Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I would like to pick up on the issue raised by Deputy O'Donnell. I am sure the Minister agrees that difficulties will exist regardless of the deadline one sets in this regard. Deputy O'Donnell made the point that there is a fundamental difference between 1% and 4%. It could be worth many thousands of euro to young couples who are finding it difficult to get 10% from the banks to furnish their homes. It could ultimately make a huge difference. There is some merit in the idea that the Minister should consider the matter. I suspect the number of people affected by this measure is not huge. Perhaps the Revenue Commissioners have given the Minister some indication of the total number involved. It is a small group of people. A fair change, if not a substantial one, is required.

Section 60 provides for transitional arrangements whereby purchasers who entered into binding contracts before budget day, and execute the relevant instrument before 1 July 2011, will not have to pay an increased amount of stamp duty. Some degree of fairness is built into the system and will last six months. If one draws down one's contract within six months of the date of budget day, one will pay the lesser amount. I assume that is the 1% rate. I can understand that. Can the Minister explain the rationale for the six-month timeframe that has been provided for after budget day? Why was a 12-month timeframe not provided for? We are not talking in every case about people who will initiate the relevant instrument within six months. It will depend on conveyancing and agreements between purchasers and vendors, for example. What is the rationale for the six-month period that applies to the transitional arrangement? Is it based on the fact that such a period applied when stamp duty changes were made in the past?

We are discussing the general issue of Part 4, which relates to stamp duty, but I would like to refer specifically to section 60. There is considerable anger in society, particularly among those in their late 20s, 30s and early 40s who paid substantial amounts of stamp duty over the last ten years. In many cases, they had to borrow between €40,000 and €60,000 to meet their stamp duty requirements. They have been lumbered with significant debts. They may be among the 350,000 people in negative equity, to whom we often refer. Ultimately, some form of release will be needed to resolve the difficulties of those who are paying enormous mortgages and are hugely in debt. As a society, we have a responsibility to develop some means of releasing them from their debt. A societal benefit would be associated with establishing such a means. In the absence of such a mechanism, many people will be unable to spend, consume and contribute to society as we may wish. I do not under-estimate the depth of the anger that exists across society, including parts of my constituency, about the sizable amounts of stamp duty people had to pay over the last decade or so.

I remind the House that not a million years ago, the then leader of a certain party lectured us that we did not need the revenue that was being generated from stamp duty. That says a great deal about the political judgment of the former Deputy, who represented the constituency of Dublin South-East when he was proposing these radical changes in the stamp duty regime. It goes to the heart of the collapse in the Irish economy that such a large amount of the tax that was raised each year in our society depended on stamp duty. It was completely unsustainable to rely on such a transaction tax. It was out of character with European norms. This society and this economy has to rectify that. I ask the Minister to examine the transitional arrangements in section 60. Can he give some indication of the number of people involved? I suspect it is quite small. Can he deal with Deputy O'Donnell's point before he initiates his amendment for the purposes of Report Stage?

See this speech in context