Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Following the budget, both the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, and the Taoiseach pledged that a mix of carrot and stick measures would be used to deliver housing and specifically in tackling vacancy and dereliction. However, we have yet to see a single real stick in the Government's housing policy. Any suggestion that a tax of 0.3% on vacant homes constitutes either punishment or persuasion is frankly absurd. After six years of promises, and years of urging by the Social Democrats and others, the Government finally introduced a vacant homes tax in October's budget. However, its pathetically low level, its self-assessment nature, the absence of detail on its operation, the lack of any attempt to publicise it and its risibly low penalties all add up to show that the Government is clearly not serious about this tax or, indeed, about housing vacancy.

With this tax, the Government is going through the motions and pretending it is doing something of consequence. All the while, all the indications and signals are that the Government is not serious about it. This spineless intervention is fooling no one. For it to be remotely effective, it would need to be vastly increased. That is why the Social Democrats are proposing a tax with teeth at a rate of 10%. Anything less is destined to fail. A proper vacant homes tax is not about generating revenue. It is about forcing a change in behaviour so that people who are sitting on vacant properties are penalised for doing so, thereby encouraging them to rent, use or sell that property. Instead of that, the Government is engaged in what can only be described as tokenism. It cannot honestly think that a 0.3% tax rate will change anyone's behaviour. For a vacant homes tax to be effective, it must significantly exceed the annual rate of house price inflation. Otherwise, why would people not just continue to leave their properties empty? That is what is likely to happen.

There are also serious questions about self-assessment and enforcement. The Finance Act states that Revenue may request the assistance of local authorities to identify and enforce the tax but we know the very poor record that local authorities have in dealing with vacancy and dereliction. How does the Minister intend to deal with enforcement? Will Revenue use the GeoDirectory which reports that there are over 83,000 vacant homes and over 21,000 derelict homes nationwide? Will it use those data to cross-reference against self-reporting? Will Revenue contact utility companies to verify connections and usage? It would be helpful to hear what, if anything, the Government is planning to discourage tax avoidance. There is no indication that the Minister means business.

These are legitimate questions to which we still do not have answers. The Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, surely know that unless a tax is penal, unless there is a reasonable chance of people who try to dodge it being caught and unless there are heavy penalties for non-disclosure, nobody will take the tax seriously. Is this actually the Government's intention? It is difficult not to come to that conclusion. What is the Government going to do to create public awareness of people's obligation to register? Surely the Government knows that it should be sending out a signal to property owners that unjustifiable vacancy will not be tolerated any longer. Instead it seems like it is business as usual for this Government. There is nothing at all on the Citizens Information website. Laughably, Revenue's website still states that further details will be published following the enactment of the Finance Bill 2022. That legislation was signed into law on 15 December 2022. Even the vacant homes action plan published earlier this year is very short on detail. In the context of our housing crisis, where people's lives and life choices are hugely negatively impacted, it is frankly indefensible for the Government not to tackle vacancy in a serious way. Too many people are paying the price for the Government's failure to do so.

See this speech in context