Dáil debates

Thursday, 1 July 2010

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill [Seanad] 2009: Report and Final Stages

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Joanna TuffyJoanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

There is a need for balance in this debate. We want proper planning, but not at the expense of democracy which is a fundamental thing. It is what we fought for in 1916 and 1922. One does not erode democracy. We, as politicians, should not be taking away local democracy and the mandate that councillor have. Reforms have been made over the years to try to address the issue to which Deputy Gogarty referred and improvements can always be made. One has to disclose donations and the amount spent on local elections. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government introduced limits on how much could be spent on local elections last year, which the Labour Party supported.

Many different things have been done. The vast majority of politicians operate in what they consider to be the best interests of the public but very often ideology comes in. Housing was left to the free market and allowed to run rampant. A huge part of the problem was ideology and Deputy Gogarty is in government with the very people who had such an ideology.

Under the old section 31 provisions the Minister could intervene, make directions and tell the local authorities to amend or vary their county development plans. At the end of the day the decision on the county development plan rested with the local councillors elected by the people. It was quite a strict provision which the Minister used as a last resort. It allowed an intervention by the Minister but the fundamentals of local democracy remained. What is proposed is very much a dictatorship on the part of the Minister. He can make the plan.

The idea that the Minister will always make a pure decision is not correct. I refer to South Dublin County Council. The Taoiseach of the day, Deputy Bertie Ahern, wanted to build a stadium in his constituency. It was a huge project which the Tánaiste at the time, Michael McDowell, said was a Ceaucescu project. It never went ahead; God knows what it would have been like if it had. Our council wanted an alternative proposal, the Eircom stadium.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.