Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

I will make a few general comments about the Bill but I will stick mostly to specific comments.

We have talked a lot about the current economic crisis. In many ways, part of the unwritten history of the crisis is bad planning — the extent to which land was inappropriately zoned and to which planners, who are supposed to be professionals, granted planning permission that conferred land with values that were not sustainable, while permitting unsustainable development all over the country. There was a good article by Kathleen Barrington in the The Sunday Business Post some weeks ago which pointed to the neglected role of planners — by which I mean planning officials in local authorities — alongside bankers, developers and others in destroying the country's economy.

Many of the provisions in the Bill are welcome. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is a reforming Minister and, although he may have had to pollute himself by going into power with Fianna Fáil, he is at least trying to make some reforms in his Department that may result in a few positive words in the obituary of the Green Party when the time comes. We do need reform of planning in Ireland, but it is important not to say simply that something must be done and therefore doing anything is the right thing. We must always make sure, when bringing about change, that it is not just change for the sake of change but actual measures that will improve the situation.

Having considered section 5, I have concluded that the core strategy is a good idea. When I initially read it in the Bill I thought it was probably just another bureaucratic mechanism, with officials in planning authorities simply ticking the boxes and then proceeding to ignore it. Having been in contact with planning officials, however, I do not think that is the case; they will take it seriously. Development plans should have a core strategy. I do not think we can have a proper planning system on the basis that every one of the 40 local authorities can do whatever it likes. The core plans should fit in with the national spatial strategy and with figures and targets set by the Department.

I have some concerns about the two thirds voting majority mentioned in section 7, but I have trouble getting my head around exactly what it means. It seems to mean that a two thirds majority will be required only at the last phase of a development plan but not for the initial manager's amendments or the amendments after the first display. It will only be required at the very end for amendments that did not go on display at all. If that is the case, I agree with it; it is appropriate, because amendments should not be made to development plans at the very end of the process. I would not like to see the manager being given excessive power over the elected members, whereby he or she can essentially bring in amendments which can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority of the councillors; however, if I understand it correctly, that is not the case. Amendments will occur in the normal fashion after the first display; they will come back on the second display, and only at the end of the process will a two thirds majority be required, in which case it is a reasonable provision. However, the provision should mean two thirds of those who participate in the vote, not two-thirds of all the members. People may be absent for good reasons and, on local authorities, people often absent themselves for various reasons, deliberately not turning up for votes. Even so, it should be two thirds of those present. I am not familiar with any precedent in any assembly in Ireland whereby an absolute majority is required. The only thing I can think of that is similar in operation is a plebiscite for changing the name of a road, in which case more than half of all eligible voters must approve the proposition. I do not know of any other examples. Certainly, in this House we never expect an absolute majority. Even when we are electing a Government the majority required is 50% of those present, not 84 votes. That should be changed.

The threshold above which a local area plan is required is being changed from 2,000 to 5,000. I do not agree with this. A residential development of 2,000 houses is large, possibly containing 6,000 or 7,000 people, which should merit an area plan. Changing the threshold to 5,000 means the number of people living in the area would be 12,000 to 15,000, which is very large. It would be a whole new town the size of Malahide. A local area plan should be required for developments of 2,000 units — that is, if the number refers to units and not population. Having said that, I now think it may refer to the number of people, in which case the provision is reasonable.

There is some question about the ten-year timeframe for local area plans, with some business interests suggesting this is too long. What is important is flexibility. In certain local authorities it may be appropriate to have a long local area plan. For example, the plan for Donabate in north County Dublin is more or less a 20-year plan, which may be appropriate. We are also considering a 20-year local area plan for Tyrellstown in my constituency. There has been some suggestion that the length of the development plan should be five or six years, or even nine, including head room. However, it is important to have some flexibility.

I am sceptical about the role of regional planning guidelines and regional authorities. I was on the Dublin Regional Authority and I may have been on the Mid-East Regional Authority also. They really are talk shops. They are not genuinely democratic. People get onto them as a consequence of being on a local council and, by and large, do not take it much more seriously than any other committee they may be put on as a consequence of being a member of the council. I do not think they should exist, although I know they must exist under European law. The time has come for radical reform, if we do not just get rid of them altogether. I do not think they have any democratic legitimacy.

See this speech in context