Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“Report on the accessibility of the local property tax exemption for those affected by defective concrete blocks

3. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the accessibility of the local property tax exemption for those affected by defective concrete blocks.”.

This amendment calls on the Minister, within three months of the passing of this Act, to prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the accessibility of the local property tax exemption for those who are affected by the defective concrete blocks crisis, or scandal as it really is. The people who have been affected by defective concrete blocks have been unfairly treated as they have not been offered the same 100% redress as the scheme provided in Dublin and north Leinster. Many homeowners are having to severely dig deep into their own pockets and borrow from others to try to make up the shortfall that is built into the Government's scheme. That can be in the region of between €70,000 and €80,000 or more. Many others simply cannot avail of the scheme because that type of money is not available to them. They cannot get loans for it. There is nobody to borrow from. There is no family to try to help them out with that. That is the injustice of the scheme.

This legislation will increase local property tax on every home across the State. Whether that is by €5 or €250, that is a fact. Everybody is going to pay a bit more at a time when we would argue local property tax should be scrapped. The issue here is that those who live in a defective block house at least should not have to pay local property tax. Many homeowners in the scheme are already dealing with severe financial pressure because they are having to deal with issues with their own homes, which are unsafe and unsound.

There is additional cost in some cases where walls are damp or repairs have to be done to electrics and so on because of ingress of water. We want to ensure no individual affected by defective concrete blocks comes under the local property tax. Under this legislation, the threshold has to be met to get an exemption. Will the Minister outline what that threshold is? There are people, for example, who have defective blocks but are not able to get the certificate because the damage is not severe enough to get on the scheme. Therefore, a notification is not issued under section 15(5), despite the fact they are living in an affected house and impacted by all this. It is about the crack or numerous cracks in the walls and whether they have opened to the degree that a coin can be placed in them. It is said the changes are necessary due to the changes in the scheme. Can the Minister confirm there will still be people who have tested their homes and are living with defective concrete blocks but, because they do not satisfy the damage threshold at this point in time, will have to pay local property tax? Alternatively, will he accept this amendment, which would ensure nobody with defective concrete blocks would pay local property tax.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I thank Deputies, despite the varying views on the legislation, for the opportunity to take the Bill through the Dáil this evening.

A six-year exemption from local property tax, LPT, applies to certain properties that have been affected by the use of defective concrete blocks in their construction. The 2021 LPT Act provided that properties eligible for the defective concrete blocks redress scheme could claim this exemption from LPT. The exemption only applies to properties in Donegal and Mayo, as these were the two local authorities covered by the scheme at that point. Since 2021, the scheme has been extended to Clare, Limerick and Sligo local authorities. The Bill seeks to ensure properties located in these additional counties that are eligible for the defective concrete block scheme are also eligible for the LPT exemption.

Minor changes are also being made to ensure the properties that qualify under the amended scheme are in a position to avail of the exemption, as well as to ensure those who would have qualified under the previous legislation will continue to do so. Previous confirmation of eligibility for the scheme was given to households but this has since been replaced. Currently, the legislation provides for a damage threshold that has to be met and for the relevant local authority to issue a notification in relation to whether the threshold was met. This Bill will provide a property may be due an exemption if the damage threshold has been met. That leads to the answer to the Deputy's question, which is that it is possible homes have been affected by mica but have not met the damage threshold, in which case they would not qualify for the exemption laid out under this scheme.

Revenue regularly publishes statistics on the number of claims for an exemption from LPT by category, including for properties accessing an exemption due to qualifying for the defective concrete blocks scheme. In 2024, approximately 1,000 local property exemptions were claimed as a result of homes being constructed using defective concrete blocks. An LPT exemption, once applicable, is in place for six consecutive years. The changes being made as part of the Bill are an extension of the existing exemption. I know Revenue has the capacity to administer and report on this expansion effectively. I therefore do not believe an additional report is necessary and do not propose to accept this amendment.

The Deputy asked a further question about the damage threshold. I understand this refers to a pattern of cracks exceeding 1.5 mm. I appreciate that precision means some homes might not qualify for the exemption but I am informed approximately 1,000 homes are in a position to currently claim it.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for clarifying that thousands of families in homes with defective blocks will have to continue to pay local property tax. That is the reality. The defective blocks are there. The fact only 1,000 have an exemption shows the restrictive measures in place. There are families living with this horror and this nightmare. Let us be clear: the local property tax will not change their world. There are bigger issues with the scheme that the Government is failing them dramatically on.

There is an issue with the damage threshold arising when the test is done, it says there is defective blocks in the home and people are living with that experience. If those people fill up the cracks, for example, then they do not meet the damage threshold. Did the Minister know that? Despite the nightmare they are undergoing, Government thinks it is appropriate that they will be paying local property tax on their home. They should self-declare that the value of the home is zero because its value at that stage is probably just the land value. Very few would buy a defective blocks home and a house will not be sold in Donegal without a test in the first instance.

The issue is, as the Minister confirmed, there will be people living with defective concrete blocks in their homes and they will still, under this legislation, have to pay local property tax. That is wrong and that is why I am pressing the amendment.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: "Report outlining a roadmap for the removal of local property tax from principal private residences without loss of revenue to local authorities

3. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report outlining a roadmap for the removal of local property tax from principal private residences without loss of revenue to local authorities.".

This amendment again calls on the Government to prepare and lay before the Dáil, within three months of passing the Bill, a report outlining "a roadmap for the removal of local property tax from principal private residences without loss of revenue to local authorities". Obviously, that would be done through the Exchequer funding the local authorities with the money that would be lost.

It will not come as any surprise to the Minister that Sinn Féin opposes the local property tax. Every year, we present the Government with an alternative budget in which we fully account for phasing out the tax, an alternative way of doing things and a way of scrapping the local property tax while also funding local authorities with the revenue they would forgo.

The Government, including the Minister, has claimed the legislation is necessary because of the revaluation in November, but the revaluation is a political choice. It is not set in stone; it is a measure Government has introduced. The political choice has had consequences. We have seen deferrals in the past. The revaluation should not be applied because it will force people into higher bands and therefore to pay more local property tax. As I have said on numerous occasions, we are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, a crisis that is really biting down hard on so many individuals.

Instead of doing what is right, the Government is pushing ahead with a revaluation to reflect the runaway cost of housing. It is responsible for that runaway cost because we know it is not just evident here in the capital or indeed the larger cities. House prices have spiralled completely out of control as a direct result of the failure of the Government's housing policy. It is planning to increase the tax on individuals. For many people, their house is not a clean asset. They will have a liability, a mortgage, so the house will not be a net asset. We proposed a wealth tax that would include property but with exemptions. It would apply to net wealth and therefore loans and mortgages on the property would be subtracted from the value.

According to the CSO, house prices increased by 23% between November 2021 and the end of 2024. Prices have continued to go up this year, so the increase is way more than 23%. We are aware that the average house price broke the €600,000 mark in this city recently, which is just crazy. I recall standing here talking about house prices reaching various figures but this is just unbelievable. It never stops under this Government. Prices just keep going up and up. One always asks when the penny will drop or when the Government will say it has got it wrong because prices, rents, homelessness rates, including the child homelessness rate, and the number of young people leaving the country keep going up. Some 100,000 people born in this country are now living in Australia alone.

Daft.ie has reported that we are on course this year for the highest increase in ten years. The listed price in the second quarter of the year was 12.3% higher than that of last year. With all this information, the Government has decided to increase the charging bands by 20%. Daft.ie is telling us we will hit the highest increase in ten years in 2025. We already have seen an increase of 23%, and that was up to the end of last year. It is still going up this year. The Government has just increased the bands by 20%, knowing some people will go into a higher band and therefore pay more money.

On examining the decision county by county, its unfairness becomes even more obvious. The biggest changes to house prices are in Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Monaghan and Sligo. If you lie a map indicating areas of deprivation in the State on top of a map showing the counties, you will find that the counties in the north west, the Border counties, are among the most deprived. Donegal has the highest levels of deprivation in the State, yet in that county house prices have increased by over 35%. Laois, Longford, Offaly, Westmeath, Galway, Mayo and Roscommon have all seen an increase of 33%, and that is before the continuation of the increase this year. The property tax is going up for everyone but it will go up by a band for many. They will see a substantial increase. Many in my county, Donegal, will see their property tax bill more than double. This will happen because a home in Donegal that was worth €190,000 in 2021 has increased in value by over 30% so far, which is still below the average for the county. The home would now be valued at €247,000, meaning its local property tax would go from €90 to €230. This is €140 extra, which is more than a doubling of the tax paid to date. I made this point to the Minister on Second Stage and, in fairness to him, he has not disputed that these are the facts of the matter.

We are in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis and should not be passing legislation that will increase a tax on individuals. Regardless of whether it is by €5, €250 or €500, it does not matter; it should not be done.

6 o’clock

The Minister talked about how we cannot control inflation and so on, yet things like this, when the local property tax goes up a few quid, petrol and diesel go up a bit, the shopping goes up a bit because hauliers have to pay more to get it into the shops, gas bills go up because the Government decided to put carbon tax on gas, there is another increase on other items the Government has dealt with, and rents have gone up because the Government is refusing to ban rent increases, are the things that make up inflation. This is why people feel so much pressure. This is another example of it. We in Sinn Féin believe that the local property tax should not go ahead. It should be scrapped and phased out, which is what this amendment seeks to do.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with the amendment first and then respond to some of the points that Deputy Doherty made. The local property tax is an important part of our tax system, which has raised more than €6 billion in revenue since it was introduced in 2013. It has provided vital funding for our local government and local services. The Report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare, published in 2022, acknowledged that local property tax is a broadly effective system that is well administered. The commission recommended that the current structure and broad features of the tax should remain. This includes keeping exemptions to a minimum and the continued use of regular revaluations. The report also noted that virtually all OECD countries levy some form of a property tax.

Property tax is considered economically efficient as it applies to an asset that is immovable. In contrast, taxes on income and business activities can have different effects on how people behave and what it can mean with regard to our economy. Importantly, local property tax also contributes to the broadening of our tax system, with approximately 2 million properties liable for local property tax, the majority of which are principal private residences. The tax therefore has a broad base, while exemptions are kept to a minimum. All property owners benefit from the essential local services local property tax helps to fund. These include a broad range of services in the public realm which benefit all members of society. Accordingly, it is equitable that the cost of providing the services should be shared by as broad a spectrum of owners as possible.

Revenue estimates that there are approximately 356,000 non-principal private residences nationally. To make up the estimated shortfall of €609 million would mean a non-principal private residence charge would need to be at the rate of €1,700 per property. Abolishing the local property tax and charging it only for non-principal private residences would mean revenue would have to be made up through other forms of taxation which could affect economic activity. Most notably, abolishing the tax for most owners while charging significantly a higher tax on a smaller group of property owners would considerably narrow the tax base and undermine the stability of this important source of local authority funding. For those reasons, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

To deal with the further points that have been made, I accept that a number of property owners will move in band but, from the modelling that my Department and Revenue have done, we estimate that 94% of people will remain within their existing band. We did a broad model. It is clear that the vast majority of people will remain in their current band. It is the case, to be clear, that even if you are in your current band, you will pay a higher rate of local property tax than there would have been before this revaluation took place. That will be an increase in somebody's local property tax of 5% or 6% compared with where it was before the revaluation occurred. To put that in context, if somebody is in band 4, he or she would see the property tax bill go up from €405 before this revaluation occurred to €428, a €23 increase. I know for many people a further €23 can be a difficult amount of money to find and it can be a large amount of money, with many of the different changes that are going on, but it is tax that we ask people to pay once across the year. All of the revenue that is being collected here is going to pay for public services.

There is a constant demand from our country to see them improve and a constant demand in debates in this House to see those public services, particularly local ones, being delivered in a better way. If any future Government were to make a decision to abolish the local property tax, the question is where we would find the further €600 million to take the place of the local property tax revenue that is currently being brought in. Some €600 million is a lot of money to find and would mean choices regarding other things that should not be done, otherwise we would end up either with a smaller surplus or having to make decisions regarding funding public services elsewhere from corporate tax receipts, about which I heard much concern regarding future sustainability at the Committee on Budgetary Oversight yesterday. I accept that some property owners will move band. It is a minority of all who pay the local property tax. The majority of those who pay the local property tax will stay within the band. While that will still mean an increase for them, and I acknowledge that, for some, it will be tough to find that additional money, it is a tax that we ask people to pay once a year and all the money that is collected from this goes into public services, many of them on a local level.

For those, including Sinn Féin, whose view on the topic I respect, who want to abolish it, €600 million would need to be found. Every time I participate in debates on these kinds of issues in committees, I keep on hearing that we need to expand our tax base, not narrow it. For those reasons, the local property tax is an important tax to keep. Deputy Doherty is right that it is a political decision to vary it every five years. It has been deferred in the past, but the further you push out a revaluation of the local property tax, the more difficult that revaluation becomes when you get to doing it. I believe revaluing a tax like this every five years is the right frequency for changing a tax like this, which is still sensitive for so many people.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mar a dúirt mé, tá an Rialtas ag cur na cánach seo ar achan teach ar fud an Stáit agus go leor i gcruachás ó thaobh costas de. The Minister rightly made the point that if you abolish the local property tax, then you have to provide the money to the local authorities. He gave a figure of €600 million. We have shown the Minister time and time again where that €600 million can be generated, but they are political choices too and I respect the fact that Fine Gael does not want to do those political choices. It does not want to introduce a third rate of tax that would apply to individual income above €140,000. It does not want to go after gold-plated pensions that would see people who have pension pots in excess of €1.5 million taxed appropriately. They are the choices. The choice is that some people in my county will have to pay double the local property tax. Everybody else will have to pay a little bit more. They are the wrong choices, in my view, and for those reasons, I am pressing the amendment.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The option is also open to people to pay weekly as opposed to paying it off in a single go. On the choices that are there, to deal with the options put forward by Deputy Doherty, we differ and we will do so respectfully much of the time. On the point he made about the third rate of income tax, the third rate of income tax would be a rate of income tax that we would charge to people who would be high earners, but they are the same high earners who play a valuable role, for example in bringing foreign direct investment to our country. I know it is a difficult argument to make at times but we want Ireland to be competitive.

We want to have a country in which large employers want to be, and one of the issues we have to consider for that is having levels of personal taxation that are competitive. We already have one of the most progressive personal tax systems within the OECD. The more a person earns, the higher the level of tax he or she pays, to the degree that we may even have a high degree of reliance on the income tax that higher income earners pay.

With regard to consultants, I understand this is a decision on pension amounts. It is a decision on which different Deputies will have different views but, for example, if we wish to retain hospital consultants in our system and keep them working in our public hospitals, I have to accept that an issue raised by some of them is how their pensions are taxed. These are people who provide very important public services our hospitals depend on. It becomes an issue when we need to recruit and retain people to lead really important public service organisations.

These are choices. They are choices we differ on. We do not make these decisions because we are trying to protect those on high incomes. We frequently make these decisions because those on high incomes play really important roles leading large organisations which are important to our public services. They perform important public services themselves. With regard to taxation, we already have a very progressive tax code here in Ireland and must be mindful that any decisions we make in respect of asking those on high incomes to pay even more, while I know it can be popular, can have effects on how our country is perceived and on the retention and attraction of jobs and investment in Ireland.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is where there is a difference of opinion. The Minister has eloquently outlined why we are not going to tax one group but, rather, will tax another group instead. In fairness, the local property tax will affect everybody. Everybody will pay more in tax this year, but the guy who has a pension pot of €2.5 million can afford the extra bit in local property tax. That is the difference. Take the example of the person who lives over the road from me, cares for their loved one, gets carer’s allowance and works the extra 19 hours when they are able to earn by putting food on the table for workers and people in the community. When we add it all together, that person comes home with something like €24,000 per year and has to try to raise a family with it. These are the people whose local property tax is going to double. This is about fairness. Who do we put the burden on? Taxation is about where we place the burden. Do we place a burden on people who, in the Minister’s words, play a valuable role in society through the jobs they do? The woman who cooks the breakfast plays a valuable role. A trainee nurse in third or fourth year who only gets a few pounds plays a valuable role. The cleaner who goes into my local school plays a crucial role. The SNA who helps my wee nephew plays an unbelievable role. None of them are on €140,000-plus but under this legislation the burden will fall on them at the same level as it will fall on people with very high incomes. The Minister asked me where this money would come from as if we would have to find it and it would be impossible to find. That is not the case. There are countless other examples.

A good idea would be to ask the vulture funds, which charge crazy rents and which the Minister facilitated over and over again through finance Bills, to pay tax on their rental income. They do not pay tax on their rental income. People out there who do some of the jobs I mentioned earlier are handing over €2,000 or €3,000 to these funds but the funds, because of their structure, do not have to pay any tax on rental income within the fund. They pay tax only when they pay off dividends, and we know all about how that can be reduced.

There are numerous ways to gather that revenue; that is not the issue. The issue is the Government is wedded to this idea and that is its ideology, that is the choice people have, and I completely oppose it. I will push this to a vote and I ask the Chair to facilitate it. I know the Government will decide to vote against it and that is its prerogative but, in my view, this is a tax that should be phased out. At the very least, at a time when we have an €8.4 billion surplus this year and a surplus of €6.3 billion expected next year,let us not ask people to pay more. That is within our power. I have tabled another amendment that would be a compromise and would ensure nobody pays more. Nobody would have to go up a band and nobody would have to pay more in local property tax. That is the fair thing. This tax should be ended.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That €8.4 billion or €8.6 billion is mostly made up of corporate tax receipts which we know could be transitory and could go. In recognition of that risk, we need to ensure we have a tax system that can continue to bring in the revenue needed to pay for public services that matter so much within our country. The Deputy referred to an SNA and a nurse. I refer to the many other public servants who - the Deputy is correct - are paid considerably less than €140,000, not to mention all those in the private sector who also get paid much less than that. I say to them that I know a tax like this is a lot to pay for many but, in recognition of the difficult times many are still in, we have widened the band by 20% and cut the rate. It is why the vast majority of people will not move band. Those who stay within a band will pay more but those who end up paying more while staying inside the same band will face an increase of 5%, 6% or 7% on a bill they pay once a year or can spread out across the year. For those in band 5, for example, it means an increase from €499 to €523. I know that is a lot of money for many people, but it is an increase that will pay for the public services our country wants to see improve.

Sinn Féin has alternatives but I believe those alternatives will have impacts and consequences that, for example, the people did not accept in the general election last year. The people were not convinced by Sinn Féin's arguments. I have made the case for many years, and will continue to make it, that the measures Sinn Féin proposes would have effects that would damage our economy and, in turn, affect the jobs we wish to keep in Ireland which allow us to pay for our public services. That is the difference of view and it is one I will continue to make the case for, including in legislation like this.

I know the proposed increases we are debating this evening will be difficult for many. We are asking people to pay more at a time when the impact of two years of inflation is still being felt by many. However, if we want to have a way to collect taxes in our country that plays some role in protecting us from what could happen if tax revenues were to change – the global economy could change as well – we need taxes such as the local property tax. That is why this legislation is needed and it is why we have made such attempts, by widening the band and reducing the rate, to keep the increases as affordable as possible for those who will face them.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a dangerous thing to say the public was not convinced by my argument. Those are the words the Minister used. I remind the Minister that in excess of 18,000 people voted for me. The people in Donegal were fairly convinced of my arguments. I am not sure how many people voted for the Minister as a first preference but it was not at that level.

I would not go into that silly type of argument because we know a multitude of arguments are put forward in terms of the electorate. To suggest the electorate did not agree with my argument, there are enough facts to show, by getting the highest vote in the State, that does not stand up to scrutiny. If the Minister is suggesting it is the party, we would have to look at the whole party apparatus and what it was and what it did and did not agree on. That is the beauty of democracy and I respect the fact people want to look after those who are cushioned. That is fine. The Minister is entitled to do that and if there are enough people there to vote for it, that is fine. We saw a situation where in the previous election Fine Gael came third and still ended up in government.

That is getting away from the point. If there is tax to be raised, where does the burden fall? I made the point earlier that there are people who will be impacted by this. The Minister may dismiss it as small amounts and so on but it adds up when it is an extra bit in one's home insurance, car insurance, groceries, heating, home heating oil and electricity. It all adds up. That is where the pressures are. There are a group of people out there who notice all of these cent and euro. There are other groups who do not notice them at all.

I was at a committee earlier where the Minister for public expenditure spoke about 32 Ministers - all the Ministers in the current Government bar six - who were overpaid and none of them noticed it. Some were overpaid by up to €30,000. I am not blaming the individual Ministers because it is not their job to calculate that. Then we have 30 senior civil servants who were also overpaid, and at least one of them to the tune of €280,000, and if they did notice it, they did not tell anybody. There were 30 of them. How were they overpaid by €280,000? It was because they have pension pots in excess of €2 million. When one has a pension pot in excess of €2 million, one has to pay a particular tax the Minister is well familiar with and that tax was not applied properly on the portion above €2 million. The people I spoke about earlier who cannot afford this burden would notice if they got paid €280,000 more. They would notice if they got paid €30,000 more. Indeed, they would notice if they got paid €500 more.

There are at least two different realities here. There are people who are well off. There are people who are comfortable, who do not like to see prices rise and who do not like to see house prices or rents rise because it is more money our of their pockets but they can afford it. It will not put them into a difficult situation. Then there are others, a huge number of them, who are forgotten by this Government and this is another issue where the Government is placing a burden on them unfairly. That will be a discussion we will continue to have. I will continue to try to increase my vote, as I am sure the Minister will try to increase his vote, and continue to win the hearts and minds on that issue and many more.

The election is over. This is about fairness and where those burdens fall. The Minister did not answer the question about the vulture funds and why we do not tax their rental income. The Minister has defended that for the hilt for many years. It is completely and utterly unjustifiable. These are the options we have. I know the Government's position on this. I disagree with it and will push this amendment to a vote.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to speak. I support this amendment because this is a matter of choices. We can talk about the election and who did and did not get into government and what the results were. The fact is that we have a squeezed middle. The Minister's former leader was always talking about them - the men and women who get up early in the morning and go to work. They are particularly squeezed with the cost of living. I know there are a lot of soundings about it. I attended the committee meeting yesterday along with the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe and Chambers, on predictions for the future. All of us are worried as are families who are trying to send their children to school, pay fees, put food on the table, pay bills and stay above water. They see the waste and the carry on in government. I will not go into the waste all over the place but there is the OPW and the children's hospital to name a few. People are put to the pin of their collars, especially ordinary people. I am not talking about the people Deputy Doherty referred to who earn €100,000 to €200,000. They are well cushioned. Ordinary people cannot afford this and these are the people who pay for everything. They pay all their taxes and they pay for their kids to go to college and the school fees. The cost of medical insurance has gone up. Inflation has gone up. The Minister made lots of soundings that there will be no further supports for families to deal with inflationary costs. The Minister is imposing carbon taxes, which I fundamentally oppose, making it more expensive for people in this area as well.

With all of these things, people ask what services they are getting. This is the problem. Last year during the snow people could not get an eggcup of salt. People should be getting something for this. These people had to house themselves. They got mortgages and built their houses themselves, used direct labour or whatever. They paid planning fees, development charges and everything else. There might not be much between the different bands but it is a lot at €20 to €23. What services and supports do people get from the State and what protections do they get from the State?

I know of a group of people living in a lovely area outside Clonmel, Giant's Grave. There is illegal development taking place. Machines are being seized by the Garda. Such development is going on but the people are powerless. They are contacting me, Deputy Murphy and everybody else. These are all decent, hardworking people. Some of them are retired, some of them are sick and some of them approaching old age and they want to live quietly. They receive no protection from the State. They are waiting on the council in respect of enforcement. It is going through a process while shoddy people come in, do what they like, build and move illegal vehicles on to a site in front of them. These are lovely people who paid their taxes, worked and supported every charity and their neighbours. They have the spirit of the meitheal. They are bewildered as to how powers cannot be applied in respect of an illegal development right under their noses. It cannot be stopped and has to go through a process. When will it stop? They are worried for their children and grandchildren with the activities that are going on. I am bewildered as are they. We might say it is a small thing but fundamentally it is unfair.

We always have a debate about how property tax in Dublin is much higher than it is elsewhere but as we can see from the indexes and all of the different reports, such as those from Daft, house prices are going up and that means the property tax, no matter what band someone is in, will go up. I am fundamentally opposed to it. We need to look at legislation to see if we can get more powers for the local authorities to stop rogue developments taking place right under people's noses. They cannot do a thing about it nor can we, as public representatives. It is a sad state.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to respond. I never dismissed the fact it will be difficult for some people - indeed for many people - to pay more. Every time I have spoken on this legislation, including this evening, I have acknowledged repeatedly that while the increase over a year is 5% or 6%, which in cash terms for many people will be €20 to €23, for higher value homes it will be more than that. I have acknowledged there are many people for whom that additional amount will be hard to find. I have never dismissed it.

The argument I am making is to ask people to pay that bit more each year to allow us to have more money available for the public services they want to see improved. The changes we are making to local property tax here are below the rate of increase in the value of homes in recent years. We have done that by widening the bands again and by cutting the rate. Deputy Doherty said I was dismissing that.

I am not dismissing it for a moment but I am making the point that the additional money we are collecting here will be used on public services that our country wants to see improved.

On the point I made regarding people not being convinced by the arguments Deputy Doherty had to be making, I should have made clear that I meant that on a party basis rather than him. Fair play to him, the number of votes he got reflects the passion he has - that he is right to have - the expertise he has and the work he does within his constituency. However, I made the point, and I will make it again, that Sinn Féin was quite rare among Opposition parties across 2024 and 2025 at a time when inflation was so high that it did not get into Government. There are many different reasons why. I think there are people who understand, and I making the case to them, that the taxes we collect play a very valuable role in funding the public services our country wants. There are no easy answers available regarding how the abolition of the local property tax would be funded. The answers are not easy and we have already had a debate on it. I have made counterarguments to the different points the Deputy has made.

Regarding the investment funds, this is an issue the Deputy and I have debated over many years but we have seen that apartment construction decreased very rapidly last year and we need savings, pensions and capital in other parts of the world to play a role in building more apartments in Ireland. That is why we have a taxation structure in place to do that but even with that in place we saw in the second half of last year that the number of new homes, new apartments, that were being built was way below what we know our country needs.

On the points Deputy McGrath made regarding the issues in Tipperary, and the very serious issue he raised, I put it back to him and ask if those problems would be any easier to solve if we remove funding from local authorities. That, in effect, is what the abolition of the local property tax would do. He would then say back to me that we could find that money in other ways and I am sure he has ideas in which that could happen. At that point, I would argue to him that the other ways of raising €600 million would have effects that I believe would not be good for our economy or our country in the long run.

Those are the points I would make back to the charges and critiques that have been made there. I emphasise again that I know asking people to pay more at a time in which the effect of inflation is still felt will be difficult for many, but we have made significant changes to the local property tax regime for the second time since it was introduced to try to help, at least for some, those increases to be affordable. We are using all of the money that is being collected here to pay for public services that our country wants.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“Report into differential rates for owners of multiple properties

3. The Minister shall within six months from the passing of this Act prepare and lay before Dáil Eireann a report on the potential introduction of differential rates of local property tax on residential properties under this Act and the Principal Act where such properties are owned by persons who: (a) own two or less residential properties;

(b) own more than two but less than 20 residential properties;

(c) own more than twenty but less than 50 residential properties;

(d) own more than fifty but less than 100 residential properties;

(e) own more than one hundred but less than 1,000 residential properties;

(f) own more than 1,000 residential properties.”.

This amendment is about broadening and diversifying the tax base but also supporting local government and local democracy. The delivery of public services at a local level requires good, solid funding streams. That has always been the position of the Social Democrats. It has never changed and it will not change. We cannot have strong local government and strong public services without having mechanisms and streams for financing them.

Ireland has one of the most strongly centralised forms of government in the western world, with the least power devolved to local authorities. We often talk in this House about the weakness of public services and how they can be improved and strengthened. One of the best ways of strengthening public services is through empowering local government, and that cannot be done without strong financing streams. The OECD's organisational autonomy country ranking chart has Ireland at third from the bottom, with only Malta and Belarus performing worse than us among OECD countries. There is no doubt this ranking is linked to issues around how we finance local government. It is a key factor. If we want better public services delivered at a local level, including affordable, high-quality childcare, improvements in housing and myriad other services, changes are best made at local government level. I make that overall point in case anyone in the Chamber or watching the debate is in any doubt whatsoever about our position.

The amendment seeks a report within six months of the passing of the Act on the potential for broadening the tax base by increasing the local property tax for owners of multiple properties. We are talking about landlords, including institutional landlords, who own a large number of properties. The rationale behind the amendment is that there is a difference between people who are paying local property tax on their home and those paying it on multiple properties they own for investment purposes. There is a strong rationale for considering higher rates for those who own multiple properties as investments. The amendment is just asking the Minister to provide a report on the potential introduction of differential rates. It at least merits consideration.

Earlier, the Minister referenced, in defence of his arguments, the report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. My amendment simply proposes that he provide a report that would look in detail into a recommendation of the commission. There is no point in the commission making a lot of recommendations if we in this House do not look to see whether we can implement them. It is important not just to defend income streams for local authorities but also to look at how they can be broadened in equitable ways that do not place the burden on lower income households and ordinary homeowners. This proposal seeks to do that. I ask the Government to strongly consider it.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for making clear his and the Social Democrats' support for the principles underlying local property tax and their support for the value of trying to protect and broaden the tax base.

This amendment would require the Minister for Finance to lay a report before the House compiling statistical information on patterns and quantities of residential property ownership and to set out policy options or recommendations regarding the potential introduction of differential rates of LPT on residential properties owned by persons with two or more such properties. I am advised there are 1.4 million owners of one or two residential properties, 49,000 people who own more than two but fewer than 20 properties, 750 owners of more than 20 but fewer than 50 properties, 186 people who own more than 50 but fewer than 100 properties, and 187 owners of more than 100 properties.

The introduction of differential rates of local property tax would have the potential to make the yield from LPT more volatile if the rates of ownership of more than one property change over time. Having a property tax that is applied in a consistent manner across all properties in the State helps to keep the tax base broad and stable. Moreover, differential rates would add an extra layer of complexity to our tax code and could be difficult to implement.

I have tried to give the Deputy the answer to the queries he raised in his amendment and to outline the policy rationale as to why we should not bring in differential rates of local property tax based on the number of properties owned by a single person. If he has questions like this he wants answered by my Department or by Revenue, I am more than happy at any point to give him that information directly. We should not use legislation as a way of getting that type of information. If the Deputy has queries regarding property ownership or the implementation of the LPT regime, I will either give him the information directly, making it available to him at any time, or, if he wants it made available more formally, I can do so by way of parliamentary questions. I have tried to provide the information he requested in the answer I have just given to the House.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for explaining to me the difference between a parliamentary question and an amendment to legislation. I understand the difference but I thank him very much for his generous explanation.

This amendment is not a parliamentary question. I am not solely seeking the information the Minister outlined. I am seeking a report on the potential introduction of rate changes in line with the recommendation from the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister time and space, namely, six months, to consider whether he wants to back the introduction of differential rates. I appreciate his providing the statistical information but the purpose of my amendment is not simply to get that information but, rather, to obtain a broader report on whether he would want to make the proposed changes, and to give him six months to consider it.

I thank the Minister for giving his rationale as to why he does not want to make the change I am proposing, which is that he does not want to introduce something that might broaden the tax base because of the potential volatility it might cause in that income stream. Does that explanation mean he will now look at the entire tax code and, everywhere there is potential volatility, he will seek to remove it? Unfortunately, there is potential volatility across all the different income streams within the tax code. That can happen across the board. At the budgetary oversight committee yesterday, we discussed the massive potential volatility in respect of corporation tax receipts, which is much greater than ever will be the case in terms of what I am proposing here. With respect, I do not accept his argument as a good rationale for not broadening the tax base or at least considering it, as recommended by the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. Volatility is in the nature of taxation and expenditure. The Minister understands that very well in his current role.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know why the Deputy went there. I was just saying I am very happy to provide him with the information he requested, which I did, and to outline the rationale for my position on his proposal, as I did. I tried to do so briefly because I think the argument I made is a clear one. I furthermore stated my view that putting a requirement in legislation is not the right way to get reports. I thought I gave a positive answer to the Deputy's queries. I know he knows the difference between an amendment and a report.

7 o’clock

I assure the Deputy I do too. I was making the point that, if the Deputy wants this information, as I know he does, I will give it to him directly and that there is no need to do it through an amendment. The Deputy can still put an amendment down if he so wishes but there are other ways we can do it and I am happy to do so.

On the point the Deputy made regarding volatility, I know only too well that, as the Deputy has acknowledged, different revenue streams can be volatile. It is fair to make the point that there are different levels of volatility associated with different tax revenues. The revenue that comes from taxes on assets, things people own, tends to be more stable than revenue collected on things that can change very quickly, like profit. That is the only point I was making. If there was something in my tone or in the way I put my answer to the Deputy that caused him offence, I am sure he will tell me exactly what I did in a moment. All I am trying to do is to be helpful.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for being helpful. I assure him that there was absolutely nothing in his tone that caused any offence whatsoever. I am very grateful for the clarification. I am also grateful to the Minister for being very helpful in making my case for me in his response. The exact point that he has made is that there is less volatility in taxation on fixed property than in other forms of taxation or income streams. While there could be some volatility with regard to changes or multiple ownerships, the Minister is absolutely correct when he says there is much less volatility in income streams and revenues that arise from property. That makes the case for my amendment even stronger. This should be considered because the Minister is right. Regardless of how they are constructed, there is far less volatility in property taxes than in other forms of taxation. The amount of property in the country is increasing all the time. We are building more homes and more properties and the population is increasing. The Minister is right that there is not the same sort of volatility you could have with corporation tax, VAT and most other forms of taxation. I thank the Minister because he has made my case stronger. I will press the amendment because we do need a report on this.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy made reference to the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. I should point out that this commission recommended that we should not do what the Deputy is proposing. It said that "in the case of multiple property owners, a Local Property Tax surcharge should apply to properties not occupied as the principal private residence of the property owner or a registered tenant". The commission did actually look at something like that. I am sorry; I take it back. I am very happy to engage in that debate with the Deputy but, as I have said, I would like to do so in a different way than through a report required by legislation.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for getting to his feet to make arguments to support what I am putting forward for a second time. I thank him very much for that. Will he now accept the amendment?

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have said that I do not support the rationale for what the Deputy is doing. I do not accept that I have made the argument for him. The Deputy obviously has a different view. I am happy to look at the issue in other ways.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 3, to delete line 27, and in page 4, to delete lines 1 and 2, and substitute the following: “(a) section 7;

(b) section 8;

(c) section 11.”.

This section amends the exemption for properties damaged by the use of defective concrete blocks in their construction as provided for in section 10D of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012. The purpose of this section is to ensure that exemption is up to date. I am sorry; I have been speaking to the section. I will finish and then speak to the amendment itself. The purpose of this section is to ensure the exemption is up to date, taking account of changes made to the defective concrete block remediation scheme since 2021.

Amendment No. 4 removes a reference to section 8 of the Bill as published, which relates to the increase in the upward variation threshold for the local adjustment factor, LAF. Amendment No. 6 concerns a reduction in LPT that is available for homes that have been adapted to make them more suitable for a person with a disability. Section 8 of the Bill as published would allow local authorities to vary LPT upwards by up to 25% from the year 2026 onwards. By amending section 3 in this manner, section 8 will not automatically come into effect on the enactment and commencement of the Bill. Instead, it is intended to commence the provisions of section 8 separately from other LPT provisions at a date agreed between myself and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

I propose the deferral of this change to the LAF following consultation with the Minister, Deputy Browne, who highlighted the significant administrative challenges for local authorities if the increase in the LAF were to take effect next year. In a revaluation year, local authorities are required to notify Revenue of the LAF by 31 August. As councillors do not meet in August, the LAF decision must be made by the end of July. Before the LAF meeting, local authorities are required to hold a public consultation of at least 30 days and provide a report on this consultation to elected members a week before the LAF meeting. There would not be enough time available for local authorities to undertake the public consultation required on the increase to 25%, hold the necessary meeting and notify Revenue in the time now available. In addition, approximately half of all local authorities have made the LAF decision for next year under the current maximum increase of 15%. Given the time now available, it is not possible for them to revoke the previous decision made and conclude a new LAF process. I therefore propose to amend section 3 to remove reference to section 8.

Amendment No. 4 also ensures that a new section 7 is referenced in section 3, thereby causing this section to come into effect from 2026. The inserted section relates to properties adapted for use by people with a disability. Section 15A of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 provides for a reduction of €50,000 in the chargeable value of a property that has been adapted in this manner. This figure of €50,000 is equivalent to the difference between LPT valuation bands between 2013 and 2021. The policy objective of this section is to ensure that homeowners with a disability whose properties have realised an increase in value due to necessary adaptations having been made are not liable for a higher LPT charge as a result of those necessary adaptations.

When the valuation bands were widened to €87,500 in 2021, the 2021 Act did not introduce a corresponding amendment to the Act due to a drafting oversight. When this was identified, my Department requested Revenue to allow a reduction in the chargeable value of €87,500 on an administrative basis to ensure a reduction of one valuation band for affected taxpayers. On commencement of this Bill, the valuation bands will be widened to €105,000. The amendment proposes to reduce the chargeable value of a property by this amount for homes that have been adapted in this manner where the conditions are met. This will ensure the administrative practice that has been in place since 2021 is put on a legislative footing. It will also ensure that homeowners with a disability who have had their homes adapted to make them more suited to them and whose homes are worth more as a result of same can avail of a reduced valuation band and ultimately pay the LPT charge that would be due if they had not had to make the necessary adaptations.

Finally, amendment No. 4 updates the numbering of the referenced sections to take account of the proposed inserted section.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Insertion of new section 10E into Act of 2012

5. The Act of 2012 is amended by the insertion of the following new section after section 10D:

“10E. A residential property that is in an area that has yet to be taken in charge by a local authority shall have a 50 per cent reduction applied to its local property tax liability.”.”.

This amendment is connected to the issue of taking in charge in what are sometimes newer developments or newer estates but, given how slow the process is, are not always newer. It should be a relatively simple and straightforward process. In other countries it does not lead into months, years and decades. In fact, in a lot of other equivalent European countries the equivalent of a taking-in-charge process is completed at the end of the construction of a development within the time of the planning permission. In Ireland, after the development is built, the roads and the public areas are often not handed over to the local authority or taken in charge for decades. This causes huge issues in terms of maintenance, with the maintenance maybe not being done properly or maybe the cost of it being borne by the residents. There are therefore situations where the residents are paying local property tax for maintenance of their public areas and local facilities but are not getting any of that money spent in their local area because it is not taken in charge. Effectively, they are subsidising areas where the facilities are taken in charge.

There are no timelines in legislation on taking in charge these areas. This is something I tried to insert into the Planning and Development Bill that went through the previous Dáil but the Government voted it down. There are no financial incentives for a local authority to take in charge a public area. In fact, there is a financial disincentive, effectively, because it gets 100% of the local property tax that is collected for that area and when it takes it in charge, the process of taking it in charge can be costly for the local authority and the maintenance thereafter is an additional cost. There is therefore actually a financial disincentive for local authorities to do this in a timely manner or quickly. That is one of the reasons this goes on for decades, not just years.

It is often the case, as I am sure the Minister is aware, that when a development is built, couples might move in without children, the area is not taken in charge, the children are born, they go into childcare, preschool, primary school, secondary school and college, they stay at home after college because they cannot find somewhere to rent and then they leave in their mid-20s or late 20s and the area still has not been taken in charge by the local authority, which is something no one would have thought of at the start. There needs to be, in the local property tax, strong financial incentives for local authorities to take these areas in charge. This needs to be addressed. It has not been addressed in the planning legislation. This is an opportunity to address it so I hope the Minister will take this on board.

There is a financial equity issue or a fairness issue here for people who are paying significant management fees. That can be for duplexes or houses where there is really no case for an ongoing payment of management fees. The residents can be paying significant management fees because the areas are not taken in charge and, at the same time, they are paying the full local property tax. I would like serious consideration of this amendment because this issue is unfair and needs to be addressed.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When local property tax was introduced in 2013, the Government decided that a liability to the tax should apply to all owners of residential properties with a limited number of exemptions and no deductions. Limiting the exemptions available allows the rate to be kept low for those liable persons who do not qualify for an exemption. The proceeds of the local property tax are largely used for the general provision and maintenance of infrastructure, services and amenities in a local authority area. Accordingly, residential property owners and estates not yet taken in charge benefit from the expenditure of those proceeds in the same way as other owners of other residential properties in the general locality in terms of the provision of public roads, footpaths, lighting, open spaces, surface water drainage and other public amenities. That is why the local property tax is payable regardless of whether an estate has been taken in charge.

A requirement to pay a management fee or a service charge to a property management company is not relevant in determining whether a property is subject to LPT. Accordingly, while those who are liable for these payments may be exempt from LPT for another reason or may be entitled to avail of a deferral arrangement, there is no specific exemption for the payment of management fees, nor is there provision to offset the amount paid on management fees against local property tax.

This matter has been looked into in the past by the interdepartmental review group with regard to LPT and it did not recommend that persons who pay management fees be afforded relief in respect of local property tax. For those reasons, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his response. I get the overall rationale in terms of not wanting to have an endless list of exemptions because, of course, that would undermine this funding stream. I am not looking for an exemption. What this amendment proposes is a 50% reduction, in the full acknowledgment that in an area where an estate or a development has been built and is not yet taken in charge there is absolutely a benefit to the people living there in terms of the investment from the local authority in the wider infrastructure and the wider community, including libraries, regional parks and the wider road network. That is acknowledged by my amendment in referring to 50% because about 50% should go to fund that. About 50%, though, is on the maintenance of one's local roads, local footpaths, pocket parks and so forth. There are areas that are not taken in charge where, on the roads that are not taken in charge, gardaí cannot enforce the road traffic legislation. There may be road markings and so forth but the gardaí do not have legal instruments to enforce the legislation. They can ask people to co-operate in common sense and so forth but they cannot actually enforce the legislation, and this goes on for decades. It can happen outside schools that are built with newer developments. There are issues where local authorities at times will not put in place school traffic wardens on roads or footpaths that are not taken in charge, which creates very real issues in terms of the safety of children. It is totally unfair that children do not get a school traffic warden outside their school, a school funded and built by the State with public money, because these areas are not taken in charge. It is not the fault of the child or their family that this can take decades.

I accept that there is a case for a contribution, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. If the Minister were to say to me that he thinks 50:50 is incorrect and that 60:40 would be preferable, or that he will look at this seriously, of course I would entertain that, but there is no acknowledgment from what the Minister says that there is an injustice here in terms of a full contribution being made, including for services that are not being provided within the area where people are living. If this is not done, how do we create an incentive for local authorities to take areas in charge? They lose money when they take an area in charge. They take on more work and more outlay rather than there being an incentive. Surely the funding streams should try to incentivise the right behaviour from a local authority. To put it another way, a local authority that is proactive on this is getting penalised, whereas local authorities that are not as proactive in taking areas in charge are not being penalised, in effect.

As the Minister can appreciate, having good financial incentives for the best behaviour and outcomes for communities and local services is a good way to approach solving these problems.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for outlining the rationale behind this amendment. I understand his point and his argument that if an estate has not been taken into charge and that leads to the local environment there not being of the same quality as in the estate beside it that has been taken into charge, then that should be reflected in the local property tax bill of the person in the estate that it is not in charge. I understand that argument and why he proposed this amendment. The reason I am not in a position to accept the amendment or make this change in the local property tax is that it is an important principle that everybody's tax be collected in the same way. While lots of people have issues and disagree with the principle of the local property tax, it is clear and simple. The main factor in calculating your local property tax bill is the value of your home. I do not want to introduce any further exemptions or changes to it because I am concerned that if we begin do that, it will weaken the clarity and simplicity of the tax over time. In turn, that could lead to issues in how much tax and revenue it brings in in the years ahead. While I understand the Deputy's point, for those reasons, I must differ with him on this occasion.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A key function of the local property tax is not simply to collect revenue, but to fund local services. That has been clear from the outset. If the point is to fund local services but people do not get those services where they live because the local authority has not taken their area in charge, then of course there is a strong rationale for the way the local property tax is designed to reflect that. The intention of this amendment is not to create a significant tier of housing that is subject to this reduced rate for a prolonged period. It is to ensure there is not a tier of housing that is not taken in charge for a prolonged period and that there is a strong incentive for local authorities to get on with the business of taking those areas in charge, not leaving communities in limbo for ten or 30 years. I am aware of areas that have been looking to be taken in charge for longer than I have been alive.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

How long is that?

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That would be telling. People move in and think it might be a year or two. There is a lot of frustration at local meetings in my constituency that I have attended. People moved in when they had no children and their children are now getting to the stage where they will be moving out soon and there has been no progress. This has to be tackled.

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following section:

“Amendment of section 15A of Act of 2012

7. Section 15A of the Act of 2012 is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “€105,000” for “€50,000”, and

(b) in subsection (3), by the substitution of “€105,000” for “€50,000”.”.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 17 of Act of 2012

7. Section 17 of the Act of 2012 is amended— (a) in subsection (4), by the substitution of “0.000742” for “0.001029”,

(b) in subsection (5)—

(i) by the substitution of “€1,260,000” for “€1,050,000”, and

(ii) by the substitution of “0.000906” for “0.001029”,

(c) in subsection (6)—

(i) by the substitution of “€2,100,000” for “€1,750,000” in each place where it occurs,

(ii) by the substitution of “€1,260,000” for “€1,050,000”, and

(iii) by the substitution of “0.000906” for “0.001029”,

and

(d) by the substitution of the following Table for the Table to that section:

"TABLE

Band (1)Valuation band (2)Mid-point of valuation band (3)

1 1-280,000 -

2 280,001-367,500 -

3 367,501-490,000 424,250

4 490,001-612,500 551,250

5 612,501-735,000 673,750

6 - -

7 735,001-840,000 787,500

8 840,001-945,000 892,500

9 945,001-1,050,000 997,500

10 1,050,001-1,155,000 1,102,500

11 1,155,001-1,260,000 1,207,500

12 1,260,001-1,365,000 1,312,500

13 1,365,001-1,470,000 1,417,500

14 1,470,001-1,575,000 1,522,500

15 1,575,001-1,680,000 1,627,500

16 1,680,001-1,785,000 1,732,500

17 1,785,001-1,890,000 1,837,500

18 1,890,001-1,995,000 1,942,500

19 1,995,001-2,100,000 2,047,500

I discussed this already in the context of the effect it would have of not pushing up prices as a compromise.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 in the name of Deputy Cian O'Callaghan are ruled out of order.