Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1989

Vol. 393 No. 5

Derelict Sites Bill, 1989: Report Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete lines 21 to 26.

I am proposing this amendment in response to concerns expressed on Committee Stage that the Bill should have more definite provisions regarding commencement. By deleting section 2, the Bill will no longer have to depend on commencement orders to bring it into operation; instead it will automatically come into operation as soon as it is passed. I hope the provision which exceeds the requirement Deputy Shatter wanted in his Committee Stage amendment will be acceptable to the Deputies. I believe it is the best way forward.

Mr. Shatter

I welcome the Minister's approach to this issue because I think we are all anxious to get the Bill on the Statute Book. While there are certain aspects of the Bill about which I have reservations and in respect of which I tabled amendments on Committee Stage, I deliberately desisted from tabling amendments on Report Stage so as not to draw out the process on Report Stage. I want to see this Bill enacted. There may be some warts or gaps in it but it should substantially improve the present position.

My concern was that if the Bill was enacted with section 2 as originally drafted, there would be no certainty when this legislation would become operative. I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted the arguments from this side of the House that the Bill should, in effect, become law upon signing by the President. I hope the Bill becomes law rapidly and that the local authorities will look to their obligations which will immediately apply upon the Bill becoming law in the context of trying to tackle the major problems of dereliction, particularly in urban areas.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Flynn

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 12, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"(5) On receipt of the comments of the authority (if any) referred to in subsection (4), the Minister shall, by notice served on the person who made the objection send a copy of such comments to that person who may, within twenty-one days from the date of the service of the notice, make observations to the Minister in relation to the comments.".

The substance of this amendment is identical to an amendment proposed by Deputy Shatter on Committee Stage. It requires the Minister, in the context of a CPO under this Bill, to pass on to the objector the comments a local authority may submit to the Minister in relation to an objection. The objector will then be allowed a period of 21 days to make observations to the Minister on the comments of the local authority. I recommend this amendment to the House.

Mr. Shatter

I am pleased that the Minister has brought this amendment forward. We have no problem with it.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome the amendment and the response the Minister has made in putting it down in his name.

Mr. Flynn

Thank you, Deputy.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

I observe that amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are related. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendment No. 3, in the name of the Minister, amendment No. 4, in the name of Deputy Eamon Gilmore, and amendment No. 5, in the name of the Minister, together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Flynn

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 15, line 7, after "and" to insert "at least".

Mr. Gilmore

I put down this amendment — I raised this matter on Second Stage — because I felt the requirement to review the market value of the land once every five years was insufficient as the market value of land could — and from experience has — increase out of all proportion in that time and that a levy based on 1984 values would be considerably out of date today, particularly because of the rate at which property values are increasing. To leave a gap of five years would be insufficient. I propose in my amendment that the market value should be reviewed after three years. I note that the Minister's amendment proposes the local authority can review the market value of land at least every five years. I should like the Minister to clarify if this would allow a local authority to review the market value of land more frequently than five years. If that is the case I will not move my amendment.

Mr. Quinn

I want to put on record my reservations about amendment No. 5 in the Minister's name which proposes the deletion of the words "on a prescribed date". If the prescribed date is removed, as proposed by the Minister, in relation to the frequency of valuation as I understand the law, there will be no legal obligation on a local authority to have completed by a fixed date — whether it is three years or five years, which seems to be the direction we are going — this revised valuation.

While I support the tenor of what is being proposed by The Workers' Party representative, Deputy Gilmore, and the Minister, my concern relates to my experience with Dublin Corporation who are probably the biggest offenders in respect of dereliction and their current total inability to carry out their present functions in relation to valuation. If there is no requirement to have a valuation carried out by a prescribed date, then the valuation section within the corporation will not meet the deadline which I believe they should have to meet. I want to tell the Minister, on a point of information, that the valuation process for the sale of local authority houses and flats has not yet been completed and large sections of the corporation's stock of apartment buildings have not been valued because of massive delays and shortages within the department. Unless there is a prescribed date built into the Bill in regard to the frequency of the renewal of market valuations then, from my interpretation of the law, there will be no severe onus on a local authority to revise the market values accordingly.

Mr. Flynn

Deputy Quinn is right, and it was because of the difficulties he referred to in regard to certain local authorities that I could not go along with Deputy Gilmore's original idea. The first valuation will be carried out as soon as possible after the register has been compiled. It is interesting to note that my amendment is much more flexible and will permit a local authority to carry out a revision as often as is necessary but with the stipulation that it must be carried out at least once every five years and as often as a local authority so wish. This greater flexibility surpasses what Deputy Gilmore intended and covers what Deputy Quinn thinks might be a restriction on some local authorities in regard to their attitude towards these matters. I think both points are covered by my amendment; flexibility is being provided but the revision has to be carried out at least once every five years, and can be carried out more often. The first valuation will take place as soon as possible after the register has been compiled. I think my amendment is a good solution to both points.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Mr. Flynn

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 15, lines 7 and 8, to delete "on a prescribed date".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Flynn

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 18, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:

"(2) A person who contravenes section 12 (4) shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £25,000 (together with, in the case of a continuing contravention, a fine not exceeding £2,000 for every day on which the contravention is continued), or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or, at the discretion of the court, to both such fine and such imprisonment.".

This amendment is in response to the wishes expressed by all Deputies on Committee Stage and there should be a possibility of dealing with serious offences in higher courts which would have the power to apply more severe penalities. The amendment proposes that a contravention of section 12(4) may be tried on indictment and that upon conviction a court may propose a fine of up to £25,000 together with a fine of up to £2,000 per day for a continuing offence and/or a term of imprisonment of up to two years. I think this will satisfy many of the points raised by Deputies on Committee Stage with which I agreed. This amendment will be a further addition to the legislation and I recommend it to the House.

Mr. Quinn

I would like to welcome this amendment. The scale of penalty proposed in this amendment, which probably has the agreement of the House, relates to the real world in terms of the market value of much of the property which has been deliberately left derelict. I compliment the Minister on bringing this amendment forward. Am I right in thinking that a fine shall not exceed £25,000 as a once-off amount but that there will be a running taxi meter of an additional fine of £2,000 for every day of contravention? Is it, in fact, an open-ended financial penalty?

Mr. Flynn

That is correct.

Mr. Gilmore

During the course of the debate on Second Stage I highlighted the need for additional penalties for those who flout this provision. For that reason I welcome the amendment tabled by the Minister. It was my view that some of the measures in the Bill, particularly those in relation to compulsory purchase and the levy, were not sufficiently tight or strong. I put forward amendments to those provisions on Committee Stage. The inclusion of fines of the order suggested by the Minister, and terms of imprisonment, is welcome.

Amendment agreed to.

Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.