Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

I support this Bill and welcome the Minister's stance on it, and his openness to suggestions from me and others. I called for this Bill before the Government was willing to introduce a charge. An Indecon report identified this many years ago but there was a refusal to introduce it. I am not alone in saying this because Donegal County Council has been to the forefront in lobbying Government for such a Bill because it is rated third in terms of gains from this Bill. It is important to see the money that accrues from these charges as complementary to, not a substitute for, the existing local government charges.

I am glad, however, that the Minister introduced the Bill. A great deal of time was lost between its announcement in the budget and now. I am concerned about where in the Six Counties the advertising campaign will take place because many in the Border region have holiday homes and the charge comes into effect on 1 July. It is a good Bill to a degree but it is full of holes. It is rushed legislation although I do not understand why because it had been flagged. This was evident when the Minister initiated the debate here with an amendment to exempt caravans. This was followed by my amendments which are now before us. There are other holes, and amendments not taken which significantly weaken the Bill. Legislation will catch certain people whom the Government did not intend should pay. That was definitely not the intention of the Opposition.

It is always satisfying to see one's amendments accepted, in this case in respect of granny flats and people in long-term residential care. When I put forward my amendments I told the Minister that they would need to be redrafted. I put them forward to show that there were holes in the legislation and I am glad the Minister accepted them. Senator Glynn said that they were "absolute common sense". I and Senator Coffey put down similar amendments and we argued vigorously that this needed to happen, but the Minister refused to accept them. It went to a vote and the Government parties refused to accept the amendment. The Minister gave no indication to me, Senator Coffey or the Seanad that he would reconsider it. Luckily for us and thankfully maybe for the Cathaoirleach, we raised the matter again at the eleventh hour under a section that did not deal with the issue and sense prevailed.

The two amendments inserted here are fine with me. There is, however, a difficulty which the Minister will have to consider and I could cite many cases in which it would apply. For example, if I was to build on to my house a self-contained granny flat for my mother and father and they were to move out of their family home, under this legislation I would be exempt from being liable for a charge of €200 for such a granny flat. My mother and father's house is fit for habitation and this charge applies to houses that are suitable for habitation. Their house would be unoccupied because they would have moved in with me in order that I could care for them and that they would not have to go into a nursing home. My parents would be liable to pay the €200 charge in respect of their house, which would be unoccupied and would not be rented. That is one of the flaws in this legislation.

I am sure it would be the view of the Minister and the Government that the charge should not apply to the owner of such a house. If one is an owner of a property but does not reside in it, one must pay the charge unless one qualifies under one of the exemptions. Amendment No. 1, which provides for an exemption in the case of a person who has a physical infirmity, would not suffice for an exemption from the charge in the circumstances I outlined. Not everybody who decides to move into a granny flat does so because he or she is infirm or suffers from a mental or other illness. Sometimes people chose to do so to feel secure, to be close to their family and not to be isolated. Where a person has moved into a granny flat to be beside his or her family and he or she does not want to be isolated, that person's house in the countryside would be unoccupied. In the context of the example I gave, will the Minister of State clarify if my mother of father or anybody else's mother and father in such circumstances would have to pay this charge on their home? For the record, I want to clarify that I do not have a granny flat attached to my House, I simply cited that as an example.

A number of such issues need to be dealt with in the legislation. Local authorities will pursue people for this charge in various circumstances. I cited the example above and could cite countless others not related to granny flats where it would not have been the intention to apply this charge but where it nevertheless will be applied.

I agree with Senator Coffey that the rental accommodation scheme should have been examined in the context of this legislation. Another difficulty I have with the legislation is the definition of the types of houses to which the charge will apply in terms of the suitability of a house for habitation. That is too broad a definition and allows local authorities to consider a derelict house in this context. It raises questions as to what constitutes a house being suitable for habitation, it is one that has electricity connected or one that is lying empty. I mentioned the family home that is unoccupied. Would it have to be bulldozed for it to be exempt from this charge? Amendments could have been proposed, dealt with and accepted that would have improved the substance of this Bill.