Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am pleased to speak on this Bill. The Minister's colleague said he was disappointed the Minister was not able to be here and I am glad he is here now. I wish to pick up on a number of points touched on by previous speakers. As an aside, I was impressed by the rapport between the representatives of the leafy suburbs on the south side who are enthusiastic in their welcome of any possibility of acquiring, appreciating and sharing the areas outside their remit. I never cease to be amazed by the middle class attitudes in areas where everything is curtailed within the curtilage of the homes in those areas, but the representatives of those areas are in agreement with the sharing of everything else with everybody else and preferably among themselves. I would love to share with those representatives all the leafy shades, the swimming pools and the high amenity areas the rest of us do not have in our areas. I look forward to the time when there will be a joint sharing of those amenities between us mere humble country folk and our betters in those leafy or silvan settings.

Much has been made of the modernisation of the system and I agree there is a need to modernise the registration system. Modern technology makes registration relatively easy. Through the use of the GPS an aerial satellite photograph can be scaled down to a 1:500 scale on a map. It is possible to zoom in on a photograph and bring the information on it down to a map scale. I mention that point in the context of when a boundary dispute arises in respect of a property, particularly in the case of a housing estate in a development area, all hell breaks loose. A large black or red line is drawn around the outer perimeter and it is impossible to establish the exact boundary. The information is imprecise and it gives rise to all kinds of difficulties. I am sure the Minister, in his legal capacity, must have dealt with countless cases requiring him to devote long hours to figuring out where the boundary might lie. Countless cases have ended up in courts and they have been resolved, although not necessarily to the satisfaction of either party.

Local authorities have transferred many of their deeds on to microfiche. The records are, to say the least, imprecise and unclear. Is there a back-up system? Deputy Costello also referred to this matter. It is a little like the electronic voting system in that often there is no paper record held, particularly in the case of local authorities. The lack of that back-up system is obvious when trying to find precise details in a case.

I wish to refer to one or two further points with which the Minister will be familiar given his legal knowledge. He referred to the ability of people to allow their properties to be remortgaged to finance the house purchase of junior members of the household. I do not know the reason for that reference. It is an admission by Government that the price of houses has gone beyond the reach of ordinary people and that some means must be found to deal with the matter, as for example in a case where the property concerned was not registered or whatever the case may be. I fail to understand the necessity to make that reference unless it was by way of an admission of failure to provide, in a realistic way, for the housing needs of the next generation.

The registration of lands held in common can give rise to difficulty. A technique that used to be employed, particularly by developers who seem to know how to handle the system, was that they would approach a number of tenants with tenancy rights in common and acquire them by one means or another and eventually they could register their property. I am not certain of the degree to which consultation takes place with those who might have such an interest. I refer to a scenario whereby all the people in this Chamber would have an interest, by way of family relationship, in a property or properties held in common in terms of tenancies or a commonage. A particular individual could acquire a property held in common by virtue of moving from one tenant to another so as to eke out an agreement. Eventually, if he or she isolated a sufficient number of the tenancies, he or she would be able to make a move to register the entire property. That has happened, with scant reference to the extended family members of the tenants. Perhaps the Minister would examine the matter in the context of this modernisation, which I agree should take place.

The Minister referred to lending and burdens on titles. He has had his own experience with planning permission down the country similar to what we humble citizens have to deal with every day. It is a common occurrence for some smart guy somewhere to decide to put a burden on somebody's property by way of section 37 of the planning Act which sterilises the property in terms of future residential use. It is totally illegal. It is up to the local authority, as the planning authority, to grant or refuse planning permission at some stage in the future, which it might have to do, and not be precluded from so doing by some smart alec who has decided to stick a burden on a property registered against the title. This obviously devalues the property but, funnily enough, if it is zoned or acquired by material contravention at a later stage, the sterilisation no longer applies. The sad thing is that this poor clown who owns a few acres of bogland or other propoerty, who might well have a need to realise some of his or her assets would have great difficulty getting planning permission if there was an objector. In such situations, as we all know, objectors do appear, very conveniently for themselves in many cases, although I fully recognise the right of a person to object for genuine reasons.

Local authorities do not have any right to place such a burden on the title because they have other mechanisms to ensure the control and development of properties at any time. Some local authorities impose burdens, while others do not. Why should some people be disadvantaged by virtue of somebody having the right and power to ruin a property for future development purposes? This is unfair situation and although no money has changed hands and nobody, especially the local authority, has lent any money or offered it to the unfortunate landowner or house owner, the burden applied has the same effect as if a loan had been drawn down on the property. If a person wanted to apply for planning permission 20 or 30 years later, the local authority would have discretion and could overlook the sterilisation of the property. It can still follow that he or she could get permission if it was not registered as a burden on the title, as it is not registered in every case.

Somebody with extra time on his or her hands makes a decision to register these burdens. In the event of an objection, it guarantees that, by virtue of their being such a burden on a title, a person cannot develop a site for future residential purposes, although his or her next door neighbour who might have secured similar planning permission with no registration of burden on the title — for no other reason than he or she was lucky — can do what he or she wishes with a site in accordance with the law. It has been said by many involved in the planning sector that there is no necessity to do this at all, that it is a matter for local authorities to grant or refuse planning permission without reference to anybody else and that they would be doing so within the law, whereas they are breaching this part of the legislation by doing what they want.

A number of speakers referred to the number of unregistered properties. The Derelict Sites Act did work. It worked if there was a will but I could never understand the reason there was such a reluctance to implement it.

See this speech in context