Catherine Noone (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his long session in the House today. I commend Senators O'Sullivan, Kelleher and others on bringing forward the legislation. The Derelict and Vacant Sites Bill 2017 proposes to amend three existing Acts, as has been outlined.These are the Derelict Sites Act 1990, the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 and the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016. I support the very good intention of this Bill. Although I understand the intention of the Bill is to address the current deficit of vacant sites and to incentivise developers to provide much needed housing, there are a number of pitfalls in the Bill which I will elaborate on but which can perhaps be gotten around. I will support the moving of this Bill to the next Stage if that is deemed to be appropriate by the Minister but in regard to the proposed amendments to the Derelict Sites Act 1990 and the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015, any proposed measures impacting on private property owners must be subject to detailed consideration and scrutiny, as Senator Coffey outlined, based on the constitutional rights in respect of property. The amendments suggested in this Bill run counter to the legal advice received during the development of the vacant sites levy provisions, thereby increasing the risk of constitutional challenge and being found to be unconstitutional while also undermining the existing statutory provision.

Furthermore, the Urban Regeneration and Housing Act 2015 produced provisions for vacant site levies. However, this process was extremely complex. These complexities were a result of the constitutionally protected rights of property owners arising from the proposal which accordingly required the provisions to be appropriately balanced and fair and that they be reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the objectives which the legislation sought to achieve.

During the development of the provisions for a vacant site levy, the Attorney General specifically advised that the levy should be limited in its financial amount and the size of the properties to which it could be applied, that the rate of levy should not exceed the 3% rate applicable to derelict sites since 1990, that the higher the rate of levy applied the greater the risk that it would be subject to legal challenge and held to be disproportionate and that sufficient time should be allowed before the coming into operation of the levy to enable affected property owners to regularise their affairs. Therefore, this Bill, despite the very good intentions, in instances such as increasing the applicable rate and size of properties goes against the learned advice and guidance of the Attorney General, to which Senator Coffey alluded.

In regard to the proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, the recently published strategy for the rental sector sets out a range of measures under the headings of security, supply, standards and services, which are aimed at addressing

Having been the subject of amendments put forward during the

I raised this issue with the Minister a few weeks ago and I am very sympathetic to the thrust of the Bill. It is clear there is a housing issue in Ireland, of which everyone is acutely aware, and I can understand the motivation to push landowners to develop on their properties. As I mentioned previously in this House, Vancouver City Council recently approved a tax on empty homes. This move had a similar incentive behind it, namely, to free up empty properties and make them available to potential residents. The tax, which is the first of its kind in Canada, has been introduced to combat its housing crisis and is expected improve Vancouver’s rental vacancy rate by persuading owners - in a punitive manner, I suppose - of thousands of empty apartments and houses to put them up for rent. Will the Minister ask his officials to keep an eye on this and to perhaps consider it - perhaps it is already on the radar - to see if it is something that we could introduce here?

Although I understand the intention behind this Bill, we must take into consideration its various pitfalls but there is a lot of good in it. It proposes to amend considerably complex legislation which, in some cases, has already been analysed and scrutinised. However, as Senator Boyhan said, if certain changes could be made I would be agreeable to it but I will be guided by the Minister on that.