Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment which is very acceptable and would not be particularly formulaic. It is not something which would be particularly binding; it is simply directional and I do not see anything to fear on the part of the Minister.

There has been a lot of commentary on the role of development levies. When I was a member of Dublin City Council and as a Deputy in the city area, I noticed the major pressure brought to bear on officials to grant planning permission, often in dubious circumstances, in order to gain development levies at a time when local authorities were starved of funding. Things, however, have changed. We know that 80% of property tax revenue is due to be ring-fenced for expenditure in the areas in which it is raised. We will see what will happen in that regard, but I have my doubts. We saw €250 million of property tax revenue being siphoned off for Irish Water and I am not convinced that will not happen again. There are new means and mechanisms for funding local authorities. It is appropriate that the Minister should try to find a way in which the money that will be payable through development contributions will play a role in improving the water supply across the country. I am, however, very fearful. The purpose of Irish Water has - pardon the pun - been watered down. It was supposed to be in a position to raise private finance to be invested in decent water infrastructure all over the country. In my constituency alone billions of euro are required to make the system function and operate in a fashion which will be enduring and ensure a proper water service and drainage system will be available to the public long into the future. I do not believe, however, Irish Water has the capacity to deliver this at this time. The amendment makes sense because the wording is flexible. It reads: "may continue to be utilised towards investment in water and water infrastructure". That is very reasonable and I do not see any reason to oppose it.

See this speech in context