Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

In my experience, Part 8 has generally worked very well. Certainly, in my experience as a local authority member for 12 years and as someone who is still very much engaged with my old council team in County Louth and east Meath, I cannot recall any particular problems in terms of Part 8, or any element of it representing a logjam for the council providing itself with permission, for want of a better description, to develop on its own lands, whether that has been for housing or a critical piece of infrastructure.

I have been sceptical about this proposal from the get-go. I could not quite understand where the demand was coming from or why the Minister would propose this. It appears to be a form of window dressing. I do not believe it is necessary. I do not know who it is designed to reassure. It is not required.

As I said, in my experience, Part 8 has worked very well. If we are talking about logjams and delays in the development of social housing, I can think of a dozen more problems before I would consider reforming or revising the Part 8 provisions or the disapplication of Part 8 on the basis the Minister is doing, albeit I accept he is doing this in good faith.

We all want to see the expeditious development of local authority housing on publicly owned land. I said earlier and will again put on record the work the Minister has done with Louth County Council on addressing the indebtedness of the local authority on two specific sites in Drogheda very close to where I live.

To be helpful, I met with Louth County Council on Monday. The view of the chief executive of the council and director of services for housing is that on those particular sites, up to 300 homes probably could be developed in a short period. That is very welcome indeed in an area in which people often languish on the social housing list for 11 to 12 years and where there is a great need in one of the fastest growing parts of the country. On that basis, I welcome the decision made by the Minister. It is a good use of the resources that are available in the Department at the end of this year.

To be clear, it is the case at present the way Part 8 is constructed that the planners and the chief executive make a proposal to the elected members, who then consider it. It goes out for public consultation for a number of weeks during which individuals can make known their views through the public consultation process. It is then adopted or not by the elected members based on a report from the chief executive and planners. It has worked quite well. I would be sceptical about these changes saving three to four months of the process. I am not sure it will. I am not even sure chief executives have necessarily wanted this. It is here now, however. I am still not certain why it is here but it is here.

We are, therefore, suspending Part 8. There is no public consultation on the proposals that will be brought forward on this basis on the lands in question. The Minister has set out the criteria in that regard.

I understand and appreciate the criteria and have no difficulty with them. Essentially, the chief executive of the council will make a decision at the stroke of a pen with no public consultation. I find it difficult to accept any proposition where public consultation is written out. It could be legally problematic and involve litigation which, perversely, will end up delaying things much more than if Part 8 remained in place as currently constituted. Undoubtedly, there will be at least a consideration of legal challenges on the grounds that no public consultation will be permitted. I do not encourage that but we have an obligation in the House to point that out. The Minister will understand that but he seems to be confident the measure he proposes, which will involve no public consultation, will, based on the fact we have a housing emergency, prove sufficiently legally and constitutionally robust to withstand any challenge. His advice is that this is doable, permissible and allowed and that this legislation and provision can be passed by this House and is, insofar as we can be sure, insulated from legal and constitutional challenge.

See this speech in context