Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Finneran. He is a distinguished past Member of the Seanad. We cannot avoid putting this Bill in a proper context and stating what is not that palatable about it. Effectively, it is a Soviet-style takeover of micro-planning by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, and the Department. It is a communist operation; it is a centralisation of planning power and micro-planning. It is wrong and should not happen. The great challenge for Senator Cassidy and his colleagues in the Seanad is to consider joining us in voting against the Bill on Second Stage. They know from their involvement at local level and from being rooted with so many councillors throughout the country that it should be voted against.

I will go through the Bill in more specific terms and substantiate my opening remarks. An amendment to a draft development plan and variations to a development plan will require the support of at least two thirds of a local authority. That is undemocratic. It stops the normal majority system from functioning in a local authority. While it could be argued that it copperfastens it, it will work as an undemocratic and blunt instrument and I disapprove of it. A two thirds majority is also required for the local area plan and to grant planning permission for developments that would materially contravene the development plan. We are getting rid of majority voting and a means of expressing the public will and the wishes of the democratically elected members of councils. That is a disturbing development.

The Minister plans to extend his power so that he can issue directions on local area plans. Traditionally, the departmental guidelines had to be taken into account in planning decisions, which was reasonable and right, but the guidelines have now been put on a much stronger statutory footing, and evidence must be given by the local authority that it took into account and interpreted the guidelines and that its planning is consistent with them. It is a nice way of saying that the local authority has no discretion. Effectively, that will be the outcome. A council must issue a statement, when making a draft development plan, detailing how the policies and objectives of the Minister contained in the guidelines have been followed and, equally, why they have not been followed. That gives a whole new status to the guidelines, which were instructive and were taken heed of in the past but are now becoming diktats from on high.

The provision under which the mandatory population threshold for preparing local area plans is raised from 2,000 to 5,000 is disturbing for our rural representatives and for much of the country. It is stated that the optional threshold for local area plans is between 2,000 and 5,000. This effectively institutes a bias towards the larger population centres and will stop the development of smaller areas by preventing the development of sewerage systems and other infrastructure so that they can never grow. I am not being flippant when I say that Senator Cassidy and his group will need to reflect considerably on this before they decide how to vote. It is a disturbing diminution of democracy and of the wishes of local communities. The fact that a small area with a population of up to 2,000 could have had a local area plan in the past was important because it gave it the potential to grow and conferred it with its constitutional and natural right to exist as a small community. This is a disturbing development.

Under the Bill, development contributions can be used to fund new infrastructure such as school sites, broadband provision and flood relief works. I do not have a difficulty with that on principle, unless it is used as an excuse for central funding in these areas and drains the local authority of resources. However, it is a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. There was an opportunity in Celtic tiger times to accumulate moneys that could have been used to build schools in major population centres where large estates had been built. The instrument would need to have retrospective effect because the money will be hard to access. The provision is of little relevance in a modern context. However, the principle is not wrong as long as the local authority will not be denuded of money.

A residential estate can be taken in charge by a local council in certain circumstances on foot of a request from the majority of owners or occupants. That is an acceptable proposition in cases in which estates need to be taken in hand by the local authority. There is now a difficulty with some estates not being properly finished and builders not being able to access credit or capital to allow them to finish off estates. There are many unfinished estates throughout the country, so this is a major issue. Much thought and imagination will need to be used to resolve this.

The provisions which almost give the Minister's guidelines legal standing, so that local authorities must explain why they are not implementing them, is wrong, as are the requirement for a two-thirds majority is wrong and the failure to allow local area development plans for areas of small population up to 1,700 or 1,800 people. These all represent a Soviet-style centralisation of power. It is Stalinism in an Irish context. It reflects a philosophy among the Government that only the big population centres matter. It will deliver services to these centres to obtain economies of scale but the wishes of people who live in dispersed communities will be diluted. That can hardly be right.

I wish to comment on the point made by Senator O'Donovan. This cannot be echoed often enough in the House. Nobody should interfere with the right of an individual — a young person, a farmer's son or a son of any other local person — to build a house on the family's farm or lands, within normal guidelines and with proper sewerage and so on. This should not be diminished.

The fact that the Government was accruing a surplus of income from willy-nilly developments and extra housing during the Celtic tiger years, and that it allowed unwieldy and perhaps improper developments in places, cannot now become a reason for diminishing democracy, removing local area plans, removing the role of the local councillor, imposing guidelines and bringing in an impossible majority voting system. The Green Party may have two thirds majority voting within its own party but it cannot be transposed to local authorities.