Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Oct 2006

Vol. 184 No. 17

Local Government (Business Improvement Districts) Bill 2006: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 22, after "work" to insert ", use".

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, to the House.

This amendment essentially broadens the category of person whose interests can be considered in developing a district. Users of the area, for example, customers, should be also considered. It extends the category's ambit to include more individuals.

This amendment proposes the inclusion of the word "use" after the word "work" in section 129B(2)(a). As it stands, the Bill provides that the project services and works in a BID proposal must be, in the rating authority’s opinion, for the benefit of the business improvement district and those who live, work or carry on an activity in it. That is a broad-ranging provision in itself.

However, it also must be read in conjunction with subsection (3), which sets out the wide range of matters that may be included in plans or initiatives under a BID scheme. In particular, paragraph (a) makes specific reference to Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 2001. That Schedule contains a comprehensive list of matters under such headings as artistic, linguistic and cultural activities, sports, games and similar activities, general recreation and leisure activities, general environmental and heritage protection and improvement, and the public use of amenities. When all those provisions are taken together, it becomes clear the existing Bill is sufficiently comprehensive to address the point raised in the proposed amendment. It is also clear the outcome of BIDs will benefit all users of a business improvement district.

In the circumstances, I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 in the name of Senator McCarthy are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, line 8, after "concerned," to insert "and on the internet".

These amendments essentially provide for free public access to any proposal on the Internet. I had tabled another amendment. The correction, as suggested in my amendment, will be included at the reprint stage. Therefore, it does not appear on this. I therefore cannot claim credit for it, but I will.

I do not propose to accept these amendments as they stand. The existing provisions in section 129D provide that a copy of the BID proposal must be made available at the principal offices of the rating authority concerned. The existing provisions in section 129D(a) do not prevent a rating authority from posting a BID proposal on the Internet. In addition, section 129E(d) does not prevent a rating authority specifying an Internet website address in the public notice, which invites input to the Bill proposal.

I am, however, prepared to consider an amendment which provides that a BID proposal may be made available on its website by the rating authority. If acceptable to the House, I will propose such an amendment on Report Stage. There may be aspects of a BID proposal that may not readily transfer to electronic format. In addition, there may be issues as regards obtaining licences, for example in the case of maps, which could delay the total BID process. I hope this will be acceptable to the Senator.

The Minister of State's response sounds very reasonable. On that basis we withdraw the amendment.

Will the Minister of State say whether the local authorities will be the facilitators of this particular legislation? Will there be co-operation with the local authority? It is important to have co-operation because local authorities are responsible as regards the development of town centres etc., and providing open spaces. It is imperative to have a strong co-operative element between local authorities and businesses in the operation and implementation of this legislation.

I do not see what the question has to do with the amendment concerned. However, in terms of co-operation, obviously the purpose of the legislation will be to ensure there is a level of co-operation between business and the local authorities that has never been seen in Ireland before. This was discussed in great detail on Second Stage. We have seen instances in other jurisdictions where BID legislation has been extremely successful in terms of enhancing business involvement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 4 is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related, therefore, amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, will be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 4:
In page 10, line 12, to delete "is inconsistent" and substitute "may be inconsistent".

Amendment No. 4 provides for the substitution of the words "may be inconsistent" for "is inconsistent" in section 129F(1). The purpose of this subsection, in the first place, is to allow the rating authority an opportunity to examine the submissions received during the public consultation phase and second, to give an indication to the BID proponent of its analysis of those submissions. On balance, it is considered that the words "may be inconsistent" are more appropriate at this stage in the process.

The main purpose of amendment No. 5 is to ensure that a plebiscite cannot be triggered by the BID proponent until after the 60-day period allowed to the rating authority to examine the submissions received during the public consultation phase and notify the proponent of its view as to the possible inconsistency of the proposal with the interest of the local community in mind. It is appropriate that the BID proponent should await any notification from the rating authority under subsection (1) before allowing the proponent to proceed to plebiscite stage.

Amendment No. 6 involves a consequential amendment in section 129G(1).

That is reasonable and may be beneficial in the future.

From a public interest viewpoint, I want to ensure that no further stealth taxes will be introduced under this legislation. A total of 57 stealth taxes have been introduced by the Government since it took office. Is there a mechanism in this legislation for introducing other forms of taxation? That is of concern because most of the people who will be affected are paying very heavy rates at the moment. Some local authorities strike higher rates than others. It is important to have balance and perhaps there should be some Government assistance towards the implementation of this legislation by way of a grant, subsidy or whatever to local authorities.

One of the cornerstones of this legislation is the public input as regards how these BIDs are formulated and put together and what they will do for an area. That there will be wide public consultation, not just with residents but also with business people in an area and the other agencies including the Garda, is important. The local authorities will have their local area committees in place already. The Member opposite might be accustomed to turkeys voting for Christmas on his side of the House.

Anybody who has an input into how these BIDs are put together will not be looking for increases. It provides business people in an area with the opportunity to invest in their immediate vicinity. It gives them the opportunity to have an input into what is being put into the immediate vicinity. We have seen the excellent work that has been done in O'Connell Street, for instance. Much of what was done there was in conjunction with the local businesses and it is a prime example of how business investment in areas such as this will enhance an area. The cornerstone of this initiative is the consultation process that precedes it.

Again, I cannot understand how the contribution of Senator Bannon has any relevance to the issues being debated on Committee Stage.

We shall have to watch it like a hawk now.

I should like to assure him that just as on all other occasions, the Government continues to give an extraordinary level of funding to local authorities. There was never such a degree of cash endowment among the local authorities in terms of the funding from the Government levy and the moneys they generate. I have no doubt this is not going to interfere in any way, but will provide additionality to what is happening on the ground .

Before leaving this section, I should like the House to note that my officials are examining the possible need to define the term "unoccupied" and related terms in sections 4 and 5, new sections 20, 129N, 1290, 237B, 237C and 237E. We need to look at definitions within other relevant legislation. to ensure that any necessary definitions are incorporated in this Bill. If it is considered appropriate I will table an amendment on Report Stage.

As regards "unoccupied", some local authorities are better than others at implementing the Derelict Sites Act. It is a problem throughout the country, where disused premises have become an eyesore within communities, in town centres, etc. Will there be further powers in this legislation to address the problem of derelict sites and related unoccupied buildings where graffiti is scribbled all over them etc.? That is often a problem and can destroy the centres of many towns participating in tidy towns competitions. It is important there be some form of co-operation in place to ensure this does not happen. We must ensure that the provisions of the Derelict Sites Act are fully implemented because some local authorities pay little attention to it. This issue must be addressed on a nationwide basis and perhaps a directive could be issued to local authorities to encourage them to more fully implement the provisions of the Act to which I refer.

I reiterate that the Bill does not contain provisions relating to the Derelict Sites Act. There is no reason to make provision in this regard because local authorities are provided with adequate powers under that Act. I take Senator Bannon's point that we should perhaps bring to the attention of local authorities the fact that they should use the provisions of the Derelict Sites Act much more than they do at present. The Bill before the House will help to enhance the business areas to which the Senator refers. In conjunction with the partnership approach embodied in the Bill, this can only augur well for town centres and the business communities that become involved in bid proposals.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 10, to delete lines 19 to 22 and substitute the following:
"(2) Following consideration by the BID proponent of submissions made under section 129E and any notice under subsection (1) of this section, the proponent may, but not sooner than 60 days after the closing date referred to in subsection (1), deliver to the rating authority concerned—".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 10, line 45, to delete "under" and substitute "delivered in compliance with".
Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 7:
In page 11, line 8, after "ballot" to insert "paper".

There should not be any great difficulty with these amendments, which bring the wording used into line with electoral law.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 11, line 27, to delete "ballots" and substitute "ballot papers".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 11, line 32, after "ballot" to insert "paper".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 11, line 36, to delete "ballots" and substitute "ballot papers".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No.11:
In page 11, line 41, to delete "establish" and substitute "approve implementation of".

This amendment brings the wording used in the Bill into line with that in section 129B(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2001, which refers to a rating authority approving implementation of a scheme.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 12:
In page 12, line 41, to delete "Cathaoirleach" and substitute "elected council".

These amendments provide for the nomination of councillors to the board of a BID company by the elected council rather than by the cathaoirleach thereof. It is considered that it would be more appropriate for the council to make such appointments. There are many precedents for this and examples include the appointment of members to joint local authority committees and appointments to bodies such as VECs, harbour authorities, regional authorities, local government associations and partnership boards.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 12, line 45, to delete "Cathaoirleach" and substitute "elected council".
Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 14, 29 and 42 are cognate and amendment No. 41 is consequential on amendment No. 42. The amendments may, therefore, be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 14:
In page 18, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(5) If—
(a) the amended valuation for the rateable property referred to in subsection (2) is consequently the subject of an appeal under Part 7 of the Valuation Act 2001, and
(b) after all appeals under that Part have been exhausted, the final valuation of the property for the relevant chargeable period is different than it was for purposes of the recalculation under subsection (2), the rating authority shall recalculate the BID contribution levy for that property under section 129N(2) or (3), as the case may be, using the same formula applied in those provisions except where ‘B’ is now the final valuation of the property referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(6) If, as a result of recalculation under subsection (5), the amount of money paid by the BID levypayer for the relevant chargeable period involved an overpayment or an underpayment, then—
(a) in the case of an overpayment, subsection (3) applies, and
(b) in the case of an underpayment, subsection (4) applies.”.

These amendments provide for the insertion of new subsections (5) and (6) in sections 129P, 237D and 237F. The latter provide for a recalculation of the BID contribution levy, the property entry levy and the post-entry year property levy if the valuation of a property changes. The amendments provide that in the event of an appeal under Part 7 of the Valuation Act 2001 against an amended rateable valuation and where the valuation is further amended, the rating authority must recalculate the amount of the levies.

The amendments are considered necessary because the existing provisions of the Bill would not have covered a situation where an appeal is made subsequent to a revision of a valuation. Where the outcome of an appeal results in a rateable valuation that is different to an amended valuation, it is appropriate that the levies should be recalculated accordingly.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Minister of State has more or less identified an additional source of revenue and the amendment he made will lead to an extra burden on ratepayers. Was that his intention in including amendment No. 14 at this late stage? Perhaps he will elaborate on the position.

The mechanism of an appeal is available to everybody and it is the responsibility of individuals to submit appeals, which will then be considered. In the event that an appeal results in an amendment being made, the Bill now states that we must take cognisance of this in terms of the levy that will be imposed on businesses. The Bill is consistent with existing legislation.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 15 to 28, inclusive, and 30 to 40, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 15:
In page 21, line 2, to delete "Part 22" and substitute "Part 19".

These amendments are purely technical in nature and relate to the repositioning of the new Part 22A within the Local Government Act 2001. It came to light, following publication of the Bill, that a Part 22A had been already inserted by the Local Government Act 2003. It is necessary, therefore, to reposition the new Part 22A. It will now be inserted as the new Part 19A after Part 19.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 21, line 3, to delete "PART 22A" and substitute "PART 19A".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 21, to delete line 5 and substitute the following:
"211A.—In this Part.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 21, line 15, to delete "section 237B(6)" and substitute "section 211B(6)"
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 21, line 19, to delete "section 237B(1)" and substitute "section 211B(1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 21, to delete line 24 and substitute the following:
"211B.—(1) When newly erected or newly con-"
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 22, to delete line 42 and substitute the following:
"211C.—(1) If during the entry year qualifying".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 22, line 47, to delete "section 237B" and substitute "section 211B".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 23, to delete line 16 and substitute the following:
"211D.—(1) This section applies if—"
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 23, line 19, to delete "section 237B" and substitute "section 211B".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 23, line 26, to delete "section 237C" and substitute "section 211C".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 23, line 32, to delete "section 237B(3)" and substitute "section 211B(3)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 24, line 3, to delete "section 237B" and substitute "section 211B".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 24, line 4, to delete "section 237B(5)" and substitute "section 211B(5)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 24, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(5) If—
(a) the amended rateable valuation for the property referred to in subsection (2) is consequently the subject of an appeal under Part 7 of the Valuation Act 2001, and
(b) after all appeals under that Part have been exhausted, the final rateable valuation of the property for the entry year is different than it was for purposes of the recalculation under subsection (2), the rating authority shall recalculate the entry-year levy for that property under section 211B(3) or (4), as the case may be, using the same formula applied in those provisions except where ‘B’ is now the final rateable valuation for the property referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(6) If, as a result of recalculation under subsection (5), the amount of money paid by the levypayer in respect of the entry-year levy involved an overpayment or an underpayment, then—
(a) in the case of an overpayment, subsection (3) applies, and
(b) in the case of an underpayment, subsection (4) applies.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 24, to delete line 7 and substitute the following:
"211E—(1) If qualifying property is first".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 24, line 42, to delete "section 237B(9)" and substitute "section 211B (9)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 24, line 45, to delete "section 237B" and substitute "section 211B".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 25, line 1, to delete "section 237C" and substitute "section 211C".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 25, line 7, to delete "section 237B" and substitute "section 211B".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 25, to delete line 12 and substitute the following:
"211F.—(1) This section applies if—".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 25, line 15, to delete "section 237E" and substitute "section 211E".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 37:
In page 25, line 23, to delete "section 237E(8)" and substitute "section 211E(8)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 25, line 28, to delete "section 237E(2)" and substitute "section 211E(2)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 25, line 48, to delete "section 237E" and substitute "section 211E".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 25, line 49, to delete "section 237E" and substitute "section 211E".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 25, to delete line 51 and substitute "recovery.".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 25, after line 51, to insert the following subsections:
"(5) If—
(a) the amended rateable valuation for the property referred to in subsection (2) is consequently the subject of an appeal under Part 7 of the Valuation Act 2001, and
(b) after all appeals under that Part have been exhausted, the final rateable valuation of the property for the post-entry year is different than it was for purposes of the recalculation under subsection (2), the rating authority shall recalculate the post-entry year levy for that property under section 211E(2) or (3), as the case may be, using the same formula applied in those provisions except where ‘B’ is now the final rateable valuation for the property referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
(6) If, as a result of recalculation under subsection (5), the amount of money paid by the levypayer in respect of the post-entry year levy involved an overpayment or an underpayment, then—
(a) in the case of an overpayment, subsection (3) applies, and
(b) in the case of an underpayment, subsection (4) applies.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.

Acting Chairman

Amendment No. 45 is consequential on No. 43. Amendments Nos. 43 and 45 will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 26, subsection (2), line 35, to delete "2003" and substitute "2004".

These amendments have been tabled to correct an error and take the Local Government Act 2003 into account.

We already know that Senator McCarthy can dance and sing, and now we know he has a fine eye for draftsmanship. I accept these amendments.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 26, subsection (3), line 38, to delete "to" and substitute "and".

This is a technical amendment necessary to correct the reference to the Valuation Acts by removing the word "to" and replacing it with "and".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
TITLE.

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 3, line 20, to delete "2003" and substitute "2004".

Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

There is some work still to be done. We hope to bring it back here for Report Stage within the next three weeks.

I welcome the positive reception from all sides of the House to the concept of business improvement districts. As Senators know, this has been tried and tested elsewhere, especially in the US and Canada, and I believe the success achieved elsewhere can be translated to our cities and towns in the years ahead. The positive effects of business improvement districts can be many and varied. As well as improving business, they will also have a positive effect on communities living in a particular area. Business improvement districts have a positive effect on tourism and help create employment. In some jurisdictions, business improvement districts have contributed to a reduction in crime, an issue which is never far from the agenda in this House. I appreciated this useful and constructive exchange of views and I thank Senators for their contributions.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. My party supported this Bill which will definitely improve the quality and environment of town centres. It will initially provide for all manner of development within towns. We all know how difficult it is at certain times of the year to get co-operation among business people for certain things. For example, when Christmas lights are erected in towns, some business people will not co-operate with the project. There is now a mechanism where everyone will have to play their part. It will also enable towns throughout the country to become more attractive. It is important for the business community and the public and will make towns more attractive for industries to locate there in the years ahead. It will also rejuvenate town centres, which was the aim of the Bill.

This concept was first introduced in Times Square in New York. Those of us who have been to New York have seen how that part of the city has been rejuvenated. It is important for business to approach the measures within this Bill positively. While we are all in agreement with the Bill, I have reservations about stealth taxes. Both the public and local politicians are always on our backs regarding the increased charges imposed by local authorities.

I, too, thank the Minister of State and his officials for the swift and professional manner with which they dealt with the Bill. Such was the agreement from Senator Bannon that he did not table any amendments. That reflects the uniformity of consensus in the House.

That is very unusual.

I wish to raise a related point. The Minister of State and I sat near each other when we were members of Cork County Council. I raised an issue on the Order of Business regarding the service local authority officials now provide to Oireachtas Members. Last month marked my fifth year working on improvement works in lieu of housing and by next March I will have been dealing with an enforcement issue in Rosscarberry for four years. I have contacted the local authority by fax, email and phone. There are issues in the broader context of the Minister of State's portfolio that need to be taken into consideration at some point. This may not be an opportune time to raise this issue, but it is one of which the Minister of State is probably aware.

I, too, thank the Minister of State and his officials for the efficient disposal of Committee Stage. I look forward to the speedy introduction of this Bill. It will certainly go a long way to enhancing not just our major cities but also our towns. There is a great opportunity for local authorities and local business to co-operate and make improvements in their areas.

Sitting suspended at 12.10 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Top
Share