John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am divided in where I stand on this. I understand the motivation behind it, but the budgetary process that a local authority undergoes takes place in a tight time period. It is also the case that, where local elected representatives are given a mandate to make decisions, they often complain - I receive such complaints - that their hands are tied too much on issues. They have a free hand in how they operate and vote and in the decisions they take in the formation of budgets.

Under the legislation governing rates currently, a local authority may provide up to 100% relief on rates where a premises is vacant due to renovation, repairs or the owner being unable to find a tenant. Outside the city councils of Dublin, Cork and Limerick, which historically had separate legal provisions enabling a refund of 50% on vacant properties, the practice has generally been for elected members to give 100% relief. The introduction of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 gave discretion to the elected members of an authority to vary the rate refund levels applicable to individual areas within the authority's administrative area. The lack of any charge on vacant premises may act as a disincentive for the property to be put to its best use. Vacancy refunds also introduce a level of uncertainty regarding the revenue that a local authority can collect.

Section 8 provides that a local authority may provide for a temporary abatement for vacant properties subject to any maximum relief, which may be specified by the Minister, to ensure that all property owners other than those whose rates liability would be below the de minimis threshold may make some level of payment to the local authority. The section allows the Minister to prescribe that the maximum level of relief can be further reduced by individual local authorities. To incentivise the elected members, it is proposed that the revenue accruing from further reduction in the vacancy refund beyond this level would be added to the general allocations of the municipal districts in the local authorities.

A public consultation provision as envisaged by the amendment would be similar to the one in place in advance of the annual setting by a local authority of the local adjustment factor in respect of the LPT. The public consultation on the LPT adjustment factor enhances the strength of the relationship between local authorities and local electorates. I accept that public consultation during the development of a scheme for the abatement of rates on vacant properties can similarly strengthen the process, but the amendment as drafted inserts a new regulation-making power for the Minister under the proposed section 8(13). Section 8(3) provides regulation-making power for the Minister for the purposes of this section and it would appear that this amendment would be more properly located in that subsection. I am happy to accept the thinking behind the amendment, but it should be redrafted for insertion into section 8(3) on Report Stage.