Before beginning Leaders' Questions, I again appeal to those who are either asking or answering a question to adhere to the rule, which is two minutes to ask a question and three minutes to reply, with a minute for a supplementary and a minute to reply. I do not want to have to constantly interrupt Members and they can please assist me by sticking to the time limits, or else change the rules of the House. I call Deputy Martin.
Leaders' Questions
We learned this morning that the Government has agreed to legislate to facilitate banks in repossessing family homes. Yet, the 170,000 people in mortgage arrears and those whose homes are about to be repossessed will be still forced to pay the family home tax. The family home tax, or property tax, Bill was published yesterday and is being taken on Friday and rushed through the House, with a vote on Friday. The Thornhill report was published only on Thursday, although it had been with the Government since June. There will be no adequate time for discussion or debate, with very substantial powers going to Revenue in terms of entering homes, inspecting properties and so forth.
All of this is to ram through the House what is essentially a very unfair tax because absent from the tax and the legislation is a fundamental canon of any taxation law, which is the ability to pay. In society today, at this very moment, many people simply do not have the ability to pay this tax - we are talking about the unemployed, people on welfare payments, pensioners, people on family income supplement, the lowest paid workers and people on farm assist. They do not have the capacity to pay the level of property tax that is being put on them by this budget and by the Government.
We must remember that some 500,000 people are living in households where mortgages are in arrears. Yet, for some unknown reason, they are expected and asked to pay a significant family home tax, all in the context of a dead property market.
A question, please.
We are saying quite openly that now is the wrong time to put such a burden on people on whom the financial pressures are enormous. The situation has got much worse with regard to unemployment and so on. Does the Taoiseach agree the pressures now facing the categories of people I have outlined are such that they are not in a position to pay this tax that is being levied upon them?
The position in regard to the property tax has been outlined by the Minister for Finance in the budget. The property tax will apply for a half year for 2013 and for a full year from 2014. The valuations will be set in bands of €50,000 and the tax will be levied at 0.18%, with a 0.25% charge for those who have houses that are valued at more than €1 million and in respect of the element of the valuation over €1 million.
The structure has been set out by the Revenue Commissioners. The introduction of the Bill is to make way for that process to apply. The Minister has outlined the understanding of the difficulty that people have these days in the economic circumstances in which the country finds itself. Arrangements are made and allow for a deferral in certain circumstances for people who find themselves in a situation where they cannot afford to meet the level of the property tax.
As Deputy Martin is aware, the introduction of a property tax in this country is with the intention of broadening the tax base. A situation has applied for many years where, year after year, local authorities found an easy way of increasing rates on commercial premises, which has placed an inordinate strain upon them and, given the difficulties about the confidence in the indigenous economy, it is necessary that the tax base be broadened. The property tax will be used, and the majority of it applied and spent, in the local authority areas where it is raised for services for people. I expect local authorities will publish their schedules of work so people will understand the property tax they pay goes for services for themselves and their families in the areas in which they live.
It is true that many people are now in straitened economic circumstances. That is why the level of the property tax was pitched at 0.18%. The valuation in terms of the banding is fair and progressive and those who have more and who have houses with higher valuations-----
And higher mortgages.
-----will be able to contribute more. The deferral options are there for those who find themselves in particular circumstances.
It is being brought in on Friday to make arrangements for the passing of the Bill so the Revenue Commissioners can make arrangements that it apply from 1 July next year, with a full year in 2014 and thereafter.
In the past two years unemployment has gone up and mortgage arrears have gone up significantly while economic growth is down and the property market is dead. How can the Taoiseach or this House say to people who cannot pay their mortgage-----
Why is that?
It is their record.
If people cannot pay their mortgages, how can they pay a property tax on that house?
His party is the cause of it.
It defies any logic and goes against any concept of ability to pay. If somebody paid €25,000 or €30,000 in stamp duty in the past three, four or five years, they believe they have paid their property tax.
They caused that.
Order, please.
So does the Commission on Taxation, which advised they should be exempt for seven years from any property tax that was brought in.
Does the Deputy have a question?
More than €5 billion has been paid in stamp duty. How are we expecting unemployed people to pay this? The higher the value of some houses, the higher the mortgages. The issue is that, because of their financial circumstances, people are simply not in a position to pay.
Does the Deputy have a question?
We are facing the incredible scenario where somebody whose house could be repossessed in the coming year-----
I told the Deputy that five or six years ago.
-----will also be asked to pay a property tax.
The Deputy is over time.
There is no fairness in this tax. There is no attempt to allow for ability to pay or to provide for exemptions.
Deputy Martin and his party signed on for a property tax.
No, we did not.
Like St. Augustine, he wants to be made pure but not just yet. He cannot deny his record in this regard.
The Taoiseach should read his own party's manifesto.
Fianna Fáil signed on for a property tax. This Government is introducing what we consider a fair and progressive property tax.
(Interruptions).
Deputies, please.
Read the manifesto, where a property tax is described as "unfair".
Deputy Martin already had his say.
I note that the Fianna Fáil spokesman on finance said yesterday that the requirement of the troika to provide legal clarity to the procedural aspects of the 2009 legislation introduced by the previous Administration, which was adjudicated on by Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne, would lead to a rash of house repossessions. That is untrue. The situation in so far as the mortgage market is concerned - and it has been so for very many years - is that banks lend on the basis that they will be repaid and where circumstances do not permit that to happen, repossessions have taken place.
Let us be very clear on this. It is the intention of the Government that clarity be provided to that aspect of the law which Ms Justice Dunne found insufficient or inadequate. There is no intention of having, as the Fianna Fáil spokesman said, a rash of house repossessions. The number of repossessions in this country has been exceptionally small and we intend to keep it that way.
We are over time.
House ownership is very important for people in this country and we respect and understand that. We want to keep that process whereby the level of repossessions will be exceptionally low.
The Government is putting the banks first and home owners second.
I am calling Deputy Gerry Adams.
It is very important that people know and understand that the house they live is in their home and that it will be kept in their possession.
I have told the Taoiseach that we are over time.
That is why the Personal Insolvency Bill is being introduced, to allow further options for people that will enable them to retain their family homes, which is so important for everybody in the country.
I ask the Taoiseach to recognise the Chair. I have called Deputy Gerry Adams.
Gabh mo leithscéal, a Cheann Comhairle.
Yesterday I asked the Taoiseach a number of appropriate and pertinent questions about the Government's cuts to the incomes of lower and middle-income families, to child benefit, maternity benefit and particularly the respite care grant. His practice increasingly in defending bad policy decisions which are scrutinised by Sinn Féin is cynically to use the recent conflict in the North as a distraction from his own decisions. That is what he did yesterday. It is a deliberate strategy which diminishes the Office of the Taoiseach and the Government and insults all of those who have suffered in the course of the recent conflict. I am in the North every week and there is turbulence there at this time.
A Deputy
There was turbulence there for 30 years.
I want to have all of these issues debated in this Chamber. I also want to have this bad budget debated in an informed way.
My specific appeal to the Taoiseach yesterday was to reverse the despicable cut to the respite care grant. He did not answer me and I am making the appeal again. I know the Taoiseach does not like me putting these questions, so he should forget about me for a second.
(Interruptions).
Will Members please allow the Deputy to ask his question?
I am sure he has read in today's Irish Examiner the letter from Mr. Pat O'Mahony, husband and carer to Margaret, who wants the Taoiseach to reverse the cut to the respite care grant. Will the Taoiseach respond to Mr. O'Mahony? Let us forget about Sinn Féin and all of these other issues. Here is a citizen writing to the Government and asking for these cuts to be reversed. Will the Taoiseach do so, le do thoil?
I would say there are a lot of people who would like to forget about Sinn Féin, but Deputy Adams's mandate in this House is not to allow that to happen.
The Taoiseach should respect our mandate.
The position is that the Government gave very careful consideration to this budget, which is essentially about providing an opportunity to restore our public finances to good health, grow our economy and provide the capacity to create jobs. That is the central thrust of the budget. All of those people who are on social protection, are unemployed or low paid will never have the opportunity to have a better lifestyle and better opportunities unless we deal with the central structural faults in our economy.
The reduction in the respite care grant will not be reversed.
(Interruptions).
The Taoiseach has given us a lot of hot air.
The budget has been decided by the Government. We have made the decision not to cut the old age pension, not to take away the travel allowance, not to cut the free fuel allowance or shorten the period for which it applies, not to interfere in any way with the carer's allowance or the home care packages. The Government made the decision to continue to pay a respite care grant of €1,375. I would like if it were more than that. I know many Pat O'Mahonys who look after their kith and kin. I have spoken to many of these people and I know it is a draining experience. This is a situation where the Government has to make difficult choices. Home care packages and the carer's allowance have been retained and an additional €20 million is being pumped into supports for the disabled and carers. The Government has made the difficult choice to continue to pay an unconditional grant to carers of €1,375. The budget as presented by the Minister for Finance will stand and will be put to a vote.
Shame on you, Taoiseach.
The Taoiseach's opening sentence gives an insight into the Government's thinking. Did the Taoiseach and his colleagues give this matter careful consideration? If he missed it, if it did not come on his agenda for some reason or other, that would at least have been understandable, but it seems he did give it careful consideration after all. He does not, however, seem to have given careful consideration, although perhaps he did, to cutting his own salary or the salaries of Ministers and their advisers. Careful consideration was not apparently given to the bankers who are on huge pensions or are still, even though they helped to create the mess we are in, drawing down huge salaries.
I do not know Pat O'Mahony or his wife Margaret, but I know lots of people like them. Mr. O'Mahony writes this morning that the Taoiseach does not give a fiddler's for him and his wife. He is right. The Taoiseach has just said that he will not reverse the cut to a payment on which this man and his wife depend to get through life. The Taoiseach was not sent into this Chamber to do this. He and his party sought an entirely different mandate, as did the Labour Party. They are doing the very opposite of what they were sent in here to do. This Administration is totally indistinguishable from the Fianna Fáil Government it replaced.
Hear, hear.
I am asking the Taoiseach again to reflect on this.
We are over time.
This is not him being tough - in fact, it is the easy choice. Being tough would be standing up to the golden elites, the financiers and the big people in our society, not the small people.
Like the Deputy, I do not know Mr. O'Mahony or his wife Margaret. I am sure that in the letter he has written to the newspaper he expresses his feelings very powerfully and more cogently than any of us could do, because he deals with this 24 hours per day.
He invites the Taoiseach to switch places with him for a short time.
The choice to be made by the Government was do we cut the widow's pensions, the old age pension-----
(Interruptions).
What about bankers' pensions?
The Taoiseach has only one minute to reply. I ask Deputies to allow him to do so.
Do we reduce the half-rate carer's allowance, take away the facilities pensioners are entitled to at the moment, or interfere with the home care package and the carer's allowance? What choices does one make?
Do we cut the Taoiseach's salary, Tánaiste's salary or ministerial salaries?
The Deputy is always complaining about being interrupted. The Taoiseach should be allowed to reply.
The choice made here was to continue to pay a respite grant of €1,375.
Disgraceful.
At the same time, the Government has set its face here in taking an additional €500 million from those who can afford to pay, which is obviously a very serious decision. I hear more crowing from Deputy Adams's left-hand side. I remind Deputy Micheál Martin that in 2009-----
We are back to me again.
(Interruptions).
We are over time. Will the Taoiseach respect the Chair?
Here is some ammunition for Deputy Adams.
In 2009 the carer's allowance was cut by €16.50 per week, or €850 per year, by the Fianna Fáil Government. The blind person's pension was cut by €16.30 per week, or almost €850 per year, and the widow's pension was cut by the same amount. There is a lot of hypocrisy here. This Government has to make very difficult decisions.
(Interruptions).
I feel for Mr. O'Mahony and his wife Margaret, but the carer's package and the home care package are untouched-----
There are choices. Tax wealth.
-----and the grant is still being paid at the rate of €1,375. People should say that to the Deputies on the other side when they tell people to vote against the Government.
The clock applies to both sides of the House.
I do not know whether people understand plain English.
A Deputy
The Taoiseach is over time.
Hold on a moment. I reminded everybody that the rules apply to both sides of the House. If Deputies give me a chance-----
(Interruptions).
I expect people to comply. Who is speaking for the Technical Group?
Deputy Boyd Barrett again.
He gave up the €40,000 leader's allowance. Fair play to him. Now will Deputy Finian McGrath give up the allowance too?
The Minister of State should give up the €75,000.
I will suspend the House if Deputies will not stay quiet. I am sick to death of this. Complaint after complaint comes into my office from the public. I ask Deputies to behave. It is very easy to stick to the rules or else to change them. However, Deputies should not ask me to apply rules they will not obey. I want to make that clear. I will not proceed with this. Deputy Boyd Barrett has two minutes.
Struggling families throughout the county are all too aware of the cruel and impossible cuts and taxes the Government has imposed on them, and that its grim determination to impose this suffering is in order to pay off the debts of bankers and bondholders. Will the Taoiseach explain to me and the nation how, at the same time it imposes this suffering on ordinary people in order to obey the diktats of the troika, the Government is simultaneously maintaining a planning, licensing and tax regime that effectively gives away an estimated 180 billion barrels' worth of gas and oil sitting off the coast of this country? Will he also explain how, in the case of Rossport and now also in Dublin Bay, he is awarding licences to multinational oil companies to ride roughshod over the concerns of local communities-----
That is a local issue.
Do you mind?
-----refusing their demands for public inquiries to look into the environmental dangers posed by drilling for oil six kilometres off the coast of Dublin Bay? Why is he refusing their demands to look into the benefits - or lack of same - for ordinary citizens of this country of these unprecedented deals with multinational companies? That amount of gas and oil, which is given in detailed estimates provided by the actual companies, could pay off our national debt five times over. Why is the Government giving away these resources to private multinational companies when our nation is being beggared? Why is it allowing them to ride completely roughshod over the legitimate concerns of local communities, both in the Taoiseach's county and in the capital city? Will the Taoiseach revoke the licences of these companies to drill or extract oil until we know that our environment is safe and that the benefits of this gas and oil will go to the citizens of this country?
Hands off Dublin Bay.
I am not sure how Deputy Boyd Barrett determined there are 180 billion barrels of oil to be found. There is a great deal the Government can do for the country in this regard. In the regime that applied previously, contracts were drawn up between the State and exploration companies to determine whether finds were real and commercial and should be developed. One of the major finds, off Kinsale, has been in operation for many years and has come almost to the end of its capacity, while for the past 13 years the development process of bringing ashore the gas from the Corrib field has continued.
I spoke this week to the Norwegian Prime Minister, who made the point that by a law laid down many years ago Norway has never spent any of the money arising from North Sea oil or gas but has put the entirety into a national pension fund, now worth more than €500 billion. None the less, Norway is a high-tax country, as Deputy Boyd Barrett is aware. In letting out the exploration blocs, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, is determining the interest level of companies that wish to explore options. The technology has changed and if it is possible to determine whether there are finds of oil or gas it follows that environmental sensitivities must be taken into account. There must be exceptional licensing requirements and a determination of whether there is value in following up the development of the kind of well that may be there.
As the Deputy is aware, the State, via the Government, can make a judgment in respect of determining the value to the State of any find. That issue is central to the Minister's policy in this regard. First must come the development of interest from commercial operations to explore and determine whether there are finds that should be developed and, if so, in what circumstances. This can make an impact on our economy in the future.
I am not in a position to alter contracts that were signed years ago between the State and companies in respect of gas finds or whatever. It is important and in everybody's interest that where blocs are let out for exploration the licence to explore can be used or lost, and if there are finds or reservoirs, we must examine very carefully in what circumstances and capacity, and to what value to our country, these should be developed.
The estimates come from the oil companies. I brought a little file to hand over to the Taoiseach which details the oil company estimates and shows 90 billion barrels off the west coast and a similar amount found off the rest of the country. At current market prices that is approximately €1.5 trillion worth of estimated gas and oil. If even a small fraction of that is commercially extractable it would pay off the debts imposed by the troika on this country.
I am glad the Taoiseach mentioned Norway. I have a simple question for him. Will he adopt the Norwegian model? Norway does not allow any drilling unless there is a public inquiry and thoroughgoing public consultation. There can be no drilling within 25 km of the coast; 78% of the profits go to the state in taxes and royalties; and ownership of the gas and oil stays in the hands of the national company, Statoil, which is owned by the state and the citizens. Will the Taoiseach halt any permissions for drilling or extraction by oil companies until we have established a Norwegian model to manage our natural resources in order to keep the environment safe and so that the citizens of this country can benefit from the resources in our waters?
First the Deputy asked me to withdraw the licences. Then he asked me to adopt the Norwegian model.
Just do not grant the licences in Dublin Bay.
I assure the Deputy I am as interested in this as is anybody working on behalf of the people of this country. If there are reservoirs of either oil or gas offshore, the first thing that must be done is to determine where they are, whether they are commercial and the value and range of what they contain.
Here is the map. There are 87 prospects in specific locations.
The level of interest expressed by commercial companies has been higher lately than for the past 30 years. Clearly, finds have been made in other places around the world. In a major drilling operation off the west coast last year, where it had been assumed there was a really big reservoir of gas, this assumption turned out to be entirely negative. The map the Deputy has is not consistent with the facts. First, one must advertise for expressions of interest in exploration rights.
These are obviously monitored by the State and the Department. If it transpires that there is a find of gas or oil, a particular process must be undergone and this is designed to protect the environment. It is also designed to ensure that the country and, as a consequence, the people and the economy will get the best deal possible. The Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, is conscious of this and will pursue the matter in that way.
Does the Taoiseach propose to instigate a public inquiry with regard to what is happening in Dublin Bay?
That used to be Labour Party policy.