Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Deputies asked how local authorities would levy themselves. Local authorities already apply rates to themselves. That is a known fact under our current rating system and, therefore, any liabilities that would result from a designation are identified and shown on the local authority books. It is my hope - this is the reason we are bringing in this legislation - that we would not get to that stage, because a strict set of criteria is set down and there is due process before any vacant site is designated. Again, it affords the owner, whether public or private, the opportunity to set out clearly to the local authority what he or she intends to do to bring that site back to beneficial use.

If we are to learn from the past, we have to move away from urban sprawl, greenfield sites and a shortage of infrastructure. The same Deputies who are complaining here now were the first Deputies to come to me with complaints about unfinished estates, protocols for unfinished estates, lack of infrastructure and half-finished infrastructure. I am saying clearly that the intent of this Bill is to exploit and sweat existing public infrastructure that has already been paid for by the taxpayer. We want to focus minds on local authorities, which are the authorities that will designate ultimately. We are giving them that power. They are also the same local authorities that prioritise their housing proposals.

Deputy Boyd Barrett asked a good question regarding local authorities that come forward with proposals for social housing on a vacant site. I will give him an example of that in Fingal. The Deputy said no capital funding was being provided. The capital funding being provided to Fingal, for example, for the provision of housing has increased from €6 million to €81 million this year. Whether it is Fingal or any other local authority, if a local authority comes forward with proposals to regenerate a site and provide social housing where public infrastructure already exists, if it is being prioritised by the local authority, it is logical to me that we in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government should prioritise it as well. Also, the figures stack up because the infrastructure is already paid for. We do not have to go to enormous lengths and expense to install new public sewers, water facilities, electricity and so on.

This is about urban regeneration and refocusing development back to the core of our towns and cities. We may not like all that is in the Bill, but it is an attempt to focus the minds of local authorities and their members, who have a strong responsibility, on this issue. I believe that all public bodies, even if they are owners of sites, have a responsibility also. They need to make plans for those sites just as everybody else does.

The amendment stands. I hope I have explained the rationale behind it. There are strict criteria, there is due process and there is an appeals system. It is not something that can be struck down overnight. People will have sufficient time to set out their plans for sites, but these sites need to be brought back into beneficial use if we are to have sustainable development and planning in our cities and towns.