Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire agus tréaslaím leis an Aire Stáit toisc go bhfuil an t-ábhar seo inár láthair agus go bhfuil seans againn ár dtuairimí a nochtadh anseo. Bhí díospóireacht anseo cheanna agus tá sé soiléir go bhfuil tuairimíocht an-leathan. Tá muid ag teacht go dtí an freagra ar an gceist diaidh ar ndiaidh.

I want to declare an interest in this subject because I am a co-founder of the Irish Rural Dwellers' Association and am currently a member of its executive committee. For several years the association has lobbied for such guidelines, although perhaps with some fine tuning. Submissions have been invited over a two-month period and I understand that we have not reached the end of that process. One of the reasons I requested this discussion while submissions are still being considered is so that we would have an opportunity of adding to the debate, which to some extent is organic. We are learning as we go along.

For a long period, many decisions concerning rural areas were influenced from outside the country, particularly through planners and various agencies. The Irish Rural Dwellers' Association contacted the town planning association in Britain and posed a number of questions. We were told that the association had a special section dealing with planning in Ireland, but not for any other country. The association told us that was because it saw no difference between Ireland and Britain. That may be a historical viewpoint but it is fundamental to this debate. Many of the planning decisions we are currently witnessing are more suitable to Britain than here. The whole idea of a village, which is being used as an obstruction for development throughout rural Ireland generally, is based very much on the concept of a village in Britain.

We have had the dispersed village which is traditional to Ireland and which extends over a period of four, five or six miles. If one goes to Kilmaley one will not see the village within a half-mile area. Kilmaley, or other such villages, can extend over five or six miles but the people living there have an identity with their village. The dispersed village was traditional to Ireland and that is what we are still talking about. To have planning guidelines or regulations in place, as was the case, which discouraged that, undermined the very communities that existed in such dispersed villages.

I am delighted with this debate which is helpful and is throwing up questions to which we still need answers. When travelling through west Clare 30 years ago, I remember seeing houses that were locked up or with their roofs falling in. It was evident that the inhabitants of those houses had emigrated, particularly to America. I have been travelling to America over the past 30 years and have met Irish people there. I met people from west Clare and similar rural areas, and invariably they will tell one that they would love to come home. People used to say that rural Ireland was dead and nobody wanted to live there any more, but now people do want to live there.

Members are well aware of decisions to refuse planning, which are hard to understand. I remember canvassing in Cashel during an election when I knocked on a particular door. A young lady with two young children came out of a fine big house which I understood cost €170,000. I said she was lucky to have such a lovely house, and she replied that she did not want to live there, that her parents were farming out the road and were offering her a site but she would not be allowed to build there. She said her parents were getting old and if she could build on the site she could look after them and they could look after her children, their grandchildren, but as things were she was losing and her parents were losing. Society also lost because somebody else will be looking after those old people later on. Worse again, she had to go into town and spend €170,000 for a house, whereas with a free site she could have built her house for €100,000. That is the background to the restrictive issues with which we have had to deal over the years.

The draft guidelines on rural housing are possibly the most important development in decades regarding rural housing. There are certainly issues that need to be looked at, including occupancy. If I invest money in a house and am told that I cannot have access to that money after two or three years, the situation needs to be examined.

Many problems could be solved if theconjunction "and" was changed to "or" in the draft guidelines where reference is made to"people who work in or make a contribution to rural Ireland". If that was done, many people who have raised questions about this would besatisfied. It is only one word but it is fundamental to this issue. If people make a contribution to rural areas by spending their money andparticipating in the community, that would go a long way towards resolving many of the problems.

The people of rural areas invariably have been good custodians of the environment through the years. They are the first to object to anything that would harm the environment in which they reside. They enjoy the environment and want to pass it on to future generations. I am not an An Taisce basher as I pointed out to Senator Norris last week when he made a general comment in this regard. Those who raise questions about An Taisce are not bashing the organisation. However, An Taisce is a statutory body, which is prescribed under legislation, and, for that reason, it must be open to scrutiny. An Taisce has gone down the wrong road and it should concentrate on heritage and national monuments, an area in which it has done magnificent work. The media has reported on deep division within the body on that issue. Members of An Taisce, nationally and locally, believe the organisation has lost its way and has attracted negative attention. Unless the organisation fulfils the role for which it was established, it should be delisted forthwith.

I refer to the composition of An Bord Pleanála. The board primarily comprises professionals but it should be expanded to include representatives of people who are affected by its decisions. Representatives of rural Ireland should sit on the board because they could provide first hand information.

The role of planners must also be examined. Some 25 planners have been recruited from New Zealand. Planners are welcome from all countries and I do not cast aspersions on their professional qualifications but they cannot be in touch with many of the traditional issues, attitudes, practices, precedents and requirements that have been set and have percolated through the planning system.

The problem with the guidelines is the perception that they will make no difference. The Government recognised this well in advance but at least one or two county managers have gone public, saying the guidelines will make no difference. That suggests they have decided not to study the guidelines and get off the hobby horse to realise what the Government and the people want. If that is the case, the Minister of State should ensure nobody will be allowed to circumvent what is required under the guidelines. For example, county managers must revisit their county development plans. However, this should also be scrutinised and they should be in no doubt as to the intention of the guidelines, which is to loosen restrictions that have stifled rural Ireland.

I get outraged on this issue because it involves a human right. All of us are committed to good planning and saving the environment. I sat through a lecture on the septic tank issue given by a university lecturer. He convinced me that so much progress has been made in this area that such tanks should not produce effluent damaging to the environment. I accept the tanks may cost more but this issue has been addressed and the tanks can be monitored. In addition, the normal requirements still apply whereby a trial hole must be dug to analyse what will happen to the water and so on.

If people are pushed into villages, towns and cities, they will also have a grievance. The quality of life in villages, for example, will be changed beyond all recognition. People's quality of life in Dublin has been changed through overpopulation and industry and business saturation. Decentralisation provides that the rural economy will improve and infrastructure will develop while relief will be provided to cities and towns that are overpopulated. If the guidelines are not acted on positively and results not achieved quickly, we will have to revisit the issue in ten years because of the terrible damage that will have been done to towns and cities through the restrictive practices that applied in rural Ireland.

Why can a person living 60 to 80 miles from the site of a planning application make an objection? Very often the same person is lodging multiple objections throughout the country. Serial objectors exist. They know nothing about the communities in which they object but they have tunnel vision, largely because of An Taisce. The objections are upheld by An Bord Pleanála, perhaps because of the composition of the board, and that must stop. It should be required that an objector must live within ten miles, for example, of a site or it should be become exceptionally expensive for serial objectors to pursue their objections.

Submissions were invited on the guidelines and it is intended to revisit them to fine-tune them. That is what consultation is about and it is good but the basic document contains much detail. Issues such as serial objections and occupancy and the composition of An Taisce and An Bord Pleanála should be addressed and the planning authorities must understand the guidelines. The Government should convene a meeting of county managers and planners to explain in explicit detail what the guidelines entail and, if they are not adhered to and it is necessary to revisit them in a more substantial manner, that should be done.

The Irish Rural Dwellers' Association and many farmers are delighted that at long last a courageous, explicit approach has been taken in this area. Land ownership is also an issue. There is nothing wrong with farmers selling a site to a non-family member because they might need the money to put a child through university. They have lived on the land in worse times. While times are better now, they must receive a dividend for their custodianship of the land, which they have loved through the years. Most of them want to revitalise rural Ireland. If a neighbour or friend of a farmer wanted to build a house, would it not be great if the farmer could sell him or her a site? Would it not be good for the community because the future of local schools would be guaranteed and small shops would have an opportunity to expand?

I have a small house in County Clare. Farmers primarily lived in the area but, over the past eight or nine years, more houses have been built. Recently a hairdresser opened and a business opened in another house. The infrastructure is following the population and if that is not good for morale, the economy and the quality of life of the country, I do not know what is. The only show in town are the guidelines and if the Minister will listen to the few points made by Members, I genuinely believe that combined with the submissions this will fine-tune the document, of which we will be proud. We will be delighted to see the results on the ground.