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

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 103, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:"Amendment to Section 10(A) of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012

86. The Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 is amended in section 10(A) by substituting the following subsections for subsections (3) and (4):

"(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) and subject to subsection (4), the Minister for the Environment Community and Local Government shall ensure in the making of regulations, that a residential property shall not, for the purposes of this Act, be regarded as a relevant residential property if a certificate has been issued in relation to it having a building condition assessment damage rating of 2, or a building condition assessment damage rating of 1 with progression, and has either been accepted by the Pyrite Remediation Board for remediation, or is in any area where the presence of pyrite has been established, regardless of whether a hardcore infill test has been carried out.

(4) Not withstanding subsection (3) and subject to subsection (5), a residential property shall not, for the purposes of this Act, be regarded as a relevant residential property in relation to five consecutive liability dates commencing with the first liability date on or before which a certificate under and in accordance with regulations under subsection (1) has been issued in relation to property, and in cases where the property has not been remediated for all subsequent liability dates until it has been remediated.".

The Minister of State might like to comment on why amendment No. 22 was ruled out of order. It was on the grounds the Opposition cannot move amendments which are a cost to the Exchequer, but seeing as this issue was flagged on Committee Stage I wonder why the Government did not think it important to restore some of the robbery from the pay packets of airport pensioners undertaken over the past period and why it did not table the amendment itself.

Amendment No. 24 is with regard to an issue I have discussed with the Minister on repeated occasions. I had to table amendments to last year's Finance Bill to try to get it addressed and it is a little disappointing that here we are this year and I must still table amendments to do it all over again.

The roots of the issue lie in the construction of the property tax legislation and the inadequate provision given to the exemption for homes affected by pyrite. If somebody has a home affected by pyrite he or she cannot sell, renovate or extend it. Essentially, the property is valueless. The idea of putting a property tax on this is absolutely reprehensible. We know that at the time of the legislation the Government boasted it had addressed the matter and given those homeowners an exemption. The reality was different because of the way in which it was constructed. Imposing an obligation on homeowners to carry out an underground infill test meant people would have had to expend thousands of euro to gain an exemption of hundreds. It was an absolutely ludicrous situation on which, over the past 18 months to two years during which I have highlighted it, the Minister kept agreeing with me.

Last year the Minister told he would imminently address it, early this year he told me it would be addressed by the summer and, of course, in the past month or so in the run-up to the budget he told me it would be addressed soon. In the budget he made the great announcement it would finally be addressed, but in actual fact when we discussed it last week he told me it was on its way to being addressed and that he will introduce measures which he has instructed Revenue to implement immediately in advance of guidelines being issued towards the end of the month and legislation following. I can tell the Minister of State that yesterday some residents from my area took the Minister's advice and contacted Revenue, on the basis it had been advised to introduce the new changes, and were told they could not gain the exemption. It did not do them any good, which is why I have tabled this amendment.

What the Minister proposes to do, although he has not yet brought forward the legislation, is that in situations where properties are damaged and a building condition assessment is carried out which shows a damage condition rating of two, or one with progression, those people can gain access to the exemption without an infill test being carried out if the pyrite remediation board or an insurance company has accepted their cases or in instances where a self-assessment will be accepted. I want to put on record that as of yesterday Revenue was not accepting self-assessment. The self-assessment is essentially the homeowner stating he or she has had a building condition assessment carried out, the damage is extreme and as a result he or she cannot sell the property and it is essentially valueless.

In any case, even if the Government had brought forward legislation, which it has not, it is not good enough. The amendment seeks to do this in a far simpler way. In essence, it states that where a property has damage if it is in an area known to have pyrite an infill test is not needed and should not have to be carried out. It also addresses the shortfall in the Government's legislation, whereby currently even if people can access the exemption they only get it for three years. This is not good enough. The amendment seeks to provide this exemption for a period of five years in cases of properties which have a damage condition rating of two and which, in essence, have been accepted onto the remediation scheme or have been remediated. In the case of all other home owners who have not reached this level of damage and who have not been given a commitment their properties will be remediated the exemption should be indefinite until the property is fixed. Why would a barrier of three years be put on it? It is just not good enough. It is on this basis I move the amendment.

See this speech in context