Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate both last night and tonight. There was quite a range of contributions and support. I particularly welcome the fact that the Government is not opposing the Bill and the comments of the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan. The Minister of State has a large body of work in the areas of housing and planning, both of which are really important and have a very direct impact on our lives irrespective of whether they receive the attention they deserve. I take Deputy Flanagan's point in this regard.

I paid particular attention to what the Minister and Minister of State had to say in order to know what parts of the Bill are likely to be problematic or amended. I will refer to some of the points made. I accept that the national planning compliance register creates an additional administrative burden on one side but there could be a very sizeable change in culture and quite substantial savings from having such a register. Essentially, this would prevent a developer who acquires a really bad reputation in one area from starting with a clean record somewhere else only to do exactly the same thing. It is important that we capture the relevant information at national level and that there be a means to search a developer's history when an application is being made. We will not reward good behaviour or have a really good construction sector unless we deal with this issue and weed out the rogues. We must have the means of doing so. We cannot have 34 planning authorities with separate databases of information. We must pool the information.

I accept that section 35 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is in place. It exists in theory but I am anxious that it be implemented in practice. What is missing in this regard? I want to be practical about identifying the problem and suggesting solutions. There can be a collaborative approach in suggesting solutions because if there is a matter in respect of which there is considerable expertise in this House, it must be planning and development. This is because we have all been through the planning and development system, some of us over decades. Several developers in County Kildare have not completed developments. Some developments have been left unfinished for up to 20 years. Despite this, the estates have not been taken in charge.

Section 35 only stands up where there is a conviction. Where enforcement proceedings are linked to fines for less serious instances of non-compliance, the burden of legal steps in court proceedings would be less onerous on the planning authorities. Perhaps we would create a different culture and ensure a higher level of compliance if we reduced the burden on local authorities in this regard.

With regard to section 6, I take the Minister's point on undue flexibility. However, this is an issue of language. I believe the section can be amended. The Minister said the existing legislation requires the authorities to "have regard to" certain matters. This term is very discredited. It should be a case of being compliant and consistent with a plan. If a development is not consistent and compliant with a plan, "having regard to" is a fairly meaningless term. One can have regard to a plan and then ignore it. Most of us who really want to see in practice what is set out in theory will understand that there is a really significant meaning attached to a change in the wording.

With regard to a centralised national schedule of agreed development contribution liabilities, Sinn Féin completely misread my intention. It is not a case of preventing the setting or retention of contributions locally but about capturing the information nationally. That in excess of €312 million in legacy development contributions is outstanding indicates that development contributions are not paid when developments commence.

There can be real problems when that money is not collected for infrastructure that is required to provide for the development. It is very important that we capture that nationally. Given that the planning process itself is a public process, I do not see any reason why this cannot be public information, captured in a different way. The local government computer services board designs the websites for the local authorities and there is a consistency about them. There is no reason why this kind of information cannot be captured at planning application stage. I am seeking to include a retrospective element to some of this but I accept that retrospective data may be more difficult to capture. However, we could at least focus on the areas where moneys are outstanding and progress from there. There must be ways of doing this.

I was very pleased with the support expressed for a number of provisions in the Bill, including the reduction in the number of years before an estate can be taken in charge. I understand that the Law Reform Commission proposed that it should be the owner who has the right to petition to have an estate taken in charge but there are absentee owners in many estates and perhaps the person who is living in the estate should have a petitioning right. That question merits further attention.

On Part 8, I accept there are valid arguments on both sides. However, objections generally emanate from people living very close to a proposed development and sometimes there is wholesale resistance. At the very least, a second opinion should be sought from someone who is not directly connected. That is not an unreasonable provision to include in legislation.

Essentially what I am attempting to do with this legislation is to change the culture. More needs to be done and the Minister of State knows that too. I look forward to her Bill in the new year. I want to see a licensing system for builders, for example. The construction industry is a good industry but it has been muddied by those who have behaved like cowboys. We have not rewarded good behaviour in the construction sector. By putting the citizen and the consumer centre stage, we will add another dimension to how we frame legislation. Up to now it has been framed, by and large, with the construction industry and local authorities in mind, with the citizen and the consumer sidelined to a great degree.

I acknowledge the fact that this Bill is not being opposed. Support has been expressed for many of its provisions. I hope we will be able to progress some aspects of the legislation in the first half of next year, in the context of other planning legislation that will also be coming forward in 2014.

See this speech in context