This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103, 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. 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 to have copies of those amendments made available this afternoon.
Planning and Development Bill, 1999 [ Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil ] : Report and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
As Members are aware, they may speak only once on this question. I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, to the House and call on him to speak.
I am pleased to report back to the House on a number of amendments made by the Dáil to the Planning and Development Bill, 1999, which was passed by the Seanad before Christmas. The Bill has received a huge amount of debate in both Houses and when I say that I am delighted to be back in the Seanad with it, Senators will understand why I say so. We spent about 85 hours on the Bill in this House and I accepted 169 amendments. The Dáil devoted a further 96 hours of debate to the Bill and accepted 450 amendments. It is safe to say that the Bill has benefited from the wisdom of both Houses in a big way.
The time spent on the Bill is a recognition of the importance of the Bill and that it will transform the planning system in Ireland for many years to come. The big challenge will be to ensure that the Bill is fully implemented and resourced, as Members of this House and the other House commented during its passage. I assure the House that I am fully committed to seeing that this is done.
Given the large number of amendments made in the Dáil, I do not propose to go through every amendment accepted in that House. Many were technical, correctional or consequential on other amendments. Others clarified and improved existing provisions. I want, however, deal with the major changes made for the information of Members of the House.
Amendment No. 44 provides that development plans should be compatible with any national plans, policies or strategies which the Minister determines relate to proper planning and sustainable development. The idea is that the national spatial strategy, which is being drawn up by the Department, can be given recognition in the development plan process.
There were calls in both Houses for the development plan to integrate social, community and cutural development into the proper planning and development of the area of the local authority. Amendment No. 48 provides that the development plan should include objectives for the integration of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area with the social, economic and cultural requirements of the area and of its population. The Bill also provides for consultation with city and county development boards when development plans are being prepared. That is a move which will be welcomed by all sides of the House because it was raised extensively here.
Amendments Nos. 50, 118, 134, 441 and 447 are the main amendments giving effect to the land-use aspects of the European Union directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances, also known as the Seveso II Directive. The greater part of that directive will be given effect through European Community regulations currently being drafted by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The directive relates primarily to ensuring that factories and premises which use hazardous substances comply with necessary safety standards and that proper procedures to deal with emergencies are put in place. However, one article of the directive, Article 12, requires member states to ensure that the objectives of preventing major accidents or limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in land-use policies and we have provided for this.
Arising from the debate in the Dáil and Seanad on the procedures for the adoption of the development plan, I introduced a number of amendments to reconfigure the periods involved. The first set of amendments to section 11 timetable more precisely the various functions which must be carried out in the preparation of the draft development plan. The initial period for the informal pre-consultation phase is being reduced from 20 weeks to 16 weeks. The time available for councillors to issue directions after receipt of the manager's report has now been expressly provided for – this is ten weeks. Following the issue of directions, the manager will have a further 12 weeks to prepare a draft. This then goes to the members who have eight weeks to amend the draft if they wish. The reworking of section 11 means that the process of finalising the draft and getting it passed by the councillors will take place in ten and a half months. This leaves two weeks for the authority to prepare the plan for public display following the making of amendments at this stage.
Regarding section 12, additional time has been given to both the manager and the councillors to carry out their functions. There always was some leeway at the end of the process in year two for slippage, but this has been reduced by the changes. The public consultation procedure under subsection (3) is shortened by two weeks to ten weeks. The manager is given an extra two weeks to prepare his report under subsection (5), that is a total of 12 weeks, and the members are given an extra four weeks to consider the results of the first phase of consultation under subsection (6). The period for preparing amendments and publishing notice of them, on foot of a resolution under subsection (7), is also now timetabled at three weeks. Councillors are also given an extra two weeks to consider the report on the amendments to the development plan. The total timetable in section 12 is now 51 weeks which allows for five weeks slippage in the process. The Bill as passed by the Seanad probably allowed for about ten weeks slippage depending on how the non-timetabled processes were estimated. All processes are now timetabled. I consider these amendments to be fair to officials and elected members of the council and that they meet the general concerns of the Opposition amendments.
There were calls in the Seanad for setting out the procedures for adoption of a local area plan. As initiated, the Bill left the procedure at the discretion of the planning authority, subject to regulations which would be made by the Minister. Section 20 now sets out a formal procedure for public notification and for the adoption of a proposal to make, amend or revoke a local area plan and is based on other similar procedures in the Bill such as the procedures for adopting planning schemes in SDZs.
The question of linguistic impact statements came up again in the Dáil as it had done in the Seanad. I considered this issue further and brought forward an amendment to section 33, amendment No. 121, which allows for permission regulations to be made requiring additional information to be submitted along with a planning application for development in Gaeltacht areas. This additional information would assist planning authorities in determining applications in accordance with their obligations under section 10 to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht. These regulations will be made in consultation with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. This amendment catches the essence of linguistic impact statements when considered in conjunction with the objective in section 10. Officials from my Department have met Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge which expressed itself satisfied with the approach I am now taking. Amendments to sections 19 and 20 also give specific recognition to local area plans for Gaeltacht areas.
Amendment No. 137 is designed to meet the point that where the manager of a planning authority, or the board of An Bord Pleanála, goes against the recommendations to grant or refuse permission, the reasons for not accepting the recommendation should be given.
Hear, hear.
Amendment No. 139 merely restates in a separate section the provision previously in section 34, which allows the planning authority to take into consideration the past record of developers when deciding whether to grant planning permission.
Repeat applications were raised by Senators on all sides. There were complaints in both Houses about persons who make repeat applications for the same development where the first application is under appeal, possibly in an attempt to avoid third party involvement. The issue has also been raised with my Department by the Ombudsman. Amendment No. 143 will prevent multiple applications by a person regarding the same development while the first application is still before the board.
There was much debate in both Houses about the changes in third party appeals. In particular, concern was expressed about people who may have been happy with the initial application but were unhappy with conditions imposed on the final decision by the authority. In response to those concerns, amendment No. 144 will permit persons whose interest in land is affected by a decision of the authority to apply to the board for leave to appeal against the decision. The board shall, if it finds that the decision is materially different from the application by reason of conditions imposed, and that the person's interest in their property is materially affected, grant leave to appeal. This meets the concerns expressed by Senators on all sides of the House.
Supplementary development contributions are dealt with by amendment No. 168 which introduces a new section allowing for the drawing up of supplementary development contribution schemes to facilitate public-private partnership projects. While the provisions of section 48 are confined to infrastructure provided by local authorities, section 49 is not. It is designed to facilitate infrastructure, including public transport infrastructure, which could be provided by a private or public developer and which could be part remunerated by development contributions in the area serviced by the infrastructure. The section meets some of the demands in both Houses that part of the costs of public transport provision could be met through development contributions. However, this is being done in a controlled manner where a project, such as an extension of Luas, would facilitate development in a specifically defined area.
Amendment No. 169 clarifies that a "substantial" interest as regards judicial reviews is more than a mere property involvement. It could mean that a person could be affected by a development. The amendment also provides that, to show a substantial interest, one must at least show that one has been a participant in the decision-making process. If a person does not get involved and then applies to the court for judicial review, he or she must show the court that he or she has a good and sufficient reason for not getting involved earlier.
Amendment No. 171 requires the courts to deal with judicial reviews on major projects as expeditiously as possible. In addition, amendment No. 241 provides that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government may direct the board to give priority to a particular class of developments, for example, large road schemes. The Minister may not, however, instruct the board on decisions on a specific development. These amendments will be critical for the speedy provision of infrastructure projects under the national development plan.
Amendments Nos. 189 to 199, inclusive, introduce a new chapter in Part IV of the Bill with two purposes – to strengthen the provisions on architectural conservation areas and to introduce a new designation of "area of special planning control" in which planning authorities will be able to exercise close planning control on works to and uses of buildings in the interests of conservation of an area. The powers in this section will ensure that local authorities can take a proactive approach to the protection of towns and cities to ensure they are better places in which people can live, work and shop. These are significant additions to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1999. However, arising from our experience in implementing that Act and preparing guidelines to assist local authorities in selecting architectural conservation areas, it was felt that these new provisions would be a useful addition to the code.
A number of further clarifications were made to Part V. I draw Senators' attention to amendment No. 212 which provides that developers must indicate how they propose to enter into an agreement. The planning authority will have to have regard to such proposals. This provision explicitly gives a developer a chance to put forward proposals for meeting the requirements of Part V in a manner which best suits the developer, provided that the proposals are in keeping with the requirements of the Part.
Amendment No. 213 provides that people who before 25 August last had inherited land and paid tax on it and people who gave a mortgage for land and then came into possession of the land in question since that date will be entitled to market value where land is provided by them for social or affordable housing on foot of a planning application. Amendment No. 216 provides that a housing association building houses for letting only will be exempt from the provisions of Part V. Amendment No. 218 introduces an anti-avoidance section to the Bill which will ensure that developers cannot escape the requirements of Part V save in the case of the legitimate exemptions provided for in the Bill.
Two major changes were made regarding the appointment of members to An Bord Pleanála. Amendment No. 222 increases the permanent membership of An Bord Pleanála by an extra board member to seven and the extra panel created to make the nomination has, therefore, been created. This panel relates to the fourth pillar of social partnership and to interests such as the arts and the Irish language. Recent experience has shown that the nominating bodies have not nominated their full quota of candidates when vacancies have arisen on the board and this has restricted my choice. It has caused particular problems in selecting a proper balance of gender and experience for the board. In an attempt to ensure that the widest possible selection of candidates is available, amendment No. 230 introduces a new fallback procedure for making appointments where applications may be sought by open advertisement.
In line with the proposals outlined last week in the Government's action on housing, I introduced a number of amendments to allow strategic development zones to be prepared for residential development. These are set out in amendments Nos. 248 to 297. To that end the National Building Agency and local authorities are included in the list of bodies which can be a development agency. A new section has been introduced allowing a development agency or a local authority to acquire the land needed for the zone. In the case of the authority, this can be done by way of compulsory acquisition. Alternatively, the agency may enter into an agreement with the owner of the land to facilitate the establishment of the zone. In considering a planning scheme for the SDZ, the authority and the board will have to have regard to the housing strategy.
Amendments Nos. 371 to 375, inclusive, introduce a new Part dealing with development on the foreshore. These new sections were introduced to the Bill to implement the Government's decision on introducing a single procedure for major infrastructural development by local authorities which crosses the foreshore. These developments in future will require the consent of An Bord Pleanála and the need to obtain the consent of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources under the Foreshore Acts will not apply. However, the provisions require early consultation with the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources and require the board to have regard to any views expressed by the Minister. Amendment No. 372 also requires development on the foreshore to obtain planning permission from the local authority. In this case, the requirement to obtain a foreshore licence will continue to apply.
Amendment No. 385 replaces the section in the Bill dealing with funfairs. The major change is that the same requirements to obtain a safety certificate will apply to fairground equipment used at permanent funfairs, that is, those with planning permission or pre-1963 authorised use, as well as at those funfairs which travel. It should be noted that amendment No. 384 allows regulations to be made for outdoor events organised by local authorities.
Amendment No. 393 replaces in its entirety the section dealing with providing information by electronic means. In response to the debate in both Houses, the new section provides that any written documents or other information can be provided or kept in electronic format from the date of the commencement of the Bill without any further need for regulations to be made permitting it. One critical proviso, and this is reflected in the Electronic Commerce Bill, is that both sides must consent to the information, whatever it is, being in an electronic form. There is little point in changing information to an electronic format if the person getting it cannot use it because they do not have the necessary technology or even the necessary skills. Further, the technology requirements of the local authority or board must be complied with. I do not propose to make them accept planning applications in any format. They must, of course, make those requirements known. These are necessary and practical provisos to the introduction of e-planning and reflect the provisions in the e-commerce Bill. This is a very modern provision which meets the concerns expressed in the debate on the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 418 and 419 restate in an improved form the sections dealing with the interface between IPC and waste licensing and the planning system. No major changes of policy have been made. Amendment No. 312 brings the section of the Bill dealing with the board's approval of local authority development which requires environmental impact assessment into line with the divide between planning and environmental licensing. Where an IPC licence is required for a local authority development requiring an EIA, the board will deal with the land use issues and the EPA will deal with the pollution control issues.
Members will recall that we had a long discussion on the effects of quarries and their environmental impact. From the time this matter was highlighted in the Seanad, Members have received a great deal of correspondence and representations. Amendment No. 420 was introduced in light of that debate and the widespread public dissatisfaction with unregulated quarries, an issue which was particularly highlighted here. I was criticised for not bringing in a Report Stage amendment to deal with the issue. However, as Senators can see, the issue was complex and required a great deal of work and, indeed, negotiation with the quarry sector to try to get it right. However, we have brought forward a strong provision to regulate the quarry sector in a manner which takes a balanced approach in regard to the protection of the environment and sustained economic development and which should not adversely impact on the supply of aggregate to the construction industry. The amendment basically requires that all quarries more than five years old should be registered with the planning authorities. The planning authorities will be entitled to regulate them by imposing environmental conditions on their operation.
Amendment No. 421 will require most of the substantive regulations to be made under the Bill to be subject to a positive resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This will ensure greater scrutiny and transparency in the making of planning regulations in the future.
Amendments Nos. 429 to 435, inclusive, modify the existing legislative arrangements for tolling under the Roads Act, 1993, by removing the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's quasi judicial functions in relation to toll schemes. Under the revised Part V of the Roads Act, 1993, the decision to adopt or revoke a toll scheme, adopt by-laws or enter into toll arrangements with private investors will be a matter for the National Roads Authority in the case of national roads and in the case of non-national roads, for the relevant local authority.
There are a number of provisions in the Bill which reduce the role of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in project-specific approvals and consent. In this connection, the amendment proposed to the tolling provisions of the Roads Act, 1993, removes an anomaly that would otherwise have been created under the Bill. This would have seen the Minister for the Environment and Local Government retaining an involvement in the approval of specific toll projects, while approval of associated motorway schemes, compulsory purchase orders and environmental impact statements in respect of the same roads projects would be transferred to An Bord Pleanála. In the absence of these amendments, part of the project decision-making process would be retained by the Minister and part by An Bord Pleanála which would be clearly inappropriate. The proposed amendments seek to address this situation and are consistent with the other provisions of the planning and development Bill to which I have referred. These amendments also required a consequential change to the Long Title of the Bill.
As I stated at the outset, it is not possible to go into detail on each of the 450 amendments made to the Bill in the Dáil. Members will appreciate the reason I spent the past 25 minutes speaking on them. The number of amendments is a reflection of the in-depth scrutiny the Bill received, particularly during the 56 hour Committee Stage debate. I thank the Members of both Houses who contributed to this detailed scrutiny which enhanced the Bill. While not agreeing with all aspects of the Bill, I hope it can be accepted that I listened to all points of view and responded where I could, either by accepting amendments or by coming back on Report Stage in both Houses with amendments which responded to the concerns raised. This was a good exercise in democracy and we have created legislation which is a credit to that process and which will stand the test of time.
I welcome the Minister to the House. The Bill has given rise to a long and arduous road for him and his staff. We have seen so much of them over the past year or so that we almost became friends. The Minister has given me a nice surprise. Very often Ministers come to the House and say they will look at and review certain things and the next time one sees the legislation there has been no change or it has been changed to such a small degree that it does not make a difference. Having gone through the amendments, the Minister has accepted substantial suggestions made by Members of the Oireachtas. The Minister listened and fine-tuned this Bill to make it a very good one, but I cannot be 100% supportive of it and I do not think the Minister would expect me to be.
When the Minister came to the House on Second Stage he said the Bill will put in place a hierarchical structure of plans and that it will be a holistic approach to planning matters – I think that was the wording he used. For that to be true, the national spatial plan had to be ready to be put in place at the same time as publication of the Bill. That is not a major criticism. I am only suggesting that the two should have been hand in hand or the national spatial plan should have been finalised before the Bill. That would have given the Bill a more holistic approach as the Minister intended. However, it is good to know the national spatial plan will be produced and I am sure there will be a degree of urgency in bringing it before the House.
The development plan timetable is much more accurate. It is finely tuned and much more effective. I do not think anybody could disagree that time is limited to bring our plans forward. I commend the Minister for accepting the suggestions made by Members on both sides of the House regarding the local area plans. I had strong views on the development of the Gaeltacht areas and the Minister said he would review it to see if anything could be done. I know from Committee Stage that Deputy Dukes will be very supportive of the concept of the separation of the Gaeltacht area and the protection of its identity. I thank the Minister for introducing this in the plan. It was something of importance to me as someone who lives in the Gaeltacht and to many others who felt that its identity should be protected. I am glad that Comhdháil Náisiúnta na Gaeilge has supported the provisions in the Bill and I congratulate the Minister for that.
The inspector's report is of vital importance. I could not understand that when an inspector's report was overruled by the board, that was the end of the matter and nobody knew why it was overthrown. I am glad to hear the Minister say that if a report is overthrown for or against, the board must explain in detail the basis on which it was overthrown. This will clarify matters and shows things are above board.
I raised the matter of a developer's past record. One of the difficulties that arises is how we pursue a developer if he changes his company name. I do not think it is possible to deal 100% with that problem. The adjustments made will go some way towards dealing with it if we seek out individuals irrespective of the companies. I have not grasped from what the Minister said today whether he is talking about the development company's record or the person who is a member of the board of that company. Each individual in the company should be examined.
Very often what happens in the case of repeat applications is that the person takes the eye off the ball after the first application is granted. Anybody who has dealings with the local authority will understand this provision is of critical importance. I welcome the provision dealing with the issue of third party appeals which was raised by Senators on both sides of the House. The provision that a substantial interest in relation to judicial review is more than a mere property involvement is to be welcomed.
Perhaps the Minister might reply to my query regarding architectural conservation areas and areas of special planning controls. This relates to what I said about An Bord Pleanála being able to overthrow a county or city development plan. I feel they should be restricted in so doing. Can An Bord Pleanála overthrow an architectural conservation area or an area of special control? Can they modify it, change it or disrupt it?
I proposed the removal of Part V of the Bill and the Minister said if it were removed the Bill would collapse and would have no value. At the time I did not think it would be workable as I felt it could be challenged. I am still waiting, as I am sure the Minister is, to see if it will be challenged. There is much mumbling outside the House as to whether it will be brought into court. An opportunity has been lost to introduce the concept, suggested by a Dáil committee, of the local authority taking up the land at the time of zoning. However, the question of equity has not been addressed and we will have to wait to see what will happen with the 20% social housing requirement. How do we ensure equity in the numbers of people affected by that requirement? Will one developer be affected and others not? Is it open to a subjective decision as to what development lands would be affected? One developer may have to provide 20% of his development for social housing and another might not.
I sought an increase in the members appointed to An Bord Pleanála. The Minister has increased the number but I thought a few more could be appointed and we could get more work done.
I welcome the strategic development zones and the development of the foreshore. It is not right that development of a foreshore for sewage treatment should have to go back An Bord Pleanála. A local authority should not have to go back to An Bord Pleanála for permission to develop something as important as a sewage treatment plant. It can delay things for a long time. The long delays at the Galway sewage treatment plant resulted in huge additional costs. People from every angle would be appealing to An Bord Pleanála in such cases. Perhaps we can take another look at that to see if we could include a provision that it could only be held by An Bord Pleanála for a certain length of time.
The proposal to license all fun fairs was the subject of great debate in the Lower House on Committee Stage. If that were to happen then small communities would have to be licensed also. It was felt that a certain type of fair, dancing at the crossroads etc., held in small communities for fund raising purposes should not require licensing. A small community group in my constituency erected a plaque to commemorate the famous oarsmen, the Emmets Rowing Crew, and took up the whole pier during their celebrations. It was a wonderful community effort and a beautiful ceremony. One wonders if they would have bothered if they had had to obtain a licence to do so. Such a requirement would impose restrictions on small gatherings of people raising funds or recognising somebody in their community.
The subject of electronic media was a source of some debate. I am glad it is included in the Bill. Technology moves on and so do we. We recognise that not everybody will have the facilities or training to use certain technologies but I believe people will be totally computer literate in 20 years.
The issue of the control of quarries was a bugbear. I live between two quarries and know how the operators abuse the local area. They do not deny this but say it is so because they do not have to adhere to any regulations regarding dust or lorry weights. While lorry weights could be checked by the Garda it is very rarely done. The washing down of lorries to keep down the dust etc. causes huge problems. I did not meet with representatives from the quarries but I did receive letters from them. I did not want to meet with them. There are certain vexatious issues which they have a right to raise. They point out that if they have set up in an area and somebody builds a house 200 yards away from them then that person must recognise that the dust, shaking of the windows and blasting are all natural aspects of quarrying. Their right to complain is lessened by the fact that they were aware of its presence before they built their house. People living near quarries opened after they became resident in the area have genuine complaints if they are affected by dust or blasting affects the structure of their house and shakes the windows and frightens them.
I attended a number of meetings about turbary. I would like to revisit the issue again. I am sorry the Minister did not take the opportunity of working the other way around. Instead of saying there should be a planning application for all turbary he should state that the each local authority will decide whether a development requires planning permission. Turbary in Offaly is quite different from turbary in Connemara where a man might have only a few small fields to turn. That man will not make a planning application to turn those fields and will work away to his heart's content. I do not think we should make laws unless they are applicable across the board.
The Minister and his staff have been extremely helpful to this House in dealing with this Bill. Nobody was trying to score political points during the debate. We were merely concerned with fine tuning the Bill, which is probably one of the largest pieces of legislation to go through the House in the past 20 years. The Bill may be outdone only by the forthcoming local government Bill. Our intention was to be helpful. The Minister is to be congratulated on his commitment to look at all our amendments and in taking so many of them on board. We were intent on producing a very good Bill, one that we could recommend outside. I may be unhappy with some aspects of it but one is never 100% happy with anything. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill before us.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an tAire ar ais don Seanad. I concur with Senator Coogan that this Bill got more air time in its passage through the Seanad than any other Bill in my short time here. The Minister's accommodating approach to accepting amendments and opinions that would enhance the Bill was a hallmark of those debates and he is to be commended on that. He took the same approach on Committee Stage in the Dáil, which has led to a large number of amendments being tabled. Most if not all those amendments are intended to strengthen the Bill and to ensure that the planning and development process will be significantly improved. The development plan prepared by the local authority is a major stage in the planning process and the Bill covers that matter well. Details of the application process are also laid out and enforcement is dealt with.
Planning is becoming a major concern for the public. Many councillors are indicating that they receive an increased number of representations on single planning applications and those canvassing in the Tipperary by-election will have encountered planning concerns in rural areas. It is incumbent on the Department and the Minister to ensure that local authorities are properly equipped and resourced to administer the planning process efficiently and to implement this significant Bill successfully. The Minister reminded us that we spent 85 hours debating the Bill in the Seanad while the Dáil spent 96 hours on Committee Stage.
The amendment providing that development plans should be compatible with the national development plan and for the inclusion of the national spatial strategy is a wise one that should go without saying, but it is necessary to copperfasten such measures in legislation. The provision that the social, economic and cultural requirements of an area be part of a development plan is also a welcome inclusion.
The section dealing with the European directive on major accident hazards is interesting. We have seen a number of recent accidents in Ireland, although fortunately none has been as serious as some of the catastrophes on the Continent, which are indicative of the need to highlight this matter in the planning process. Prevention is always better than cure. The amendments dealing with this matter are very wise in the light of recent international events.
The development plan timetable has been altered somewhat and I am concerned at the period for slippage being reduced from ten weeks to five. The framework is tight, although that may be good as it will have to be complied with once it is in legislation. However, it is important that the process of consideration and consultation is provided for fully in the Bill. Many local authorities are considering their development plans at present and it seems somewhat remiss that the strategic policy committees – there is one in every council – will be dealing specifically with the planning but do not appear to be involved in the process. This may relate to some sectional interests, but it is regrettable that these bodies are not being utilised fully. I am concerned that people might see this as an opportunity to advance some element of their conditions of employment and that could obstruct the process, as seems to be happening with the SPCs, and would be regrettable. What provisions are there to deal with this?
Section 20 sets out a formal procedure for dealing with local area plans, which I welcome. County development plans are often of necessity aspirational and general. It is possible to be much more specific regarding development with local area plans and people should be more aware of what is permissible and what is not. That should assist the efficiency and transparency of the process enormously. My local authority has looked at local areas and is now preparing development plans for villages, so it is possible to be very specific as to what one wants to see happen. Such plans will chart the future development of counties once they are knitted into the overall development plan. I commend the Minister and his officials on the inclusion of that provision.
With Senator Coogan, I commend the amendment which protects the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht. This matter was debated at length and its inclusion is indicative of the Minister's interest in the area and his ability to take constructive suggestions on board. Regarding the inspector's report, it is good that An Bord Pleanála or the manager must outline the reasons for not accepting the inspector's recommendations. However, it is extraordinary that one man should have such power vested in him when a body is elected by the public and is accountable to the public. Given the present climate of transparency and accountability, that is not the way of the future.
We will give that a whack during the local government Bill.
The local government Bill may amend that, as Senator Coogan suggests. The executive powers are far too sweeping, particularly in planning, when individual councillors may have a greater insight into the proper planning and development of their areas due to their local knowledge. That is an important factor in making decisions, yet it may count for nothing when the opinion of one executive supersedes it. I look forward to that being changed.
I welcome the amendment which deals with the past record of developers. I do not know if the local authority could apply a condition to a permission being sought by a developer that previous incomplete developments would have to be completed before the commencement of the permission. Something like that would do much to ensure developers complete building projects. It is fair to say that most developers do so to a satisfactory standard but those who do not and who are consistent defectors in this area should suffer as a consequence. The provisions here will enable the local authority at least to take that into account.
The issue of third party appeals, which concerned a number of Senators when discussed, has been addressed by the Minister and I welcome that. There is a provision now for people who, because of a change in conditions or arising from additional information sought from the developers, might have a different perspective on an application in terms of whether they view it favourably or unfavourably. They have the right to some redress in the event of their being dissatisfied.
I welcome the provision for supplementary development contributions. If people benefit from the expenditure of public moneys when infrastructure facilitates their own development, it is right that a contribution is expected from them. However, there is a need to ensure the system is applied fairly. It is not applied uniformly throughout the country. Some local authorities do no more than pluck a figure from the air and it is often based on what they think the developer might wear in terms of a charge. It needs to be more scientifically based than previously. Perhaps it could be dealt with by way of regulations or whatever, but it is something I would recommend.
Judicial review is a procedure with which we would have to concur. Amendment No. 171 requires the courts to deal with judicial reviews on major projects as expeditiously as possible. That is in recognition of the infrastructural deficit we have had for many decades which is being addressed in the national development plan. It would be a pity if the full and successful implementation of that plan were held up because of delays, through spurious claims or whatever. I wonder if asking the courts to deal with them as expeditiously as possible is more aspirational than placing a requirement on them to do so. Often the courts take a very broad interpretation of their role in these matters and, in general, they tend understandably to make allowances for the individual as against the major corporate or public body.
The idea of including areas of special planning controls within the development plan is highly desirable. There are sensitive areas and this is a good inclusion which should assist the process. The more specific we are about requirements in individual areas in towns or counties, the easier it will be to show that the implementation of the development plan and of the whole planning process is done in a balanced and even-handed way.
Part V, which is a significant and important part, has had some amendment in the Dáil. I echo Senator Coogan's point in that it would be a travesty if an appeal to the Supreme Court happened and the Bill was held up for years as a consequence. Indeed, it could even be a delaying tactic. Given that property rights are so strongly enshrined in the Constitution – we would all subscribe to that and would not look for any change – it is important that the Bill does not find itself held up for a number of years by court proceedings. I do not know what can be done to ensure that does not happen but the housing needs of the people are such that initiatives are urgently needed.
There is a strong provision in the Bill with an emphasis on social housing and it will benefit the many people who find themselves on the margins, whether they are local authority applicants or have the possibility to aspire to home ownership of which we have a very proud record. It is important this section is implemented sooner rather than later. I hope some mechanism will be found to ensure there is not an undue delay in regard to it.
Exempting housing associations, housing co-operatives, social housing schemes and so on is desirable and I compliment the Minister on including that. In regard to strategic development zones, it is good to see the National Building Agency, which has been involved in some tremendously valuable developments and has assisted many local authorities, included in that particular section. I am glad the foreshore licences requirement has been excluded. It is fair to say the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources is not noted for dealing with foreshore applications expeditiously. It does not appear to be one of its strong points and, therefore, this provision will be of assistance in ensuring developments proceed.
The inclusion of the electronic media is a good development. Given that we are applauding and complimenting ourselves, and justifiably so, on the development of our e-commerce industry and the fact we are now the largest exporter of computer software in the world, it behoves us to include provisions which facilitate its further development and use in any legislation brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is to be welcomed and encouraged.
On the control of quarries, the amendment made is simple and straightforward and will probably be very effective. Quarries over five years will be registered with the planning authorities which will be entitled to regulate or impose environmental conditions on their operation, which is welcome.
I find myself in some disagreement with the provision in regard to toll roads and the amendment made to the Bill. As a principle, I disagree with the devolution of political power to unelected bodies such as the National Roads Authority. I do not object to tolls being placed on roads provided we are talking about long motorways which facilitate transport, whether private motorists or goods vehicles, in particular. We should remind ourselves that the motorist and the transport industry in general are very heavily taxed. I would not like to see a plethora of toll roads or bridges. We spoke about e-commerce earlier and it is essential that tolls do not become a matter of placing gates on road transport. I do not see the sense in spending large amounts of money developing our infrastructure if we stop traffic for ten to 15 minutes while people pay their toll. That defeats the purpose of the investment in the first place. Anything that is done in that area should ensure traffic continues to flow and is charged to some system, as applies in many other countries.
The Planning and Development Bill is major legislation. While it consolidates legislation in the area, many new and important initiatives have been taken in this Bill. I hope the local government system is geared in such a way as to ensure its successful implementation. Local authorities are stretched at present. It is not just a matter of money but also of manpower and management to ensure the Bill meets the objectives to which the Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas aspire.
I welcome the Minister and compliment him on the hours he has put into this Bill. The Minister referred to the time he spent in both Houses but forgot to mention the hours he spent going around the country explaining the Bill in detail to all sectors of the housing industry, whether local authorities, building authorities or whoever. The Minister is to be complimented for this as he and his staff explained the provisions of the Bill in detail. He lived up to his commitment to meet groups privately and publicly and gave everyone an opportunity to make an input into this legislation. The Minister must dream about this Bill and he and his staff must be happy it is coming to fruition. I compliment him and his staff for their efforts as this is the largest Bill I have seen since the Companies Act.
Everything that should be said about the Bill has been said. However, planning will be the major issue facing local authorities in the coming years. County development plans will be examined before the end of the year. I am confident the Department and local authorities will get those plans right as we all know the importance of housing and the pressure on young people seeking to obtain a house. The Minister has put in place a mechanism to reduce house prices and that method is working. He has also committed himself to building 50,000 houses per annum, the impact of which can already be seen.
Planning authorities face a problem due to the lack of planners. My local authority cannot get planners and other authorities probably face the same problem. Large companies snatch planners from local authorities. Parents are telling youngsters in third level education to get into planning so there will be a large number of planners in a few years which might reduce the burden. In the meantime, we will have to take that on board.
I welcome many aspects of the Bill. In particular, I welcome section 137 which stipulates that the manager of the planning authority or An Bord Pleanála must give a reason if they go against a recommendation to grant or refuse permission. This is an important aspect of the Bill as all Senators supported this measure. I do not understand why a reason is not given when a manager or an inspector from An Bord Pleanála goes against the recommendation of a local authority planner to grant or refuse planning permission. The only reason given may be that the application is in contravention of proper planning or whatever. Qualified planners have recommended this kind of measure and I am glad to see it included in the Bill.
Other provisions of the Bill are long overdue, such as those concerning repeated applications, third party appeals, Part V, judicial reviews and so on. The Bill has been comprehensively dealt with in both Houses and I have been looking forward to it for some time. I commend the Bill and thank the Minister, his staff and the entire Department for the effort they put into this Bill which will be to the betterment of young people who want to build houses. They are the people who will gain from the Bill in the long term and I commend it to the House.
I compliment all involved for their courtesy and co-operation in processing this major legislation. The Minister pointed out there were 169 Seanad amendments and 450 Dáil amendments to the Bill. The Bill spent 85 hours in the Seanad and 96 hours in the Dáil.
There were some tense moments and difficult times at various Stages of the Bill and I thank the Minister and his officials for bearing with us and teasing out the various difficulties which required teasing out.
The Minister was a member of a local authority and secretary of LAMA and has adopted a winning, approachable and open door attitude to local authority matters. His aspiration is for the Government and the private sector to build 500,000 houses over the next ten years, that is 50,000 houses per year. This is a welcome development.
We can look back at the past 50 years and see from where we have come on the issue of housing. Everyone in public life who has to knock on constituents' doors at least once a year, whether in presidential, general, local authority or Seanad elections, will have witnessed the great improvement in the standard of housing and the conditions in which people now live. Thank God we have seen this day but who would have thought a Minister would propose a plan to build 500,000 houses, one new house for every eight people, over the next ten years? This is to be welcomed.
Because of the wonderful condition of and buoyancy in the economy, we will review county development plans not after five years but after two and a half to three years. Ten years ago there were 400 people living in Kinnegad, County Westmeath, which is in the Minister's neighbouring constituency. In five years there will be 4,000 people in Kinnegad, a tenfold increase in population. These areas are facing problems with housing and water and sewerage, and it is wonderful to be a public representative in Ireland today where money is available to address these problems. We are putting together a planning Bill which will bring us to an era beyond our wildest dreams or expectations.
I agree with Senators Dan Kiely and Walsh in welcoming section 137 which provides that An Bord Pleanála will have to give a reason for granting or refusing to grant permission and changing the decision of a local authority. Local authorities are well informed, whether by public representatives or their staff who come from every parish and village in the area. Sometimes it is difficult to understand why decisions are changed as this must be in the national or local interest.
Employment was always an important issue for people in north Westmeath and that is still the case as the population in the area has decreased by 34% over the past 30 years. We had a five seat constituency which was reduced to four and then three seats. While there has been an enormous increase in population around Kinnegad, from Rochfortbridge and Milltownpass to Athlone, the Celtic tiger has not affected north Westmeath, an area with which the Minister is familiar as it was part of the Meath constituency for more than 12 years. Over 210 housing applications were granted for Castlepollard but building does not seem to be starting. Circumstances can vary, even within a county, where there are massive increases in job opportunities and population in one part and none in the other part. This is bound to happen in the next year or two which is why putting this Bill into law will protect the environment in the beautiful lake district where I come from. Senator O'Dowd comes from our neighbouring County Louth which also has its coastline to consider.
I welcome the contributions of Members and thank those who have helped me as Leader of the House to progress this legislation.
Housing is currently the biggest issue in this country. In terms of local government, it is an area which needed significant attention, which it does not get in this Bill. The jury is out on whether the formula used in this Bill, with the Bacon report, will solve the housing crisis. Every week I am faced with young people and couples in my clinic, trying to get local authority housing or an affordable site on which they can build their own house. These people are trying to shape a future for themselves and their families. The Government has singularly failed to address the issue. It cannot pretend it has only begun as it has been in government for over three years. The queues are growing at my clinic. Never were fewer local authority houses built in County Louth than under this Administration. Never was it more difficult or expensive for a young couple to plan their future, buy their home and live together in harmony.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I remind the Senator we are on Report Stage. I have allowed a little latitude to other speakers.
In fairness, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, you have. I was not going to speak at all until I heard Senator Cassidy. When I hear him going on, I really cannot stomach it – I say that humorously. The young people I met are fed up to the teeth because they cannot get affordable housing and feel they are going nowhere. There is increasing frustration among young people about their future and the way the Government is mismanaging the future of their families, particularly by not providing them with serviced sites.
I am not a lawyer but it seems unconstitutional to exclude people from building a house in an area because they have not resided there. For example, Clare County Council can tell people they cannot buy or build a house in a certain locality because they do not live in County Clare. That is rubbish. We should allow any couple anywhere to obtain a site they can build on provided it meets planning, development and sewerage criteria. Domicile should be totally irrelevant. Many development plans exclude people from building and living in areas where they can build or buy an affordable house. The Minister must address this issue.
The development centres proposed in many of our county development plans will put increased pressure on smaller rural communities. Villages where people bought houses, knowing the available infrastructure, are being thrown out of kilter by the type of development taking place. A Leas-Chathaoirligh, I thank you for your latitude. This is an issue which remains to be addressed by the Government. I am unhappy with it and I know the people of County Tipperary will demonstrate their unhappiness tomorrow.
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I beg your indulgence in advance.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As long as we do not go around the Ring of Kerry.
I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on this voluminous and comprehensive measure. I thank him for accepting so many amendments, particularly those put down by my colleague, Senator Coogan. I watched Senator Walsh speak on the monitor and it reminded me that I should be here. The Minister accepted one of Senator Coogan's amendments which provides that where inspectors' reports are overruled, in this time of openness and transparency, the reasons will have to be given by the manager or, more importantly, by An Bord Pleanála when matters are appealed. Previously, a one, two or three line excuse was given and one did not know the reason behind it.
I have been justifiably critical that at local authority level, planning officers, who are qualified people, were often overruled. This may not have come into the open because they may have been directed by managers who in some instances acted as if they were feudal overlords.
They still do.
Perhaps they do, I am not as familiar with them as I was. I am not talking about any local authority in particular. It is a small country and we all attend conferences, enjoy each other's company and swap relevant stories. We hear what is going on from Donegal to Wexford and all the places in between. Managers have often been rates driven, so to speak, to get more money into the local coffers. Sadly, as we all know, a number of bad decisions were made and planners were overruled, entailing the revision of reports. One did not necessarily discover this from examining the file. We are moving into a new era and what remains of the system is changing.
There is something seriously amiss when a majority can rezone without having to offer a single line of explanation for a rezoning or material contravention motion. I am talking about the few cases – we may all know some of them – where the planning officer's report is against it, the managerial advice supports the planning officer and the majority, without offering a word, vote it through. We are well aware of the Finlay Supreme Court judgment on section 4 motions. They cannot be passed, and properly so, without elected representatives offering valid reasons on planning grounds. I am totally baffled why this should not also apply to rezoning and material contravention motions. It is probably because it has not been tested in the courts. I look forward to the Minister's words of wisdom on this. The question of in-committee planning meetings was recently very much in the news in my county. The practice has grown of holding electoral area or full council meetings dealing with planning. Sadly, these are not open and transparent because no minutes are kept of them. One can examine an individual planning file but one will not find the minutes of the planning meeting where one's application or that of one's neighbour was discussed. The Minister rightly made provision in the other Bill for full media access and full openness and transparency, to which I totally subscribe. However, there is a conflict here in regard to planning meetings. This matter should be addressed, although we should have planning meetings to discuss anything the manager, planning officer or councillors wish to discuss.
While Britain is behind us in many respects, particularly in its lack of an independent planning appeals board, it is ahead of us in this respect. I met the planning officer in Stratford-on-Avon, Seán O'Grady, which is a rather Irish name but he spoke the Queen's English well. He showed me minutes of planning meetings, which were held in public with notices posted on the front of the council building. The first item on the agenda, which tickled me pink, was "declarations of interest, if any". That applied to the officials as much as the councillors. Councillors might say that a certain person was their neighbour or a member of their constituency organisation. They would then go on, having declared their interest, to speak about the individual application. I thought that was a wonderfully open and transparent approach. I throw that out for the Minister's consideration, for what it is worth.
While the Minister might have been hamstrung by EU directives and so on, I am disappointed we were not able to resolve the position on traditional turbary rights in Kerry and elsewhere. This has been important to rural areas and the farming families who depend on the bog. It would be terrible if the Irish tradition of the day in the bog got wiped out by this. I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh for your indulgence.
I thank the Senators who contributed to this Stage of the debate. I think they accept we cannot make further changes to the Bill at this Stage. However, it is worth noting a comprehensive set of regulations will be drawn up under the Bill and any comments relevant to those regulations can be considered at that time. Guidelines will also play an important part in implementing the Bill and may deal in a practical way with some of the issues raised. I want to touch on some of those issues briefly, out of courtesy to the Members who raised them.
Senator Coogan raised the issue of the national spatial strategy. The Senator is right that, in an ideal world, we would have had many moons ago a national spatial strategy which would have been updated regularly. This Bill would fit into that context. We do not live in an ideal world, but the national spatial strategy is steaming ahead and will be in place before the end of next year. That will be the final piece of the jigsaw. However, as I said, the Senator is right that it is important.
I thank Members who acknowledged the efforts we made in this and the other House in relation to the Gaeltacht areas, the recognition of their particular heritage and culture and the need to protect the language.
In relation to the inspectors' reports, Members are aware we have changed the rules and regulations for the inspectors' report and for going against that report or recommendation and the engineers' report at local authority level. Reasons for that will now have to be stated. Senators on both sides have repeatedly made the point that that will make the system more transparent.
Senator Coogan raised the past history of developers. I assure him that if a person who previously failed to complete a development is believed to have formed a new company or partnership or is in some way connected with a current application, the Bill is specifically designed to take that into account. It is an important point that that should be covered, which it is in the Bill.
Senators Coogan, Kiely and others raised the issue of the board being able to grant permission in contravention of an architectural conservation area designation or the development plan itself. We had a long discussion on that. I amended it in the House, as Members may recall, and I have not gone any further in the Dáil in relation to it. However, we have narrowed the areas in which they can do that and they must give specific reasons for it, which is right. I hope that within the next decade, when the system is up and running and when development plans are being reviewed on the cycle they are supposed to be – which is every six years under the new Bill, starting in year five and completing in year six – the development plans will be so up to date that there will be no real need for material contraventions. That could be looked at again. However, at the moment, the best way I can describe it is to say that I cannot take that chance.
I will make a general point in regard to Part V and say to Senator Coogan, specifically, that all developers will be treated equally. There will be no question of one being treated differently. That will be up to the local authority, which will introduce a housing strategy and require up to 20% – the authority will decide the percentage – of all residential land to be provided for social and affordable housing. Any developer who wishes to develop that land will have to comply with that requirement. There will be no discrimination against any particular builders in relation to that because it applies to all.
Senator O'Dowd raised the issue of housing under Part V. If fewer houses were built in County Louth under this Administration than ever before, the Senator should look at himself and the other members of Louth County Council, rather than this Administration, because it has received the money to build more houses. It has got more starts—
There were fewer houses built in Louth than ever before.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator had his opportunity. The Minister, without interruption.
It is on the record of the House and I would not like the Senator to have to correct it. The council received more, rather than less, money than ever before. It also has the opportunity this year, as have all local authorities, in the—
On a point of order—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister, without interruption from any quarter.
As a member of the local authority—
On a point of order—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a point of order.
The Senator said that never were fewer houses built in County Louth than under this Administration.
That is a fact.
I have said to the Senator that that is a matter for the members of Louth County Council, because it has received more money and starts over recent years than ever before. It has the right under the multi-annual programme this year to advance the building of houses. It can build the number for all four years of the multi-annual programme. If it does not do that, it should look to itself rather than blame the Department and the Minister for its failings.
Senator Walsh referred to the importance of enforcement in relation to the Bill. He is right that this Bill will only succeed if a culture of enforcement emerges. I acknowledge that staffing is part of the answer. Senator Coogan was the first to raise that matter in this House on the initial Stages of the Bill. We will provide, and have provided in the past, the resources for local authorities. There certainly are labour constraints, which are causing difficulties. As part of the response to the Bacon report the Government has clearly indicated it is again going abroad to seek consultants etc. to tackle the problem. I hope we get the support of all the social partners – I know I have the support of Members of this House – as there are labour constraints, whether people want to face that reality.
Regarding sewage treatment works on foreshores, local authorities will have to submit an EIA to An Bord Pleanála rather than the Minister as is currently the case. The foreshore licens ing issue will be dealt with at the same time giving one rather than two procedures, which should expedite matters.
I assure Senators that small outdoor events will not come under the licensing arrangements in the Bill. We are talking rather about licences for large outdoor concerts where there are safety, litter and crowd control issues etc. Feiseanna and local festivals will not require a licence. Some people were looking for a complete exemption for charitable events. However, a way around such an exemption would be for very large concerts to make a contribution to charity. Therefore, each event must be examined on its own.
Senator Coghlan spoke about public planning meetings. All representations from public representatives in relation to planning should be in writing or made in public at a planning meeting. I have spoken to members of local authorities who have some reticence in this regard, not for any bad motives, but because they feel they would be able to give a truer picture of the circumstances if everything was not being recorded, and be able to use their local knowledge in some cases to oppose or propose planning applications. However, it is better for the system in general if representations are made in writing or at planning meetings. Local authorities can make a decision in this regard and open and transparent procedures should be considered by the SPCs involved in planning. Senator Walsh raised the fact that SPCs are not involved in the development plan process. There is no need to include provision in the Bill that SPCs should be involved in the process. It is a matter for local authorities to order their business. I confirm for Members that the industrial relations difficulties associated with SPCs have finally been cleared following a recent ballot by the unions and we should be able to move ahead in this regard very quickly.
The hue and cry in the mid to late 1970s was so loud that the power which Ministers had under planning legislation to make final decisions on appeals in relation to planning applications was taken from them on the basis that the Minister was a public representative. Senator Walsh is now advocating that the executive decision in relation to individual planning applications should be given to the elected members of local authorities. That would not find much favour with the public. Judging by the current difficulties engendered in various places by public representatives in relation to housing developments, mainly in the Dublin area, such a proposal does not recommend itself to me. Some people will cry and shout about having more powers, but when push comes to shove they are very reluctant to take on the responsibility going with them. Ideally that would be the way to go, but I do not think it is feasible.
A number of other points rather than questions were made in relation to e-mail facilities for planning, quarries, tolls etc. I previously made the point in relation to tolls that the Minister cannot take representations one way or the other. A procedure has been set down which is followed and the Minister then makes a decision. Therefore, it is not a question of taking democratic control from anybody. People have an opportunity to make a contribution in the open fora.
The Bill is important from a housing point of view, and in this context Part V is extremely important. People have raised the possibility of a constitutional challenge, but I have made my views known.
I do not wish to conclude on a sour note, especially after all the positive comments which have been made, and I do not like doing so in the absence of certain people. However, I am rather disappointed that no member of the Labour Party thought it worth their while to attend the debate on this important Bill. It is very poor form, and I am sorry to have to say this after all the co-operation I got, particularly from Deputy Gilmore in the Dáil. The Labour Party should be represented.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister and his staff for their wonderful work and the long arduous hours they put into the Bill, and for their help when I had to ask about some technical aspects of the Bill.
The member of the Labour Party said he was unable to be here and he apologised – the other Members are obviously canvassing. He said he would try to be here if possible, although this is not the Member who initially dealt with the Bill. It is not my job to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party, but it is only fair to put on the record what the Member of the party said to me.
I am not 100% happy with a few aspects of the Bill, but who will make me 100% happy? One of these aspects, which I did not mention, concerns the National Roads Authority. I wish to stray a little, as the authority is inclined to do when it plans roads around the countryside. The NRA has too much responsibility and is too distant from the electorate and the people in the decisions it makes. I want the NRA to have greater accountability to elected representatives, which, unfortunately, is not 100% provided for in the Bill.
The reason I am bringing the matter up again is that the National Roads Authority is higgledy-piggledy building a road through a Gaeltacht village, the culture and integrity of which we are trying to protect, tearing it in two. It should not have the right to overrule something as important as the strategy outlined in the Bill or the local development plan which states that an area is to be protected, but that is another day's work and I intend to fight the battle at as many levels as I can. The Minister was supportive when I discussed the matter with him. One does want to see places of high amenity shattered by four lanes of traffic where that is not necessary.
I thank the Minister for accepting many of the amendments tabled by the Labour Party and ourselves both here and in the Lower House. The work was long and tough but will prove worthwhile in the end.
In the absence of Members on the Independent benches – I am not offering to speak on their behalf – may I briefly join with Senator Coogan—
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Contributions are usually confined to spokespersons.
I appreciate that fully.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is not necessary for the Senator to speak on behalf of anyone else.
I am not. I just want to make one brief point. I will pursue it publicly with the Minister on another occasion.
Because Fine Gael gained a Member last week it is of the view it can speak on behalf of all parties. I thank the Minister on bringing this important Bill before us. It seems like a long time since it was fully debated in the House. Like Senators Kiely and O'Brien who participated on earlier Stages, I found it a valuable experience and a great exercise in democracy. It is to the Minister's credit that his modus operandi is such that he is amenable to constructive suggestions from any side of the House to strengthen and improve legislation. That is what we have come to expect from him. His experience of local government shone through in the sense that he was fully au fait with the merits and demerits of any suggestions made.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the Minister's officials and their interest and commitment. We are very fortunate to have officials of their calibre in the public sector who work assiduously to ensure we have a system of governance of which we can be proud.
I thank Members for their help and co-operation at all times during the debate on the Bill but this afternoon in particular. I missed the last two hours of the debate in the Dáil which were taken by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, during which Deputies Dukes and Gilmore thanked me for my openness. I wish to acknowledge their remarks.
I thank the staff of both Houses, the Bills Office and the secretariat to the Select Committee on the Environment and Local Government in particular, the parliamentary draftsmen concerned in the Office of the Attorney General and all the staff of the Department for their help, support and contributions and for adopting such an open approach to those who lobbied to have changes made to the Bill. This has been acknowledged both inside and outside the House. It was a great exercise in democracy.
I know that we are not supposed to mention names and that civil servants do not like to have their names mentioned but the parliamentary draftsman who dealt with us over a long period was Roger Kenny who was both helpful and co-operative. There was much talk about the Kenny report during the course of the debate. The individual in question happens to be the son of Justice Kenny. I wish to acknowledge that Judge Kenny's report has not been totally ignored after all these years.
I thank my own staff in particular – Mary, Feargal and Una – who have worked very long hours and been a great support to me. I am sure Senators will join me in congratulating Mary on her recent appointment as assistant secretary in the Department. Feargal is leaving to take up another job in Armagh which means I only have Una left at this stage.
I sincerely thank everybody involved. We have done a good 200 hours work on the Bill which I hope will stand for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.