Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will try to avoid repeating some of the legitimate arguments made by previous speakers. This debate focuses on one of the legacy issues of the building boom during the Celtic tiger. Deputy Catherine Murphy very ably argued that the Bill addresses one of many flaws in the legislation on multi-unit developments. This problem requires to be rectified. Terminology such as "taking in charge", "management companies", etc., are part of a new language that developed as a result of the boom in the Celtic tiger years. Many shortcomings arose during that period because new and different types of buildings and accommodation developed for individuals and families. Many mistakes were made, not only in terms of building design but also in respect of legal issues pertaining to how buildings would be managed. This resulted in the coming into existence of management companies. I am sure this will not be the last debate the House will have on problems with planning and buildings that were part of the fall-out from the building boom.

It is the prerogative of the Government to oppose the Bill and I do not blame the Minister of State, Deputy English, for the Government's approach to the legislation. He acknowledged the arguments Deputy Catherine Murphy made and the facts relating to multi-unit developments that she presented. No one would argue that the 2011 Act is perfect and none of the previous speakers argued in favour of diluting it in any way. Deputy Catherine Murphy and others seek to strengthen the legislation and rectify a flaw in its provisions. It is regrettable, therefore, that, on the one hand, the Government parties acknowledge the shortcomings in the existing law while, on the other hand, opposing the Bill without providing a solution or resolution that would address the important point Deputy Catherine Murphy made. Incidentally, the problem the Deputy raised in her example may not be identical to the problems other Deputies will have encountered as members of a local authority. Nevertheless, it is not a million miles away from some of the complications some Deputies will have dealt with, especially those among us who represent constituencies in which large-scale developments were built. The legacy of these developments has been a series of problems that have caused great distress for families and individuals who bought properties in them.

I take in good faith the Minister of State's undertaking to raise the issue with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Coffey. Surely the Department has a sufficient number of people with the ability to analyse the case presented by Deputy Catherine Murphy and supported by other speakers and produce some resolution to the issues raised. In fairness to Deputy Murphy, she argued that it is up to the Government to address any flaws in the Bill. Some of us may not be as reasonable as she is on this matter. Surely it is possible to draft a provision that would rectify what is a real problem.

See this speech in context