Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will be sharing time with Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Joan Collins and Clare Daly. We would much rather more time but the guillotine is being imposed to allow the Revenue Commissioners to send out tens of thousands of letters to people, most of whom are already prepared for it.

The reason there is no vote today is because the Government does not want to debate the Bill. It is providing time for what it believes to be a necessary evil, otherwise known as the Opposition. At the same time, most of those in the bloated Government are heading out to do constituency clinics and attend local events. As of now, only three slots are to be filled by members of the Government and that says it all. It appears to be a rather cynical exercise to try to conclude before 3.30 p.m. The matter of constituency clinics, to which I adverted, represents the same parish pump politics charge that is singled out for those of us who are Independents. However, we can see that it is clearly taking place on the Government side.

The Bill is intended to amend a Bill that was only enacted before Christmas. This shows that the process was a failure. The prior Bill was shoe-horned into December to have it passed before Christmas for one reason only: to get the backbenchers home for Christmas and ensure that they could not be got to during the Christmas recess. That is an abuse of process.

Another abuse of process was the general election, when people clearly believed they were given another option in Fine Gael. That party stated in its manifesto that it did not intend to do this. Apart from resistance to the tax on the family home, which does not, of itself, produce any wealth, my key concerns with this tax include ability to pay, fairness and what the tax is to be used for. I believe the tax fails at all levels. The Fine Gael manifesto acknowledged all three of these concerns, highlighting people who were asset rich and income poor, including pensioners. The document highlighted the negative equity generation, which has paid vast amounts of stamp duty. Many of those people only own a debt at this stage. The document highlighted the need to reform local government and remove wastage. All of this is set out in the Fine Gael manifesto.

What are we being asked to pay for? The motor tax fund from 1997 was ring-fenced and used as a key component of the local government fund. We now have a shortfall in the local government fund. Why? The reason is that between 2009 and 2013 some €543 million has been withdrawn from the fund. The property tax is expected to take in at best €500 million. That knocks on the head any chance of any additional services being provided.

When opening the debate on the Motor Vehicles (Duties and Licences) Bill 2013, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government suggested that in 2012 some €46.5 million of motor tax income was transferred from the local government fund to the Exchequer and that this year an amount of up to €150 million would be similarly transferred. He further suggested these were necessary measures towards the reduction of the national debt. Let us be clear: this Bill is not about a property tax. That is the label put on the measure but in fact it is a tax for funding the national debt. Giving the impression that the tax will provide extra services, including parks maintenance, leisure services and street cleaning, is simply nonsense.

Other countries impose property taxes. I have friends and family members who live in other countries. I discussed with a friend who lives in France how property taxes are levied in that country. He told me that the imposition is worth it for the return it offers. It funds summer events for his children, child and elderly care, a local police service, ongoing urban improvements and leisure facilities and services. This Government is quick to point to other countries but the services I have just described are either not provided in this country or people pay for them separately. It is fair to ask what people will receive in return for this tax.

One reason the tax will be hated is because it is being used to fund the national debt. No developed country that is serious about proper local government should impose a tax in this way. Local representatives should vote for local taxation measures and the money should stay in the locality. We have it backwards. The current system of distributing the local government fund is already wildly unfair but the Minister is determined to retain 35% of the property tax as an equalisation fund to be distributed as he sees fit.

The historical development of local government in this country was based on control and centralisation. It is a reflection of the 19th century. If we were to build the best attributes of Irish people into the local government system we would end up with a different type of politics. However, reforms have been piecemeal and timid at best.

I will have to leave out a lot of what I wanted to say because of time, which I fear is not going to be available later because the Government is not filling slots. I have tabled a number of amendments on the issue of pyrite. The Minister would not buy a house in an estate in which pyrite was proven to exist. Such houses should be excluded from this tax on the same basis as unfinished estates. It is nonsense that householders will be required to pay €1,000 to prove they have a pyrite problem in order to secure reductions of €300 or €400. In regard to people with disabilities, I do not think he realises that the fund is operated differently in the various local authority areas. Some means test for it and others do not. An individual in County Kildare who is bed ridden will not get a grant if somebody is looking after him or her in the house. It is nonsense to include this type of proviso. These details should have been teased out so we could see the differences among local authorities. I would have liked to make some positive suggestions on how we might reform local authorities but I will leave my remarks for another day because I do not want to use my colleagues' time.

See this speech in context