I thank the Deputies for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I am opposing the Bill because the Government's proposals far exceed what is being proposed by the Opposition. We have gone beyond what is in the Bill by bringing in the derelict property tax. The Deputy spent a long time criticising the existing regime, but the only solution he offered is to keep it in place and increase the administrative requirements relating to reporting. That is the height of it. We are getting rid of it because it is totally ineffective. It is not ineffective because of the Government, which brought in the existing scheme; it is ineffective because the local authorities are not applying it. Every solution the Deputy brings forward always ticks one of a couple of boxes. It is either to write a blank cheque for local authorities or to give them a free pass and ask me to step in and do the job for them. We either trust local government to do its job or we do not. Where it does not do what is required, we either take the power from it or give power to it where it needs to have it. In this case, local authorities have proved totally ineffective. I agree with the Deputy that the levy has not been applied. That is probably because of lobbying at a local level. That is, however, at a local level. We are going to get the Revenue Commissioners to collect this tax. Unlike the Deputy's proposal whereby if 25% or more of revenue is not being collected, a report should be compiled and we should debate it, we are giving responsibility for this matter to the Revenue Commissioners. I do not accept a threshold of 25%. There should be 100% collection of the derelict sites levy. I see dereliction as antisocial behaviour. As far as I am concerned, rent seekers are responsible for what is happening because they are leaving their properties derelict. Regardless of whether you are a socialist or a capitalist, I am of the view that those properties should not be in the hands of the people to whom I refer. I am sure the socialist view would be that the properties should be taken from them. From a capitalist perspective, they should be forced to bloody sell them to people who would actually make proper use of them. Dereliction does not meet any ideology, and I have been very strong and clear in my comments on the matter. That is why I am opposing the Bill. I understand the intent behind the Deputy's Bill. I agree with that intent, but I think he is taking the wrong mark in pointing at me or the Government, because it is the local authorities that have failed to use the existing legislation, which is strong enough but which is not being used. We are going to bring in new legislation to tackle this problem. We are doing an awful lot to tackle dereliction. One aspect of that involves strengthening the rules around how we charge people for dereliction and effectively try to compel them to do something with their properties. Ideally, they should fix up their properties or sell them to those who will actually use them. We are also taxing them in relation to their properties. We are also using a lot of carrots. We are supporting people to be able to acquire properties. Tackling dereliction and vacancy, whether in our villages, provincial towns or cities, is the other side of the coin, and it is so important that we tackle both. In the context of how the new legislation will work, the tax will be legislated for in this year's Finance Bill. This will be followed by a preliminary national register of derelict properties in 2027. Local authorities will still identify and assess derelict sites through their derelict sites registers. Crucially, the tax will be collected by the Revenue Commissioners. This will provide consistency and effectiveness in tax collection and enforcement. While the final rate of the tax still has to be confirmed, it is anticipated it will certainly be no lower than 7% of a property's market value. I certainly would not like to see any lower than that. By international standards, a rate of 7% is actually very high. The problem, as the Deputy rightly states, is that the levy is not being applied. This is why we are giving its collection to the Revenue Commissioners, which is effective in applying and collecting this type of levy. I recently met the deputy mayor of Paris, who is a member of the Communist Party, who is in awe of our rate of 7%. As I acknowledged when speaking to him, the problem here is that it is not being applied and collected. That is what I want to address. Importantly, the future collection of the derelict property tax will not be the responsibility of the local authorities. As a result, the amendments proposed in this Private Members' Bill for a new section 23A to be inserted into the Derelict Sites Act 1990, which would require local authorities to report on their levy collective activities, are redundant. I want to highlight that the derelict property tax forms part of a wider package of measures. I refer here, for example, to the work of the vacant homes officers and town regeneration officers in local authorities, the implementation of the vacant homes action plan, a related resourcing of funding supports, the funding included in call 3 of the urban regeneration development fund and the vacant property refurbishment grant, which provides up to €70,000 in grant support. There has been significant interest in the grant since its launch, with 15,600 applications made to local authorities to date and over €230 million in funding paid out across the country. In December, I announced a new enhanced support package of up to €140,000 to bring vacant above-the-shop properties in our cities, towns and villages back into use. This package will be available from quarter 1. A compulsory purchase order activation programme was launched by my Department in April 2023. I also highlight THRIVE funding, the town centre first heritage and revival scheme, which represents a transformative opportunity, the living city initiative, which is a tax incentive scheme that has been extended in the recent budget, and the recently published national housing action plan, Delivering Homes and Building Communities. The Deputy and I agree that dereliction is an absolute blight on our society. However, he is misidentifying the cause of the problems relating to application and collection. We are of the view that we need to have a really robust collection method. The amount collected should be 100%, and that is why we are bringing in the amendments I have outlined to tackle dereliction. Dereliction is totally unacceptable and is a form of antisocial behaviour. I have said it before and I say it again - the people who own derelict properties are little more than rent seekers. Under my watch, there will be nowhere for them to hide when it comes to dereliction.

Sentiment score: 0.11

I agree with Deputy Lawlor that these are a blight on our communities. There should be nowhere to hide for people who have properties they are letting go into dereliction. Not only that but there are areas, as the Deputy highlighted, where the law is overcomplicating the matter. Those areas need to be addressed one by one. It is unacceptable. It is antisocial behaviour. I am declaring a war on derelict sites. We are tackling it. The implementation of a new derelict property tax will help significantly address dereliction. I understand Deputy Gould's proposals with this legislation but we are going way beyond that. I do not think increasing administration and reporting will be effective. As a number of Deputies pointed out, whatever the reason may be, local authorities have not been able to implement the existing legislation. The existing legislation is strong enough but they have not been able to do it. Bringing in the Revenue Commissioners with their power to tackle dereliction is the correct way to go about it, while providing significant carrots for people to purchase vacant and derelict properties and turn them back into homes, bringing life back to our town, village and city centres. We want people back living in our communities and that will be done by other positive measures we are bringing in or have brought in, such as the town centre first programme and the various grants - the urban regeneration and development fund, URDF, the rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF, and the town and village renewal scheme. We are putting money behind those positive projects and can see them in my county. Look at the transformation of New Ross town in recent years using all the grants approved by the Government through Government policy. We have seen it in many towns across the country. We are tackling it. Deputy O'Reilly gets up every time with personalisation of politics - no substance, again and again and again. The usual from you, Deputy. Engage with the substance of the issues for once.

Sentiment score: 0.13

And she resorts to the usual when I am making my comments, by trying to shout me down. We are well used to it. For those interested in trying to tackle the issues affecting our society, I have heard many good comments from across the floor. I will take them into account as I continue to develop policies. Taking on dereliction is a fundamental part of my role as I see it. That is why we are bringing in positive elements to support people in transforming their village, town and city centres while taking on those who are leaving properties derelict.

Sentiment score: 0.28