Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Oct 2012

Vol. 773 No. 18

Other Questions

Local Authority Housing Mortgages

Bernard Durkan

Question:

52. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the extent to which he continues to receive information from the various local authorities in respect of arrears of shared ownership or annuity loans; if as a result he will initiate legislation to address the on-going situation whereby borrowers are expected to meet repayments in respect of the rental equity which are greater than that applicable to the mortgage equity; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46187/12]

My Department has recently commenced the collation of data from local authorities on the number of loans in arrears broken down by the length of time in arrears. The data from the second quarter of 2012 indicate that 6,280, or 28% of all local authority mortgages, including those drawn down for the purpose of purchasing houses under the various affordable housing schemes such as shared ownership and tenant purchase, are in arrears of more than 90 days.

The use of 90 days as a comparative metric in considering the level of arrears is consistent with the approach adopted by the Central Bank in compiling information in respect of private lenders' loans. The Central Bank's data for the same period showed that 10.9% of mortgages in the private sector, including those whose accounts were restructured, were in arrears for more than 90 days. A further 5.28% of mortgage accounts had been restructured and were performing in accordance with the revised terms. It is to be expected that the rate of arrears among local authority mortgage holders would be higher than the rate of arrears generally, given the position of local authorities as lenders of last resort.

Section 34 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 provides local authorities with powers to deal flexibly with distressed borrowers, and they have demonstrated sensitivity over the years in dealing with such cases. In March 2010 my Department issued guidelines to local authorities, based on the Central Bank's first code of conduct on mortgage arrears, which continued the tradition of handling arrears in a manner sympathetic to the needs of households, while also protecting the position of the local authority concerned. To reflect the content of the Central Bank's revised code of conduct, which replaced the previous code from 1 January 2011 and was informed by the deliberations of the expert group on mortgage arrears and personal debt, my Department issued updated guidance in July 2012 to local authorities in consultation with the County and City Managers' Association. This will further enable local authorities to provide a range of flexible repayment options for households in difficulty.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

In particular, the introduction of a mortgage arrears resolution process, MARP, which closely mirrors the suite of options available in the commercial sector, will present borrowers in difficulty with a range of alternative payment arrangements that can be accessed to ease the particular circumstances of each case. This process will feature a standard set of options including, in cases of certain unsustainable mortgages, a mortgage-to-rent facility. Local authorities have been restructuring loans for some time using their own internal practices. The introduction of these revised guidelines will standardise the approach across the whole sector, introduce a systematic structure and provide borrowers with a transparent and accessible model for arrears resolution.

With regard to the shared ownership scheme specifically, the rent charged on the local authority's equity in a shared ownership transaction is to cover the funding costs to the Housing Finance Agency which are based on borrowings at the prevailing interest rates. Any difference between the rent and prevailing interest rate is reflected in the capital outstanding on the property - that is, if the rent charged in any period is greater than the prevailing mortgage interest due on the local authority's share, the purchase price of the outstanding equity will be reduced accordingly.

To take account of the current housing market conditions, the Government's 2011 housing policy statement announced the standing down of all affordable housing schemes, including the shared ownership scheme, in the context of a full review of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000. That review is now under way and will conclude later in the year. Any future changes to legislation governing affordable housing schemes, including shared ownership, will be informed by that review.

I call Deputy Durkan. For a moment I could not find him in the Chamber.

I know I am nearly invisible.

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. However, there is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and I ask her to clarify whether it has been dealt with by the expert group. I refer to the fact that the rental part of loan repayments has increased way beyond what was anticipated. The situation is no longer as was envisaged and indicated to purchasers in the first place. For example, purchasers were told initially that the rental part of the equity would remain at a certain level. The condition was that within a 25-year period an agreement had to be entered into to purchase the second part of the equity. That has changed; purchasers are now told they must purchase the second part of the equity within a 25-year period. Was any account taken of that by the expert group with a view to pulling the repayments into line with ordinary mortgage repayments in the private sector?

I am conscious of the difficulties faced by distressed home owners, particularly, as Deputy Durkan has said, those involved in the shared ownership scheme. The Deputy spoke of the rental part of the agreement being different to what was originally understood. Many Deputies have brought this issue, and the difficulties people are having, to my attention. We will examine the matter to see what can be done. The difficulty is that local authorities borrowed the money initially through the Housing Finance Agency and we do not wish to impoverish them, but at the same time we wish to deal sympathetically with the difficulties those who have taken out loans are experiencing.

We are seeking to provide a fund and are working in conjunction with the local authority managers to see what we can do to address the existing financial arrangements, in view of the difficulties local authorities face with bad debts, etc, that arise, in turn, from the difficulties householders experience.

At this stage, we do not have a definite answer to the specific issue Deputy Durkan raised about people in shared ownership but we are conscious it is a real problem for people. It has been brought to my attention. I thank Deputy Durkan for raising this.

The issue is much more serious than has been envisaged by the Minister of State's Department. The fact that the expert group obviously did not deal with the fundamental issue is indicative that it was not aware of or did not focus on the particular problem.

Is the Minister of State aware that within the coming year or so there will be a dramatic increase in the level of arrears in the group in question? That will happen, not as a result of failure on the part of the borrower but because of misinformation or wrong information originally given to the borrower, to the effect that he or she would have a period of up to 50 years to repay the loan in full.

I am very conscious of the difficulty and we are trying to see if we can address it. Obviously we must be aware of the different relationships within the Housing Finance Agency which, as the Deputy knows, has reserves, the local authorities and the borrower. I wish to find a solution to this as soon as possible.

We do not have time for further questions on this matter as we are considerably over time.

NAMA Receivers

Seán Crowe

Question:

53. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will provide an update on the progress with delivering homes for leasing which were promised by the National Assets Management Agency at the beginning of 2011 and again this month. [46195/12]

To date NAMA has identified more than 3,800 units to be considered for social housing. Of those that have been examined to date, 449 have been deemed unsuitable for social housing by housing authorities. A further 594 have been withdrawn, usually by property owners as circumstances change, for example, when units have been sold or let privately and are no longer available. Another 2,010 units are for examination by housing authorities as to their suitability for social housing purposes.

At present demand has been confirmed for over 735 housing units and these are currently being processed. In addition, 250 units are undergoing preliminary appraisal, with another 400 units currently under negotiation with relevant parties such as approved housing bodies, housing authorities, NAMA, receivers, property owners, etc.. Some 239 of these units have been identified for acquisition by the special purpose vehicle established by NAMA to facilitate the leasing of units.

To the end of September 2012, 133 housing units have been provided by NAMA, with 109 of these units specifically identified for social housing purposes. Of these units, 49 are funded under leasing arrangements with the balance funded through the local authority social housing capital investment programme or by approved housing bodies under the capital assistance scheme.

Before last Christmas we were told that NAMA had identified 2,000 houses in this area but in the end approximately 68 were delivered, which was very poor. For various reasons houses and properties were ignored. Now 3,800 units have been identified. However, the Minister of State has given a breakdown of some that are unsuitable or have been withdrawn and consequently there now are approximately 2,010 such units. I do not know at this stage how many will be delivered but there is a housing crisis. Some 98,000 people are on the waiting list for housing who, taking into account men, women and children, represent several hundred thousand people. That is the reality; the number is building and becoming ever bigger.

We are planning to lease these units from NAMA over a period of time instead of putting them forward for social housing. That is the big issue here. These houses must go towards the social housing list, not for leasing by local authorities. The property developers and those who ended up under the remit of NAMA are getting a double whammy here. They are being paid for these units which ultimately will return to those who previously owned them before the leasing period, whether that be for 25 years or more.

Progress is being made. The establishment of the special purpose vehicle has speeded up the process.

The Minister and I met representatives from NAMA on a number of occasions and this resulted in the establishment of the special purpose vehicle, which, as already stated, is speeding up the process. The houses in question will go to people who are on social housing lists. However, they must be located in places which local authorities deem to be suitable for the people on their lists. This is why the process to which I refer is being undertaken.

As a result of what has happened to the economy, there is only a certain amount of public money that can be spent through capital projects in the context of acquiring properties. We must use the means and moneys at our disposal in order to provide housing for those who, as the Deputy correctly states, are on social housing lists and need to be housed. This is one of the many mechanisms we are using to find houses for those in various areas throughout the country who require them. Matters have not moved as fast as I would have desired but we have recently been able to speed up the process as a result of the establishment of the special purpose vehicle. I am of the view that the latter will assist us in quickening the pace even further.

I thank the Minister of State. One of the major problems we are facing relates to the fact that just over 100,000 people are in receipt of either rent subsidy or rent allowance. This has become part of the housing list, and people who are on the rental allowance scheme, RAS, are being taken off that list. Some people have been in receipt of rent subsidy for between seven and ten years. This is a matter we must address. It is madness to be spending €580 million per year on rent subsidy when we have all of these properties, which are now going to be leased. I do not think this is the correct route to take because it will not give value for money. We are rewarding those who have let us and the taxpayer down. These individuals are involved with NAMA and they owe the State a huge amount of money. However, they will end up being paid and, in many instances, the properties in question will be returned to them when the leases run out. That is a scandalous way of operating.

We do not want to give money to those who do not deserve it. However, we must provide housing for people by whatever means possible. There are various methods available to us in this regard. The programme for Government contains a proposal in respect of transferring responsibility for rent subsidy from the Department of Social Protection to local authorities. This is the right way to proceed because it will mean that those who are on housing lists will be treated in the same way. In addition, people will be allowed to make choices that are appropriate to their needs at a particular time. This is a positive move. What I have outlined will commence next year.

I have raised this issue on a number of occasions but I still cannot obtain a straight answer. The Minister of State is not answering the question that has been put to her. Why has NAMA only managed to identify 2,000 suitable units out of a possible 340,000 empty units? Those 2,000 units are not going to help reduce the numbers on the housing lists. Why is the Minister of State expanding a policy under which we will be leasing properties on a long-term basis from developers and NAMA rather than pursuing a social housing policy which would lead to the State accruing rental revenues and saving €580 million per year? What is being done makes no sense, particularly at a time when the Government has stated that it is seeking to make savings. It is crazy.

I know I am supposed to answer questions rather than pose them. However, I wish Deputy Boyd Barrett would tell me from where we are going to get all the money to which he refers in order that we might build or buy the houses that are required.

From where are we getting the money to pay out €580 million each year?

The cost of building or buying a house this year, next year - when we will still be operating under the programme with the troika - or the year after will be a great deal more than the cost of leasing-----

We could build a great many houses if we used the €580 million.

There simply is not any money available. I sometimes think Deputy Boyd Barrett really is not aware of the nature of the financial situation in which the country finds itself.

I am painfully aware of it.

I would love to give local authorities a great deal of capital resources in order that they might build houses. However, we just do not have the money. No one other than the troika can lend us money at present. I wish the Deputy would provide answers rather than presenting us with lovely fairytale economics which I wish we could implement but which, unfortunately, we cannot. We must work within the existing system in order to provide housing for people in whatever way possible. Given that NAMA must return a commercial reward for the taxpayer, we cannot simply ask it to supply houses to us at no cost. It just does not work like that.

Septic Tank Registration Scheme

Michael Moynihan

Question:

54. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he is satisfied that the European Commission accepts the new Waste Water Services as satisfying their legal concerns; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46175/12]

Michael McGrath

Question:

79. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the numbers of persons who have registered for the waste water services register; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46170/12]

Martin Ferris

Question:

82. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the financial supports that have been put in place to assist households upgrading their septic tanks to meet the new standards. [46069/12]

John McGuinness

Question:

99. Deputy John McGuinness asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his plans to publicise the waste water services registration programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46172/12]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 54, 79, 82 and 99 together.

In October 2009 the European Court of Justice ruled that Ireland had failed to adopt the necessary legislation to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of the EU waste directive regarding domestic wastewater disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems. The ruling highlighted deficiencies in Irish legislation regarding waste water disposed of through septic tanks and similar systems. The enactment of the Water Services (Amendment) Act 2012, and the subsequent regulations I signed to guarantee effective implementation of that legislation, were therefore necessary to ensure that Ireland achieves compliance with both the ruling and its responsibilities under the waste directive.

My Department has been in ongoing liaison with the European Commission since the court ruling, particularly with regard to the drafting of the legislation. The legislative provisions regarding registration of domestic wastewater treatment systems and the introduction of a risk-based inspection system are intended to ensure compliance with the court ruling. The inspection system provided for in the legislation and currently being finalised by the Environmental Protection Agency is also in accordance with the recommendations of the European Parliament and Council of 4 April 2001 regarding the minimum criteria for environmental inspections in the member states. The European Court of Justice considered an application from the European Commission for the imposition of fines against Ireland at a hearing on 4 October last and the court's decision in this regard is now awaited. At the hearing the Commission indicated that its primary complaint in the case was the time taken to comply with the ruling rather than the legislative approach that had been adopted by Ireland.

There is no current scheme of financial support for the upgrading of septic tanks. I have stated on a number of occasions that I am prepared to consider all possible options to provide financial support to householders whose wastewater treatment systems are deemed, following inspection under the new legislation, to require substantial remediation or upgrading. The remedial action required on foot of septic tank inspections under the new system will, in many cases, only mean that householders are obliged to de-sludge their tanks more frequently. In other cases, householders may be required to carry out repairs to improve the performance of malfunctioning septic tanks. The provision of any financial support will have regard to the overall budgetary situation and to the financial position of the individual households concerned. However, it would be inappropriate for me to give any guarantees until the need for financial support is determined. The extent of problems with domestic waste water treatment systems and the remediation costs arising will not be clear until such time as inspections are being carried out.

As of 22 October, more than 250,000 owners of domestic wastewater treatment systems have registered online, by post or in person at their local authority offices. I understand that the central bureau operated by the Local Government Management Agency is currently working through the postal and over-the-counter registrations that are to be processed. The launch of the registration programme in June was accompanied by a public awareness campaign. Information on how to register and on the fees payable was broadcast by local radio stations nationwide and advertisements were also placed in local and regional newspapers. Information regarding how to register was also published on a number of websites, including those of the Department, the EPA and local authorities. During the period from late August to mid-September, local authorities distributed information leaflets to homes in areas without sewerage systems, advising householders of the legal requirement to register by 1 February 2013, along with details of how to register and the reduced registration fee available until 28 September 2012. It is intended that a further publicity campaign will take place in order to inform householders of their legal responsibility to register by 1 February 2013.

I thank the Minister for his thorough reply. In the context of compliance, is the Minister in a position to state whether the charge - be it €5 or €50 - that has been imposed on people will cover the cost of inspections? Last year, he indicated that the process of ensuring compliance would be lenient in nature. Will the charges to which I refer offset the cost of inspections?

I anticipate that the charge that has been levied will pay for all administration and inspection costs.

In the event of a somewhat lenient approach being taken in respect of compliance - the process in this regard must be a great deal more thorough - the cost of administration and inspections will obviously increase manifold. That being the case and on foot of the provisions in the legislation, will the Minister have discretion to impose a much heftier charge?

No. The inspections will be carried out and we have agreed with the European Union that the approach in this regard will be risk-based.

We already have a risk-based approach through the 2007 Act which prioritises areas of greatest risk such as watercourses, streams, lakes and rivers. That is the approach which will be adopted in this case.

I refer to the financial supports for upgrading tanks. The Minister has informed the House that 250,000 people have registered which means 250,000 have not registered-----

According to the latest figures there are almost half a million septic tanks in the State. The figure of 400,000 was being used previously. I refer to issues which are worrying people. The current regulations are not hugely onerous. However, will the situation evolve and the regulations become more onerous? For instance, in a year's time will the EPA decide these regulations are light-touch and heavier-touch regulations are required which will cost more to implement?

I keep my ears open in rural areas with regard to this issue. The second concern expressed to me by people is that of financial support for households that cannot afford to upgrade. They are afraid to register because they are afraid that once they are in the system they will draw attention to themselves which means that an inspection of the septic tank will be carried out. The septic tanks belonging to low-income households in particular may be old and may not have been upgraded for years. They may not be in a position to upgrade such tanks so they decide they will not register with the local authority. Those two concerns need to be addressed, namely, whether regulations will evolve and become stricter and the issue of financial support.

We estimate there are 475,000 septic tanks in the country. A total of 250,000 have been registered and some post remains to be opened since 30 September. The closing date for registration at a cost of €50 is 1 February 2013. Those who advised others not to pay the €5 charge will have to explain to them why it will now cost them a further €45.

Give Mattie a ring.

I am delighted to hear Deputy Stanley saying the regulations are not onerous because that is exactly what I have been saying for seven or eight months-----

The inspections.

We have negotiated successfully with the European Commission, something my predecessor, Deputy Ó Cuív, was unable to do. The issue of financial support does not come into play yet because we do not know the level of problems that may arise as a result of the inspections. However, I refer to the situation in Cavan which is our only example arising from the judgment of the European Court of Justice. It was excluded from the judgment because it had been doing its business since 2004. The percentage of issues in Cavan was only 11% to 15% of those dwellings.

That was 20 years' ago.

I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be very interested to know there will not be an annual inspection charge of €300, as proposed by our predecessors-----

That was never proposed. Withdraw that remark. The Government never took any decision on any charge. It was not proposed. The Minister should correct the record of the House. You are always telling lies.

It was proposed and I can give the Deputy the document. There will not be an annual inspection.

This is Question Time.

I can see the Deputy is upset.

I do not blame the Deputy for being upset. Withdraw that remark.

You must withdraw that comment, Deputy Ó Cuív.

You are telling untruths. I withdraw the previous remark. It is a total untruth. This Government specialises in telling untruths all the time.

There was a proposal for a charge of €300 for an annual inspection of every septic tank. The 2009 EPA regulations were supposed to be implemented for every inspection. I am delighted to inform the Deputy and every other Deputy, as I have informed the committee, that this will not be the case.

I wanted to ask a question about the rates. Will they evolve and become stricter?

I will try to come back to the Deputy but I call Deputy Wallace.

I assume the main priority for the European Commission is that we clean up the water table. I agree that we should do that. A few months ago I asked the Minister how many tanks would be inspected. He reckoned the number would be one in eight. I do not know how the water table can be cleaned up if only one in eight tanks is to be inspected. He says he has negotiated with the Commission but has he negotiated with the Commission as how much money will be required to rectify the tanks? How can they be rectified if they have not been inspected? He will not know how much it will cost to clean up the water table if only one in eight tanks are inspected.

My question is about the regulations. Can the Minister give a guarantee that the regulations will not evolve into a stricter form of regulation if the EPA or the European Commission insists on the enforcement of stricter regulations in a year's time?

The regulations I have outlined will not change. In respect of compliance with the European Court of Justice judgment, which I inherited and which is costing €26,000 a day and €3.7 million as a lump sum fine, these regulations will not change.

In reply to Deputy Wallace, there is personal responsibility. If people are in the business of contaminating their own or their neighbour's water supply, they are already in breach of the Water Services Act 2007.

What if they got planning permission to do that?

We went into a lot of detail about the minutiae of the issue. If Deputy Wallace had attended the committee he would have learned much from the Deputies on his side of the House and on ours as to how to deal with these issues. We have agreed with the European Commission that we would inspect our wastewater treatment systems on a risk-based approach. It is the responsibility of everyone to ensure the systems are satisfactory and are not contaminating their own or their neighbour's water supply. The Act provides for dealing with those who are not compliant.

Property Taxation Application

Billy Kelleher

Question:

55. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government when he will publish the Thornhill report on property tax; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46163/12]

Seamus Kirk

Question:

67. Deputy Seamus Kirk asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government his views on the impact of differing property tax rates on the revenue base of local authorities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46164/12]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 55 and 67 together.

The development of a system of local government funding which is fair, stable and effective and brings greater local responsibility in relation to financial matters is an essential feature in the reform programme for local government. The EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland contains a commitment to introduce a property tax for 2012. The programme reflects the need, in the context of the State's overall financial position, to put the funding of locally-delivered services on a sound financial footing, to improve accountability and to align better the cost of providing services with the demand for such services. It was considered that in light of the complex issues involved, a local property tax would take time to introduce and accordingly, to meet the requirements in the EU-IMF programme, the Government decided to introduce a household charge on an interim basis in 2012. This was done via the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011.

An independently chaired interdepartmental expert group was established under Dr. Thornhill to consider the structures and modalities for an equitable local property tax to replace the household charge. The expert group's terms of reference were to consider the design of a local property tax which is equitable and is informed by previous work and international experience, as I stated in answer to another question from Deputy Cowen.

The group submitted its report to me some months ago and these proposals and issues raised in the report will form the Government's consideration of the implementation of this tax in budget 2013. The Government has decided the local property tax will be collected and administered by the Revenue Commissioners.

In reply to an earlier question of mine the Minister stated the Thornhill report is a confidential report for his perusal before it is brought to Cabinet in five or six months and before a decision is made in the budget. My question is about the commentary since the publication of the local government reform document last week. I will ask him the question again. In addition to the local government fund which the Minister says will be derived from a tax collected centrally by the Revenue Commissioners, he has since said that local authorities will have the power to raise funds in addition to that. I ask him to clarify that if and when local authorities seek funding for some project which the Minister decides will be funded by a local tax that he will authorise the local authorities to augment the Central Fund by the collection of local taxes.

I subscribe to the principle outlined in the document that local government funding should be raised locally for local priorities.

Councillors should also have an opportunity to vary this tax, upwards or downwards as the case may be, in the context of proper devolution of responsibility. This could be done in the same way as commercial rates levied on small businesses can be varied upwards or downwards.

Will the Minister equalise the Central Fund?

That is a separate issue. The equalisation fund will continue for the moment. The matter for the Government to decide in due course-----

Weaker counties will have to levy additional taxation.

Irrespective of what will be the position in the future, the Central Fund will continue in its current form in 2013. Revenue from the household charge will go into the fund and an equalisation measure will be applied in addition to motor taxation. This revenue will replace the Exchequer contribution which we no longer have the luxury of being able to make to the Central Fund. Some €1 billion is being spent on local government through this fund and that will continue to be the case. Provision has already been made for a community fund to be developed by local government under section 127 of the Local Government Act.

Is the Minister referring to the development charge and so forth?

No, it is a separate fund. Under a community initiative provided for in legislation implemented by Deputy Cowen's party in government, it will be possible to raise money locally. There is nothing new in this.

That is in the context of-----

The Deputy must put a question.

Will the Minister confirm that local authorities will have the power to increase the property tax to fund local services in their respective areas?

In that case, he has been waffling for the past week. While he will not confirm that will be the case, he will not deny it either.

Is the Minister responsible for the environment, community and local government or for trying to get blood out of a stone? He will not be able to get €400 or €500 from the 1.8 million people who have less than €100 left after they pay their bills each month. Perhaps the Thornhill report might enlighten us on how this will be done. Will the Minister explain how those who are living on or below the poverty line will be able to pay €400, €500, €600 or €700 per annum? This is arithmetic that no one can work out and people are fearful the Minister will ask them to pay money they do not have.

I realise full well that people are under pressure and this will be taken into account in any budgetary proposal that will be made by the Government. We are obliged to deal with a highly difficult situation and doing so is not easy on families, particularly people who have mortgages they are unable to pay. It was for this reason that I exempted from the household charge people in receipt of mortgage interest supplement. This is one example of some of the exemptions I introduced at the time. Is the Deputy in favour of more income tax or the introduction of a property tax to broaden the tax base?

We favour a wealth tax on millionaires. I will explain our position during statements on the economy tomorrow.

The Minister claims the house tax will be equitable and his decision to exclude those in receipt of mortgage interest supplement addressed the issue of equity. As he will be aware, Dr. Peter Bacon has pointed out that the chances of this tax being equitable are low because so many people are unemployed, in negative equity or experiencing mortgage difficulty. Many pensioners are also in difficulty.

The Deputy should ask a question.

Is Dr. Bacon's assessment accurate? Is it virtually impossible to introduce an equitable house tax?

Does the Minister agree that the so-called property tax is a tax on the family home and that it is time we started using the term "home tax"? Some years ago the Taoiseach made the following statement:

It is morally unjust and unfair to tax a person’s home, and by so doing grind him into the ground. Indeed, in cases it could probably be unconstitutional.

Does the Minister agree with the Taoiseach's remarks?

It is strange that Deputies have not been given access to the Thornhill report. The Minister received the report some five or six months ago and will not publish it. Michael Collins, a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood and Minister for Finance, was more open in such matters than the Minister opposite.

I am glad the Deputy remembers him.

Why can the Dáil not have sight of the report? It is ridiculous that Deputies are not being given the report six months after its publication.

If the Government is to raise some €1 billion through the household charge or home tax, the average household bill will be €600 or €700. Will the Minister confirm that €1 billion is the overall figure the Government is seeking to raise through the tax?

Many of the suggestions made by Deputies Mick Wallace and Finian McGrath could be brought forward as valid proposals once the issue of the budgetary position has been resolved. The Deputies will be able to make these points and have an opportunity to reflect on what is or is not in the budget based on the assertions they have made today. We are striving to introduce an equitable property tax, as we are obliged to do as part of the agreement negotiated with the troika in 2010.

I am amazed at Deputy Brian Stanley's reference to a notional figure of €600 or €700 per household, given that his party imposed a tax of £1,000 on people in Northern Ireland where it is in charge. That equates to €1,400.

Services such as refuse collection, fire services and school transport are delivered in return.

The Deputy should not be hypocritical on this issue. Sinn Féin cannot have it every way. It seeks to have the household charge abolished, while imposing a charge of €1,400 per household in Northern Ireland. This shows its hypocrisy on the issue of a united Ireland.

The Minister is being hypocritical in collecting money without delivering services. Incidentally, he did not answer my question.

Top
Share