John Gormley (Dublin South East, Green Party)

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsections:

"(5) If, on a liability date, an individual who is the owner of a residential property—

(a) is incapacitated by reason of long term mental or physical infirmity, and

(b) had been obliged, at a time prior to that date, due to the said mental or

physical infirmity, to vacate the said property, which had been,

immediately preceding that time, his or her sole or main residence, and

(c) is normally resident in a place of which he or she is not the owner,

then he or she shall not be liable to pay a charge in respect of that property in

relation to that liability date.

(6) (a) If, on a liability date, a residential property is occupied, free of rent, as

his or her sole or main residence by an individual who is a relative of the

owner of the property, and the owner resides in another property as his or

her sole or main residence, then the owner shall not be liable to pay a

charge in respect of the first-mentioned property in relation to that

liability date, provided that the first-mentioned property and the sole or

main residence of the owner are located—

(i) on the same property, or

(ii) within 2 kilometres of each other.

(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a), "relative" includes—

(i) a relation of the spouse or partner of the owner,

(ii) a person in respect of whom the owner is the legal guardian, and

(iii) a person who is a ward of court in respect of whom the owner is the

committee.".

The amendment inserts two new subsections into section 4 of the Bill. Subsection (5) caters for a situation where a person who owns a principle private residence vacates the dwelling in question because he or she is long-term incapacitated as a result of physical or mental illness. Although the dwelling in question would no longer be used by the person concerned as a principle private residence, a liability to pay the charge could arise. I accept there is an issue here in regard to whether it would be reasonable in these circumstances for the person concerned to incur this liability, notwithstanding the fact the charge is set at a very modest level. I am, therefore, tabling this amendment before the House.

The amendment provides that a number of criteria must be satisfied for the exemption to have effect. In the first instance, the incapacity must be long-term and due to mental or physical illness. Typically, I would expect the incapacity to be brought about by infirmity due to old age or perhaps a form of senile dementia, but other forms of illness could also result in incapacitation. Either way the essential point is that the person concerned is incapable of independent living at the time and in future.

The residence vacated must be the person's principal residence and if the person does not own the residence in which he or she lives, no charge would arise in any case. If the dwelling vacated prior to entering long-term care were not the person's principal residence, it is difficult to see why an exemption should be granted in respect of that property because, presumably, it would have been put to some form of economic use. The person concerned must not own the property in which he or she will reside in future. In such a case the person would be the owner of at least two properties and an exemption from a modest charge of €200 would not seem to be required in respect of the property vacated.

Clearly a person who is incapacitated due to long-term illness will require long-term care and this is often, but not always, secured through a nursing home or care centre. In such cases, the Revenue Commissioners will permit the person's income to be offset against the cost of residing in the nursing home or care centre. It is often the case that the property which was the person's principal private residence is let out to defray in part the costs of long-term residential care. In bringing forward this amendment I am disinclined to require the person in care to pay the charge in these circumstances. Sometimes the person incapacitated goes to live with or is looked after by someone else, normally a relative. In these circumstances, I am also disinclined to provide that a charge should be paid on what used to be the incapacitated person's principal private residence. The relative who has taken the incapacitated person under his or her care has probably relieved the State, at least partially, of the cost that otherwise would have been associated with institutional care of one kind or another. I am not inclined to impose a charge in these circumstances even if the dwelling concerned is rented out. In this respect the amendment I propose goes further than that tabled by Deputy Hogan, which referred specifically to a nursing home.

I refer to subsection (6) of the amendment which addresses the issue of what are sometimes referred to as granny flats. In general the Local Government (Charges) Bill does not apply the €200 charge to dwellings that are not separate dwellings. A granny flat that constitutes an integral part of the residence in question will not be liable for any charge, assuming the overall building of which it is part is a principal private residence. Nor will a granny flat be liable for a charge where it is owned by the person or persons who reside there if it is their principal private residence.

The question at issue, therefore, relates only to instances in which a granny flat constitutes a separate dwelling and is owned by someone other than the resident. The amendment is designed to cater for a person who owns the primary residential property of which the granny flat forms a part or is otherwise associated with. I accept a valid case has been made for exempting such properties from the charge. Such accommodation is usually provided by sons and daughters to enable them to look after their parents and in circumstances in which the parents, understandably, wish to retain a measure of independent living for as long as possible. However, it is very much secondary to the consideration to which I referred earlier. In addition, the costs to the State are likely to be a good deal less in cases in which people are being cared for by relatives rather than in long-term care.

I have dealt with the issues and although there is a good deal more I could say I will allow other Deputies speak.

See this speech in context