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

I wish to focus on a particular topic: the impact of this proposed tax on homes that have been flooded and homes that bear the risk of flooding in the future. There has been much focus on the issue of market valuation and the challenges it poses, particularly in urban areas. It is vital that the new system include future flood risk when assessing market valuations of properties. If one home in a street has been flooded but its neighbours have not been flooded, it is obvious that the flooded home will have a lower market valuation than the homes that have not been flooded. It is essential that when home owners receive their proposed market valuations and bills for payment, they are allowed a reduction in recognition of the fact that when they sell their homes the values will be lower due to the risk of flooding. I have already raised this issue with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. She decided it was an important issue which should be included.

I wish to emphasise two points in particular. This decision should be proactively communicated to home owners as part of the publicity campaign to be undertaken by the Revenue Commissioners. The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners confirmed this will be done. Many people, on receiving the market valuation, will be inclined to agree with the valuation. They may not recognise that flooding reduces the value of a property. It should be made clear to home owners that they may keep proof of the legitimate reasons for a reduction in the market valuation. The clearest example is that if a home owner is unable to get insurance for the property then the market value is reduced. It must also mean that the tax liability of the home is reduced accordingly. I say this in the knowledge that this is the case for some homes in my constituency. It is probably the same for Deputy Humphreys's constituency, as it is also subject to flooding. Some homes in my constituency have not been flooded in the past but because they are located beside areas that have been flooded, their owners are unable to get home insurance. It is very important that home owners understand that risk of future flooding or inability to get insurance are legitimate reasons for a reduction in the proposed market valuation. They must ensure they are charged the lowest tax possible. While many in urban areas are very conscious of the costs of a market valuation approach, this market valuation must be consistent and coherent. If, due to no fault of their owners, homes are at risk of flooding and have a lower market valuation, this must be accepted as a clear reason for a reduction in the tax liability attached to the property. I raised this issue with the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. She agreed with my explanation of what market valuation could mean. Given that this affects so many homes across the country, I would be grateful if the Minister could make reference to this in his concluding remarks.

If local authorities understand that there will be a reduction in revenue due to flood risk, they will give a higher priority to ensuring that homes are free from the risk of flooding. They will also need to deal with the problem of local authority properties being uninsured.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell spoke about the revenue-raising measures in this Bill. There is a need to provide clarification to taxpayers. The Government has committed to using 64% of all revenue raised by the tax to fund local authorities such as county and city councils, who will decide how to spend it locally. It is crucial that the Government make this clear and that it be a requirement. I would go so far as to say it should be included in the legislation. Many of the home owners and people I represent in Dublin Central do not want to pay this tax. It represents further hardship for them. We need to be able to demonstrate to them that the money raised will be spent locally on housing projects and public services that make communities as safe as possible. The balance of that money should be invested in the area in which it was raised. For example, tax raised in the Dublin area should be invested in the Dublin area. If other areas outside Dublin find that the tax rate charged is not sufficient to meet the needs of the people then the rate should be increased. The tax rate that applies to counties should be equivalent to the service levels that the people need. In the near future, local authorities will have the ability to set their own tax rates within a certain corridor. I want that provision to be used and the rates to be changed according to the needs of each county. People in Dublin paying this tax will need to see the benefits at local level. It should be a legal requirement that the money be invested in the local authority area from which it was raised.

I refer to section 6 of the Bill and section 7(3) of the preceding Bill, which introduced the property tax. Section 6 provides for an exemption for housing provided for people with disabilities or with a high level of need.

I was involved in discussions with a number of social housing organisations earlier today and discovered that one of the matters in respect of which they required clarification was how the Revenue Commissioners were going to implement the provisions of the Bill. Will Revenue confirm that the housing stock these organisations supply, in other words, that which is not provided by local authorities and which meets the needs of people who would otherwise not be able to obtain housing, is catered for under section 6? The organisations in question require clarity in the context of the money the are going to need in the future. This is extremely important, particularly as they will be seeking to raise their own funding in the future. Their ability to do so will be greatly reduced if there is no clarity on how section 6 applies to them.

See this speech in context