I note that, by agreement, we are discussing amendments Nos. 34b, 35, 35a and 35b together.
Derelict Sites Bill, 1989: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 34b:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 40, after "local authority" to insert "and provided the owner or occupier of the derelict site maintains the site in a reasonable condition to the satisfaction of the local authority".
(Deputy Gilmore.)
Before reporting progress I was explaining my reservations about amendment No. 34b. Basically, I consider that it could be contradictory to attach site maintenance conditions to bonding arrangements because if they were fully implemented the sites would become non-derelict and neither the levy nor the bonding arrangement would be relevant. I have to emphasise that a landowner will have no right to substitute a bond for the payment of a levy. The concession in this regard will be at the absolute discretion of the local authority.
Amendment No. 35a wants the period covered by bonding to be reduced from five to three years. My amendment No. 35 offers a more flexible arrangement generally in this regard and I hope the Deputy will be able to accept it. Instead of providing that the bonding period should in all cases embrace five years my amendment will allow a local authority to prescribe any number of financial years, as the case may require, up to a maximum of five years. I agree with the Deputy that the five year maximum period is appropriate since this corresponds to the normal life of a planning permission as well as to the interval for the development plan review. This is why we are trying to match up the five year span.
Amendment No. 35b would allow bonding arrangements to be applied only once in relation to the same site. Given the more flexible provision which I now propose regarding the bonding period and given that a decision to allow bonding will be at the total discretion of the local authority, I do not really see the need for the restriction. I would ask the Deputy, having considered this proposal, to see the rationale attached to it.
I was concerned that this section would allow the owners of derelict sites to get around the provisions of the Bill so that they could lodge a planning application and enter into a bond with the local authority by which they would be able to avoid paying the levy and coming up towards the end of the five year period lodge another planning application. This Bill deals essentially with property speculators who are past masters in getting around the planning process and finding loopholes which the legislators never intended in the first place.
It seems that the section as originally proposed would have provided ample opportunities to the owners of derelict sites to get around the provisions of the Bill. I welcome the comments made by the Minister before we adjourned that the maintenance of sites in a reasonable condition could be dealt with at the stage when the bond is being made. I accept the Minister's amendment which proposes to reduce to one year, with the possibility of extending it to five, the period of time within which the bond can be made.
However, I am not entirely happy that the Minister has not accepted my amendment No. 35b. I am concerned that the owners of derelict sites could continue to make planning applications and thereby frustrate the whole intent of the Bill. Even though the Minister said it would be at the discretion of the local authority, we know that local authorities can be put under considerable pressure to grant planning permissions. What would happen, for example, where the local authority, by way of a section 4 motion, grant a planning application which may not be for the best planning reasons but for other reasons? What would happen if a developer came in and perhaps by using the threat of planning compensation extracted from a local authority a commitment to a planning permission and the local authority were unable to give effect to this?
I am not happy that the Minister has not accepted my amendment in relation to this provision. I see no reason why this provision cannot be included in the Bill. There are no circumstances in which the owner of a derelict site should on a succession of occasions be able to get planning permission and thereby avoid paying the levy.
Does Deputy Gilmore want me to put the question on amendment No. 34b?
There is one point of clarification which I should like to make to Deputy Gilmore. Much of what he has said in this regard is true and we all accept what we are trying to do jointly. It is important to remember that the bonding period may not be five years; it can be for any number of years and totally at the discretion of the local authorities. This is a very important aspect to bear in mind. If a development which is used as a reason for going for a bonding option is not carried out then the bond will be forfeited and the total levy which would have applied in the intervening period will be forfeited as well so they can be caught at both ends. This is an important aspect.
I do not think they will be caught at all because any developer I have come across would never allow a planning permission to run out and the bond to be forfeited. I think it is far more likely that the owner of a site will come in with a new planning application. That is why I believe this provision should be tightened. I assume the purpose of allowing this arrangement——
He must carry out the scheme of development.
If he does not carry out that scheme of development there is nothing to stop him from coming in and making a fresh planning application or making an application to vary the permission he already has.
If he does not carry out the scheme he will forfeit the bond.
With that assurance, I will not press my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 41, to delete "5 local financial years" and substitute "one or more but not exceeding five local financial years".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 35a and 35b not moved.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 17, line 2, after "due" to insert "for such period as may be specified in the notice and where, in relation to any amount of derelict sites levy, there is a suspension under this section for any period —
(a) subsection (7) of section 24 shall not apply, in respect of that period, to that amount, and
(b) section 25 shall, notwithstanding the suspension, continue to apply in relation to that amount during that period".
This amendment clarifies the application of certain other provisions in this Part to a case where the levy has been suspended by a local authority because of hardship. This is the hardship clause in old legislation. Clause (a) clarifies that any interest due and payable under section 24 (7) will not be payable where the levy is suspended for hardship reasons. Clause (b) provides that notwithstanding the suspension the unpaid levy will become and remain a charge on the land under section 25 until it is paid. These new provisions are based on section 11 (8) of the Farm Tax Act, 1985. I commend the amendment to the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29.
We will now deal with amendment No. 37 in the name of Deputy Shatter. That amendment is consequential on amendments Nos. 42 and 38a. Amendments Nos. 40, 40a, 43 and 44a are related. Amendments Nos. 38 and 44 are consequential on Nos. 43 and 39. Amendments Nos. 41 and 45 are alternatives to Nos. 38a and 40a and 44a, respectively. I hope the new Deputies will not think they are looking at a bus timetable. It is proposed to have a discussion on amendments Nos. 37, 38, 38a, 39, 40, 40a, 41, 42, 43, 44, 44a and 45.
Deputy Shatter is not present and I should like to know if any Member is anxious to move amendment No. 37 in his name.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 17, line 7, after "12 (4),", to insert "30 (2), 30 (3)*,".
For technical legal reasons, I could not accept any amendment which would increase the maximum fine for a summary offence beyond the currently accepted limit of around £1,000. This figure is advised by the Attorney General as the maximum, in current circumstances, for the jurisdiction on minor offences proper to the District Court. Similarly, the figure of £100 is also regarded as the maximum permissible under summary jurisdiction for a daily continuance of an offence.
Whether we should also introduce a jurisdiction for the higher courts, together with higher penalties, is a matter for policy decision by this House. My own view up to this point is that given the extended and improved powers for which the Bill is providing, as well as the derelict sites levy, the heavy criminalisation of offences under this Bill was neither necessary nor appropriate. It seems to run contrary to what we have agreed should be the raison d'etre of the legislation.
I am however prepared, if the House wishes, to bring forward a Report Stage amendment providing for prosecution on indictment of offences under section 12 (4) and higher maximum penalties for conviction in these cases. The other categories of offence under the Bill are minor ones which remain more suitable to the District Court. I am seeking the House's advice on this and if Members are anxious that I should bring forward such an amendment I will do so. It is an even bet at the moment whether it is advisable or not. I will be led by the House in that regard.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Amendment No. 43 requires owners who dispose of their interest in a derelict site, as well as executors of wills, to inform the local authority forthwith so that the derelict sites register can be amended to reflect the change of ownership. This amendment will ease the burden of updating information on ownerships for local authorities. Amendment No. 44 is consequential on amendment No. 43.
I am recommending them to the House.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38a:
In page 17, line 9, to delete "not exceeding £1,000" and substitute "not less than £10,000 and not exceeding £25,000".
There is a need to have severe penalties for offences under the Bill. The Minister seems to be reluctant to criminalise the wrong doings. I take the view that it is a social crime for the owner of property to leave a derelict site in a way that causes offence, nuisance or despoils the environment. The way we deal with crime, whether it is the type of crime that was referred to earlier or a crime against society as a whole, is by severe penalties. The penalties provided in the Bill are inadequate. A maximum fine of £1,000 on property that when developed may realise a value of several million pounds is puny. I accept what the Minister said, that the advice he has received is that legally we cannot deal with penalties in this way. The Minister indicated that he would be willing to bring proposals before the House on Report Stage providing for higher penalties, perhaps through a higher court. I would be willing to wait to see those proposals.
Does the House want them?
Yes, my party want them.
I should like to remind the House that a number of amendments are being taken together for discussion but they can, if a Deputy requires, be voted on individually.
I endorse totally what Deputy Gilmore said on this matter. The penalties are grossly inadequate and the Minister should have a rethink on them.
The Minister put his finger on the problem. The amendment I tabled, which would have interlinked with amendments Nos. 29 and 42, was designed to provide for the possibility of an indictable offence provision. The Minister is correct in saying that there is a limit to the type of fine or sentence the District Court can impose. My concern was the same as that voiced by other Deputies, that it could happen that a developer, considering the amount of money that could be obtained by way of profit ultimately from the sale of a building, would allow it to become so dilapidated that planning permission would be granted for a different type of development. That could render the fine imposed as a virtually irrelevant sanction. There is a case for allowing for the possibility of an indictable prosecution. I would be happy if the Minister brought forward a proposal on Report Stage.
It seems that the House wishes that I should move in that direction and I will be happy to do so on Report Stage. Deputy Gilmore referred to the criminality attached to some aspects of these issues but I would rather that we would think of them as more socially irresponsible as opposed to socially criminal. It is possible that a person might not have the means to address a dereliction. It is not a crime if a person does not have the money to do such work. On the other side of the coin, I should like to ask the House to remember that if a property is worth a couple of million pounds, a 3 per cent levy on that type of property is a fairly hefty sum and a fairly hefty incentive to a developer to get on with the work and spare his cash. Taking both matters into account I would rather go the line I am proposing. If the House feels something indictable should be put in regard to a prosecution, then I am happy to put it in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 39 to 41, inclusive, not moved.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Amendment No. 42 has already been discussed.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 17, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Where land entered on the register or an interest in such land, is transferred (other than by will or on an intestacy) from a person to another person, it shall be the duty of both persons to notify in writing the local authority in whose functional area the land is situated of the transfer not later than four weeks after the date of the transfer.
(3) Where land entered on the register or an interest in such land, is transferred to a person by will or on an intestacy, it shall be the duty of that person to notify in writing the local authority in whose functional area the land is situated of the transfer not later than six months after the date of the transfer and it shall be the duty of the personal representative of the person under whose will or upon whose intestacy the land, or the interest in land, is transferred as aforesaid to notify in writing the said local authority of the transfer not later than two months after the date of the grant to him of probate of the said will or letters of administration of the estate of the second mentioned person.
(4) When a local authority is notified by any person of a transfer of land, or an interest in land, under this section, it shall cause the appropriate entry in the register to be amended.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 17, subsection (2), line 29, to delete "this section" and substitute "subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 44a and 45 not moved.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 31 to 33, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 18, line 48, after "national monuments" to insert "or historic monuments".
The amendment reflects the wider protective powers conferred by the National Monuments Act, 1987, and this introduces in particular the concept of a historic monument. It is appropriate that the present Bill refer to this as well as to the national monuments dealt with in the earlier Acts. I am trying to get it to take in all situations that might be referred to under that heading.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
I would like that the matter be agreed between the Whips at an early date.
Would the Minister indicate a possible date?
Next week.
What day?
Tuesday, subject to agreement between the Whips.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 14 November 1989.