Brendan Ryan (Dublin Fingal, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Deputy Martin Kenny on bringing this Bill forward tonight. I only want to say a brief few words on the matter. I welcome this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party insofar as it attempts to fix a problem that I know genuinely exists. I represent Dublin Fingal which is a Dublin constituency with a considerable rural part, particularly on the western side of the M1 motorway. As a practising public representative, I have come across the problem that this Bill is attempting to resolve. One-off housing in the countryside is governed in Fingal County Council by a very strict rural housing policy. Chapter 8 of the Fingal development plan, entitled Rural Fingal, lays out very strict conditions for building in the countryside. It recognises that Fingal is an area under strong urban influence. Policies and objectives for villages, rural clusters and houses in the open countryside are laid out in great detail in that policy. Demonstration of genuine rural-generated housing need is essential for any applicant seeking planning permission in the rural area of Fingal.

To successfully apply for planning permission in a rural cluster, the applicant must have lived in a rural area in the county for ten years or more and must demonstrate this by meeting comprehensive evidence requirements. In the case of an applicant for permission in the open countryside the time requirement is 15 years, and a maximum of one house per family is permitted in such a case. The system is very strict indeed. This can be a source of tension for family members who do not qualify to build on what they see as their own land and cannot settle in their own area. Even for some people who should have qualified under these very strict and onerous criteria, the news on their applications has been unexpected and indeed very bad. Applications have been turned down in certain areas of the county because of the soil percolation issue that this Bill is attempting to address by way of an alternative solution to the septic tank.

It is extremely hard for applicants to accept these types of decisions. This Bill is a fair attempt to resolve the issue and the technology is currently available to do the job in a non-polluting way.

Good work on technology development, is taking place in Dublin Institute of Technology. Technology moves on. We can achieve clean water by alternative methods than the old percolation system. We cannot be stuck in that rut. We need to move on and accept that new technology is working and delivering, and there is good work going on.

The waste discharge licensing proposal in the Bill will form the basis of a solution in the future. It will not be a cheap solution and it may bring the costs of owning their own home beyond the reach of those affected. However, I am sympathetic to the Government amendment that in light of the fact that the EPA is working on a revised code of practice for wastewater treatment systems, the Bill would be deemed to be read a Second Time at the end of 2019. That is not the comment Deputy Martin Kenny would like to hear but there will be public consultation on this as well. This is essential and welcome. This would also allow for the work of the rural water review group to be concluded.

I recognise the problem that the Bill is trying to address and this approach could form part of the solution. I was tempted to say I would support the Bill earlier when I was discussing it with colleagues but, overall, it is best to accept the Government amendment and to allow the two other bodies, particularly the EPA, conclude their work in the policy area.

Were I the proposer of this Bill, I would be happy to have progressed the legislation with the approval of Government, albeit with a delay. Come the end of next year, this will be deemed to be read a Second Time. That is a positive outcome for the proposer.

It has been put to the House that the Government's amendment is kicking the can down the read. If I felt for a moment that the amendment was suggesting that new work was to be commenced, I would agree that it is kicking the can down the road but the Government is not doing that. I would not support the Government, if it was. Work by two groups is currently under way. It is not as if something will commence following the debate. The work is due for completion early next year. That is why my party is prepared to wait for that outcome. At the end of next year, the Bill will be deemed to be passed and we can move on to Committee Stage.

See this speech in context