Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There was a lot of merit in the Minister's first amendment. There are many good points in the Bill but lumping the proposal under discussion into the Bill is like putting the fox in with the hens. It is not compatible at all and it is not fair. A few weeks ago, we had a Bill here decrying the bulk-buying of homes in estates by entities and the outbidding of young people, including young couples, who want to put a roof over their heads. The same entities are being given an advantage again by reducing their stamp duty. If the Government wants to reduce the stamp duty, that is fine but it should do so for everyone and have a level playing pitch. The proposal is not fair at all.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett and I may not agree on cutting turf and things like that but we do agree on this. If the Minister wants to provide housing for people — there is a housing issue — he should go back to basics such as buying sites around towns and villages and giving funding to the local authorities to build houses. I have nothing against developers or anyone. I disagree with Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett in that there is nothing wrong with making money but it should be made fairly. An advantage should not be given to certain investors — perhaps foreign investors in this case — so they can outbid local young fellows who want to put a roof over their heads. The prospects are slipping away from young people in spite of everything because the cost of materials is going up and they cannot provide houses for themselves. An unfair advantage is being given to the entities by reducing the stamp duty. After a few years, the stamp duty will not matter because the funds will have availed of the relief and will have blown young people out of the property market, denying them the right to put a roof over their heads. It is very unfair.

See this speech in context