Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

There is no doubt in my mind but that this so-called local property tax is no such thing. It is solely a family home tax. I remind the Minister that, while in opposition, the Taoiseach told us that any attempt to tax the family home would be unfair. He may also have called it immoral. If I am not mistaken, the Minister made a similar comment while in opposition.

This family home tax will mainly hit middle and low-income families. As we know from credit union surveys and so on, such people have already been hit by austerity and have little or nothing left at the end of the month after paying their bills. According to the most recent of a number of surveys by the credit union movement, 1.8 million families each have only €50 left at the end of the month.

The section of the Act that exempts so-called gardens of more than 1 acre indicates that this is a family home tax. It disproportionately advantages wealthier people who have estates and large gardens around their large homes while disadvantaging people who live in normal semi-detached houses.

Even at this late stage, will the Minister agree to lift the guillotine on this debate? The guillotine prevents Deputies from carrying out their responsibilities as elected Members. There is a question over the constitutionality of the primary Act because of the manner in which it was passed before Christmas, in that it was driven through the House by the use of a guillotine and many amendments were not debated. Tonight, many amendments will again not be debated. Not just the Opposition, but also the Minister's colleagues on the other side of the House are being deprived of their constitutional right and responsibility to ensure that any legislation passed by the House is properly perused and dissected. The Government should take this important point on board. Will the Minister agree to lift the guillotine in light of the serious consequences that might result from its use in this debate as with the debate on the primary legislation?

See this speech in context