Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the members from the CCMA and thank them their very concise submission. I like that it has a few asks and it raises concerns. We get a lot of submissions in here and at the end of them we are not really too sure what the ask is. I am very much a person who likes to get to the bottom of an issue and the ask.

At the outset I want to say that I do not think you can look at this tax on land value on shared and urban development without the context of the RZLT. I sit on the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We get a lot of engagement on the RZLT, particularly in agriculture. We have had many issues raised from north county Dublin, where there is a very strong horticultural sector. I think these are going to overlap and I think we cannot see these outside the context. While the witnesses are not politicians and I am not asking them to comment on political matters, we cannot see this outside the context of the political landscape that we operate in here. There are challenges caused by the perception that there is a major disconnect by Government policy makers in relation to rural Ireland, and the challenges around what I would call the active use of land. This may well be mixed use zoning but may also be zoned actively for agriculture, and align with national food and agricultural policies. I just wanted to set that out in the beginning.

I want to touch on a few issues on page 1. I will stay really focused on what the witnesses set out in their paper today. On page 1, the witnesses say that there is a risk of misinterpreting certain sections of this Bill. That is what we are told. Then I look at the opening statement given on the 4 May to this committee by the Department which says:

The land value sharing, LVS, elements of the proposals have been the subject of economic appraisal and detailed discussions with the Attorney General's Office, valuation experts and engagement with key stakeholders in order to provide a robust basis and understanding of the draft legislation.

That is all very fine and dandy. It is important to address the interactions and the channels of communication. It is important that everyone is singing off the same page, everyone understands that. Is that the case for the witnesses? We know it is very complex. We also know the challenge is to bring clarity and some sort of simplicity to legislation in terms of the understanding and the reading of it.Are the witnesses happy with the interaction and channels of communication? Are they sufficient?