Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for outlining the provisions of the Bill. I am particularly disappointed the House has only been given one and a half hours to debate all Stages of this Bill. We have tabled amendments to it, as has Sinn Féin, to improve it but we will probably will not have the time to consider them. I sincerely regret taking all Stages of this Bill today as there is a good deal in it. I and my party agree with the main thrust of it with regard to the suspension of the revaluation date. We have called for that for some time and that is to be welcomed.

In the six minutes allocated to me, I wish to point to areas in respect of which an incoming Government would have to further change the legislation because it does not go far enough. The premise of the local property tax with respect to the way it is structured is that it is valuation based. We consider that model is incorrect because it mitigates against mainly urban dwellers. It should have been either a site value tax or based on the square footage of the house. The owners of two-bedroomed or three-bedroomed houses in Dublin are paying multiples with respect to the property tax paid by the owners of five-bedroomed or six-bedroomed houses elsewhere. That is not a fair way to levy the tax.

A glaring omission in the Bill is the lack of inclusion of an ability to pay clause. The Minister is only allowing people to defer payment and, for that facility, they will be charged 4% per annum compound interest. I have met many people, as I am sure the Minister of State has, who are what is termed asset rich but cash poor. Many of them are elderly and live in large family homes and many of those people in my area of north Dublin are living on the State pension. Those people are not been granted an exemption, all they are being offered is a deferral, for which facility they will be charged a penal interest rate of 4%. That should have been changed. I have tabled amendments, which we will probably not get to debate, that would deal with that aspect. Will the Minister of State take that point on board? The inclusion of an ability to pay clause would assist a person who is out of work or a person who is in mortgage arrears. The issue of mortgage arrears situation is not dealt with in the Bill.On behalf of my party, I have tabled an amendment that would deal with people in mortgage arrears. If they cannot pay a mortgage, it is absolutely ridiculous that they would be expected to pay the local property tax. That should not be the case.

I welcome the broad thrust of what the Minister of State said regarding the pyrite exemption. The biggest issue is the scheme itself because to get an exemption, one must be accepted into the scheme. Fewer than 400 homes have been accepted into the scheme but thousands of houses are affected. The scheme is cumbersome. I met officials from the Housing Agency and the Pyrite Resolution Board, PRB, two weeks ago in Leinster House. The pyrite exemption should be administered on a self-assessment basis. It is a self-assessed tax and people should be able to say they have pyrite in their properties. The problem with the definition is the reference to significant levels of pyrite damage. Leaving aside the damage, a house with a significant level of pyrite is valueless. It has no value, whether the damage is evident in cracks and so on.

I welcomed the establishment of the PRB at the time but a house has to be in category 2 to be accepted into the scheme, which means it must have significant levels of damage. This means only 400 homes are in the scheme. However, thousands of homes are in category 1, which means they have a high level of pyrite, which has not shown yet to be at a significant level. Those people's homes are valueless and they should not have to pay the LPT. The proposed extension should include them. If this was done on a self-assessment basis, Revenue officials would be able to conduct spot checks, like they do with everything else, to ensure people are being honest.

The problem with this is the Minister of State will look to the PRB to share details with him and it will point to 400 cases. That is not how this was meant to work. I recently discussed this with officials from the Housing Agency and the PRB in the Custom House. The definition should refer to significant levels of pyrite, not significant damage, because these houses will need to be fixed anyway. I ask the Minister of State to examine this. My party has made a commitment to introduce a full exemption for homes with significant levels of pyrite that may not have presented with damage at this stage. They cannot be sold because they are valueless. One cannot sell a house that has pyrite whether it has significant cracking or not.

I drafted the Management Fees (Local Property Tax) Relief Bill 2015. I have tabled an amendment, which we will not get to because of the brief time the Government has seen fit to allocate for this legislation, that would deal with the cases of people who pay management fees and property tax. There should be a partial exemption for management fees.