I welcome the Minister, Deputy Browne, to the Chamber.

Before I call on the proposer, I welcome New Mexico State Representative Mark Murphy and Tyra to Seanad Éireann. They are on a visit to Ireland and have, of course, been to Kerry and Westport. That is for the Mayo people so that we do not try to dominate the whole tourism market. I thank Mark and Tyra for coming here today.

I welcome the Aire and thank him for coming to the House for the debate. With the agreement of the House, I will share my speaking time with Senator O'Loughlin.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move that:

“That Seanad Éireann:

agrees that:

- strong, empowered local government is a cornerstone of balanced regional development and effective public service delivery;

- local authorities play a critical role in maintaining the public realm, delivering essential services and supporting vibrant communities, yet continue to operate with limited independent revenue-raising powers;

- empowering local authorities with appropriate revenue-raising tools will:

- support well-maintained, vibrant communities;

- enhance Ireland’s appeal as a high-quality tourism destination;

- ensure that economic growth is shared fairly between visitors and residents;

- contribute to sustainable, balanced development across the country;

acknowledges that:

- in areas of high tourism and visitor activity, particularly in urban centres, coastal regions and heritage destinations, local residents experience significant additional pressures;

- these impacts place disproportionate costs on local communities and local authorities, while visitors benefit from local amenities and services;

- tourism is a vital part of Ireland’s economy and must continue to be supported in a sustainable and balanced manner that benefits both visitors and host communities;

- there is a need for sustainable tourism that enhances Ireland’s reputation while protecting the quality of life of local communities;

recognises that:

- many European countries have successfully introduced visitor levies, empowering municipalities to raise funding locally and reinvest it in infrastructure, tourism facilities and public services;

- models in countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Latvia and Scotland demonstrate that locally determined, ring-fenced levies can enhance the public realm while maintaining strong tourism performance;

- policy discussions at Dublin City Council, and in Ireland more generally, have identified the need for innovative and locally controlled funding mechanisms, including visitor levies;

- a carefully designed visitor levy represents a fair and proportionate application of the ‘user pays’ principle, ensuring visitors contribute to the upkeep of the places they enjoy;

- local authorities, guided by their elected members, are best placed to determine whether and how such a levy should be applied in their areas;

- any such measure must be introduced in a way that protects Ireland’s tourism competitiveness, avoids undue administrative burdens, and reflects local economic conditions and tourism profiles;

calls on the Government to:

- advance enabling legislation to empower local authorities, at their discretion, to introduce a visitor levy on paid overnight accommodation within their areas;

- ensure that such legislation provides maximum local flexibility, allowing elected members to determine:

- whether to introduce a levy;

- the rate and structure of such a levy;

- the geographic scope of its application;

- provide that all revenues raised are ring-fenced exclusively for investment in the public realm and local services;

- require local authorities to undertake robust consultation with residents, local businesses and tourism stakeholders prior to introduction;

- ensure transparency and accountability, including annual public reporting on revenue raised and how it is spent; and

- bring forward a broader programme of reform to strengthen the financial autonomy of local government, consistent with a commitment to balanced regional development and strong local democracy.”

I second the motion.

I thank the Minister for coming to the house for this evening's debate on a Fianna Fáil motion which seeks to give powers to local authorities to have additional revenue raising capacity. The motion is fundamentally about strengthening local democracy and empowering local government by giving it additional revenue-raising powers. At the outset, it is important that I acknowledge that this is an initiative and proposal that is coming from our local authorities.

It is coming from Dublin City Council. I want to acknowledge the Fianna Fáil councillors, led by Councillor Daryl Barron but it was a cross-party group who worked on and brought forward proposals over the past number of years in regard to introducing what is being referred to as a visitor accommodation tax. I want to also acknowledge our colleague in the Lower House, Deputy Paul McAuliffe. He produced a research paper with the assistance of the Library and Research Service on this subject matter and that has really helped to inform and progress the debate. Really what is proposed is driven by those locally elected representatives. Deputy McAuliffe was a former councillor, I was a former councillor, as was Senator O'Loughlin and indeed the Minister, Deputy Browne. Many Senators in this House come from our local authorities and that gives us a unique advantage in understanding the value of local authorities but also the responsibility they have.

City and county councillors are really the public representatives closest to the people who live in their local authority areas. We believe they should be trusted with greater powers and responsibility in terms of their own financial autonomy. We debated at length, when we debated the local democracy task force and other local government issues, how Ireland has a very centralised government system and we are one of the most centralised in Europe when it comes to local government funding. We all know that if we really believe in local democracy, we must believe in giving powers to local authorities and the tools to actually deliver for their communities. This motion is not about central government imposing anything on local government. It is not about prescribing or defining what local government should do. It is about potentially enabling legislation that will enable local authorities to generate revenues. Local authorities play a critical role in maintaining the public realm, the street cleaning, the public lighting and in supporting their communities. Communities that are living in areas that have very high tourist traffic get the value of that tourist traffic but also the additional wear and tear that goes with it. Local representatives do their best. They work hard with council officials day in and day out, as well as with local community groups and local businesses to ensure their local area is well maintained. At the same time, it is essential to acknowledge the concerns the local authority members have been raising and their demand and ask for powers to introduce, potentially, a visitor accommodation tax.

If we are being honest about the debate we also have to acknowledge there are concerns raised by other parties, including businesses and the Irish Hotels Federation in particular. It has highlighted concerns regarding tourism competitiveness and the additional costs for visitors. The administrative burden is one the federation has called out and its members' concerns need to be heard too. They should be given really careful consideration. Tourism is an incredibly valuable part of our economy. It is an incredibly valuable activity for us and we all want to see it continue to grow, to be strong and sustainable and to continue into the future. We have a really high-value tourism offering and we need to protect that also.

However, the purpose of the motion is not to introduce a national visitor levy. It is to allow local authorities, if they wish and if the elected representatives on those local authorities consider it and determine it appropriate for their area, to move forward and introduce a levy. Some local authorities may do it and some will not. That will be a matter for the local authority members and that is how it should be. The decision should rest with local authority members. I believe and I think the local authority members would agree that any revenues that are raised must be ring-fenced for the public domain. They must be ring-fenced for additional street cleaning, additional public space maintenance, additional public lighting and additional amenities for the people living in the area but also those visiting the area. That will be a matter for the local authority members to determine.

I believe the Government should support this request from the local authority members. I believe the Government should respond positively to it and should progress legislation that will give powers to the local authority members. Were that to happen, then I believe there really would need to be a consultation. Many other countries have done this. It operates well in other countries but we need to be conscious we are doing something new. As I said earlier, we have a very valuable tourism offering we do not want to in any way jeopardise. We have come at this from a long debate over many years. With the Minister most recently the local democracy task force has examined the revenue raising powers of local authorities. It has been examined by other bodies. The local authority members themselves have been working on it. It is now time for the Government to trust the local authority members that their demand is real and that it is needed. The Government should move forward and bring forward enabling legislation to create the power and potential - just the power and potential - for local authorities to potentially devise a local visitor accommodation levy for their area and to manage that effectively. I believe this is about strengthening local democracy and our local government. I thank the Minister for his time and look forward to his response.

I thank my colleague Senator Fitzpatrick for proposing this motion, as well as our colleague, Deputy Paul McAuliffe, in the Dáil who has done extensive work on this matter. As Senator Fitzpatrick has outlined, many of the Dublin councillors in particular have been involved in helping to develop a policy that would absolutely support, in their instance, the city of Dublin. What we are proposing here is something that possibly could be brought in right around Ireland. Again, it would be totally up to those who are elected. We would have to trust those elected members and if the people who elect them trust them then, at a national level in government we have to trust the public representatives and the councillors.

This is an important motion and essentially it is about ensuring we can give to local authorities at their discretion that possibility of introducing a visitor levy on paid overnight accommodation within their own jurisdictions. I know this would be something that could appeal particularly to cities but possibly to smaller areas that have a very large tourist population that comes on an ongoing basis. When we look at some of the examples around Europe, at least 18 European member states have allowed such charges and it has certainly helped to develop facilities in those areas. That has grown in recent years and many of us will have had the experience of staying outside of the EU and paying a city tax as well. There are multiple examples of how this has been put to good use and has brought a lot of revenue back to those particular areas.

Within this motion, we have pointed out that countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Latvia and Scotland have demonstrated that locally determined, ring-fenced levies can enhance the public realm while maintaining strong tourism performances. Wales is actually looking at this measure very strongly at the moment. It is fair to say that a carefully designed visitor levy represents a very fair and proportionate application of the user pays principle. It ensures visitors contribute to the upkeep of the places they enjoy. It is very important to state that in a municipal district or at a local authority level where this would be introduced, our suggestion is the money that would be forthcoming should be ring-fenced for investment in tourist infrastructure and services, enhancement of the public realm - we have seen a lot more money going into that since Covid; it is really important - cultural sporting and heritage events people will travel for, sustainable tourism initiatives and other purposes related to the impact of tourism.

It would not be a case of this money being taken in and just going into the finances or being swallowed up in a black hole, for want of a better phrase. There would be a dividend paid back to the residents in the area by means of the enhancement of the facilities. There would also be a dividend for tourists. When I am abroad and have to pay a city tax, I genuinely never mind. It is always minimal. We know that this money is going into the beautification of the places in which we are staying.

As outlined by Senator Fitzpatrick, a key part of the motion is where it states, "local authorities, guided by their elected members, are best placed to determine whether and how such a levy should be applied in their areas". We would say that it is absolutely the elected members who should make the decision in this regard. It should not be an executive decision. This must be led and driven by local authority members. Some of them will decide that it is not appropriate in the areas in which they live. That is fair enough, because everybody should have the opportunity to make decisions that are in the best interests of their towns or cities. We contend that local authority members are best placed to determine whether and how a levy of this nature should be applied in their areas.

That, basically, is the nuts and bolts of it. We really appreciate that the Minister has taken the time to be here. He is a huge supporter of local government and has worked really hard with the local democracy task force. We are looking forward in anticipation to what will come from the latter. Strengthening local authorities and listening to the people on the ground is, essentially, the basis of a lot of our work and what we do. We look forward to seeing this implemented.

Before I call on the next speaker, I welcome Declan and Cliodhna Deegan, Gerry, Isobel and Jodie Carter, Jim Fitzsimons, Alan MacGinty and Michael and Niamh Duffy. They are here as guests of Deputy Cormac Devlin, Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

I welcome the Minister and acknowledge Senator Fitzpatrick's initiative in tabling this motion. That is where positivity ends, however.

Ah now.

I am wholly opposed to this because of my experience of what it actually means in this city. The reason for my opposition is because Dublin City Council is, I regret to say, a bit of a financial disaster area. It is spending its huge budget of €1.6 billion every year. Last year, in a cynical deal designed to get Fine Gael the lord mayorship, it decided that it would increase local property tax by 15% in the context of the discretionary reduction that councillors are allowed to use. Right across the entire area of its functions, the council seems to be failing. The streets are in a very poor state of repair. The amount of additional social housing being provided by Dublin City Council is very poor. The state of repair of much of their existing housing stock is very poor.

On top of that is the almost incredible news that the council's offices on Wood Quay, which were erected in very controversial circumstances 30 years ago, are to be demolished. The reason they are be demolished is, we are told, that somebody has worked out that it would cost €500 million to make them compliant with EU targets for zero-emission buildings. Somebody invented that figure, which has been put out there to justify what the council intend to do instead of making its offices habitable. The council decided to buy a half-completed structure at a derelict site at Camden Yard on Kevin Street approximately half a mile from its existing offices and build new offices there. In addition, it proposes to provide workspace for 2,800 employees at its new offices in circumstances where many of those who observe what happens in the existing offices wonder how many of the staff actually work from home at any given time. That is the way Dublin City Council is working - or not working.

Even more incredible is the council's attention to spent €600 million on this new town hall. It will also have to spend God only knows what on the redevelopment of the Wood Quay site. Even demolishing it will cost many millions. Building anything new there will cost even more. Then we will be back to what happens to the remains of the Viking settlement underneath it. All of this has been left up in the air. We are told that €10 million euro is going to be spent between now and opening of the new building in refurbishing the old building the council has committed to demolish. What kind of people are those involved that they think they can get away with spending more than €500 million on new offices for themselves because they say that it would cost €500 million to make their existing offices compliant with European climate emissions targets? I find all of this grotesque. I look the amount of dereliction across Dublin city. I look at the failure of Dublin City Council to enforce the laws in relation to dereliction. Some of the properties it owns are derelict. Some of those it has acquired are derelict. I look at the council's failure to engage in proper constructive planning in the city centre, and then I am asked to believe that all of this makes economic sense.

The levy - and it depends on whether it will be €1, €2, €3, €5 or €10 per bed per night in Dublin - is supposed to ensure, in Senator Fitzpatrick's terms, that visitors pay for the upkeep of the city they are visiting. They are already paying for it in vast sums just as the people who go to Killarney or Tralee pay for the viability of what happens there. Just take them out of the equation and see who is paying for what. Tell the hoteliers in Killarney, Tralee or wherever that their customers are not paying for what happens in those places. We are supposed to believe that tourists are somehow freeloading in Dublin, a place where hotel prices are already massive. Do we want to have this kind of additional charge made to create a fund which, as Senator Fitzpatrick states, has to be ring-fenced? I do not believe in this ring-fenced nonsense. I know what will happen. Just like the local property tax, it will be taken into account in the annual disbursement of funds by the Custom House to the various local authorities.

The case for this has not been made. The case for an additional taxation measure of this kind being handed to local authorities has not been made. The real kernel of the problem with local government is that we do not have local democracy. Rather, we have local administration. Councillors, to whom Senator Fitzpatrick paid such a generous tribute, are, in fact, not really in charge of the activities of Dublin City Council. Unless and until we radically change our local democracy laws, measures such as this to create additional revenue streams are unjustified and counterproductive and proceed on the basis of the untrue assertion that tourists do not contribute to the local economy on which Dublin City Council depends.

The Minister is welcome to the Chamber. I commend Senator Fitzpatrick and her Fianna Fáil colleagues on tabling this motion. The first line reads, “a cornerstone of balanced regional development”. It was only last week we had a discussion and I called for more balanced regional development. I come from the north west, and we always feel that we do not get our fair share. We need a lot more investment to deliver the infrastructure we require. In the past three weeks, I had the Minister for tourism, Deputy Burke, in my home county of Roscommon and we visited Strokestown House and gardens. We visited the Arigna Mining Experience in the north of the county. We went to the John McGahern Barracks in Cootehall and finished up in Lough Key Forest and Activity Park for the Night and Day Festival. None of those locations has a hotel, so while we have the tourist attractions, a significant amount of work would need to happen for a county like Roscommon to benefit from a levy like this.

I support the idea of empowering our local authorities and councillors but I would err and agree slightly with what the previous speaker said in relation to the executives in our local authorities and the whole idea of ring-fencing a fund. It is okay to ring-fence it right now, but we all know the practical implementation varies when it comes to management and hiding things away in the books within our local authorities. This needs to be teased out and worked on an awful lot more.

Before I was a councillor on Roscommon County Council, I was a member for 12 years of a town team. We were established for public realm development and local promotion, effectively putting the best part of our local communities out and trying to access the many capital funds that thankfully are out there to ensure that we have the public realm enhancement, amenities and resources that we need locally to have our communities operating as best they can. Once we get areas to that stage - I do not feel we are at that stage yet - I would like the local authority to be in a position to introduce a measure like this to enhance and maintain them.

One of the reasons parts of rural Ireland do not have an abundance of bed nights is the cost of developing a room to a sufficient standard to meet what the paying visitor will be prepared to pay. The people who take the punt on that pay significant development charges and, on an annual basis, significant rates. To say we would like them to use this money for clean streets and a few other public realms effectively means that we are just trying to generate a little bit more money and give the local authorities the opportunity to claw in a bit more money for them to spend as they see fit. That is the part I support, namely, giving local authorities that wish to do so the opportunity to introduce this, but rather than legislating for this, there is a very good example of a development fee in Knock Airport. Knock Airport does not take in enough fees from airlines to support the running of the airport. Therefore, every passenger who passes through Knock Airport pays a charge. That charge is paid at the local authority.

What about Michael O’Leary?

He pays it too, actually.

Businesses in major cities and other urban spots that have tourism footfall are already paying substantial rates. They are paying for services that they should already be receiving.

I am going to go back to the top line again, which is regional development and delivering the infrastructure that we need. I would love a further discussion on this to potentially look at a development fee being introduced in our major airports. I had this conversation with my colleagues, especially Senator Páraic Brady from Longford. We have thrashed this out. Potentially, the metro north could be paid for in a very short period of time with the introduction of a development fee like this, and because that is already under way in Knock Airport, we should not have to legislate as much for it to be introduced in other areas.

We are not letting the local authorities off the hook in terms of the moneys they are taking in in rates, but we are empowering the potential development of infrastructure that we all know is much needed.

I support the motion and its wording. Obviously, we will have to thrash out the legislative side a little bit more, but I compliment the Senator and her colleagues on bringing this forward.

Before I call Senator Andrews, I welcome the guests of Senator Clonan from the Trinity retirement club. I also welcome the guests of Senator Joe O'Reilly.

I thank the Minister for attending. I agree with Senator McDowell's comments on the civic offices in Camden Yard. He made a number of various points on it, and all were very fair.

I have a real concern about the way the funding was put in place for all of that. It felt like it was overnight, but as I have said before and will continue to say, funding for the redevelopment of flat complexes around the city has not been as quick to be found. Pearse House is one example. It is disappointing that the Minister has not met the residents in the Pearse House group, who have done huge work over many years. Nearly €500 million for the civic offices was found overnight, yet residents have had to fight tooth and nail to get the flats brought up to any sort of standard.

Residents in the flat complexes in social housing feel that they are paying the price for the redevelopment of Camden Yard and the civic offices in the form of increased rent. The Minister would not believe how many people are really struggling with the increase in rents. Some have to pay an increase of up to 25%. It is hard to believe that the biggest landlord in the country can put up its rent by 25%. A private landlord would rightly not be allowed to do that. The residents are not getting anything for it either. They see no improvement in their living conditions. In fact, the regeneration plan for Pearse House was watered down to just a deep retrofit. This means that the flats are not going to increase in size. Neither the bedroom nor bathroom sizes are going to increase.

There is going to be overcrowding because there are not enough houses being built. There are 18,000 people on the homeless lists. It is really frustrating for residents that they are paying significantly higher rents without seeing any benefit for it while the local authority and the Government can arrange to fund the redevelopment of Camden Yard and the council offices. Some would say that is not necessary. Senator McDowell made the point that it was not proven that that was required. It is really hard for residents to understand why they are being expected to live in substandard conditions for decades - for generations - when the money can be found overnight to refurbish civic offices at Camden Yard.

I wanted to make that point. That said, I thank the Government Senators for submitting this motion. It is a motion we support. I would like to think that the Government Senators will go down to their parliamentary party meeting and convince the relevant Ministers to introduce it. I remember being on Dublin City Council eight or nine years ago where I heard Government councillors talking about this then. Why is it taking this long? I heard the Ministers, Deputies Chambers and Browne, saying they are open to the idea of this proposal. It is all very well to say they are open to ideas like this. We believe it is a good idea. Others differ. However, Ministers are saying they are open to considering it and making amendments. That is a long way from implementing it. As I said, when I was on Dublin City Council we used to hear councillors regularly talking about how important it is. Ten years later, we are still waiting. Forgive me for being sceptical. I just do not see this going anywhere under this Government. It is important. Senator McDowell said that neither local authorities nor elected representatives have the power. This would give power to elected members if it was implemented as proposed. That would be welcome. It is important that such a scheme would be introduced.

We support the motion but we have reservations that the proposed levy should not target those who are travelling within the country and those who are not tourists, in particular people attending hospital visits, such as a person up from Kerry visiting the children's hospital. If they are staying in a hotel, they should not have to pay that tax. It should only apply to those with a residency outside of Ireland to ensure Irish people are not penalised for travelling for treatment and to encourage staycations.

I welcome the Minister. He is always very welcome in the House. It is great to see him here. I will make a few observations in relation to this matter. I thank Senator Mary Fitzpatrick for suggesting this amendment. She has a strong record in local government. I have worked on the joint Oireachtas committee on housing, planning and local government with her. I take her seriously when it comes to local government because she has a track record in local government. I acknowledge that.

This proposal is premature for a number of reasons. We are still waiting for the local government task force. I do not want to make decisions on a piecemeal basis when I do not see the whole entity of what this local government task force is. It is on the Minister's desk and has been on the desk of the Minister of State, Deputy Cummins. A report and recommendations are due to come. They are going to the Cabinet. I might be wrong but the Minister might touch on that in his response.

There is some suggestion that it is just Americans or well-to-do tourists who come here but every person in rural Ireland, be they from Enniscorthy or County Kildare, who comes to Dublin will be paying this tax regardless of their income. I am not sure about that. I am not sure about the equity of it. I am conscious that there are a number of nominating bodies to the Seanad. I have spoken to the Irish Hotels Federation and to Dublin business interests. The chamber is a great advocate for business in Dublin and to varying degrees there are concerns. The Irish Hotels Federation and the Vintners Federation of Ireland have clearly conveyed to me that they are totally opposed to this legislation. I had expected that voice might be heard here tonight, but clearly not so far. That is interesting because I know they are looking in here tonight. They are fully aware of this proposal and are actively monitoring it, as is their right.

We are also talking about collecting a tax when we have local government, particularly in Dublin city, that has been unable to collect the derelict site levy. The Government is now suggesting it will transfer that from a levy to a tax. Why a tax? That is because there is now a great expectation that the Revenue Commissioners will collect it. The Revenue Commissioners seem to be the source of all collection for everything for the Government. That is an issue. There is not a strong track record in local government in terms of the collection of levies or, indeed, taxes. That is an issue.

We talk about the offer. What are the benefits here? We know that people are paying local property tax. The marketing around the local property tax when it was first introduced suggested that we would have new swimming pools, new ball alleys, new tennis courts and everything. Places would be clean, with roses going up and down the paths. That did not happen. We are paying a local government tax. People pay central taxes to Revenue. Businesses pay VAT and rates. Employers pay PAYE and meet the cost of employing people. The hotel sector and the hospitality sector are crucial for this city.

It is important to remember that we need local government reform. The Minister is ultimately responsible for that. I do not doubt his commitment. At best, we have local government administration. We have the most centralised local government in Europe. The Minister knows that and I know that. As the Cathaoirleach knows from some of the documents that were submitted as part of the Seanad public consultation on local democracy, when we heard from other jurisdictions and experiences, we have the most centralised local government structure in Europe. I have no doubt about that. I am in favour of subsidiarity and of local authorities raising local revenue that is retained locally. I am not in favour of some sort of ring-fenced funds whereby whatever is collected - X millions of euro - comes off your central subvention from central government. I have an issue about that.

I want more devolved powers in local government. However, until we see what the Minister is suggesting as part of the local government task force, we do not know what is being proposed. We simply do not know. The Minister may be able to tell us today. If he cannot tell us the content of the report, he might give us a signal here today. I think everyone here has been a county councillor, or most of us have. We have a huge interest in the local government sector. The local authority city and county councillors principally make up a lot of the electorate for Senators. Our fingers are on the pulse and we have an interest. We also live in local communities and in municipalities. We understand how it all operates.

I know where the Minister is coming from. I know he is giving his best effort on this. However, I do not believe it is fully teased out. I am not suggesting he said it has been fully teased out. He made the point that it is about empowering local councils to make local decisions. However, it is better to have it right than to have mixed messages. Earlier on, somebody talked about the airport in Kerry. Someone has suggested - no one has suggested it here - that there might be an additional €5 levy on every flight coming to Dublin. What revenue would that give Dublin city? It would certainly be easier to administer than the levy being proposed. However, that is not before us here today.

We have to be proactive and tease out more on these issues. The vintners are concerned, employers in Dublin are concerned, and members of the chamber and various representative business bodies in the city are concerned. People from rural Ireland who want to come to the capital city will be paying this tax. Remember what we are doing here. We are putting a tax on everybody, including Oireachtas Members - I have no problem with that - who come to Dublin to stay in accommodation in Buswells Hotel or up the road. Everybody who comes to our city is going to pay this tax.

I will finish on this. Let us go back to the kernel of the issue. We will never have true local democracy if we do not have proper, open, transparent and equitable funding for local government. I have spoken to councillors. No one has asked me or attempted to convince me to come here tonight to support this proposal. I do not know how many people actually know about it. It is right to have a debate. I always welcome a debate in relation to local government. I particularly welcome a debate with the Minister, who is ultimately responsible for driving local government. He might share with us something of the progress and the timeframe for the local government task force, which all of our more than 900 councillors would hope to hear about too.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht teacht isteach don díospóireacht seo. I commend Senator Mary Fitzpatrick on bringing this conversation to the House. It is good to have it. Similar to Senator Boyhan, I was a councillor. One of the biggest frustrations I had was the lack of power councillors had at local level to run their own local authorities. I found it very frustrating, in particular in terms of county development plans, local area plans and things being overridden by the Government after local consideration had been given to matters that would affect one local area. Any measure that gives more power to bring money into an area is a positive step.

I do not think any local authority member would ever envisage or countenance introducing a measure that would damage the local economy. That is something we need to remember. No levy will be placed on a business that puts a business out of business. I would not see it happening. If there was ever a danger of it happening, local authority members would be lobbied so hard that they would double back on the measure very quickly and make sure that the right thing was done.

I want to speak strongly in favour of the motion. It is a good idea from Senator Fitzpatrick. Anything that gives power back to local authorities and members to administer the running of their local authorities is a good idea and I want to speak in favour of it.

I thank Senators Fitzpatrick and O'Loughlin for bringing forward the proposal and the Fianna Fáil group of Senators for putting the motion down for debate. The motion will not be opposed by the Government. I thank colleagues for all of their contributions to what I consider to be an important discussion, not just in the sense of a tax or levy but rather the wider discussion around local government.

The motion calls on the Government to advance enabling legislation to empower local authorities, at their discretion, to introduce a visitor levy on paid overnight accommodation in their areas. As Members of the House are aware, the funding system that applies to local authorities in Ireland is quite complex. Local authorities derive their income from a variety of local sources, including commercial rates, the local property tax and charges for goods and services. There are also a number of external income sources, including funding from central government and borrowing.

The circumstances of local authorities also vary considerably in terms of geographic area, population density, service needs and the ability to raise their own income locally. Local authorities continue to operate in a challenging environment, with population increases leading to a greater demand for infrastructure and services and a cost base that is increasing at a faster rate than the ability to raise income locally.

A fundamental prerequisite for effective local democracy is that plenary councils have a strong measure of financial power and discretion and corresponding responsibility for locally raised income funds, the operation of local authorities and core service provision. Expenditure is determined by councillors at the annual budget meeting. On average, in 2024 nearly 50% of local authority revenue income was generated locally. This means that any consideration of sources of income that can be raised and disposed of locally is of great significance for local democracy.

Visitor accommodation levies are becoming a more common feature of cities and sub-national authorities across Europe. This trend is driven by financial pressures and high levels of tourism. At present, in Ireland neither central government nor local authorities have the power to levy overnight stays for visitors. Primary legislation will be required to enable this. In recent times, and in light of the growing trend internationally, there have been increased calls in a variety of fora for the introduction of such a charge in Ireland.

The report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare in 2022 recommended the introduction of an accommodation tax in Ireland. In June 2025, the Government noted the report of the interdepartmental group on the Dublin city task force report and approved the overall process set out in the roadmap for the delivery of the Dublin city task force report. This report recommended that a detailed proposal for an accommodation tax at national level, applicable to all local authorities on an opt-in basis, be developed by the Departments of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, Finance and Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

Work on the development of the proposal on a visitor levy is already under way as part of implementing the roadmap. In addition, I established the local democracy task force in 2025, which has examined new sources of income for local authorities, as well as ways that existing source of income could be optimised as a means of enhancing the level of income raised locally.

One of the proposals examined was the power to enable local authorities to levy a charge on overnight stays in their area. As part of the stakeholder consultation process undertaken by the local democracy task force, it is notable that a number of consultees, including ICTU, the University of Galway and the University of Limerick, called for Irish local authorities to be permitted to charge a tourism tax. In respect of the local democracy task force, its report and recommendations regarding reforming and strengthening the sector are expected to be brought to Government for consideration and decision in the coming weeks.

More broadly, enabling local authorities to levy a charge on overnight stays in an area is in line with the principle of subsidiarity espoused by the EU and Council of Europe. It is also in line with recommendations of the 2023 report monitoring the application of the European Charter of Local Self-Government in Ireland that Ireland increase the amount of own resources that can be used at the discretion of local government. Ireland has signed and ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government governance. Fiscal autonomy is the extent to which local government can independently tax its population and in itself is an important measure of local autonomy and self-government. Enabling local authorities to levy a charge on overnight stays in their area would be a significant measure to improve their fiscal autonomy. All of this context is to demonstrate that there is a convergence of various drivers and a momentum pointing to now being an appropriate time to consider this proposal in Ireland.

A visitor levy is a well-established charge in many cities and countries. It ensures that visitors who directly benefit from the use of local services and public infrastructure contribute to their costs and upkeep. A visitor levy would be additional revenue from outside traditional sources which can be ring-fenced to improve local facilities for tourists and locals alike. Charges of this kind are frequently imposed in cities with strong tourist economies in countries such as Canada, Spain, Germany, Belgium and France. The use of such a levy, in international examples, provides the funds that support green spaces, clean streets, visitor facilities, local communities, preservation of monuments and public transport.

Scotland and Wales are similar jurisdictions to Ireland and both recently passed legislation that enables local authorities to introduce a charge on overnight stays. In fact, having passed primary legislation in 2024, Edinburgh will be the first Scottish authority to apply a levy on overnight stays starting next month. Any framework that enables local authorities to charge a levy on overnight stays in their area should be designed in a way that works for residents, businesses and visitors alike. Such a levy should be simple but fair in design to help minimise any potential negative impacts. It should have a positive impact on local areas that choose to use a levy by generating revenue to support local areas, thereby enhancing the reputation of the destination, increasing local autonomy and supporting the visitor economy overall.

There are obviously a wide range of issues which call for close examination and broad consultation prior to developing such a legislative framework to enable a visitor levy, including the power of elected members to determine whether to introduce a levy in their area. Other areas for consideration include the extent of influence of a local authority on the rate and geographic application of the levy, the scope of the application of the levy in terms of category of accommodation and visitors and a collection mechanism that is cost-effective, administratively efficient and as easily enforceable as possible. The local consultation and stakeholder engagement that is required to be undertaken by a local authority in advance of the introduction of such a levy, any limits on the areas of expenditure supported by income raised by the levy and reporting on income and expenditure raised to ensure transparency for all must also be taken into account.

I have considered it very important that the decision on whether to apply a visitor levy in a local authority should be a decision of that local authority, meaning its elected members. As seen from the experience in other jurisdictions, the introduction of an accommodation tax or visitor levy requires careful planning and extensive engagement with stakeholders. It would require close co-operation between various Departments, as outlined earlier. It would also require substantial consultation.

Even if the enabling provisions are enacted in primary legislation, as we have seen from the Scottish example, the timelines involved prior to the introduction of a levy on the ground can be challenging. As I referred to earlier, in 2025 the Government noted the report on the roadmap for the delivery of the Dublin city task force report, including a recommendation that a detailed proposal for an accommodation tax at a national level be developed. Work on the development of such a proposal on a visitor levy is already under way as part of the implementation of that roadmap. As I said, the local democracy task force also recommended that consideration be given to that by the Government. I look forward to engaging in on this important issue across Government as the proposal is developed.

I thank the Minister for his response. I thank all of the Senators for their engagement on the debate. This House is largely elected by local authority members and it would be remiss of us not to dedicate some of our agenda and time to debating an issue that, as Senator Andrews alluded to, has been debated for ten years.

It is not coming out of nowhere. As the Minister outlined, it has been the subject of many independent studies and forms part of proposals from the city task force and the local democracy task force. I welcome the Minister's acknowledgement of the requirement and the request, and his positive response to it. Senator McDowell may be the only Senator here who did not serve on a local authority, so he is at somewhat of a disadvantage.

I am objective.

He may be that. However, we are all residents in the city, or at least those of us in Dublin, and it is very easy to be critical. I am often critical of Dublin City Council. The House has heard me criticise the council at times so I think I can be objective too. However, fair is fair. It would be wrong for us to end this debate without accepting, as was mentioned, that €1.6 billion of an annual budget is enormous. However, Dublin City Council is not some rogue organisation operating without any checks and balances and it is not fair to disparage our local authority members or devalue or discredit them in any way. They have a very significant task. I have oftentimes raised with the Minister the need for additional resources for our local authority members so that they can hold the executive to account. It does not just fall on our local authority members. We do have independent audit services. Dublin City Council is subject to an independent audit. There is the local government audit services and the national oversight and audit committee. There are public spending rules. Dublin City Council is not operating in some vacuum. It is important to put that on record as well.

Regarding Camden Yard, we could pick many projects. I am not here to defend Dublin City Council's management. What I am hear to debate is a request to Government to bring forward legislation to potentially give the power to local authorities, not just Dublin City Council, to introduce a visitor accommodation tax. We should keep to that debate. There are many issues that we could be debating in terms of local government and not just Dublin City Council. I also acknowledge that while the council certainly needs to up its game in terms of the street cleaning and it needs to introduce the power washing, it has actually made some changes and it is trying. I commend the waste management staff who are out there. Part of what this would do is to allow for an increased focus on the public domain, the public spaces, the greening of the city, our parks, and on creating youth spaces and accessible spaces. These are all really important interventions for a living city - for the city to be vibrant and to be living. It was acknowledged and was raised, something I did myself, that there will be concerns about this. I refer to the Irish Hotels Federation, the vintners and others. The chambers of commerce has done a survey of its members. I think it is 44% that have said they would potentially support a visitor tax.

The Minister acknowledged in his response that this will have to be well planned and there will have to be extensive consultation. That is absolutely the case. It must be well planned. There must be extensive consultation. It would be perverse for any of us to suggest that any local authority and the local authority members would willfully vote to introduce a tax that is going to undermine their own local economy. If we are to accept that logic, are we saying they are stupid, incompetent or negligent? I do not think our local authority members elected to Dublin City Council are any of those things. They are people who have put themselves forward, have been elected by their communities and are there to represent them. When they ask for this, they are not asking for it on a whim. Rather, it is something that has been debated at length for more than a decade. The response of Government is positive and correct. Government should move forward in a detailed, controlled and planned way to allow for this concept to be tested and developed. I thank the Minister for his time. I thank his Department for the work it is doing on this and I look forward to us progressing it over the coming months.

Vótáil.

Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?

As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question defeated. The names of the Senators who stood will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Tomorrow at 9.30 a.m.

Is that agreed? Agreed.