James Geoghegan (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minster of State and wish him well in his new brief. The context of this discussion about an accommodation levy in Dublin is really straightforward. It relates to the funding of the recommendations of the Dublin city task force. The task force identified that the capital costs to fulfil those recommendations would be between €750 million and €1 billion and that the ongoing operational expenditure would be €150 million. It is stated in the report that there are a number of ways in which the operational revenue could be generated. One is that Government buildings would pay commercial rates. In replies to questions I have asked in this Chamber, the Taoiseach has made pretty clear he is not in favour of that proposal; that one is gone. Another suggestion is in respect of congestion charges, but I do not believe they would generate the revenue, nor is it a policy designed for revenue raising. The third recommendation was the introduction of an accommodation levy.

I want to set the context of why we are even discussing this. On the Government position in respect of this levy, I have tried through parliamentary questions to establish where this is being considered. In the Minister of State's own Department, the line Minister responded to me that it could not be considered independently of our general taxation system, which is primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. I agree with this.

I then asked a parliamentary question of the Minister for Finance. I received his reply today which was very helpful. His response stated:

I would, however, add that a tourism accommodation levy is not a matter I believe appropriate to my Department. It is an issue very much separate and distinct from our general taxation system...

In other Member States where city taxes and accommodation levies are applied, the levy is collected at local level, by Local Authorities, who oversee the collection and redistribution of funds for projects locally. If such a levy were to be introduced here, the same system should apply...

In conclusion, this is an important issue which is being given due consideration at the moment and further engagement is required before any decision is made.

What is helpful about this discussion is that we do not have to look far to find how a model could work. Edinburgh has introduced this following the enactment of legislation in Westminster in 2024 and Edinburgh has now imposed an accommodation levy. That is a city that all of us associate with a high dependency on tourism. It hopes to generate £50 million to fund local services and the rejuvenation of its city, which would represent one of the largest boosts to local government spend in Edinburgh. A 5% levy is imposed an accommodation providers and 2% of that levy goes back to the accommodation provider to pay for the administrative burden of having to impose the levy.

Ultimately, we are talking about a couple of euro on a sector which in Dublin city, at least, is thriving. Investment in hotels is thriving. The hotel bedroom occupancy rates are at their highest level, demonstrating the need for more hotels. At least on the recent Mastercard data we have, expenditure in Dublin has increased for the last 17 consecutive quarters so it could be weathered. Ultimately, this is about a choice. Should local property taxpayers pay? Should small ratepayers pay or should it be a combination of providers that can contribute to the rejuvenation of our city?

See this speech in context