Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It would help if there were no question of a sword hanging over one.

For people who want to do the valuation themselves the issue seems to be more location than valuation. As a result these anomalies will be widespread. People will say that if it is fair and equitable they should respond positively and correct the State's finances just as they did when the first household charge came in. People in one area will pay more because of the location although the house and overheads are the same as those in another area which has a lower valuation. To my way of thinking a house is a house. Those who have the most should pay the most. The exemptions in the Bill are too limited. Even the idea of certified insolvency where there is a mortgage involved is restrictive. We even heard this from the other side of the House. Many people who are insolvent will not want to go down that road. They will want to hold onto their property whatever else happens. That is not a major exemption. The one for charities is welcome and well-thought out, and was needed but it is still very limited. What about the people who cannot pay? All the statistics available show that there are many people who have no money left at the end of a week or a month after paying for the necessities. Deferral is like borrowing another mortgage that one cannot pay. We should add to the exemptions. Senator Quinn has put forward some ideas. They should be even broader than his ideas. We are still working against the protest mentality that has existed since the first household charge. People should pay what they have to pay. We would do a better job if it was very clear that it is not punitive to the point that it might be deducted at source in some cases from people who may be on a limited sum and unable to pay. That is a bit penal and sends out the wrong message. It does not make it easy to implement this tax.

Although we have advanced the legislation I would like the Minister of State to consider the question of valuation again. He might consider broadening the exemptions because there is scope to do that without undermining the basic work he has to do. Even if the overall valuation is not implemented in the first year, basing it on location is not necessarily the right way to go. I would not like to see people who are not in a position to pay, who are already suffering, frustrated and angry come under any extra pressure. I do not wish to be alarmist but there is a very high suicide rate in this country. I know of several cases, not to do with this tax, of suicides directly connected with financial issues. Some of them were very sad and very worrying. Let us make sure we do not create an environment that drives people over the cliff. I do not think the Minister or the Government want that. There is a time for a bipartisan approach and this is one occasion when we could work on the anomalies and inequity and fine tune this tax even though it will never be popular.