Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

As others have said, the ink is hardly dry on the Minister's original legislation and we are back already with a list of amendments that will be wholly inadequate to undo the damage and destruction that will be caused by this tax. This is a forerunner of the fiasco this legislation represents. This proposal was badly thought out, was rushed through and is part of a process that is foisting further taxation onto the shoulders of people who can ill afford it.

The Bill before us is clearly an attempt by the Government to give the illusion of limiting the worst excesses of the Act by dealing with the greatest inequities, excluding a few more people and trying to dress it up as dealing with the growing opposition to this tax the length and breadth of the country. There is not a chance of that intention being fulfilled whatsoever.

This tax is already hated. In my opinion, it will represent a turning point in the attitude of ordinary people to the austerity that is being put on their shoulders, not just because they cannot afford it but also because of the economic lunacy it represents. This attempt to take more taxation from the pockets of people who are already stressed will not serve our economy well and will not stimulate it. In fact, it will exacerbate the problems that already exist.

One of the things that really gets people's goat is the incredible contrast between this Government's treatment of ordinary people and its treatment of wealthy people in our society. All of the statistics show that those at the top of society have benefitted over these difficult years, whereas middle and lower income families have been absolutely decimated. This is part of the same process. Home owners are being targeted by this Bill, which is probably the most draconian legislation ever to come before the House. Meanwhile, corporations are bring handled with a light touch. Previous answers given by the Minister have indicated that the effective rate of taxation on corporations is approximately half the rate levied, which is one of the lowest rates in Europe in any case.

The Minister has come up with this home tax to meet the deficit and continue to shackle us to the debts of private banks, which resulted from problems we were never associated with. I will not repeat the points made by others in this regard. The dogs on the street know that a home is not an asset. It is not a source of wealth. In many instances, it is the biggest headache that people have. To be honest, the idea of putting another tax on it is not the brightest one. Having been fortunate enough to have attended many meetings on this issue, I echo the comments of Deputies who have said this is a matter of huge concern for people around the country. One of the most common points one hears from older citizens, who tend to be to the fore at many of these meetings, is that having spent their whole lives putting a roof over their heads and providing for their families, they would rather do time than be taxed for the right to live in their homes or hand them over to their children and grandchildren.

One of the amendments to this Bill that the Minister intends to introduce will seek to lessen the valuation of local authority houses. Next week, he will be asked to consider an amendment that will propose the exclusion from this legislation of such properties. He exposed the lie that this has anything to do with local services when he decided to levy that amount of money on council properties. We know that local authorities do not have the money to pay these charges and that they will seek to pass them on to their tenants. Even if they are set at the lower level, which is only being done for the first three years in any case, that will not negate the difficulty in this regard. Once these properties are included in the legislation, the intention will be to increase the charges applying to them in the future. This will do nothing other than to exacerbate the problems for local authorities and their tenants, all of whom are being exposed to excess and increasing rents at present.

I do not have enough time today to develop all the issues that arise in the context of this Bill, but I will do so next week. If the Minister re-examines the argument for a pyrite exemption, he might change his mind before Tuesday. I ask him to consider the matter in advance of the long debate we will have then. The Government lauded itself on its establishment of the pyrite panel, which received many submissions and was the subject of much involvement. The resounding conclusion reached by the panel was that homes affected by pyrite should be exempt from the property tax. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government said that and the Minister for Finance said he would take account of it. The approach being proposed by the Minister is an illusion. This exemption does not recognise or take account of the difficulties faced by those who own homes affected by pyrite. If the Minister is genuine in his intention to protect such homes, he should heed our call and accept our amendments. He promised something in that regard.

The Minister is talking about allowing the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to draft guidelines to deal with homes that have significant levels of pyrite damage. Who will measure that? Who will pay for it? I suggest that the liability is being returned to the home owner. Many homes that have tested positive for pyrite are currently displaying very little damage. That damage can appear over time. Work done on adjoining properties can affect houses. What is the story? The guidelines suggest that reference will be made to the new standard set by the National Standards Authority of Ireland. Significant levels of pyritic heave have already been indicated in tests that have been done on behalf of many home owners. Will they get exemptions on the basis of the tests they have already paid for? I suppose all of these points demonstrate that the onus is being placed on the home owner, which is completely unnecessary.

The only fair way to proceed is to make a simple amendment to the Bill to provide that estates affected by pyrite are included as unfinished estates and are therefore exempt as of right. It does not matter if one's house is not currently displaying signs of damage - if one is in an estate that has unremediated pyrite problems, one's property is valueless. The only way to deal with that is to exclude such estates from the scope of this legislation. We are proposing a simple way of doing that, which involves the inclusion of all of these estates in the list that the Minister has to revise anyway. The amount of revenue that will be forfeited if this is done is quite negligible in the overall scale of things. I think the Minister can concede this point when we extend the debate next week.

I will make a final point before I conclude. When I attend meetings, I often hear people saying they do not know how much more the Irish can take and asking why we are not more like the Greeks or the French. If the Government succeeds in putting this draconian legislation on the Statute Book, and if in implementing it the State attempts to put its paw into the pay and social welfare packets of home owners, we will see Irish people start to become more like the Greeks and the French. They simply will not be able to take it any more.

See this speech in context