Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

It is in light of the fact that the Department has recognised the anomaly that I am tabling the amendment today. Currently, if one owns a property with pyrite, which is valueless, in order to get the exemption one is required to spend thousands of euro to have a hardcore infill test carried out on the property in order to avail of what will be an exemption of hundreds of euro over a period of three years. Nobody could possibly stand over that scenario. It is particularly offensive when one considers that the Government, in response to pressure from affected home owners, set up the Pyrite Resolution Board. The criteria for houses to be remediated under the State scheme does not require an underground hardcore infill test to be carried out. We have a ridiculous scenario where homes have been approved for remediation under the Government pyrite scheme, but they cannot get a property tax exemption because no infill test was done. That is frankly ludicrous. The matter must be addressed urgently because at the moment those home owners are getting letters from Revenue, and in some instances the money is being forcibly deducted. In instances where an exemption has been given, the money is being taken back from them. They are people whose backs are to the wall. That is a serious problem.

My proposal is not that a person should get an exemption just for the sake of it, but a home owner with pyrite must confirm that he or she has a building condition assessment rating of two or one plus progression, which means there is significant damage to the property and has either been approved by the remediation board or be in an area in which the remediation board is well aware pyrite exists. Those two measures give the State adequate protection but make it easier for people to avail of an exemption. I am curious to see how the Minister could possibly stand over a situation where to save hundreds one has to spend thousands, which is the way the legislation is currently framed.

When I raised the matter in correspondence in recent months, I was initially told the Departments were examining the matter and that the statutory instrument could be amended. On the previous occasion when I inquired, I was told the responsibility lay with the primary legislation, which is the reason I have tabled the amendment.

See this speech in context