David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, to delete lines 20 and 21.

There are a number of things to say about these amendments. In bringing forward any legislation and putting in place levies and charges, I understand the need for balance and appeal processes and we all accept that. However, in this case, property owners are offered an opportunity to prove the land is not vacant before and after being added to the register. The Minister of State has said several times that these are vacant sites in towns and villages that need to be made available for building and he has acknowledged the urgency of the matter. We know, and we might as well accept, that some landowners will buck against the levy. That is the reality. While I understand the need to have an appeal process in the legislation, there is already ample opportunity for landowners to prove before and after they have been added to the register that the land is not vacant. For those reasons we must avoid property owners appealing simply to delay the levy, without any real justification.

It is also worth noting that we have gone from one extreme to another. We had huge landbanks being made available during the rise of the Celtic tiger, which artificially inflated the prices of both domestic and commercial properties, leading to the property bubble. There were not enough levies and taxes on land then to dampen the growth of the property bubble. These levies are put in place for the right reason, because we have a shortage of land and we have these vacant sites, or land that is available for houses to be built, but just not being used. We also need to avoid a situation where once building starts again, as it will, we have huge landbanks being sold off again without sufficient taxes or levies in place. We could see a repeat of what happened in the past. We have to get that balance right. I know that is a somewhat different issue, but I wanted to say it again in the context of this section.

I am not at all opposed in principle to the levy. In fact, I would increase it. I have no difficulty with the levy being put in place. We do need to stimulate this area, as the Minister of State has said, but what these amendments seek to do is not to make it impossible for a landowner to make a case, rather to pre-empt the efforts of some landowners to stall and frustrate the local authorities and the process to their own ends and without justification. That is what we seek to achieve by deleting lines 20 and 21 in section 9 on page 9 of the Bill. A number of similar amendments are grouped, so I will not repeat the issues.