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.

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.