Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

My colleagues have voiced many valid criticisms of this Bill which I believe has been prepared with undue haste. It is being guillotined in circumstances which are highly inappropriate and which is laying the foundation for attacks on which I expect the Government to further build in the next budget. This Bill is simply providing a structure that will result in a major property tax imposition throughout the length and breadth of this country. The Government is introducing this by way of stealth to ensure the structure is in place when we get to the budget next November or December.

The Bill is riddled with anomalies that result from its poor drafting and failure to address the different circumstances that can arise and for which special provision should be made. A classic example of an anomaly in the Bill which has the potential for very odd consequences is set out in the definition section of the Bill. The Bill defines the word "buildings"as:

(i) part of a building,

(ii) a structure or erection of any kind and of any

materials, or any part of that structure or erection,

I am not quite sure why it is that we have the definition of a building, an essential definition with regard to residential property in later sections of the Bill, which includes a reference to an erection of any kind or part of an erection. I have been checking this out in the Oxford Compact Dictionary which defines the word "structure" in a variety of ways:

noun 1 the arrangement of and relations between the parts of something complex. 2 a building or other object constructed from several parts. 3 the quality of being well organised.

Essentially what is intended here is a building or other object constructed from several parts.

The definition of "erection" is a building or other upright structure. It seems to me one either refers to a structure or an erection and the only difference between the two in the Oxford Compact Dictionary is that an erection is also described with regard to a certain physiological impact on the male species of certain events. I do not know what the Minister is at and I think it is deplorable he is not in the House to listen to the debate on this Bill. It is quite extraordinary, in a Bill which is seeking to impose a €200 charge, that apparently there is a need to make reference to an erection or part of an erection. What mindset produced that type of drafting? What is the reason for it? Is there some stealth impact intended by this tax, with a short amendment to this Bill at a later stage if not this evening, or some further amending piece of legislation? Is there some sort of activity that the Minister has in mind on he wishes to impose a €200 charge? I do not know.

This is a serious Bill but in a serious Bill it is an example of bad drafting. I know this type of phraseology has been used in conveyancing circumstances - and the Ceann Comhairle, as a former solicitor, will be aware of this - to deal with certain building issues that can arise but why in the name of God are we referring here to structures or erections? I simply do not understand it. This could only be a Bill that is rushed out by a Minister who has completely lost all sense of proportion that it would be so poorly and badly drafted and contain a reference of a nature that I think would surprise many people outside this House.

If there is this sort of difficulty with this Bill, there are other hidden flaws in the Bill that need to be addressed. Clearly the erection reference should be deleted. I think the Minister should explain how such an nonsensical provision could be included in a Bill sponsored by his Department and supported by the Government. The very fact that it includes this definition should ring the alarm bells to indicate there are other flaws in this legislation, that it should not be guillotined through this House and that there are other more serious issues that need to be addressed and amendments included to cover, for example, the issue of granny flats, about which there has been so much discussion so far.

See this speech in context