Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am glad the Minister has considered an increase in the tax in accordance with the length of time the property is vacant. The fact the rate has increased before the returns were even due is an acknowledgement that last year's decision was a mistake. That is just the reality of it. It was not a case of let us see how this is working in operation because it is not in operation. Tuesday was the deadline for returns and the liability date is not until next year. A mistake was made last year. We now have a different Minister for Finance and I welcome that he has taken a different approach on this matter.

However, that is not the core issue. I do not accept that Revenue cannot deal with a simple increase in the charge from 5% to 6% to 7% for those on the second year of reporting vacancy. The non-principal private residence charge is a case in point. It was passed from local authorities to Revenue, with significant late payment fines. They went up in increments of thousands of euro. That was for late payment of the non-principal private residence charge. We have talked before about what Revenue did during the pandemic. It is an institution that is well regarded and feared because it is extremely capable in what it does. We saw how it was able to design new systems nearly overnight to support businesses and families during a time of immense crisis for people's pockets.

Will the Minister reconsider this matter? It is one thing sending out a signal. Some people will act. A charge of six times the local property tax, which is the effect of this provision, is significant for some people but not for others. For owners of vacant houses in my community, the value of the property probably will fall into the lowest bracket, which is €90 or €100 depending on the local authority decision. We are talking about €540. It is not significant for some people. There must be a clear signal, not this time next year but now. The law is the law and it provides for a charge of five times the local property tax. It should be made clear that the consequences are going to get worse. I do not want to hark back to the carbon tax but that provision was set out clearly in law. For right or wrong, and I do not want to reopen that debate, those who advocated for the charge took the position that it should be specified out to 2030 what the increases would look like. People were clearly told they would need to move from A to B. That is not being done with the local property tax or with vacancy. In some cases, vacant properties are not being used at all. There will be genuine cases involving holiday homes and so on that will be captured by this, which is a different matter. I really encourage the Minister to look again at the increase.