This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Orders, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil and this is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For the convenience of Senators I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. As Senators know, they may speak only once on Report Stage.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998 [ Seanad Bill amended by Dáil ] : Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I am pleased to report back to the House on a number of amendments made by the Dáil to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998, which was passed by this House in February. At that time I pointed out that it forms an essential part of the new regime for the protection of our architectural heritage being proposed by the Government. During its passage in this House a number of beneficial changes were made to the Bill for which I thank Senators. Further improvements were made during its passage through the Dáil. I will deal with the amendments in informal groupings as many relate to the same matter, or are consequential on another amendment.
Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 27 and 29 insert the concept of "architectural conservation area" into the Bill. Planning authorities will have power to designate such areas in their development plans in order to protect areas where, because of their architectural value as a group or because they complement a protected structure in their midst, it is deemed necessary to do so. The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands can issue guidelines on preserving the character of designated architectural conservation areas.
The Bill already contained provisions for the protection of "places, areas, groups of structures, building heights and townscapes" which can be designated in the development plan for architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific social or technical interest or because they contribute to the appreciation of protected structures. Although it was felt this provision was comprehensive and would lead to the greater protection of valuable places and streetscapes, there was some confusion on this point among the bodies that commented on the Bill after its publication and consideration here. Therefore, I brought forward these amendments to clarify the matter.
Amendment no. 2 clarifies that for the purposes of this Bill the definition of "works" includes not only the application of plaster, paint, etc., to the interior and exterior surfaces of protected structures but also the removal of that type of material from surfaces. This omission could have had serious consequences if people felt they did not need permission, for example, to remove plaster or antique tiles, for example.
Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 and 33 are similar and permit the protection of structures with cultural associations. The definition of architectural heritage in the Bill was based on the terms used in the Granada Convention. However, in response to the Second Stage debate in the Dáil, I felt that in one aspect, and perhaps especially for Ireland, the Granada Convention categories were inadequate. Therefore, I included this additional category of structures with cultural associations for protection.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 concern regulations and guidelines on the implementation of the Bill. They substitute the words "shall" for "may" to ensure that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government must set out in regulations the standard format for the record of protected structures. The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands will be obliged to produce guidelines for planning authorities concerning the development objectives to protect structures of architectural interest and architectural conservation areas.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 20 insert the words "or desirable" in two sections of the Bill. The first amendment, to section 5, enables the planning authority to include a structure in the record of protected structures where the authority considers it desirable in order to ensure its protection, as well as when it considers it necessary to do so. The amendment to section 22 permits the planning authority to acquire a protected structure, by agreement or compulsorily, when it is desirable to make the acquisition for the protection of the structure as well as when it is necessary.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 16 insert the word "materially" in two sections of the Bill in order to make the text consistent. Amendment No. 12 requires An Bord Pleanála to respect liturgical requirements when considering an appeal on a planning decision on the interior of a protected structure which is a place of public worship. This requirement already applied to planning authorities when they are considering an application for planning permission and will now also apply to the board when it is considering an appeal of a decision of an authority.
Amendment No. 13 concerns subsection (7) of section 8 which permits a planning authority to review a declaration it has issued to the owner or occupier of a protected structure concerning the type of works which will affect the character of the protected structure. This amendment provides that any works that have been done in good faith by the owner or occupier on the basis of the declaration, before a review declaration is issued, are unaffected.
Amendment No. 14 clarifies the protection afforded to protected structures. In the Bill, as drafted, planning authorities were obliged to pro tect buildings included in the record of protected structures. It was implicit that this obligation extended to the planning authority's consideration of planning applications in relation to protected structures. Concerns were raised in the Dáil, however, that this implicit obligation was not sufficiently clear. An explicit obligation on a planning authority and An Bord Pleanála has been inserted, therefore, to ensure they have regard to the status of that structure as part of our architectural heritage when considering a planning application in relation to a protected structure. This will ensure that applications for permission in relation to protected structures will be examined carefully for their compatibility with the character of the structure. Paragraph (b) of my amendment states clearly that permission for the demolition of a protected building should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. This amendment shows clearly the seriousness of the Oireachtas about protecting our architectural heritage.
Amendment No. 17 clarifies that a planning authority may require the removal of advertising structures in the interests of restoring the character of a protected structure or an area of special architectural character.
Amendment No. 19 deletes the provision in the Bill which prevented an appeal to the Circuit Court from the District Court where the District Court hears an appeal concerning an endangerment notice under section 10 or a restoration notice under section 11. No appeal was provided for in the interests of ensuring a speedy process. However, a strong argument was made to me in the Dáil that an appeal should be allowed in the interests of justice, and I agreed.
Amendment No. 21 to section 22 permits planning authorities to acquire protected structures which are dwelling houses by agreement where it is necessary for the protection of that structure. The section had been drafted in such a way that planning authorities were prevented from acquiring, either by agreement or by compulsory purchase, a private dwelling house. However, there are no reasons to prevent acquisition by agreement. In line with the constitutional protection for private dwellings, authorities will not be able to compulsorily acquire such dwellings.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to sections 25 and 26 were required because of the recent dissolution of the Irish Land Commission and the transfer of its residual functions to the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
Amendment No. 25 concerns the timing of the notification of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands when an emergency demolition notice is served on a protected structure by a local authority. The previous wording of the provision stated that the Minister should be notified as soon as practicable after carrying out the necessary works. However, concerns were expressed about this timing in the Dáil. I felt that in the circumstances under which these emergency demolition notices are served, it will not always be possible for the planning authority to notify the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. In an effort to go some way towards meeting the concerns expressed, however, I put forward an amendment giving a more "time-neutral" wording to the section, requiring that the local authority notify the Minister as soon as this is possible in practical terms. In many circumstances – hopefully in all circumstances – this will be before the carrying out of any works, but the wording will still allow the planning authority to act in an emergency situation.
Amendment No. 31 clarifies that buildings on List 2 or B of existing development plans will be protected structures under the transitional arrangements of the Bill. It was my view that section 38, as drafted, provided for the protection of all listed buildings, regardless of the list under which they were included in the development plan. In light of the obvious confusion on this point, however, I brought forward this amendment to ensure that all listed buildings will be deemed protected structures under the transitional arrangements.
Amendment No. 34 makes two changes to the wording of the final section of the Bill. The first makes a correction to the construction section in which an error was discovered. The second provides that the Bill will come into effect on 1 January 2000, an appropriate way to start the next millennium.
I hope the House will agree that these amendments make the Bill a stronger instrument for the protection of the nation's architectural heritage. It was notable in the debates on the Bill in both Houses that there was a strong spirit of co-operation on all sides in the interests of getting it right. I thank Senators for their co-operation previously.
Many of the amendments now before the House were put forward in original format by members of the Opposition and were accepted by me as improvements to the Bill. I want to acknowledge that in this House as I did in the other House. The positive attitude of Senators, and Deputies in the other House, was good for this legislation.
Legislation and Government measures alone will not protect our heritage. Respect for the built heritage has to come from within society. Attitudes have changed considerably over recent years and there is much appreciation for the buildings our ancestors bestowed on us. However, our heritage can still come under threat and, regretfully, we have had recent experience of that. It would be indefensible if a person could benefit from illegal action in demolishing a listed building. The key to preventing this from happening lies in enforcement. The greatest deterrent is the knowledge that the full force of the law might be brought against transgressors. The Bill provides for fines of up to £1 million and five years imprisonment. The planning code provides for reinstatement of illegally demolished build ings. That is a measure of the seriousness with which this House and the representatives of the people view breaches of this and other legislation. I would like the strong views of this House to be taken on board fully by all those who have a responsibility for enforcing the law in this area.
The existing powers are strong. I intend to clarify and strengthen further the enforcement powers under the Planning Acts in the planning and development Bill which I will publish in the next few weeks. Powers in legislation, however, are not sufficient. They must be used. We need a stronger culture of enforcement in relation to these matters. I intend to undertake discussions with the local authorities, the Garda Síochána and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Although the DPP is independent in relation to individual cases, discussion with him and others is necessary to see how their powers can be more effectively used. There is little point in spending time in this and the other House passing legislation if people in responsible positions, who are supposed to be enforcing it have other priorities. The issue of enforcement is one we will return to when we are discussing the planning and development Bill and the planning review, and I look forward to a discussion with Members once that Bill is produced.
Ensuring the protection of our architectural heritage is a challenge for us all. This Bill, along with the other measures the Government has introduced in the past year, is an indication that we are rising to that challenge. I thank the Members of the House on all sides who have assisted in that process.
Is it the intention to consider all the amendments at once and that we cannot return to an amendment?
Speak once. The Deputy's speech must encompass everything to which he wishes to refer.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I have had an opportunity to go through most of the amendments, some of which were suggested on Committee Stage in the Seanad. Many of them have been adopted following the debate in the Dáil. I welcome all the amendments in principle because the regulations will be tightened up to such a degree that we can ensure what the Minister has suggested here today will be easier to enforce.
Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 27 and 29 are to be welcomed because the previous unclear position has now been clarified. Amendment No. 2 proposes the removal of material from surfaces. This was overlooked by the Minister and ourselves and I am pleased it is included. I would like, where materials have to be removed and replaced, that they would be appropriate to that particular purpose, in other words, if plasterwork is being removed, it should not be replaced with plastic. I would have thought this should have been included; I am not sure if it can be included in the guidelines. If one visits a particular building and finds that the materials are not, in fact, the materials that were intended, they will look totally out of place. I welcome amendments Nos. 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 and 33. There is very little to argue against there. I also welcome amendment No. 20. I am pleased that amendment No. 12 requires An Bord Pleanála to respect liturgical requirements. This was also mentioned in the debate in this House.
However, I am concerned about amendment No. 14. I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph (b) which proposes that permission for the demolition of a protected building shall only be granted in exceptional circumstances. I know it would be impossible to draw up all the circumstances that could be involved. However, one of the pitfalls might occur where a developer carries out some works prior to the local authority becoming involved. He may call it works for maintenance purposes and decide that the building is dangerous, in other words, he can create the danger. This should be clarified to ensure that no work will be carried out which would endanger the building, thus allowing it to be exempted from the regulations. An example might be pylons erected against the side of a building. The developer could move them slightly, crack the structure, and say he must remove it in the interest of safety. I would like to see this section strengthened to ensure that a builder or developer could not carry out works which would ensure he got what he wanted at the end of the day.
I welcome amendment No. 17. I am pleased the Minister has taken on board many of the proposals put by Members, including his own party, Senator Walsh and Opposition Members in the Dáil.
I am confused about amendment No. 25 and what is referred to as "time-neutral" wording. I am not sure if this is another term with which we must become familiar. What exactly does the term "time-neutral" mean? I assume it allows a certain amount of elasticity in time. Amendment No. 31 is also to be welcomed. There is nothing in the amendments to which I object.
Regarding the status of architecture, and in order to ensure that we protect our heritage, we must begin by educating people to value and understand architecture. Some years ago I gave a number of lectures on the history of building. I was surprised at the lack of knowledge among young people in respect of the buildings which surrounded them. Even the architecture in a small streetscape where one would find Ionic and Doric columns and pilaster strips, students did not know what they meant, where they originated or their significance in proportions between windows and walls. We must educate young people in the value of our architectural heritage in order to ensure that they will be the protectors of our environment.
I am pleased also that the Minister is ensuring the legislation will be implemented and that he will have discussions with the local authorities, the Garda Síochána and the DPP to see that these powers can be used in the most effective manner. My party and I welcome the Bill. It is a leap forward and it is time we understood the value of architecture. The Minister described architecture as the mother of art. This has a three dimensional effect, unlike other areas of the arts, in that there is the exterior, interior and placement of the building in relation to other buildings. From that point of view, it is the mother of art, and I am pleased the Minister, his staff, this House and the other House have ensured to the greatest degree possible that we will protect our inheritance.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire agus roimh an Bhille agus an seans atá againn an t-ábhar seo a phlé arís.
When considering this important Bill, one could draw an analogy with the conservation and protection of endangered species. Obviously there is an important distinction, that is, where endangered species are protected and a conservation programme is put in place, it leads to the regrowth of the species. However, our architectural heritage cannot regenerate itself, therefore we must be more vigilant and determined to conserve and protect it. I welcome the amendments brought forward from the Dáil. They are worthy inclusions because they will enhance the quality of the Bill and enable it to achieve its objectives.
Amendments Nos. 1, 7, 27 and 29 propose to insert "architectural conservation areas" which is very important. In my area of New Ross, a row of houses in Priory Street would be included as a conservation area. This type of measure is essential to protect an asset such as this. This is merely a microcosm of other such gems throughout the country.
Regarding amendment No. 2, it would have been a serious oversight if the removal of material and surfaces such as plaster was not specified in the Bill. This would be a breach of the regulations and the law. Amendment No. 2 is very appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 3, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 24, 26, 28, 32 and 33 provide for the protection of structures with cultural associations. Given the quality and depth of culture in this country, it is essential that it is protected and preserved for future generations.
I welcome amendments Nos. 4 and 5 which provide that the word "shall" replaces the word "may". This places an onus on the Minister to set out in regulations a standard format for the record of protected structures. The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands will be obliged to produce guidelines for the planning authorities. There will be an obligation on local authorities to enforce fully the provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 8 and 20 provide that the planning authority will have the power not alone to list structures in a record of protected struc tures but may also acquire structures either by agreement or compulsorily. That is an important provision.
However, those of us involved in local government will know that the economic situation of a local authority may often be a significant factor in the authority exercising its powers in this regard. Castlebridge House in my county council area has a very important conservatory and we have had a report done on it. However, the cost of taking it on and maintaining it means we have had to take the option of seeking private investors to purchase it. Such buildings of architectural quality should be in public ownership so that they are accessible to the public. Does the Minister have any ideas about the financing of this provision in the Bill? Local authorities may be inhibited by the capital and maintenance costs involved. The Department of Environment and Local Government or the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands should consider starting a scheme to help the process of acquisition, as that is probably the best way to preserve these buildings into the future. Many private individuals have purchased and preserved such structures, but there is an equal temptation, given the high price of land and the profits developers can make, to demolish structures and pre-empt the system, as we have seen. It is important to go for public ownership where possible and while there is a provision for this in the Bill, unless we have the mechanism to achieve that it will not happen.
Amendment No. 14 deals with planning authorities being obliged to protect buildings included in the record of protected structures and makes this provision clearer, which is good. The Bill states specifically that the planning authority must have regard to the list of protected buildings in any planning application. That is essential. Many of us are looking forward to the major new planning Bill the Minister will introduce later this year. It should ensure a greater degree of consistency in planning decisions. When I started my political life many years ago planning concerns were a low priority among the representations one received. Nowadays the quality and consistency of planning decisions is one of the top priorities for councillors around the country. That sends us a very significant message which should be comprehensively addressed in the new planning Bill. Planning officers may have to be trained and many local authorities do not have a planning committee.
Amendment No. 19 provides the right to appeal a District Court decision to the Circuit Court. That is natural justice and is welcome. Amendment No. 25 provides that the Minister should be notified as soon as is practicable after the necessary works are carried out and also provides for the time neutrality to which Senator Coogan referred. What is practical must be included and it may not always be possible for local authorities to notify the Minister of works in advance. If local authorities are sufficiently sensitive and committed to the preservation of heritage in their areas, and I suspect most of them are, there is no difficulty with empowering them and allowing them to move forward.
Amendment No. 34 is a good inclusion. It provides that the Bill will come into effect on 1 January 2000, which will be a significant date for all of us fortunate enough to be alive then. This Bill, which seeks to preserve our architectural heritage, will have a resonance with that date as we enter a new century and millennium. Public awareness and respect at all levels is also imperative if this Bill is to achieve its aims. I welcome the Minister's comments on strengthening the enforcement powers of local government. We must be serious in policing and enforcing this legislation. I often find that legislation is not as highly regarded by those responsible for its enforcement as the legislators and the public would like. In this case the onus will be on local government and enforcement agencies such as the Garda. The Judiciary must also play a role, as legislation does not always receive the serious consideration it should from judges. Judges are like everyone else in having different priorities, but we must ensure that penalties for breaches of this legislation fit, particularly given the profits that may accrue to individuals from such breaches. People must be made aware that it will not be profitable to break this law and that will be the best enforcement. There are provisions in other Acts for exemplary damages and perhaps this is another area where exemplary damages could be awarded. If someone stands to make £1 million or £2 million from demolishing premises illegally and developing the area commercially, the seriousness of enforcement and the cost of a fine should be a deterrent.
I welcome the amendments made to this Bill, which is a major step in the right direction. I hope those charged with its enforcement will play their part fully and subscribe to the Bill's objectives.
Mr. Ryan
Fáiltím roimh an Aire. Taispeánann sé go minic go bhfuil sé sásta éisteacht le díospóireachtaí agus aithníonn sé gur fiú leasuithe a dhéanamh in ár reachtaíocht. Ní aontaím leis faoin a lán rudaí ach ní h-ionann sin is a rá nach nglacaim go bhfuil dea-thoil aige, go n-éistíonn sé agus go bhfuil an obair atá á dhéanamh aige faoin a smacht féin. Taispeánann an tAire go bhfuil sé i gceannas ar a Roinn nuair atá sé sásta glacadh le leasuithe.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister mentioned that many of the amendments were suggested by the Opposition. I am, somewhat irrelevantly, reminded of the fact that in the history of the old Stormont Parliament, only one opposition amendment was accepted by the Government. I have often boasted that I, a mere Independent Senator, have had more amendments accepted than the entire opposition in the history of Stormont.
I agree with what the Minister has said about enforcement and compliance. I have worked with people from Strom, a county in Denmark which is about half the size of County Cork but where the staff of the local authority is approximately five times as large as that of Cork County Council. The proportion of the Danish workforce which is employed in the public sector is about twice that of Ireland. If we are to have a vibrant regulatory sector which is capable of enforcement and responding with the necessary speed we must allocate more resources to it. I heard Senators who are members of local authorities complain about the burden of work on planners. They often speak of the need for a great increase in resources to deal with that problem.
I welcome the amendments. I am not aware of previous legislation which went beyond the terms of an international convention. I welcome the Minister's reference to the Granada Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe. Most international conventions contain a clause saying that participating states are not prevented from exceeding the terms of the convention but we tend to apply the terms of international conventions as minimally as possible. I suspect that this tendency originated in the parliamentary draftsman's office.
Many academics speak of Ireland becoming a multi-cultural society but one could argue that Ireland has always been a multi-cultural, not multi-racial or multi-ethnic, society.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 seem trivial but I am intrigued by the Minister's decision to substitute "shall" for "may". Members who have dealt with many bills over many years have never understood when "shall" and "may" are appropriate. For example, section 166 (1) of the Copyright and Related Rights Bill, 1999, states that a person operating or proposing to operate a licensing scheme may apply to the Minister to certify the scheme. It appears to me in that case such a person is obliged to apply to the Minister. However, I am sure that if I propose to amend "may" to "shall" in the Copyright and Related Rights Bill I will be told that the parliamentary draftsman says that "may" is sufficient. I am glad to hear a senior Minister concede that shall is a stronger word than may. Many years ago a Minister of State at the Department of Local Government was unable to accept an amendment to say that the Minister "shall" enforce EC directives on freedom of information and the environment which the Government was obliged to enforce. Although he had no choice in the matter the Minister, who later became our EU Commissioner, refused to accept an amendment changing "may" to "shall". He was, perhaps, being himself.
The complexities of ensuring that planning laws respect liturgical requirements defy description. If a Catholic church is taken over by Tridentine Catholics, who will define the liturgical requirements of Tridentines as distinct from other Catholics? I appreciate the Bill's aspiration to allow religious organizations to develop buildings as they require. A major controversy arose with regard to Carlow Cathedral which will take generations to heal. It has been my experience that internal disputes about church buildings within religious organizations are passed on from generation to generation and cause very bad feeling in parishes.
Amendment No. 17 is most welcome. It is astonishing that planning authorities have not had the authority to require the removal of advertising structures in the interest of restoring the character of a protected structure.
I am fascinated by amendment No. 21 to section 22. The Minister said that, in line with the constitutional protection for private dwellings, planning authorities will not be able to compulsorily acquire such dwellings. Surely authorities can acquire dwellings to facilitate the building of a motorway, for example. The Minister may tell me otherwise but I believe our constitution is more balanced on the issue of private property than many people.
I am concerned about amendment No. 25. I dislike the Minister's use of the term "time-neutral" in his speech. The term "technology-neutral" was used in the House last week and although I dislike such language, I am – as is said in the higher echelons of the British Labour Party – relaxed about the matter.
The Minister mentioned the fact that the planning code provides for the reinstatement of an illegally demolished building. Has an illegally demolished building ever been reinstated? When I see a major developer being told to reconstruct a demolished building meticulously and at enormous cost, I will believe that we have an enforcement culture. Similarly, when I see a bank manager going to jail for assisting others to evade tax I will believe that we have a tax compliance code.
The Minister might encourage local authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency to press charges in superior courts rather than the District Court. In many cases trial by indictment, with the consequently more substantial penalties, would be more appropriate. A fine of £5,000 is not an adequate punishment for a major building firm which has destroyed or damaged a piece of our architectural heritage and is no disincentive to others. When Zoe Developments was brought before the High Court, Mr. Justice Kelly remarked that this was one of the few cases brought before a superior court by the Health and Safety Authority. In that case, the prospect of imprisonment concentrated the mind of that developer remarkably well.
We are creating the architectural heritage of the future. We must examine the question of incentives for development, particularly in seaside areas. If we do not, we will produce an architectural heritage which subsequent generations will wish to demolish rather than conserve. We must not confuse uniformity with tradition. We must leave room for imagination in architecture. The Eiffel Tower was denounced by almost everyone in Paris when it was built yet it is now regarded as the ultimate definition of the architecture of that city.
I thank Senators for their contributions and welcome for the amendments and the Bill.
We are all concerned about law enforcement. I may have been somewhat oblique in what I said earlier. Local authorities feel that when they take action against individuals in the enforcement of planning laws, etc., they are generally viewed as the big body hammering the citizen. There has been a degree of disgruntlement about some of the court decisions handed down. There is a need for discussion – in a general sense rather than on individual cases, as that would be improper – with various bodies on this matter to try to ensure that the wishes and desires of the Oireachtas, as representatives of the people, are reflected. I agree with Senator Ryan that cases should be brought to higher levels in the court where necessary. Until we undertake that action, people will not take the legislation seriously. Many Senators mentioned the culture of enforcement where people believe that the chances of legislation being enforced are minimal and as a result pay very little heed to it.
The introduction of wheel clamping has resulted in much criticism over the last couple of months but it has been very effective. There are fewer parking infringements in the city than ever. One can actually get parking in spaces that had not been seen for years. When people realise laws will be enforced they comply. Operation Freeflow is another good example. I suppose it is the Irish psyche, one will try to get away with as much as one can for as long as one can. If people expect enforcement, they react accordingly. Until local authorities, the Garda or the DPP, who has certain responsibilities under this legislation if an offence becomes an indictable one, signal that they are taking law enforcement seriously, we will not get anywhere, regardless of how many laws we pass. I hope a positive attitude to enforcement will prevail. Action must be seen to be taken and taken quickly at a time when huge profits are to be made in the property market.
Senator Ryan mentioned the need for adequate staffing in local authority planning departments. I have asked every local authority to review their staffing needs in the planning area in the light of the current high volume of planning applications and enforcement. It is the first time ever in the history of this State that a Minister contacted local authorities and informed them that if they needed extra staff they could make their case to his Department – there could not be carte blanche because everybody would jump on the bandwagon but all reasonable cases would be facilitated. A number of local authorities have applied for extra staff and as a result we have, over the past 12 months, increased planning staff in local authorities by about 15 per cent. Some local authorities have responded but, strangely, some have not.
I am also anxious – and this was part of our manifesto – that we employ planners to ensure a good sprinkling of professional planners, particularly in the larger local authorities. The tradition has been to employ engineers – and I do not criticise them – but there is a need for planners also.
Senator Coogan and others spoke about amendment No. 25. There was a specific provision in the Bill before the inclusion of that amendment that nothing could be done until the Minister had been informed. A strong case was made that a danger could occur during a weekend and nothing could be done until the Minister had been informed. Amendment No. 25 was tabled to get over the anomaly. Senator Coogan was also concerned that property owners might take action which could endanger buildings and therefore make demolition necessary. Section 8 provides that a person cannot endanger a building and if they do, they are subject to penalties.
I appreciate the very positive attitude with which Senators approached this Bill. I thought the Bill, as passed, was a good one. It has been improved by both Houses. It is good legislation. I thank Senators and the staff of the Houses for facilitating our discussions on this Bill. I also thank my own staff for enabling us to bring the Bill forward. This Bill will be included in the new consolidated planning and development Bill to be introduced in July.
Question put and agreed to.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass" put and agreed to.