Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

This Bill is welcome, partly because of the need to upgrade administration but also because the availability of technology requires legislation such as this. If I have a criticism of the Government's policy in this area it is that it has chosen, once again, to opt for a narrow reform rather than for wider reform of the legislation regarding property. Last Tuesday, in the National Library, the Taoiseach launched the tenth report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. What happened to the ninth report of that committee? That was launched with great fanfare a number of years ago but we have not seen a single legislative proposal from the Government to enact any of its recommendations.

There has been a gradual improvement in all aspects of the registration of land and public access to information on same. However, it remains an imperfect practice. The current Land Registry based in Waterford was an early example of the Government's so-called decentralisation programme but all it did was make it difficult for people in the rest of the country to access information that would have been available in Dublin. It was just located to a new centre. I hope the new body being established under this Bill will not suffer from the same geographical problems but will increase the amount of information that might be available to the public.

Other contributors to this debate have mentioned that we could have used the Bill to strengthen the Derelict Sites Act, which gives local authorities some powers, after a great deal of time and searching for the owners of derelict properties, to acquire title to such sites. However, we should go further. If an owner does not become available within a set time period, such properties should automatically be vested in the local authority. This would apply to properties which are obviously derelict, regardless of whether they are built upon, and have the effect of downgrading a local community.

Such legislation should exist. It exists in the United States where an investigation regarding the rights and responsibilities of property owners can be instigated not so much by a local or state authority or the national government but by individual members of the public. Why are we not legislating to provide that members of the public can get information on who owns and is responsible for a particular property in their community, particularly if that property is a building that is not structurally sound or is a vacant site which has been allowed to become littered and a stain on the area? On these grounds we can go much further in terms of the law on property. I am disappointed the Government and the Minister appear to have made no effort to act upon the recommendations in the ninth report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and, given the Government's legislative programme, there is little likelihood that such legislation will be in place by the next general election.

Given the opportunity presented by this new organisation and technology that will allow the identification of property to become easier, there should be standardisation of property leases. Attempts have been made in the past to do this through Private Members' legislation. The lease on my house, as is the case for most people here, is written in very arcane language. It refers to the property being located in the geographical area identified by the local parish, which was the parish of the established church, the Church of Ireland. There is an inconsistency, first, in the language used in leases, which should be a little more user friendly and, second, in the geographical terms by which property is identified. This Bill could have been an opportunity to address this. Perhaps the new organisation, when it is up and running will put such changes into effect.

Last night I attended a meeting in the town of Ballincollig in my constituency, although it will no longer be part of my constituency at the next election due to boundary changes. That meeting highlighted a particular difficulty regarding State ownership of property and the transfer of such property to community interests. The meeting was organised by the Ballincollig soccer club which had been promised four years ago, by the then Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, that it would be given an area of ground for sports and amenity purposes as part of the development resulting from the sale of Murphy Barracks in Ballincollig.

Most of the ground was to be made available on the open market to commercial interests. The land was subsequently sold and has been developed but the amenity area is still undeveloped. There is now a landlocked section of property which cannot be accessed because the planning authority made a mess of how access was to be provided. The biggest problem, however, is the question of the title. I understand this issue is currently being dealt with by the Chief State Solicitor's office and I hope it comes to a proper conclusion.

What I and the attendance at the meeting last night find frustrating is how, in transferring State property to these interests, such a double standard applied. Why were the commercial interests, so obviously and quickly looked after? Why were the community interests treated so shoddily? Many of the difficulties brought up regarding title are used as unnecessary obstacles but these obstacles seem to be easily overcome when commercial development is involved. It is a double standard that State agencies should no longer apply.

The Green Party will not oppose this legislation. We believe it is necessary. However, perhaps the Minister will address the need for wider ranging legislation on property and property rights, the need to develop, in the public interest, properties and pieces of land of which the current owners are not making proper use and the need for mechanisms to allow State authorities, particularly local authorities, to secure the better use of such property. Representing a largely urban constituency, I can identify many such properties which current legislation does not allow the local authority to acquire and develop as quickly as is necessary. This legislation might have been an opportunity to push that agenda a little further. If the new agency uses the powers being conferred on it in terms of defining property and improving the availability of information on property, that is a good thing. There is much further to travel in terms of legislation that better meets the needs of our community and individual citizens.

See this speech in context