Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 162:

In page 142, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:"Report on income tax relief

60.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on an income tax relief equivalent in value to one month's rent of an individual available to all renters not already in receipt of any State subsidy examining the social and economic impact of this measure in the context of historically high levels of rent for Irish citizens.".

This amendment deals with the need to introduce rent relief equivalent in value to one month's rent of an individual to all renters not already in receipt of any State subsidy and also looks for a report to examine the social and economic impact of this measure in the context of historically high levels of rent of Irish citizens. The issues are well ventilated. Rents have increased by 22% since 2016. Rents have increased by 7.8% in the past 12 months in Dublin, despite the rent pressure zones of 4%. The average rents in the State are €1,060 and in Dublin, they are €1,527. Student rents are out of control and there is major pressure on these individuals in terms of having money at the end of the week to meet their needs.

The Minister will be aware rent relief was introduced in the State a number of decades ago by a previous Minister for Finance. The interesting proposal at the time - neither of us were around - focused on pressures on the elderly in meeting rent payments. It was designed with different tiers, but particularly with higher thresholds for the elderly. I merely make the point that rent relief was a factor of the taxation code up until the crisis in 2011 when the late Deputy Brian Lenihan, as Minister, removed it through the Finance Act.

This would have an immediate impact. For example, for somebody who is paying the average rent across the State of €1,060, the benefit would be €1,060. Those living in areas with lower rent pressures would receive relief of one month's rent. My party argues that this should be brought in over a three-year period.

Obviously, a rent relief such as this without a rent freeze would be foolish because all that would happen is the rent relief would be sucked up in an increase in rent. This would have to go hand in glove with a rent freeze which, I believe, is required. Yesterday, the Minister answered a question from one of our colleagues on whether rents are too high. They are too high but the law allows them to continue to go higher. What we need is for them to go in the other direction. The least we should do is ensure that they are frozen. Alongside those two measures, we would need to see an increase in planned capacity from State investment.

I believe this measure is warranted. It would cost €250 million over a three-year period.

Let me mention the discussion on intangible assets that we had last night. We dealt with that and it is disposed of. The Minister is not amenable to accepting that amendment and implementing the policy of Mr. Seamus Coffey but if he was, even the revenue that would be generated in one year from that proposal could fund this for the next three years at which point it should be phased out.

I have made my point. I would imagine that the Minister is not amenable to it but it is worthy of consideration.