Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We will be opposing this amendment. The Government amendment means that all residential or regeneration land, regardless of ownership, public or private, 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 the local authorities, which may be in possession of potentially suitable sites for the provision of housing, to develop those sites. In this regard I have considered and reflected on the comments and contributions from many Members during the Second Stage debate as well as in the Lower House. 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.

We must take the community view of this. Members of the public and those on housing waiting lists do not care who owns the site. We are trying to focus on sites of high potential in urban areas where there is a strong housing demand.

The Senator, along with other Senators, Deputies and councillors, has been critical that we are not responding to the housing crisis at the moment. This is a new power that we are giving to local authorities. It is appropriate for them to have that power because they are closest to the ground. They know their towns and villages, and have their county development plans.

There are strict criteria associated with the vacant site levy. The ultimate objective of the levy is to unlock these lands and get them back into beneficial use. It is logical to do that for a number of reasons. First, they are in urban areas and we need to have sustainable development in our urban areas. We need to bring footfall back into the centres of our villages, towns and cities. Second, existing public infrastructure already services these sites. Rather than having to invest large sums of taxpayers' money in developing new infrastructure, these sites are on streets already, lying vacant. It is up to local authorities to focus on them, regardless of whether they own them, and bring them back into beneficial use. We believe it will bring a new focus and impetus to get these sites back into beneficial use and, therefore, we are opposing the amendment.