Cian O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay North · Social Democrats · Ireland
“Unification presents distinct challenges that need to be carefully planned for and managed. The analysis done by Professor Doyle shows that the cost of pensions would be unlikely to transfer to a united Ireland straight away. Following Brexit, the UK and Ireland signed a bilateral convention on social security in 2019.”
“Ireland spends less than that defending a much larger territory and has decades of underinvestment to catch up on. We need increased investment, particularly in systems and technologies, including sonar and air surveillance radar.”
“I welcome this important discussion on the topic of Irish unity and its fiscal implications. It deserves analysis and fundamentally respect for the people, who will ultimately decide the future of this island. There are real challenges in any transition to unity but there are also very significant opportunities.”
“These are highly skilled jobs with union representation and apprenticeship programmes. They are of fundamental importance to the local economy and community. They should never have been left exposed in this way.”
“The Tánaiste must surely know that these exports are feeding Putin's war machine. Does he not think it is unusual that Ireland is one of the very few European countries where our exports to Russia have increased since Russia invaded Ukraine? That has been driven by the exports of alumina that have more than doubled.”
“We know from the investigation carried out by The Irish Times and the organised crime and corruption reporting project that alumina from Ireland is ending up in Russian owned smelters in Krasnoyarsk. Krasnoyarsk is Russia's only smelter producing high purity aluminium.”
The complete record
Every one of 897 lines we hold for Cian O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 18.
“How can the Taoiseach stand over someone having to wait 13 years on a waiting list? Does he accept responsibility for these waiting lists and will he commit to an urgent recruitment drive for primary care services?”
“During the last Government, he stood over a recruitment embargo in the health service. At the time, the Irish Association of Speech and Language Therapists said it was aware of vacancy rates of up to 45%. That embargo was replaced with another barrier to recruitment - the pay and numbers strategy - in July 2024. This capped employment at December 2023 levels. It meant previously funded positions that could not be filled during the recruitment embargo were simply abolished. Critical services in primary care were just expected to cope with soaring referrals and reduced staffing but, of course, they could not and children all over the country paid the price for this. The only thing children are guaranteed is a place on a waiting list. This cannot go on. Not only has the Government not addressed this crisis, but it has made it worse.”
“How can the Taoiseach possibly defend someone waiting for psychological services since 2012? How can he let this happen? He has been in office since 2020. He has had more than enough time to sort this out. The impact on children, young people and their families has been catastrophic. Early intervention, as he knows, is crucial and makes all the difference so that children can reach their full potential. These waiting lists mean that thousands of children all over the country are suffering unnecessarily. They are having problems communicating, having difficulties at school and co-ordination challenges. These are all things that could be made more manageable with timely intervention. These services have been run into the ground by the Taoiseach’s Governments.”
“It is no exaggeration to say that primary care services for children around the country are at breaking point. Figures obtained by my colleague, Liam Quaide, revealed the depths of the crisis. The longest wait time for speech and language therapy in primary care services in Dublin is six years. In the north Lee area of Cork, one child has been waiting seven years for physiotherapy. For occupational therapy in primary care, there are huge waiting lists. A child in Meath has been left waiting for nine years and a child in north Dublin ten years. When it comes to psychology services, a child in Galway has been left waiting nine years, while one young person in Dublin has been on a waiting list for more than 13 years. Leaving children on waiting lists for six, seven, nine, ten and 13 years is utterly unacceptable.”
“I welcome the Taoiseach's confirmation that he is giving a commitment that there will be no increase brought to the Oireachtas by the Government on insurance awards. The Taoiseach is giving that commitment.”
“The Taoiseach has clarified that there will not be an increase of 17%. He is giving that commitment to the Dáil now that the Government will not be putting forward an increase of 17%. I welcome that if that is the case. Awards here are four times higher than in the UK, so it would be a regressive move. If the Government is not doing that, that is welcome. The Taoiseach gave a history lesson on the legislation relating to this but the Judicial Council committee itself said that it could not carry out any meaningful analysis on the quantum of awards given under the guidelines to date that might inform this review. The committee itself was saying that it did not sufficient data to be able to make an informed, good decision.”
“Insurance costs in Ireland are already far too high and are often the reason community events end up getting cancelled. Sports clubs run by volunteers are under huge stress trying to meet constantly rising costs. Costs are an extra burden on households. Motor insurance premiums are now shooting up month after month. Increasing personal injury awards will add further fuel to this inflationary fire. Why is the Government even considering increasing them? Its sole focus should be on getting insurance costs down. Government dithering on this issue is causing huge concern. There are now fears it is delaying a decision until the Dail goes into recess, to try to avoid Dáil scrutiny and questioning on it. Can the Taoiseach level with us and give us a straight answer? Is the Government going to increase personal injury awards by 17%?”
“Awards here can be more than four times higher than in the UK and still we are hearing that the Government is contemplating jacking them up even further by increasing awards by nearly one fifth. This will have an immediate knock-on effect on insurance premiums, not just for every household but for community groups, sports clubs and small businesses too. Prices are soaring across the country. Grocery prices, rents, energy and transport costs are all sky rocketing and this is putting a huge strain on households. Wherever possible the Government should be doing everything it can to reduce costs, not further inflate them. A 17% increase in personal injury awards would do just that. It would drive insurance costs even higher at a time when so many people are struggling to get by.”
“What is the Government at when it comes to personal injury awards? For weeks now we have been hearing about a memo that the Minister for justice is bringing to Cabinet. It concerns a review of awards by the Judicial Council which recommended a 17% increase. Initially it was reported that the Minister was going to rubberstamp that increase. This memo was due to go to Cabinet last week. Then it was reported that it was going to go to Cabinet yesterday. Now we hear that it might be next week after it first goes to a Cabinet subcommittee today. Can the Taoiseach tell us what is going on? I should not need to tell the Taoiseach that a 17% increase in awards would be absolutely disastrous and the fact that the Government is even considering this is reckless. Personal injury awards in Ireland are already much higher than in other countries.”
“It has been writing to the Government to say it urgently needs those. We need them to be done now. There should be no more delays. Why has the Government been sitting on those extra powers the Agri-Food Regulator has been saying it urgently needs to do its job? It is fine to talk about the need for transparency and evidence, but if the Government does not give the Agri-Food Regulator the full powers it needs, we do not have full transparency of supermarket profits and it does not give the CCPC the extra powers it has been asking for, how will the Government have the evidence and transparency to be able to do something on grocery prices so people can live dignified lives?”
“The Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, has requested that the CCPC reopen its analysis of grocery price inflation. This was done a few years ago and it did not result in any action being taken or in any lowering of grocery prices. It did not work that time and it will not work this time, as the CCPC has not been given any additional powers. This is just a distraction to make it look as though something is happening and something is being done, while prices continue to increase, we have no transparency of profits and individual families and households continue to struggle. Given that that action was taken before and resulted in nothing whatsoever, it is nothing more than a sham. We need to have full transparency of profits, but we also need the powers the Agri-Food Regulator has been calling for.”
“In fact, the CCPC has been calling for more substantial penalties for breaches of consumer protection law. It has been calling for that for some time. It needs changes to the law so that it can impose large fines for serious offences. For example, it could be a percentage of a business's turnover. It has been crying out for that additional power but the Government has, yet again, failed to act on this. The Minister of State told us that markets operate efficiently and fairly. How does he know that when he does not know what the profits of all the supermarkets and large retailers are? The Government is refusing to take action to ensure it would know about those profits. It is laughable to hear Government representatives say they need evidence and then to oppose these measures.”
“We need more than the Government simply monitoring it closely. We need it to act. I cannot for the life of me understand why on earth the Government will not support the Social Democrats' proposal for transparency in supermarket profits. What does it have against that measure? The Government talks about the need for evidence. The Ministers of State, Deputies Buttimer and Dillon, have talked about it and the Taoiseach talked about it yesterday. This is the evidence we need to have full transparency of what is going on with supermarket profits. It is the beginning of the evidence we need. Why on earth is the Government opposed to that? I cannot see any reason not to have full transparency of what is going on with the profits of supermarkets. The Minister of State told the Dáil earlier that the CCPC is not looking for additional powers.”
“How do parents tell children who only want to be able to participate in the same way as their classmates that their families cannot do that? What does that convey? Parents who are put in that situation love their children just as much as any other parent and want to provide for them just as must as any other parent, but they are not able to do so because of grocery prices and other cost-of-living prices that have gone through the roof. It is a horrible situation for any child, parent or family to be put in. The report published yesterday told us about children not being able to go to friends' birthday parties because there is no money to buy a present to enable the child to attend. That is a horrible situation for any child to be put in, to be excluded in that way. It is because these issues are not being tackled.”
“With respect, we do not need the Government to continue to monitor events closely. We need it to act and we have needed it to act for a long time. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has told us that almost 50% of the people who ring them do so about groceries - almost 50%. The Barnardos report published yesterday showed that almost one fifth of children are missing out on school trips and activities because of household costs. Their families cannot afford for them to go on a school trip or take part in an activity. It is heartbreaking for a child if their friends are able to go to an activity or on a school trip and they cannot afford to do so. There is social exclusion and it is difficult for the parent to explain to the child why it is the case.”
“Does the Taoiseach have the political guts to make supermarkets publish their profits and have full transparency? This is what I asked him about. Does he have the political guts to actually answer the question I put to him? We are talking about parents skipping meals so their children can eat. We are talking about situations where a child cannot go to a friend's birthday because there is not money for a present. Is the Taoiseach going to address these things? The Agri-Food Regulator last year wrote to the Government urgently asking for powers so it could do its job. Here we are, still waiting for the Government to act. Why has it not done that? Why is it taking this long? Will the Taoiseach compel supermarkets to publish their profits so there is full transparency and we can see what is going on?”
“Everyone doing the weekly shop can see this, so why can the Government not see it? The Government could be doing a number of things. For a start, we need transparency about supermarket profits. We suspect Irish consumers are being gouged, but without transparency, it is impossible to prove. The regulators for food and consumer protection must be given more teeth to tackle the issue. The Social Democrats will introduce tomorrow in the Dáil a motion that outlines a number of solutions. Will the Government support our motion? Will it compel supermarkets to publish their profits? Will it finally take some action to control grocery prices?”
“A few months ago, the Taoiseach told the Dáil he will always prioritise the child who has been left behind. What about these children? The cost of groceries has soared by €3,000 for families in recent years. Where does the Taoiseach think they are finding this money? They just do not have it, and that is why an increasing number are borrowing just to pay for basics. One in three households is now taking on debt or going into arrears to meet day-to-day costs, adding huge stress to what they are already under. When the Government talks about this problem, it seems to think it is in the past. It talks about prices having increased rapidly after Russia invaded Ukraine but does not acknowledge that those prices never came down. Grocery costs are skyrocketing again, increasing at three times the rate of inflation.”
“This constant pressure is exhausting and families are finding, after all the effort, they are still coming up short. Grocery prices are a runaway train and they simply cannot afford them. The evidence this is an enormous problem is mounting. St. Vincent de Paul has said that almost 50% of the calls it receives are about a single issue, namely groceries. According to today's Barnardos' report, four in ten parents are skipping meals or eating less to feed their children. One parent told Barnardos this constant struggle has led to them feeling inadequate because they cannot provide for their family. Almost one fifth of children are missing out on school trips and activities as their families cannot afford them. In some instances, children cannot go to their friends' birthday parties because there is no money for a present.”
“Looking at strengthening the powers of the CCPC is no good. You have to actually act when you are in government. The Government has been looking at strengthening its powers for years but it has not done it. The Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, asking it to do a review like it did in 2023, which did not achieve anything as the Government had not given it extra powers, will not produce anything different this time. Families all over the country are struggling to keep their heads above water. Every week it is a challenge. I am not just talking about the financial challenge, which is enormous, but the toll it is taking on people's well-being, who are having to continually count every penny to just pay for the basics. They are scrimping and saving to afford groceries.”
“They need certainty and clarity. The Minister has been asked four times today to provide certainty and clarity on this and he has failed to do so. I am giving him a final opportunity to clarify whether fees will be €2,000 or €3,000 this September.”
“What will fees be in September? Will they be €2,000 or €3,000? This is the fourth time the Minister has been asked that question so could he give a direct answer to that question? What will students and their families be hit with in September? Can the Minister answer that question? In terms of dismissing things, it seems as if this Government is dismissing what it promised students and their families it would do in the programme for Government, namely, to reduce student fees. It seems the Minister is dismissing the concerns of families in terms of their household budgeting. Anyone reading the programme for Government in black and white and seeing the commitment to reduce fees would reasonably have thought that fees would be going down and not up. The Minister is dismissing that and the concerns of households and families.”
“It does not get the level of rising panic at the thought of having to find an extra €1,000, or even more for families with multiple students in college. The Minister spoke at length about the Government's budget process, but what about family budgets? Does he understand household budgets and that they relied on the Government's commitment to reduce student fees? Families made plans on that basis, but the Government is now ripping up that pledge and those household plans. This is at a time when every penny has to be counted to make ends meet. This is causing great levels of stress and anxiety. Where are families and students meant to find that extra €1,000? I am really struggling to understand what the Government is doing and why this fiasco is continuing to run and has not been sorted out.”
“The Minister does not have to lecture us and the public on budgetary planning. There was enough of that yesterday. What we are talking about here is trust in politics and promises broken within months of them being made. The Minister has repeatedly cited economic threats as a reason to ditch commitments to students and their families, but the programme for Government was written only a few months ago at the end of January. We are not talking about the dim and distant past. Is the Minister really telling us that commitments made a mere five months ago are now to be on the chopping block? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government just does not get it. It does not get the immense pressure on students and families from soaring costs.”
“There is now complete disarray and open revolt in the Government over student fees. Last night, the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, announced he was not happy about this mess. He said he signed up to a programme for Government that clearly promised to reduce fees. He described the threat to increase them by €1,000 as a scud missile nobody was expecting. Can the Minister stop the pretence that what is going on is part of the normal budgetary process? Nobody is buying that spin, not even the Ministers of State in government. The Government promised to continue reducing student fees, but it is now threatening to break that promise and increase them by a whopping 50%. This is what is happening here. I ask the Minister to answer the question on this issue and to clarify this is not what is happening.”
“I extend our sympathies to all the family and colleagues of Brother Kevin Crowley. He is someone who gave his life to serve others. The Minister did not tell people during the general election campaign that a vote for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would be a vote to increase college fees. The Minister has been asked twice about this issue. I will ask him a third time. What fees will students have to pay in September? Will it be €2,000 or €3,000? It is a simple, straightforward question that the Minister has been asked twice. I have asked him a third time and I ask him to answer the question and to give a straight answer.”
“There should be a reduction in the €2,000 figure if the promise was coming to fruition. If Fine Gael's promise to phase out fees was coming to fruition, fees would not increase. How can the Government credibly look Irish students and their families in the eye and break these promises?”
“Did the Minister only discover the economic risks and threats posed by the Trump Administration after the election in Ireland took place? That is a very serious question. To justify breaking promises on the basis of the threats posed by the Trump Administration, when it was already in place and we knew that Administration posed huge threats to our economy by the time of our election, and then use that as an excuse for breaking promises after the election does not cut it with people. It does not cut it to have student fees of €2,000 for three years in a row and then increase them to €3,000, which sounds like what is happening, and then say that is not a broken promise. How can the Government break promises like that? The programme for Government promised a reduction and not an increase in fees.”
“It promised to continue to reduce student fees. It did not say it would jack up student fees by €1,000. It said it would continue the reduction. Anyone reading that would have reasonably thought that student fees would be reduced down from €2,000 where they had been set for the last three years. This is further evidence that the Government simply cannot be trusted and that promises made in the programme for Government cannot be relied on. Students and their families do not need a war between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael on the airwaves on this. They need the Government to keep the promises it made in the programme for Government. Will the Minister keep the promises made? Where does he think students and their families will find an additional €1,000?”
“They are already struggling to pay skyrocketing costs for accommodation, groceries and transport and now they have another bill for €1,000 with no idea where it will come from. This announcement did not take place in a vacuum. Costs are soaring all across the country. Grocery prices are increasing at three times the rate of inflation. The ESB is talking about slapping an additional €80 on energy bills which are already at a record high. Paying for basics like keeping the lights on and putting food on the table is already putting people under huge pressure. People do not have a spare €1,000. Every penny they have is being spent on trying to keep their heads above water. Families and students are already struggling and cannot deal with any additional costs. The Government gave a firm commitment in the programme for Government.”
“Donald Trump was elected before our election took place and yet the Government seems to have only discovered those threats after the election. It is fooling no one on this. We are now just weeks away from the start of the new academic year. It is a notoriously expensive time for families. What has the Minister for higher education done? He has dropped a bombshell of student fees going up €1,000 in September. The Minister does not seem to understand the big deal. He does not seem to understand the very real hardship this will cause. He has tried to brush aside the concerns of students and their families, telling them that all of us in any walk of life have to play the hands we are dealt. Anyone listening to "Liveline" will have heard the distress and the anger from a succession of callers all of whom are at the ends of their tether.”
“During the election campaign, Fianna Fáil and its coalition partners, Fine Gael, promised to phase out student fees. That is what they promised in their manifesto. The programme for Government promised to reduce student fees. The Government is now breaking the promises it made and is saying the reason it is doing this is because of economic uncertainty. I do take economic uncertainty and risks very seriously. The Social Democrats warned during the election that it was completely irresponsible to promise a whole range of spending increases and tax cuts at the same time. We said the Government would not be able to deliver on them and they ignored those warnings. It is now saying the threats caused by Donald Trump are to blame for this.”
“That would be telling. People move in and think it might be a year or two. There is a lot of frustration at local meetings in my constituency that I have attended. People moved in when they had no children and their children are now getting to the stage where they will be moving out soon and there has been no progress. This has to be tackled.”
“A key function of the local property tax is not simply to collect revenue, but to fund local services. That has been clear from the outset. If the point is to fund local services but people do not get those services where they live because the local authority has not taken their area in charge, then of course there is a strong rationale for the way the local property tax is designed to reflect that. The intention of this amendment is not to create a significant tier of housing that is subject to this reduced rate for a prolonged period. It is to ensure there is not a tier of housing that is not taken in charge for a prolonged period and that there is a strong incentive for local authorities to get on with the business of taking those areas in charge, not leaving communities in limbo for ten or 30 years.”
“If this is not done, how do we create an incentive for local authorities to take areas in charge? They lose money when they take an area in charge. They take on more work and more outlay rather than there being an incentive. Surely the funding streams should try to incentivise the right behaviour from a local authority. To put it another way, a local authority that is proactive on this is getting penalised, whereas local authorities that are not as proactive in taking areas in charge are not being penalised, in effect. As the Minister can appreciate, having good financial incentives for the best behaviour and outcomes for communities and local services is a good way to approach solving these problems.”
“It is totally unfair that children do not get a school traffic warden outside their school, a school funded and built by the State with public money, because these areas are not taken in charge. It is not the fault of the child or their family that this can take decades. I accept that there is a case for a contribution, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. If the Minister were to say to me that he thinks 50:50 is incorrect and that 60:40 would be preferable, or that he will look at this seriously, of course I would entertain that, but there is no acknowledgment from what the Minister says that there is an injustice here in terms of a full contribution being made, including for services that are not being provided within the area where people are living.”
“There are areas that are not taken in charge where, on the roads that are not taken in charge, gardaí cannot enforce the road traffic legislation. There may be road markings and so forth but the gardaí do not have legal instruments to enforce the legislation. They can ask people to co-operate in common sense and so forth but they cannot actually enforce the legislation, and this goes on for decades. It can happen outside schools that are built with newer developments. There are issues where local authorities at times will not put in place school traffic wardens on roads or footpaths that are not taken in charge, which creates very real issues in terms of the safety of children.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. I get the overall rationale in terms of not wanting to have an endless list of exemptions because, of course, that would undermine this funding stream. I am not looking for an exemption. What this amendment proposes is a 50% reduction, in the full acknowledgment that in an area where an estate or a development has been built and is not yet taken in charge there is absolutely a benefit to the people living there in terms of the investment from the local authority in the wider infrastructure and the wider community, including libraries, regional parks and the wider road network. That is acknowledged by my amendment in referring to 50% because about 50% should go to fund that. About 50%, though, is on the maintenance of one's local roads, local footpaths, pocket parks and so forth.”
“There is a financial equity issue or a fairness issue here for people who are paying significant management fees. That can be for duplexes or houses where there is really no case for an ongoing payment of management fees. The residents can be paying significant management fees because the areas are not taken in charge and, at the same time, they are paying the full local property tax. I would like serious consideration of this amendment because this issue is unfair and needs to be addressed.”
“It is often the case, as I am sure the Minister is aware, that when a development is built, couples might move in without children, the area is not taken in charge, the children are born, they go into childcare, preschool, primary school, secondary school and college, they stay at home after college because they cannot find somewhere to rent and then they leave in their mid-20s or late 20s and the area still has not been taken in charge by the local authority, which is something no one would have thought of at the start. There needs to be, in the local property tax, strong financial incentives for local authorities to take these areas in charge. This needs to be addressed. It has not been addressed in the planning legislation. This is an opportunity to address it so I hope the Minister will take this on board.”
“There are no timelines in legislation on taking in charge these areas. This is something I tried to insert into the Planning and Development Bill that went through the previous Dáil but the Government voted it down. There are no financial incentives for a local authority to take in charge a public area. In fact, there is a financial disincentive, effectively, because it gets 100% of the local property tax that is collected for that area and when it takes it in charge, the process of taking it in charge can be costly for the local authority and the maintenance thereafter is an additional cost. There is therefore actually a financial disincentive for local authorities to do this in a timely manner or quickly. That is one of the reasons this goes on for decades, not just years.”
“In fact, in a lot of other equivalent European countries the equivalent of a taking-in-charge process is completed at the end of the construction of a development within the time of the planning permission. In Ireland, after the development is built, the roads and the public areas are often not handed over to the local authority or taken in charge for decades. This causes huge issues in terms of maintenance, with the maintenance maybe not being done properly or maybe the cost of it being borne by the residents. There are therefore situations where the residents are paying local property tax for maintenance of their public areas and local facilities but are not getting any of that money spent in their local area because it is not taken in charge. Effectively, they are subsidising areas where the facilities are taken in charge.”
“I move amendment No. 5: In page 4, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Insertion of new section 10E into Act of 2012 5. The Act of 2012 is amended by the insertion of the following new section after section 10D: “10E. A residential property that is in an area that has yet to be taken in charge by a local authority shall have a 50 per cent reduction applied to its local property tax liability.”.”. This amendment is connected to the issue of taking in charge in what are sometimes newer developments or newer estates but, given how slow the process is, are not always newer. It should be a relatively simple and straightforward process. In other countries it does not lead into months, years and decades.”
“Regardless of how they are constructed, there is far less volatility in property taxes than in other forms of taxation. The amount of property in the country is increasing all the time. We are building more homes and more properties and the population is increasing. The Minister is right that there is not the same sort of volatility you could have with corporation tax, VAT and most other forms of taxation. I thank the Minister because he has made my case stronger. I will press the amendment because we do need a report on this.”
“I thank the Minister for being helpful. I assure him that there was absolutely nothing in his tone that caused any offence whatsoever. I am very grateful for the clarification. I am also grateful to the Minister for being very helpful in making my case for me in his response. The exact point that he has made is that there is less volatility in taxation on fixed property than in other forms of taxation or income streams. While there could be some volatility with regard to changes or multiple ownerships, the Minister is absolutely correct when he says there is much less volatility in income streams and revenues that arise from property. That makes the case for my amendment even stronger. This should be considered because the Minister is right.”
“At the budgetary oversight committee yesterday, we discussed the massive potential volatility in respect of corporation tax receipts, which is much greater than ever will be the case in terms of what I am proposing here. With respect, I do not accept his argument as a good rationale for not broadening the tax base or at least considering it, as recommended by the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. Volatility is in the nature of taxation and expenditure. The Minister understands that very well in his current role.”
“I appreciate his providing the statistical information but the purpose of my amendment is not simply to get that information but, rather, to obtain a broader report on whether he would want to make the proposed changes, and to give him six months to consider it. I thank the Minister for giving his rationale as to why he does not want to make the change I am proposing, which is that he does not want to introduce something that might broaden the tax base because of the potential volatility it might cause in that income stream. Does that explanation mean he will now look at the entire tax code and, everywhere there is potential volatility, he will seek to remove it? Unfortunately, there is potential volatility across all the different income streams within the tax code. That can happen across the board.”
“I thank the Minister for explaining to me the difference between a parliamentary question and an amendment to legislation. I understand the difference but I thank him very much for his generous explanation. This amendment is not a parliamentary question. I am not solely seeking the information the Minister outlined. I am seeking a report on the potential introduction of rate changes in line with the recommendation from the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister time and space, namely, six months, to consider whether he wants to back the introduction of differential rates.”
“There is no point in the commission making a lot of recommendations if we in this House do not look to see whether we can implement them. It is important not just to defend income streams for local authorities but also to look at how they can be broadened in equitable ways that do not place the burden on lower income households and ordinary homeowners. This proposal seeks to do that. I ask the Government to strongly consider it.”
“We are talking about landlords, including institutional landlords, who own a large number of properties. The rationale behind the amendment is that there is a difference between people who are paying local property tax on their home and those paying it on multiple properties they own for investment purposes. There is a strong rationale for considering higher rates for those who own multiple properties as investments. The amendment is just asking the Minister to provide a report on the potential introduction of differential rates. It at least merits consideration. Earlier, the Minister referenced, in defence of his arguments, the report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare. My amendment simply proposes that he provide a report that would look in detail into a recommendation of the commission.”