Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Two people contributed a very important concept to our understanding of modern society: Hegel and Karl Marx. They spoke of the concept of alienation, which was brilliantly captured by Edvard Munch's famous painting, The Scream. While there are advantages to meetings on Zoom and Teams, the substitution for real human social interaction of endless Zoom and Teams meetings for all time to come with regard to how we interact to discuss the future of society is the definition of alienation. We will have a nation of people mimicking the scream depicted in Edvard Munch's painting. It is a horrible vista which I find fundamentally objectionable. It is an unfortunate reality that, in the midst of Covid, we have to live on Zoom and Teams. Even in a world without Covid, there would be times where such technologies would be useful. We have learnt something from the use of this technology. The idea that such meetings would permanently replace actual public meetings of human beings - although God knows where it will end as it may spread to education and all sorts of other absolutely vital human interactions - is, frankly, a terrifying and borderline dystopian vista. I absolutely object to this.

This relates to another issue which has been alluded to. I object to the fact that we are dealing with all of these matters together. There are things in the Bill that are modestly progressive. I do not want to get in the way of these things, but I really fundamentally object to local authorities permanently having the option to replace public meetings with regard to development plans. There is not a shadow of a doubt but that it will set a precedent for issues far beyond those public meetings. It strikes at our fundamental nature as human beings. I mean that very seriously. Alienation is a reality and it has very detrimental effects on human well-being. We need to tread very carefully. To slip this provision into a Bill comprising three or four different disconnected elements at the last minute on the second last evening before the Christmas break is just not good practice. It is a very poor way with which to deal with very serious issues regarding how human beings come together to influence the future of their society.

That is what development plans are about. As emasculated as local authorities have become because of policy moves to centralise control over planning and other functions, this is one power they still have and it is an opportunity for ordinary people to get involved. Coming together and interacting in a live environment is absolutely critical.

I face a real dilemma. I do not want to get in the way of this Bill but I really object to this measure. I believe amendments have been proposed to address the issue. To be honest, we are a small party and do not even have representation on the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage so we are scrambling even to get our heads around what is in this Bill. There is something about residential tenancies, which is a critically important issue. There is something on the issue I have just discussed, that is to say, development plans, democracy and public participation in development plans. This is also a critical issue. There is also something on the issue of substitute consent, to which I will get in a minute. This is another absolutely critical issue in the context of the aftermath of the development of the wind farm at Derrybrien. In building this wind farm, there was a failure to comply with the environmental impact assessment directives as they relate to public consultation. In that case, the result was that a mountain fell down and slid into a river with disastrous consequences for the environment.

Again, I cannot believe the Green Party is involved in this stuff. Its members have seen themselves as the guardians of good planning and so on yet the party allowed this to be rammed through at the last moment. It really annoys me.

On the issue of residential tenancies, I would like to alert the Minister to something, but he has left the Chamber. People who fall into arrears as a direct result of Covid, if they can prove that to be the case, will not be evicted during this emergency period. I will not object to that but, to be honest, it is so inadequate it is sickening.

I want to alert the Minister to this. This week I went to the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, with tenants who are facing their fourth eviction attempt at the hands of ruthless vulture funds. These people really disgust me. They are using the window occasioned by the lifting of level 5 restrictions where a pause button was put on evictions. We could go back to level 5 again in January. As soon as the eviction ban associated with the level t restrictions was lifted, they went in ruthlessly to evict, in this case, eight tenants. They have already driven the previous 12 out through nasty tactics, grinding down the tenants, trying to exploit loopholes in the Residential Tenancies Act such as claiming sale, refurbishment etc.

These ordinary people who have always paid their rent are now facing eviction. They are in the RTB and will probably lose the case this time because these guys have found a way around the Tyrrelstown amendment by evicting eight people instead of ten, which is what they really wanted to do. They will then move on to the remaining two who are left in six months, which the law allows. The Government allows this to happen coming up to Christmas and in the midst of a pandemic. Putting an absolute pause on those kinds of evictions should be covered in legislation this week. Instead we have a token measure which we will support, but it will do very little for people who face that kind of ruthless activity. Another example of the same thing happened in Rathmines this week where the same vulture funds were on pause because of the eviction ban occasioned by Covid and they have moved in and evicted the tenants in Rathmines.

On substitute consent, again the measure seems to be at the absolute minimum of trying to deal with this. What do we call substitute consent? It is retention for developments that did not really comply with environmental directives, the need for proper public consultation or the environmental impact assessment of what these developments can do. We need to go much further in cutting out the abuse that is being done in this.

There may be a place for retention and occasionally for substitute consent in exceptional circumstances. However, in general it is an abuse of the planning process and it is systematically abused by developers trying to get around the planning process, as we have seen in the case of Derrybrien and we are seeing it again in Donegal. God knows, we may see it with the Dublin Array development which is proposed to be built close to the Kish Bank and the Codling Bank. Will there be proper impact assessment of what they will do to the Kish Bank and the biodiversity, marine diversity and so on that exists on that bank? These are very serious issues. I will not get in the way of the measures that marginally improve the situation from what it was. Deputies Ó Broin and Cian O'Callaghan have a good amendment which I hope passes, but this is not a good way to do business.

The permanent option to have online and not physical public meetings on development plans is not on and needs to be withdrawn by the Government.

See this speech in context