Alex White (Labour)

I agree with Senators Coffey and Burke on their proposal to delete the word "substantial" from the Bill. The Minister of State should, as urged by Senator Coffey, revisit the issue for precisely the reasons outlined. One person's view of what constitutes a substantial unauthorised development is not necessarily held by another. There is no doubt but that this will lead to litigation. A person trying to have himself or herself removed from the list of, say, prevented persons will unquestionably try to litigate his or her point around the word "substantial". I do not see any reason it cannot be deleted.

The Minister of State said acceptance of the amendment would result in the exclusion of people guilty of carrying out even the most minor of unauthorised developments, which may be a valid point. However, it could be addressed by him re-examining the wording of the section. Senators Coffey and Burke are correct to maintain the position that the word "substantial" should be deleted.

On amendment No. 51, I do not, regrettably and with respect to the Minister of State, accept the explanation for his refusal to accept the amendment. The phrase "a failure to comply with a previous permission or condition" does not, it appears, include within it a situation where a developer has failed to complete a development. The Minister of State is saying a failure to complete a development amounts to non-compliance with a condition. He gave examples of the conditions he had in mind in his response to the amendment. It is right that people should be excluded for a failure to comply with a previous condition, but that is different from the person who has failed to complete a development. The two are not the same and I remain to be convinced that the phrase "failure to comply with a condition" comprehends the person who has failed to complete a development. They are two entirely different propositions.

I ask the Minister of State to reconsider. As Senator Glynn said, this issue is a plague throughout the country. The fact that estates might not be completed for some other reason now does not take from the fact that all Members have experienced the problem of estates not being finished by builders who were in a well funded position and perfectly capable of doing so but who just made themselves scarce. We are aware of the rows about what must be done to finish the estate, long delays amounting to years before an estate can be taken in charge by a local authority and many other complications that have a huge effect on people living in estates. I ask the Minister of State to recognise that the failure to comply with a condition is one thing, but the failure to complete a development is something else.