Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. Just before addressing a core point on the Finance Bill, I will respond to a point made by my colleague, Deputy Ross. As someone who worked in a multinational company myself, I acknowledge Deputy Ross is well aware of the sector's importance.

Yesterday, Facebook announced it would create another 100 jobs in the country. I also remind the Deputy that our balance of payments surplus is one of the best in Europe, despite the fact we are in such difficulty. Our share of multinational business is two to three times what it should be relative to our size and we attract more multinational investment than some of the largest European countries. An analysis that says we are not attracting enough such investment flies in the face of the fact that many of the world's largest companies are investing a significant amount in our economy. I understand the American Chamber of Commerce Ireland published a video yesterday entitled, "13 Reasons Why? FDI". Our country is doing exceptionally well from a foreign direct investment point of view and we want to do better.

I would like to return to the central theme of the budget debate, which is only touched on in the Bill. This is the introduction of the new property tax system and I refer to an issue close to my heart and that of the Acting Chairman's, which is flooding and the impact it has on the value of people's homes. A flooded home is a calamity. I have witnessed home owners waist high in water and I have witnessed how upset they were and the damage caused to their homes. Communities in my constituency that have been affected by flooding include Ballybough, Cabra, East Wall, North Strand and Drumcondra. People have been devastated by repeated flooding but, unfortunately for them, that is the only the start of a difficult experience because they then face being unable to insure their homes. This means that when they are flooded again, they are still trying to deal with the previous repairs let alone the current repairs. The second issue they face is they cannot sell their homes because of the flood risk.

I was in a home in the North Strand recently that had been flooded and I could see the damage to the property from the previous time it had been flooded. However, the home owners were not insured on this occasion because they were unable to get insurance due to the previous flooding. This is an essential issue the new property tax system must recognise. We cannot tax flooded properties or homes that could potentially be flooded at the value of unflooded homes. It would not be fair. If a house has been flooded and it faces the risk of future flooding, it is worth less than a home that has not been flooded and is unlikely to be flooded in the future. The property tax valuation model must make this distinction. If a property owner cannot obtain home insurance, then the market value of the house is massively reduced and the new system must recognise this. It is a market valuation system and, therefore, it should be coherent and consistent. If it should recognise that factors beyond the influence of the home owner mean the market value of his or her home is massively reduced, then that is the value on which he or she should be taxed.

I have raised this issue with the Department of Finance but I am raising it in the House now because it is vital that it be recognised. I would like the Government to give specific guidance to residents who cannot get home insurance and who face a flooding risk. They must know, first, that they will not be taxed on a value their home does not hold and, second, this must be recognised by the Revenue Commissioners. Residents represented by the Acting Chairman and I were not flooded through any fault of their own and we must not add to their plight through this system.

See this speech in context