Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Government is not opposing the motion. It has become a trend over the past while that the Government has not opposed motions but it means it is not going to do anything with them. It would be, therefore, be more honest if the Government opposed the motion and voted it down because in reality it is not going to do anything. The Minister of State's words do not provide any enlightenment as to whether it is going to do anything about this development either. That is the sad thing about it. It would be more honest, straightforward and forthright for it to vote down the motion because that is the reality.

I thank my colleague, Deputy Collins, and all in her office for bringing forward such a motion as it is important and worthwhile. New data from EUROSTAT showed that last year Ireland was, once again, the EU’s fastest growing economy, but where is this reflected? It certainly is not reflected in our communities. Spending on community projects and community services was slashed during the recession and spending on these projects and services has still not returned to pre-recession levels. Census 2022 showed the population in every county has increased since census 2016 and, naturally, there is increased demand for more services, amenities and facilities in our communities. The motion puts forward a sensible and practical solution to this, namely, to ring-fence at least 20% of development levies within the local area from which they are drawn to guarantee communities experiencing high levels of new developments receive commensurate increases in funding. The Minister of State said this was provided for in sections 48 and 49 of the Planning and Development Act. Section 49, which he said is for public infrastructure and so on is specific in what that can mean, that is, car parks, rail developments, sewage treatment and drainage facilities. Where is the public infrastructure in that? Where is the community infrastructure in that? It is not provided for under that section.

That is the problem and that is why the motion has been tabled. Section 48 does not provide anything for this. The language is also interesting because the section mentions facilities benefitting development in the area of the planning authority, so basically anywhere in the county. For instance, in County Donegal, development levies can be levied in Glencolumbkille and used to provide a sewage treatment works in Moville, which is 100 miles away. That is seen as being a relevant development contribution. That is the problem people have with development contributions and how this is worded at the moment. The reality is that the development contribution scheme is a way of replacing money the Government is refusing to give to local authorities and to make up for shortfalls in capital funding. That is what happens with it and that is all that it is.

Any community infrastructural gain is not included in the scheme because if local authorities did that, they would get less money for capital infrastructure. As things stand, if 20% of the development contributions were taken for community facilities that means they would lose funding and get 20% less funding for water and sewerage schemes, road developments and so on in their functional area. The reality is that the councils will not do that and that is what happens.

In addition, the funding local authorities get for roads development and works is dependent on the amount they put into it themselves. The more money they can put in, the more they can draw down from the Department. What then happens is that money that is paid for housing rents is diverted to roads infrastructure to increase the amount that can be drawn down from Government. Therefore, funding for development on housing estates and schemes or for the repair of houses suffers because the local authorities are forced to try to maximise the amount they can draw down for roads by pumping in other funding. This is the system we have in this country where it is all controlled and we basically do not have local authorities, as such. We have funding measures by which the money is transferred from the Government down and that is the reality and why so much time is spent talking about local authority business in the Dáil because this is where the decisions are made.

It is only fair that communities are given the opportunity to reap the benefits of new developments in their areas and vice versa. Developments will only benefit from investing in the community around them. The people with the money who want to build the developments and the local authorities do not believe that, but that is the reality. It is the communities that make areas, not buildings. The development contribution scheme has contributed to many important projects in my county of Donegal, such as the development of a countywide coastal erosion programme, which is again to supplement funding that should come from local government and the development of the Donegal Craft Village and Sliabh Liag. Ring-fencing at least 20% of development levies would bring far more opportunity to fund these projects, as well as many other projects and services.

An important factor missing from the scheme, which would be introduced with the implementation of the motion, is the focus on the local area in which the development levies are drawn from. The Donegal Development Contribution Scheme 2016-2021 states: "It is not possible to forensically allocate the costs of each sub-area of such infrastructural and associated services activity to the equally broad range of development categories". What a load of gobbledygook. It basically says that funding will not be allocated locally because it has to be allocated in the county. That is the reality and local communities can go to hell because they will not get any of it.

In order for communities to directly benefit from a development levy, and for developments to benefit from the payment of this levy, the contribution should go directly to the local area. I support the motion’s call to allocate the ring-fenced proportion of development levies through a discretionary fund mechanism in each local area office, to be administered and spent at the direction of elected members for that area. Local elected members have a much better understanding of what their community needs. I do not believe the council as a whole making decisions on projects and services to invest in for the entire county, especially one as big as Donegal, is an effective use of development levies. It would be much more effective for the levies to go directly to the local area office and for the projects and services to be decided by local elected members.

I also believe we need to adopt a more community-centred approach and, as the motion states, current legislation for development levies provides for public infrastructure funding but does not ensure community gain. Communities should be at the heart of legislation such as this and these levies should not aim to provide infrastructure, but to improve communities as a whole. The two sometimes do not go hand in hand. By establishing a local area office, there would be far more opportunity for community consultation and a community voice. Providing public infrastructure without a community focus is pointless and a waste of money, which is why it is so important to localise the use of development levies and allow for the type of growth and development that people actually want and need in their communities.

The Government often states that the Opposition does not put forward ideas and solutions but the motion is a solution to the increased demand for more services, amenities and facilities in our communities, which is affecting the quality of life of our citizens. If this Government does not start offering up solutions to this issue, such as the one put forward today, then we will continue to see the mass exodus of people, particularly young people, from all our communities.

I acknowledge that Deputy O'Donnell is a new Minister of State and that he is getting to know his role but it would be better for him to vote down the motion because, in reality, the Government will not do anything that is proposed in the motion. We know that and if they are relying on sections 48 and 49 of the Planning and Development Act, it will not happen anyway. The Government should just be truthful and honest about this. Communities that do not understand how this place works may they have gained something when they gained nothing and, therefore, rather than agreeing the motion, it would be more honest to vote it down and say the Government it not interested. It is perfectly entitled to do that. The Minister of State is in government and can say what he wants to do and if this is not something he wants to do, that is fair enough. The next time we will get a Government that hopefully will want to do it. That is what government is about and that is the way it should be. What the Minister of State is doing now is totally ingenuous to the people out there who are looking at this and for Government to respond and give some gains. If the Government is not going to do that, just do not do it and tell the people they will not do it.

See this speech in context