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

Deputy Donnelly raised this issue on a number of occasions previously with the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan. He raised it with me in the first instance a week and a half ago. We had a discussion on the matter over the phone. I am sympathetic to the issue that the Deputy raises because many of my constituents are facing the same kind of difficulty to which he refers. That said, when I asked my officials to examine the issue over the past week, many matters arose which made it very difficult for me to be even able to offer an alternative amendment on behalf of the Government.

I will now illustrate some of the issues that arise in the context of Deputy Donnelly's amendment. Three issues came to light when we began to consider it. I want to acknowledge that this is a different amendment which approaches the issue in a different way than was done in the past. I considered this amendment on its own merits, as I have already indicated to the Deputy. Three matters arise from the amendment which mean that I am not in a position to accept it here this evening. However, I am happy to engage with the Deputy on this issue afterwards to see if there is some way to deal with the issue without causing difficulties elsewhere in the tax code or giving rise to tax avoidance issues that I would have to deal with at a future date.

The first point is that the amendment makes a judgment that any property less than 113 square metres, or approximately 1,000 square feet, would be unsuitable as a home for an individual or a family. It is the case, however, particularly in many urban areas that many people will reside in properties that are smaller than that. This amendment, as drafted, will then create a difficulty for citizens in properties that are smaller than 113 square metres. The amendment as currently drafted would involve extending the relief to all first-time buyers between 2002 and 2008 who are renting an alternative or larger property. One of the issues that I ran into quite quickly is the fact that there may be many reasons for people to move on to acquire a second property. Included within that are the issues and pressures to which the Deputy has referred, which I acknowledge. However, there may be other reasons for people moving on to acquire another property. If I accept this amendment, it may cause problems for me in terms of the reasons for which this relief might then be drawn down. Finally, the amendment as written assumes that all accidental landlords have moved on to properties with more bedrooms. Therefore, it might exclude a family that moved to a property of the same or even smaller size in order to be closer to family support, to a school or to public transport. It is for all of these reasons that I am not in a position to accept this amendment. However, what I have not done is reject the amendment giving the same reasons that were proffered last year. The Deputy has submitted a different amendment but the fact that he only raised this issue relatively recently with me meant that I was not in a position to find an alternative way to deal with the issue that would satisfy me. I have just outlined several reasons as to why this particular amendment will not work but I am happy, following this debate, to engage with the Deputy to determine if there are ways in which this issue can be dealt with that do not trigger other problems with which I would then have to deal. It is for these reasons that I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context