Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is my first contribution on the amendment. Yesterday evening we had quite a wide-ranging debate. Much of it went well beyond the amendment, but it was closely related to housing issues and regeneration. It is unfortunate that some Deputies are taking a cynical view of the Government's efforts with regard to the social housing strategy and the Construction 2020 strategy, of which this Bill is very much a part. Some Deputies have outlined their views on the lack of social housing in local authority areas, but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of the efforts made to see local authorities getting back into direct building and provision of social housing for the first time in many years. As I have said on many occasions, the allocations announced a few months ago were mainly for shovel-ready projects that local authorities have prioritised to the Department. There will be further allocations to local authorities shortly. These are ambitious targets and there is a challenge for local authorities to respond.

Deputy Ellis said the local authority does not have the money. Over 2,000 voids have been turned back into beneficial use in the past year and we expect another 1,000 to be put back into beneficial use in the coming year. That is progress. It is still not enough, but it is strong progress from where we were. That has happened because additional funds have been provided to local authorities to turn these vacant and void units back into use. As I said already, the allocation for direct build has been notified to local authorities, many of which are getting them under way. Tendering for contractors has to go through the process. Some of them must go through Part VIII of the planning process, which is as it should be, but I expect to see much more activity with regard to the direct provision of housing, as do local authorities. However, that is not enough, as has been acknowledged. Despite some objections to the involvement of the private sector, we simply will not meet the demand unless we have strong involvement by the private sector and we are relying on it, to a large degree, because of the legacy of lack of investment in social housing over the last few years. There is an interim period in which we must do everything in our power to stimulate activity in construction, refurbishment and regeneration to provide housing units, especially in areas of high demand. That is essentially what this Bill is about.

The amendment itself refers to exempting or excluding lands owned by local authorities and housing bodies or housing authorities. We oppose these amendments as they propose to amend section 4 to provide that land owned by a local authority or housing body would be exempted from the application of the vacant site levy on residential or regeneration land. To remind Deputies, the vacant site levy is being introduced to stimulate activity on sites of high potential that are already serviced by public services in areas of high demand for housing. Strict criteria are laid down in this Bill. Sites cannot be designated willy-nilly based on the feelings of councillors. It must be shown and proven that there is a strong demand for housing in that area. These sites will have to go through a process.

The Government amendment introduced on Committee Stage means that all residential or regeneration land, regardless of whether it is owned publicly or privately, will be subject to the levy if it meets the criteria for a vacant site, as provided for in section 5 of the Bill. This will ensure that all owners of vacant sites will be treated equally. For example, local authorities will have the same responsibilities under this legislation as private landowners. It will also encourage local authorities that may be in possession of suitable sites for the provision of housing to develop those sites. I think it was Deputy Stanley who said in the Dáil yesterday that the local authorities did not have these sites and if they had them, they would be developed. If they do not, they have nothing to worry about. If they have sites of high potential and, as Deputies rightly outlined, they may not have had the resources to develop them in the past, this Bill will give powers to local authorities to put any revenues they collect as a result of the vacant site levy back into regenerating sites or the general improvement of public services and amenities in a particular area.

The Bill gives additional powers to local authorities, which essentially constitute housing authorities. They are closer to the electorate. They know their areas inside out and it is their responsibility to draw up development plans that are sustainable. I see no reason for local authorities being exempted. It would help to focus the minds of officials and elected representatives to ensure that any landbanks or sites with potential are brought back into beneficial use as soon as possible. In this regard, I have considered and reflected on the comments and contributions of Deputies on Second Stage. The removal of the exemption will allow for the application of the vacant site levy in a fair and equitable manner to all owners of vacant sites, public or private. Just having a vacant site on the register, whether it is local authority-owned or otherwise, brings renewed focus on that site and it will initiate renewed discussions and debate on the potential of those sites.

We must also consider the community view. It does not matter to members of the public whether a vacant site is publicly or privately owned. They just see the vacant site, which could be used for housing. They may see it as an eyesore, impacting negatively on the urban area in which they live, and it is obviously in need of regeneration. In those scenarios, the community wants those sites brought back into beneficial use.

In recent discussions, much has been made of the fact that this may mean the local authority system will be levying itself. Some Deputies ask critically how a local authority will levy itself. Such situations already arise, as I outlined on Committee Stage, through the local authority rating system in situations where buildings or assets owned by one local authority are located in the area of another and there are clear, effective arrangements in place to deal with this. It is more important that the process of identifying vacant sites is established on a fair and transparent basis and that, whoever owns the site, pressure is brought to bear on getting such key lands into beneficial use at a time of profound housing needs, as had been identified by Deputies.

See this speech in context