Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The concern I have is that this is an issue that affects rural Ireland. We have heard much about rural Ireland in recent times. I know the proposal is to deal with it in a way that is intended and the Minister indicated that, which I welcome. It should not be forgotten, though, that in rural Ireland, a number of things affect residents there. I heard somebody recently discuss on radio the fact that it costs much more to provide a house in rural Ireland. It does not, is the answer to that question, because the individual proposing to build the house has to suffer to the costs of everything, for example, septic tanks and ESB power laid on. Somebody suggested recently on a television or radio programme that this is done by the State, but it is not. Per pole, bringing the power to the site falls on the applicant. There is no doubt about it. People in rural Ireland look at it and ask how this applies to the rest of the country. They will drive into a town and find whole streets that are semi-derelict or whatever the case may be. They will ask, “Why can they do that and we cannot?” In other words, people in rural Ireland claim there are two rules. There is some sympathy in recognising their particular situation. If it is an agricultural landholding that a particular individual wants to continue his current enterprise on and does not want to be penalised for it, I think he is entitled to that consideration. That should be done.

While we are on the subject of rural Ireland, we are getting into a difficult and dangerous situation where confrontation will eventually come as to who has the better or greater rights. I have seen this. I have been a member of the local authority, like everybody else here. I have seen strange situations that would indicate to me that two rules – two laws – may apply or are beginning to apply and will negatively affect those who live in rural Ireland. We have a Constitution in this country. Some other countries and some near neighbours do not have a written Constitution and they can do what they like; they can make it up as they go along. However, here we have a Constitution and constitutional rights have to be observed. They need to be observed and there needs to be manifestation of their observation as time goes by.

There is a tendency in some quarters – I am not pointing a finger at anybody here, or outside this room either – to ignore the constitutional rights of the individual. For example, we regularly hear, in respect of the development of lands for housing purposes, that somebody objects, the proposal is then closed down, nothing happens and the need for housing still remains. It is done on the basis that there is a right to object. Of course, that has to be observed. However, there is also the equal right not to object, which is very seldom exercised except by people who have a consideration. Those people might recognise that a particular area has a need for housing or, to some extent or other, a development. On that basis, we need to have an even-handed and balanced way of looking at it. The position remains, to my mind, that the possible development of a clash between urban and rural interests is coming closer. It is a dangerous development. I have always been reluctant to object unless there was a very valid and cogent reason for the objection that was visible and readily explained to all people. For instance, there are many such cases where somebody decides to develop in a particular way whether others like it or not, and we cannot have that either. We cannot penalise indefinitely the people who by virtue of their particular geographic location happen to be in the firing line and we do so, as it were, to punish them. I do not think it should apply.