Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)

Is mór agam deis a fháil labhairt, fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit agus an Bille seo a phlé. Ach an oiread leis na cainteoirí a chuaigh romham, táimid iontach míshásta leis an bhealach a tugadh an Bille seo isteach. Mar a dúirt an Seanadóir Healy Eames, this has been flagged for months. Therefore the Bill should have been made available to us with a reasonable amount of time to examine it. There is no point in our second guessing what is in a Bill. We were informed last week by the Minister, Deputy Hogan, that we should not do so and that when we tried to second guess what was in the septic tanks Bill we were all wrong. We cannot be expected to second guess what will be contained in a Bill on the one hand only to be given a Bill late and then be expected to rush it through the Houses, especially important legislation such as this. It is disrespectful and it is the height of political chicanery by the Government to push through this Bill during this week when we are all aware the media focus is completely on the budgetary issues rocking the State at present.

We are considering a Bill that has a start date of January 2012. It is clear it has been in planning for some time and it is completely out of order and unfair not only to us as parliamentarians but to the citizens of the State to introduced it in this way. Serious issues arise in this Bill which cannot simply be teased out overnight and I wish to raise some of them.

We are opposed to this charge and to this type of charge because it is completely inequitable. It does not take into account the income of the people involved. A flat charge such as that proposed is the wrong way to go and it should not be introduced. This is where we differ from our colleagues in Fianna Fáil. I note that it is termed a "charge". Normally, if I go into a shop or an institution and I get charged for something I get something in return. What do the people or citizens who own their houses get in return for this so-called charge? The Government should call a spade a spade and say that this is an extra tax on the citizens of the country which happens to be connected to the fact that they own a house. This is not a charge because no extra service ensues as a result of it. Let us call a spade a spade.

The Minister of State remarked in his comments that this is a relatively modest fee. Everything is relative. Perhaps if one is a Minister of State it might be modest but to the people I talk on a daily basis, no matter how high the charge, it is not modest. I am unsure whether the Government representatives get the point. People are strapped for cash. A lady called me during the weekend and said to me that the money the Government proposes to take from her family allowance represents the difference between being able to put two meals and three meals on the table every day. What is relatively modest to a Minister or a member of the Government parties differs completely from what is relatively modest to normal citizens. Many will fall through the tax net when it comes to the waiver system. This point has been echoed across the House and it should be re-examined.

It is ironic that the Government parties appear to be taxing us into the grave with this proposal. One measure in section 7 proposes that even when a person dies, the Government will go after the money. This should be reconsidered. Even if someone is deceased the full penalties and charges will issue. Is this not going too far in the case where someone has lost a relative or a parent? It represents taxing people to the grave to make them pay these charges. Let us consider the case where a waiver applies to the owner of a house. If that person is a parent who has lived in a family house and that person is then deceased and the house is passed on to someone else who is also in a waiver situation, then the surviving person should be considered for the waiver as well. Such a person might be on social welfare or in receipt of a limited income and they should be entitled to a waiver. We cannot tolerate a situation whereby a parent passes away and the house passes on to the child, the son or daughter, who is then liable for these charges. It is going too far to follow such people to the grave to look for the money. An inability to pay clause of some kind should be provided for. The measures included do not cover people on medical cards, those in negative equity or those who genuinely are unable to pay. There are a great many such people around.

I refer to the €10 over-the-counter charge. The Bill provides that this is waived if one goes on-line, etc. However, if one goes on-line to make a payment or if one makes a payment by cheque then one is paying money to the banks. People are budgeting so tightly these days that they are avoiding such charges, including credit card fees and banking fees. Many people who chose to pay by cash are doing so to save on those costs. It is not free if one pays by credit card or on-line.

The reference to a public information campaign is interesting. However, this charge is due to come in on 1 January. If there were a proper public information campaign it would have been underway for the past number of months. People are now budgeting for next year. The Government is budgeting for next year. It is only fair that the public information campaign should have taken place before now.

This will lower disposable income and contract the economy. Those of us in Sinn Féin have repeatedly stated that our policies would be decidedly different. Members have seen our pre-budget submissions. There are other ways to do this. This is an extra tax to raise €160 million. The Government should have considered other ways of doing this and for this reason we will oppose the legislation.