Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)

Previously, I was discussing the manner in which the Bill has been managed to date and the need for clarity. I seek clarity in this Second Stage debate regarding the real intention behind the measure that has been introduced by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. However, I also seek specific clarity on a particular matter. During the last Question Time in which questions were directed to the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, I asked him what was the position in respect of development levies held on account at present by local authorities. At the end of 2007, a total of €1.5 billion was held on account.

This sum entered the public domain on foot of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General that showed that €1.5 billion was held on account by local authorities nationwide. I asked what was the position in respect of this money because at the outset of this year, a circular from the Department was issued stating that all existing moneys held on account by local authorities was now to be ring-fenced and only spent when measured against income for 2009. Therefore, a local authority can only spend €1 million or €2 million in development levies, if it is in receipt of a similar income this year. This is the elephant in the room. This Bill provides for a €200 charge on second dwellings that has the potential to raise perhaps €40 million. Moreover, that is before one considers potential difficulties in respect of administering this scheme or in collecting moneys in County Donegal and Border regions in which the owners of such properties may live in Northern Ireland. The question will arise as to how one can get the money from them or whether it is legally possible to so do.

However, even if two thirds of the aforementioned funds have been spent since the start of 2008, it would mean that €500 million remains held on account nationally. I refer to moneys to which developers, builders and home owners contributed under the development levy to have specific critical infrastructural and recreational works carried out in their communities. Will such work be done or not? If such work is not to be carried out, I question the legality of people handing over a tax for specific works to be done in their communities while, simultaneously, the Minister issued a directive to the local authorities to the effect that this money cannot be spent. Will developers ask the Department to give them their money back? This money was collected for a specific reason and will not be spent for the foreseeable future.

The Minister's circular letter, FIN 03/2009, issued in February 2009, indicates no timeline in this regard. Consequently, the development levy moneys that local authorities have on account will remain frozen for the foreseeable future. At the conclusion of the Second Stage debate, the Minister should provide some further clarification in this regard. His response in the House that day, when I believe the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair, appears to contradict the evidence given to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the previous day by the County and City Managers' Association. Its representatives were categorically clear that development levies that are held on account at present or up until 31 December 2008 can only be spent against moneys accrued in 2009. That is a substantial sum of money. It puts the sum of money we are talking about this afternoon in the ha'penny place. It is something on which local authorities must be given a clear answer. This is particularly true for people who are living in developments that were built in recent years when development levies were accrued and who are awaiting completion of vital infrastructural and recreation projects.

In the course of the debate on Committee, Report and Final Stages, the Labour Party will table amendments. One relates to an amendment tabled during the debate in the Seanad. I read with concern the Minister's response to the Labour Party amendment on that day in which he said there was no legal standing for the amendment to recognise separated couples in a specific context. My legal advice is that the Minister is operating illegally. During the course of debate on Committee and Report Stages I hope the Minister receives legal advice rather than talking on the hoof, as appears to have been the case in the Seanad. He might then come to the legal position of the Labour Party amendment, which is correct, so that he accepts there are different categories of separation in law.

The Labour Party will table amendments on the second home charge in respect of properties with an architectural or heritage value that are in a transitional stage, where the property owner may wish to hand it over to a national heritage trust, the Office of Public Works or another national agency and where the owner may be exposed to this charge over the transfer period. Unlike a development levy, which is paid over a period of time and index-linked, the cumulative cost of not paying the charge over a four year period runs into a significant sum. It increase from €200 to €4,000 over four years as a penalty. This is critical.

There was much confusion when this Bill was introduced. "Liveline" acted as a referee between callers and the Department to clarify what was happening. There was a massive U-turn on mobile homes and this reflects the cloudy thinking of the Minister on this issue. This is a consistent theme with the Green Party. We saw this on the Nuclear Test Ban Bill, part of a UN protocol to which Ireland is a signatory. The bizarre situation was that the legislation provided that someone caught detonating a nuclear device in the State would be fined €5,000. I do not know who would be around afterwards to issue the fine or collect it after a nuclear bomb exploded. This was poorly drafted legislation.

Another example is the motor vehicle registration tax. There is a difference between a good idea and good governance. The vehicle registration tax makes sense but should have been introduced on 1 January of any given year. The Minister introduced it in the middle of the calendar year. The dogs in the street know that the state of the motor industry is determined by cars being bought at the start of the year. The second hand car market is also dependent on turnover at this time. Since moving to the yearly registration system of 07, 08 and 09, this has become a critical factor in the industry. The registration immediately indicates the year of the car's manufacture. Introducing a new tax regime in the middle of the year created a situation in which cars were not sold in the period, particularly in the case of diesel cars, because people were witnessing a significant drop in taxation. It was June or July when this measure was introduced and car sales started to drop. Other factors have had serious implications for the motor vehicle trade but this was the entry point at which the motor vehicle trade was in danger because of bad sequencing and timing by the Minister and his Department.

Whether this is a tax or a charge and whether it is indirect or direct, all payments by citizens to local or national government should be paid in equity and fairness. There are concerns about how equitable or fair this measure will be. There are fears that because this legislation is being rushed, Opposition spokespersons are not begin given enough time to examine what the Government hopes to achieve, given the number of U-turns the Minister and his Department have made to date.

See this speech in context