Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has said that the effect of what I have suggested in terms of the windfall tax being removed for a specified period would be to shoe horn transactions into a particular period of time but that is exactly what we want. That should be the stated objective of Government. We want this land to be released for development purposes. If the period in question is two years, that allows for this to happen in that period. There is a shortage of development land around our capital city.

We have a crisis in Dublin. One of the reasons for the reduction from 80% is to allow this land to come on to the market. The idea of creating a window is to encourage people to do it within a particular period. It does not mean to say no land would be sold afterwards because it could be extended if the Minister of State so wished.

Earlier, we dealt with a measure in section 20 on DIRT tax, which has been placed in a window; people must buy a house within a two year period for exactly the same reason, which is we want to facilitate people to purchase a house at this point in time. For this reason, a rebate from DIRT has been introduced with regard to savings for a four-year period. I heard what the Minister of State said on incentivising land use, which is fine. It could be the case that after the two year period it would not be realistic to return to 80% because no land whatsoever had been transferred. One does not want to put a block on it. However getting rid of it, which is very much an incentive for people to release land, and then increasing it to an appropriate level, or returning it to 80% and re-examining it at that stage, would signal to people they must use it or lose it. This has been used by the Department of Finance over and over, such as with regard to the seven year rule for buyers which runs out this year, which was a window to get people involved in the market. We should desire that land be released at this point in time for development purposes in the greater Dublin area and other areas. The reduction in the rate should only apply for a period of time.

There is a secondary issue with regard to being an anti-corruption measure, but its stated intention is to have the effect of people releasing land, which is what I would like to see. There is no point in getting rid of this windfall tax if people sit on land for two, three or four years as property prices increase. If I were sitting on a piece of land which had been rezoned from agriculture to prime development and had to pay an 80% tax I would not sell it as I would not receive much benefit from doing so. The Government is now stating it will get rid of this tax completely. However, if I read any of the analysis I would know land prices are increasing and there is a chronic housing crisis in Dublin, so why would I release the land at this point in time? There is no incentive for me to do so.

I genuinely suggest the Government examines the possibility of this on Report Stage. It would not tie its hands because the year before it was due to finish the Government could decide to extend it, reduce the rate or abolish it. The Minister for Finance has been quite clear since he took office that when we deal with financial measures it is not only with regard to raising or reducing tax and expenditure but trying to impact on the decisions people will make to affect other policies. The reason we included this measure in our alternative budget was to encourage people to release land at this point in time. The Minister of State has gone down this direction, but only half way. The time part has been left out and I genuinely encourage him to include it. The housing crisis has many components, but we need to get over this hurdle. Including a time limit would create an incentive to release this land at this point in time.