Last week the Government announced with great fanfare - it will claim rightly and justifiably - a deal on the promissory notes. Over the weekend we saw a certain amount of spinning to take credit for it and it was mentioned how the Government had said it would threaten and intimidate the Governor of the Central Bank to make sure a deal came through on time. There was the banging of fists on tables. What was most important was that the vast majority inside and outside this House had welcomed the deal. The Government claimed that it was necessary that there be a social dividend arising from it.
Leaders' Questions
It socialised the debt.
It then published the Finance (Local Property Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2013. That tax is inherently unfair, as it does not take into account ability to pay.
The Deputy should look at his party's memorandum.
It was a Fianna Fáil tax.
It does not take into account the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation with regard to certain cohorts.
That is preposterous.
The fact of the matter is that the tax is inherently unfair and unjust.
Why did Fianna Fáil propose it?
The Deputy obviously did not read the manifestos because in his party's manifesto he did not propose it either.
(Interruptions).
Deputy Emmet Stagg did not read the memorandum of understanding either because it included a reference to a site valuation tax, which is something very different altogether.
The Deputy should read the memorandum of understanding and point his finger at himself.
Deputies should calm down.
I raise this matter because there is grave concern outside the House and on the back benches of the Labour Party and Fine Gael. This tax is seen as being the wrong tax at the wrong time.
Yes, it is the wrong time. The Deputy's party should have introduced it.
The Deputy should now conclude, as he is over time.
In fairness, there has been heckling. I would like to make a few valid points if Members opposite would listen. The CSO has published figures that show that disposable income has fallen for a fourth year in a row. It is outlining that people simply cannot afford the basics of heating, gas and oil.
How did that happen?
Fianna Fáil bankrupted the country.
Who is responsible for it?
Eric the Red is causing trouble.
When Deputy Eric Byrne is on one's side, one knows one is in trouble.
Deputy Finian McGrath is backing Fianna Fáil again.
Let me make three points. Why did the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Government not take into account the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation with regard to people who had purchased homes at the height of the boom and paid excessive stamp duty? That is one critical issue.
Who was in government at the time I wonder?
Why did they not take into account inability to pay at a time when families were under huge pressure and the figures correlated with this? They are the two key issues about which people want to know.
Would it not be appropriate to at least give some social dividend in view of the deal on the promissory notes to address a generation who are finding it very difficult in middle Ireland, particularly in Dublin, as the Minister's backbenchers are saying, as are Fine Gael backbenchers, daily on radio and to their constituents?
It is a Fianna Fáil social dividend.
Deputy Billy Kelleher has raised a variety of issues. Last week the official spokesperson of the Deputy's party, Deputy Michael McGrath, was quite gracious in acknowledging the deal done and its impact on the country as we in government worked to fix the terrible damage inflicted by our predecessors in government. It was a significant achievement last week, despite the fact that the Leader of Fianna Fáil told the House in February that the idea we could unilaterally renegotiate the programme was wrong. He also told the Leader of the Labour Party at the time to stop pretending that we could dictate to the ECB and everybody else.
If he had dictated, he would have secured a write-down.
The Sinn Féin spokesperson at the time, Deputy Mary Lou McDonald, told the House on 26 September that it was clear the Government's "so-called negotiating strategy on banking debt is in tatters."
I stand by that.
Despite all that was said, any observation by any unbiased person would see the best possible deal for this country was achieved last week. However, it is only one step in the path of recovery. I agree with the Deputy that there must be a social dividend from the incremental progress we are making because, in truth, the people have taken an enormous burden and it is to them the vast bulk of the credit for the steady progress on the road to recovery we have achieved is due.
On the point raised by the Deputy on the property tax, as he knows it was part of the commitments solemnly signed into by the predecessor Government of which he was part and to be delivered. The detail of the structure of that will be discussed in minute details when the legislative provisions are brought to the House in the coming weeks.
I have no problem graciously acknowledging the fact that a deal was done last week on the promissory notes.
A good deal.
Fair play to the Deputy.
He can apologise now for putting the country into this mess.
In fact, the Minister probably got more acknowledgment for this from Fianna Fáil than he did from some of his backbenchers who are still unhappy that the debt has been socialised on to the sovereign.
What about four years ago?
The point I am making is that Labour did not dictate to Frankfurt because it got no debt write-down unlike the claims of the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade when he was in opposition and claimed it was Labour's way or Frankfurt's way.
Fianna Fáil got no write-down either.
It was Fianna Fáil's mess.
The deal was an achievement but for Labour to claim it put the gun to Mario Draghi's head and threatened to pull the trigger is an absolute bluff. There is an agreement that will benefit people but only if the Government decides that a social divided is required from it.
Many families are out there in huge distress. They did not support the parties opposite for cuts to child benefit, increases in PRSI or to see a property tax foisted on them when they have not ability to pay everyday household bills. This is predominantly the case in Dublin and other commuter-belt areas.
Did this Government bring in the troika?
This is predominantly the case in Dublin and other commuter-belt areas.
It is Fianna Fáil's mess.
No one is taking Deputy Kelleher seriously.
It is Fianna Fáil's mess.
You seem to have hit a raw nerve there Billy.
It is Fianna Fáil's mess.
When Deputy Keating heckles me, I really do think I am making progress.
Deputy Kelleher is well able for it.
The ability to pay the property tax has to be examined. There has been some fraying around the edges but the majority of people will be obligated to pay a property tax whether they can afford it, put food on the table or oil in the tank.
That is Fianna Fáil's legacy.
This is about middle Ireland trying its best to pay health insurance and other costs that the State does not take up.
Did this Government bring in the troika?
Ronaldo Durkan there needs a red card.
Fianna Fáil's criticism of this Government's strategy is based on its denial that it brought this country to the brink of economic ruin.
When the Minister was in opposition he called for us to spend more and tax less.
You were a member of the worst Government in the history of this State that wrecked our economy.
The Minister should read his party's manifesto.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
We want to look forward, not backwards.
It was a Healy-Rae mess.
Stay quiet over there and show some manners and show respect to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
It is about time Deputy Healy-Rae owned up to what he did.
What Deputy Griffin said is a disgrace.
We do not want to hear that.
I want order please. Deputies Griffin and Healy-Rae can do this elsewhere.
I agree with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It is a disgrace.
All of Deputy Kelleher's finger-pointing and shouting cannot deny the fact that two years ago a new Government came in to pick up the pieces of the broken economy and is now well on the way, step by step, with the help of the people to fix the destruction Fianna Fáil left behind in its wake.
We do need to broaden the tax base because Fianna Fáil left us in a situation where we could not pay for day-to-day expenses and we are borrowing at the rate of over €1 billion a month.
The Minister was promising to cut taxes and so forth.
Up to 30% of our tax base collapsed because Fianna Fáil had shrunk it. We need to broaden the tax base.
The Minister was promising to cut taxes when he was in opposition.
Part of that is to have a property-based tax that is analogous to every other developed country across the world.
So the Minister supports it.
The detail of the property tax will be brought through step by step-----
So it is not the troika that wants it.
The Deputy can shout me down all he likes. The tax will be debated in this House step by step. It will be done in as fair a way as we can in the circumstances Deputy Kelleher's party left this country.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Why is the Government only giving 20 minutes to debate it?
The Deputies opposite have no shame.
Will the Government give us half an hour for this debate?
The Minister will agree the leaking of the draft report of the inquiry into the death of Savita Halappanavar before her husband Praveen had sight of it was an act of gross insensitivity to her family. It seems from what we read in the press that the report vindicates what Praveen has been saying all along. It seems to indicate that little attention was paid to the risk of infection and that there was a failure to intervene even when it was clear that miscarriage was inevitable. It is fair to say the Halappanavar family, and Praveen in particular, has been treated disgracefully and appallingly throughout this entire process.
Savita died on 28 October in Galway University hospital from suspected septicaemia. It was not until her husband went public on 14 November that there was any response from the institutions of State. He said on public record he had received no contact from the Health Service Executive, HSE, in those intervening weeks. Only when three doctors had to be removed from the inquiry team did the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, finally meet with Mr. Halappanavar. Who is in charge of this issue? Who is responsible within the system for liaising with Praveen and the family of Savita Halappanavar? Is the Minister responsible? Is the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform satisfied with the handling of the issue? Will Praveen now be given a copy of the draft report? If so, when?
Extracts from the draft HSE report into the tragic death of Mrs. Savita Halappanavar in University College Hospital Galway last October were published in national newspapers yesterday and today and were commented upon in the media and now again. All our focus should be on the renewed distress that this has caused for the family of the late Savita Halappanavar and particularly her husband. The pain must be unendurable in having to revisit all these matters. The report has not been seen by the Minister for Health or officials in his Department. I entirely agree the leak is disturbing and unacceptable.
It is disgraceful.
The Minister has conveyed his personal concerns to Praveen Halappanavar on this matter. He has made it clear that he is awaiting the final report of the independent assessor. He has reaffirmed his commitment to giving Praveen Halappanavar the final HSE report as soon as it comes into his possession. The normal procedure for people who are referenced in a report of this kind is that they are given the draft so that they have an opportunity and natural justice to comment on it before it is finalised. I understand that is what has happened. Somewhere along that chain of distribution where people were asked to look at the contents of a draft, it leaked into the public domain. That is shameful, unacceptable and hurtful. I reiterate again the determination of Government and the Minister for Health to get the full and complete circumstances surrounding this tragic death and the first person to be given it, once the report is finalised and in advance of any publication, will be Mr. Halappanavar.
I understand that Mr. Halappanavar and his legal representative expected to have a copy of the report last week and I cannot understand why that did not happen. It has been leaked subsequently and I can only guess at the motivation of those who leaked the report; none of us here can conclude on that. However, we know that the distress the family is experiencing is only one episode in chapter after chapter of distress visited on them not only by the loss of a wife and daughter but by the absolute ineptitude and insensitivity of the system in dealing with this matter.
What does all of this say to women when we consider it? What does it say when it is generations before we can deal with the issue of the Magdalen laundries? It has been decades since the X case and we are still waiting on legislation which, as everyone in the House knows, is necessary not to create some sort of liberal abortion regime but to ensure that pregnant women are safe and that if a pregnant woman's life is in danger, medics or administrators do not have the option of looking the other way. From what has been leaked - we have only partial information - it appears that this is what happened in the case of Savita Halappanavar. Her husband has said as much on the record consistently. He should have a copy of the report immediately. It is not sustainable for the Minister to say that it should be withheld until the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, sees it.
He does not have it.
Staff in the HSE have it and people in the media have it. The person who above all should have it as a matter of urgency is Praveen Halappanavar.
When the Minister takes to his feet I hope he will give reassurance to women, in particular, who are looking at the health system and the antics of the HSE and wondering what on earth is going on and, more important, to Praveen Halappanavar. The Minister should say now that Mr. Halappanavar will have an copy of that report immediately.
This is an issue of unimaginable pain for the Halappanavar family, particularly for Praveen. It is not an issue that I intend to make a political dispute about in the House. We need to get the full facts into the public domain as soon as the report is received by the Minister for Health. I have indicated to Deputy McDonald that the Minister for Health has not got a copy of the draft report yet because the normal process in natural and constitutional justice is that those commented on in a draft report have sight of it in case there are issues that they want to rebut or comment on.
That is why Praveen should have it.
Once the report is finalised, in advance of any publication it should not be in the public domain in draft form or any form and, with all due respect, it should not be commented on by anyone until we see the complete report. Too often in the past in the case of many issues people have come to conclusions. Let us give space and time to the expert panel to set down all the facts after due process and after those who have constitutional rights have been consulted. Let us then put it into the public domain and have a full debate about the matters here and draw conclusions.
The Deputy goes further and refers to other matters. She referenced the Magdalen laundries. This is the first Government in generations which has given a standing to and a recognition of the terrible wrong done to those women. Deputy McDonald mentioned the X case. This is the first Government in 20 years which is determined to legislate on the issue. It ill-behoves people who have been in the House for some time or whose parties have been represented here to critique a proactive Government which will actually deal with these issues of long standing which have adversely affected women down through the generations.
I rise on my feet in the knowledge that thousands of families and homeowners, many of whom are in extreme negative equity and perilous situations, are grappling with intolerable levels of personal debt, especially those with home mortgages. I watched the gleeful acceptance and acclamation of the Government and its backbenchers of a wonderful deal last week - certainly I did not think it wonderful or support it - from our so-called friends in the ECB and of the way they treated us. People have been left confused and further dismayed. This body of people, hard-pressed taxpayers, were waiting in anxious anticipation for the publication of the Finance (Local Property Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2013 published yesterday and for some sort of relief from the Government. Alas, they were to be bitterly disappointed once again. It was not a nice St. Valentine's Day present for these families and there was no such deal for them nor any relief for hard-pressed taxpayers. There is no extension of time for these people to pay back their loans but the Government has done it for the unsecured bondholders. There is no such thing as social equity for these families.
This property tax is clearly a tax on debt. What about the families who paid vast stamp duty at the time of the purchase of their dream homes? While it was called stamp duty everyone knew and believed that it was treated by Governments and understood by the population in general as a property tax. It was accepted that it was front loaded. Most people who had to pay it had to borrow to do so. They will be paying it for the next 20 or 25 years or until 2038, in other words, the same period the Minister has said we will be paying the bondholders money, although he maintains we got a good deal.
As far as I am concerned the Bill is simply unbelievable. I welcome the legal waivers for those who suffer from disabilities or with homes damaged by pyrite and the social aspects of the Bill. However, will the Government reconsider extending the paltry number of exemptions in these categories and will it accept amendments? The Minister has stated that it will be discussed in detail. Will the Government accept an important amendment, which I believe is vital, to give these people much-needed relief?
The Minister is dealing with pensions under the Croke Park agreement. Pensioners, in particular those with small and diminishing incomes, are left desperate in this situation. They have been told they can get a deferral but at a cost of 4%, which is more than what the Minister said the deal last week would cost. That is not especially fair. It is worse for many who are paying mortgages to such institutions as the EBS, which refuses to pass on any paltry decrease in rates to its customers. Will the Minister call in Mr. Honohan and the Financial Regulator and ask them to insist that these institutions pass on whatever relief we get from Europe, the European Central Bank and general lenders? I call on the Government to accept amendments.
A couple of separate issues have been raised by the Deputy. Deputy McGrath seems to have acknowledged that there will be significant savings to the State following the deal on the promissory note and he is asking for them to be applied in a certain way, but at the same time he is decrying the arrangement made. The Deputy's view is that we should simply default or walk away from it, as if this had no consequences for vulnerable people here. The Deputy knows full well that would be chaotic. Countries that have defaulted in the past still endure the consequences of it 20 years later. That was not the path we chose. We negotiated what was by any standards a very fine deal for the people. I and my party objected at the time to the fact that this bad debt was nationalised but it was nationalised by the previous Administration by a vote in the House which, Deputy McGrath has acknowledged he voted for although he now regrets it. Anyway, that is water under the bridge.
The Minister, Deputy Howlin, voted for it himself.
The Minister reaffirmed it.
That awful decision was made and we have to live with the consequences of it but we have mitigated it to a large extent following last week.
The Minister voted for the guarantee.
Deputy McGrath mentioned unsecured bondholders.
We did not vote for the guarantee.
The Minister reaffirmed it.
Answer the question on the property tax.
I will not be distracted by people who are trying to re-write history. However, in terms of unsecured bondholders-----
The Minister is doing a good job of it.
Is there a joint leadership of McGraths now?
What about this history now?
Does every McGrath have a question?
Answer the question about the home tax.
It is Deputy Mattie McGrath's question.
Let me answer the question on unsecured bondholders. The Deputy might be unaware, if he has not read into it all that well, that we have already burned unsecured bondholders to the tune of €15 billion in unsubordinated debt.
Lots of people were repaid, however. The Government paid out on tens of billions of euro.
In regard to the property tax, I have already pointed out that in order to sustain the very services for which Deputy Mattie McGrath argues, such as health, social welfare and education, we need a broad tax base to pay for them.
I thought we were discussing local authority services.
The Deputy is big on demands for spending but he never supports mechanisms for raising revenue.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Broadening the tax base as envisaged with the property tax will provide a significant income stream for the public coffers. It will sustain local government and allow it to thrive into the future. The details of exemptions or amendments will be thrashed out on the floor of this House in the coming days and weeks.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply but I suppose I should not have expected much more. We heard righteous indignation from the other side of the House about burning the bondholders but the Minister now tells us that €15 billion was already burned. I have acknowledged that it was a mistake that I voted for the bank guarantee but the Members opposite have done likewise on a number of occasions since they entered Government.
We cannot undo it. One cannot get back one's virginity.
I am asking about the home tax. Prior to the election the Taoiseach described a tax on the home as unfair and unjust. The Labour Party campaigned against home taxes for many years but it is doing the exact opposite now that it is in Government. The people are confused and disappointed. I ask about the snitch clause that is being included in the Bill. Does the Government want us to become informers when somebody sells a home? We certainly support the Garda, as we discussed last week, but normally when somebody sells something he or she gives a good luck penny. The Government wants a snitch clause, however, and the Revenue Commissioners are being given exorbitant powers to interfere with people's homes and home finances. That is not fair. They paid their tax at source or through self-assessment and Revenue has no business getting involved in this matter. I dislike the snitch clause and I think the vast majority of people will not partake in it and do not like the connotations it carries. I am very disappointed with the Minister's answer and I ask him again if he will accept amendments on behalf of hard-pressed home owners who are in negative equity and struggling to pay their mortgages. They are the people in need. These people voted for the Government en masse and they are now bewildered, confused and dejected.
I am disappointed that the Deputy is disappointed. I genuinely accept his Pauline conversion and that he has renounced the sins of the past.
The Minister has to renounce his own sins.
I genuinely accept that he wants to put his votes to sustain the last, disastrous Government behind him in order to make amends. That is an honourable and good position.
Give up your aul sins.
I accepted my responsibility.
In regard to his specific questions, there will be a full debate on the property tax legislation.
What about amendments?
If the Deputy does not mind, I would like to see the amendments before I agree to accept them. The Minister for Finance will be taking the Bill. Let us look at the amendments he is tabling and the amendments Deputy Mattie McGrath tables. I am sure we will have a good debate. That is how the system works.
The position on what the Deputy characterises as the snitch clause is that as part of the sales process, a seller must supply the purchaser with the value of the property for local tax purposes.
The purchaser would surely know the value if he or she is buying the house.
Is that not a reasonable position? The seller will supply information on what he or she has declared for local property tax purposes. If it is different from the asking price, that will be known. That is an open, transparent and reasonable position but I am sure it can be debated next week with the Minister for Finance.
More Big Brother.