Alex White (Labour)

This is a planning measure. We have debated bankrupt developers and builders and are conscious of that problem. We debated the NAMA legislation at considerable length and are aware there are implications in respect of unfinished developments. I understand why the Minister of State refers to the issue of bankrupt builders and developers as being relevant in this instance, but we should not allow a planning measure to be influenced by an extraneous consideration. It is a very relevant one, but not a planning consideration. The fact that builders are becoming bankrupt is one we can note, but the Bill is a planning measure. We should not allow our legislation on planning to be influenced by the exigencies of the financial position or speculated financial position of developers or builders. Either it is the right provision to have in the planning code or it is wrong. I believe it is the right one.

The Minister of State has not addressed the basic point I put to him, that there is a clear distinction between failure to comply with a condition and failure to complete an estate. The other condition mentioned by him is the continuation of the exclusion of persons not in compliance with a previous permission. Somebody who is not in compliance with a previous permission does not necessarily mean the person who has not finished an estate. The person received the planning permission and has not carried out fully the works he or she is obliged to carry out pursuant to the permission. However, that is not the same as somebody who is not in compliance with a previous planning permission.

The Minister of State appears to be reluctant to address the issue again. I will not push the amendment on this Stage but will certainly return to it on Report Stage. I urge the Minister of State to consider what has been said.