Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)

Given the ticking clock and the limited time we have to deal with these matters I will try to keep my comments very brief.

I enjoyed the final statement from the previous speaker and I wish her well in whatever course of action she takes in the future, as I do all retiring Deputies after the dissolution of the Dáil in the coming days.

Perhaps the Minister of State can shine some light on aspects of section 60. It is obviously very technical and refers to previous sections of enacted Bills.

I welcome the section dealing with first-time buyers with regard to those who are incapacitated in terms of a dwelling house or part of such a house. That is welcome.

I have a question on the abolition of the relief for the transfer of a site from a parent to son or daughter. Will the Minister of State provide information on the cost of that relief in the first instance? We all know how the Irish people have an affinity with the land, arising from the history of landlordism and evictions of the past. We are talking about a modest transfer within a family to a son or daughter, with the State taking money as part of that land transfer. The value of the pieces of land in rural Ireland would not be excessive and I am not referring to those who are trying to abuse the system, as we have seen with bankers who transfer property to spouses in order to evade the grip of NAMA. We are talking about genuine people who have worked hard for the wee piece of land with two or three family members and where there was always an intention to pass the land on in order for sons or daughters to build properties.

Perhaps it is not the case that they will come under the revision and there will still be an exemption but will the Minister of State clarify the issue? I am not sure if it is a practical step and I do not see the value or benefit. I am open to suggestion from the Minister.

One of the big problems with the section is that when the Minister of State dealt with section 60, he spoke about the revision and simplification of the stamp duty mechanism. He spoke about the abolition of reliefs and those who wish to live alone and take advantage of the exemption relating to first-time buyers. Parents or a trust would buy the house on the behalf of these people and although they would not previously have been classed as first-time buyers, they will now be classed as such as the act is on behalf of another person. I disagree with the assertion that this will stimulate the property market and commence the necessary infrastructure for the commitment in the national recovery plan for a site value tax. I am fundamentally opposed to the intention behind this.

The details and effect of the measure with regard to taxation is separate. This is being used to bring in a property charge, which is the fundamental problem for me and my party. I outlined in my Second Stage contribution how indirect taxation is relied on heavily by the State, with 42% of taxes collected in 2008 in the form of indirect taxation. This is another form of such taxation, which as we all know is not progressive. Although a property tax may be somewhat progressive, it does not deal with ability to pay because it should be income-linked in the first instance. The best way to ask those who have the ability to pay to give their fair share is through direct taxation, so there is a fundamental opposition to the intention behind this section.

As the Minister indicated, this commences the necessary infrastructure for the commitment in the national recovery plan for a site value tax. This plan should be abandoned. As I mentioned in discussing the transfer of land from father to son or mother to daughter, the relief will be extinguished. We are missing a paragraph in this legislation which would deal with the scandal that was the transfer of assets from those who have liabilities to this State through the banks and NAMA and who are transferring assets willy-nilly to spouses.

This takes me back to the priorities of the Minister for Finance and his officials - although I do not blame the officials - in the construction of the Finance Bill. Why is there no amendment dealing with banking bonuses two months after the publication of the budget? I mentioned on Second Stage that the Finance Bill is very technical. It is very difficult for a new Deputy who is not a chartered accountant and who does not have an economics degree to deal with it. If I were Minister for Finance I would have told officials to include the amendment dealing with bank bonuses at an early stage. If we had to wait for a finance (No. 2) Bill in order to introduce a charge on those earning as little as €80 per week in the guise of the universal social charge, so be it.

The same logic would apply to stamp duty, an area in which those with liabilities are transferring assets in a fashion that appears completely legal now. That is the information I have been led to believe. There is no taxation measure to get to grips with what is in my view a morally wrong and corrupt practice. It is our responsibility as legislators to address such issues in every finance Bill. When we see people using tax avoidance measures we must close the loopholes immediately. Such loopholes may be legal because they have not been identified or were purposefully left in previous Bills. This section of the Bill could deal with the transfer of assets.

The Minister has indicated that a 90% rate of tax on bank bonuses will be applied and in a similar fashion we could consider a stamp duty or transfer rate on assets flowing from one spouse to another if we know the process is to avoid liabilities to NAMA, for example. It is pity the Bill is not being used in such fashion. I seek clarification on the first issue I raised.

See this speech in context