Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I understand the point the Minister is making and I can go some of the road with him on it but he has not addressed the serious issue of people who are in great difficulty with mortgages. It was a feature of the Celtic tiger that many people bought or built very large properties and they will attract fairly significant property tax as a consequence. Some 29% of mortgage holders are in arrears or have had to make some arrangement with their lenders. I take the point the Minister made about people having different alternatives in terms of television packages and other items that involve discretionary spending, but it must be accepted that a very significant proportion of the population are in great difficulty and are struggling exceptionally hard to make ends meet. It is the cumulative effect of measures that create difficulties for people. No one single measure tips people over but when added together at some point the effect of them will put people into serious difficulties.

The Minister spoke about exemptions. There is an exemption limit on incomes but would it not be appropriate to factor in people's disposable income rather than gross income. Many people will have far less than ¤15,000 a year once they have paid their mortgages and dealt with the commitments they have. That is something that needs to be examined. I can understand why the Minister provided for an exemption, although whether the threshold is high enough is questionable, but I have some difficulty with the concept of people who are unable to pay tax accumulating a liability for the future. That is wrong.

Another point I wish to raise with the Minister is why we are ramming through this measure. It will come into effect well into next year. There are sections of the Bill, particularly the Revenue powers, that need to be properly and fully debated in this House and a guillotine will probably be applied to the debate in a few hours. That is unacceptable. It is a disservice to the Bill, to what the Minister is trying to do and, more particularly, to the people we represent. I do not see any good reason this debate cannot resume next January when we return after the recess. That would at least allow us to tease out the provisions of the Bill, as we are doing now in a reasonable fashion. I ask the Minister to consider that. I cannot see a good reason for ramming this Bill through now.