John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I thank Deputy Hogan although I cannot accept his amendment. The definitions in the Bill are relevant to this amendment. The policy parameters of the Bill arise, as well as considerations of equity and fairness.

Let us consider the definitions of "building" and "dwelling" in section 1 and "residential property" in section 2. These are the building blocks that define the scope of the Bill. Section 1 provides that the definition of a building includes part of a building so that the argument cannot be made that an apartment block within which multiple living units are contained is simply one building and liable to only one charge. In the case of the definition of "dwelling" in section 1, it is clear that it includes a separate dwelling, whether other facilities in common areas are shared. This concept of a separate dwelling is reinforced in the definition of "residential property" in section 2, where it is made clear that maisonettes, flats, apartments and bedsits constitute residential property. Section 3(1) and 3(2) apply the charge to residential property. It is clear that each separate dwelling incurs a charge unless its owner is exempt. This is as it should be.

The Bill does not rely on a valuation component but we all know that many apartments are worth more than many houses. Furthermore, many apartments generate more rent for their owners than do houses. There are examples of multiple apartments owned by a single person. I cannot accept that the owner of multiple apartments in a substantial apartment block should have his or her liability restricted to €600 or to any figure other than the multiple of €200 the number of separate residential properties gives rise to. I cannot see how a restriction of the kind proposed in the amendment could be regarded as progressive or fair. The impact of the amendment is to reduce the average cost or charge per dwelling, incrementally, in proportion to the number of dwellings the person owns. The more one owns, the less one pays. This is unreasonable, unfair, not progressive and unsuitable for the Bill before us. For these reasons I ask Deputy Hogan to consider withdrawing the amendment.

See this speech in context