access to environmental information from public service broadcaster RTÉ has been referred to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU).

Using the Access to Information on the Environment (AIE) Regulations, Right to Know had sought copies of any overarching guidance that issued to reporters on how to cover the climate crisis as well as feedback from members of the public on their coverage.

Although RTÉ said there was no guidance and released some of the feedback, they have disputed that they are a “public authority” for the purposes of environmental info requests.

They have argued it could compromise press freedom even though the records sought would have no impact whatsoever on journalistic work or research.

However, the case has raised a Europe-wide question over whether public service broadcasters across the European Union should have to deal with such requests.

As part of the case, RTÉ gathered information from other EU broadcasters showing some were open to requests and others believed they were not.

There was roughly a one third/two thirds split with 8 (and a half*) saying they were subject to AIE and 18 (and a half) arguing they were not.

However, public service broadcasting is radically different in member states in terms of how it is funded and operated.

The High Court has now ruled, quite sensibly in our view, that the case should be referred to the Court of Justice of the EU.

The introduction to the judgment by Justice Richard Humphreys sets up the core question of the case very well.

He wrote: “How should the law balance the right of access to environmental information, which is particularly important in relation to the problem of false balance in media coverage of the climate emergency, with the right of public broadcasters to exercise their press freedom?”

The judgment is lengthy but can be summarised in a few key questions (somewhat simplified for reasons of space):

• Is RTÉ a public authority for the purposes of requests made under the AIE Regulations?
• Does a public authority have a duty to create a new record when answering an AIE request?
• Is there a question over the procedures of the Commissioner for Environmental Information in dealing with requests in an expeditious manner?

Justice Humphreys concluded: “For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that: the identified questions be in principle referred to the CJEU.”

You can read the full judgment below.

* The reference to ‘half and half’ of a broadcaster is from Denmark where the entity Danish Broadcasting is treated as a public authority whereas the TV station TV2 is not.

Dublin Airport’s authority, the daa, has lost a case where it sought to withhold access to records over discussions on the use of private jets.

Using the AIE Regulations, Right to Know had sought copies of any representations received by the daa over proposals for ending business aviation flights at Dublin Airport.

In a decision, the daa refused access to seven records saying the records were confidential and that they related to the “course of justice.”

The decision is one of many where Dublin Airport’s management has sought to apply a blanket exclusion to all records relating to the controversial passenger cap at the airport.

In seeking review, we specifically asked the Commissioner for Environmental Information (CEI) to make a binding decision rather than send it back to the daa.

However, the CEI has given the daa another chance to make a proper decision, something we believe is being used by management of Dublin Airport in a tactical way to frustrate requests for environmental information.

Nonetheless, the decision does make clear the daa cannot withhold all records on the passenger cap.

The decision said: “I must remind daa that the fact that information may relate to ongoing legal or statutory proceedings does not, in and of itself, establish that its disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice; otherwise the AIE Regulations would provide for a class-based exemption for such information, which they do not.”

It also highlighted the very poor quality of the daa decision and the “distinct lack of reasons” provided for claiming the records were confidential.

The CEI was critical too of the application of a time extension by the daa in a case where just a small number of records were involved.

The investigator wrote: “[The daa] has not given an explanation as to why it considers this a complex request, and neither the original decision or internal review decision give any indication as to why this
would be the case.”

Sidenote: For almost all requests made to the daa, extensions are being sought no matter how much or little information is involved.

You can read the full decision below:

The Standards Commission (SIPO) pleaded with government not to be put in charge of proceedings where ex-ministers, special advisers or other public servants did not stick to rules around a “cooling off” period before becoming a paid lobbyist.

In correspondence with the Department of Public Expenditure, SIPO said plans to leave enforcement up to them instead of the courts were “completely unworkable.”

They warned that there was a “high litigation risk” and that offences related to cooling-off periods would be better dealt with through the court system.

The Department of Public Expenditure rejected this approach however, saying that dealing with it as a criminal matter could have a “chilling effect.”

Records show how SIPO told the government that plans for amended legislation on the regulation of lobbying were fraught with difficulty.

They said they were already struggling with a lack of resources and adding to their work would “heighten the risk of under-resourcing, and of error, in relation to [their] portfolio as a whole.”

SIPO also argued there was little reason to keep the process outside of the legal system as each case was likely to be appealed anyway.

An email from the Director General of their office Elaine Cassidy in March 2022 said: “Given the financial and reputational impact on the individual, one might anticipate an appeal to the Circuit Court on almost every occasion.

“This would result in the Commission engaging in a legal procedure, with processes and safeguards aimed at ensuring procedural fairness in order to be defensible, only to defend a full re-hearing of the same issue before the Circuit Court.”

Ms Cassidy said that while she hoped SIPO would be able to defend any appeal, some losses were “almost inevitable.”

“[This] would have both a reputational and financial impact on the Commission,” she wrote.

Asked about the records, which were only released following an FOI appeal to the Information Commissioner, SIPO said they had nothing further to add.

You can read the decision in the case at this link.

RTÉ has lost an FOI case where it sought to withhold details of spending on wardrobe and clothing.

In refusing access to the information, the public service broadcaster said the material was exempt under a carve-out in the FOI Act that protects editorial decision-making.

They claimed decisions over clothing were “a strong visual indicator of tone and character” in their work.

RTÉ said wardrobe, including “potential style and colour choices for programmes, presenters, politicians etc” was an important part of the editorial planning of a programme.

In a decision, the Information Commissioner said that if RTÉ’s arguments over expenditure were correct, it “would be very difficult to identify any information relating to” their finances that was not exempt under the FOI Act.

The investigator wrote: “The records at issue are not concerned with such [editorial] processes. They are simply records of financial transactions in respect of wardrobe.”

RTÉ also tried to claim that some of the information was personal as it could identify individual members of staff for whom clothing was bought.

The Information Commissioner also rejected that argument.

“It seems to me that the purchase of particular items is essentially linked to the particular programme or the role of the correspondent and is not concerned with the personal circumstances of any individuals,” the decision said.

“I certainly do not accept that details of amounts paid by RTÉ on unspecified wardrobe items comprises information relating to the employment or employment history of the individuals who may use those items.”