Alex White (Labour)

We have got diverted into a discussion about bonds, which I agree is relevant but which is not the point with which we are dealing here. We are dealing with a list of circumstances whereby a person can be refused planning permission, which the Minister is updating in the legislation.

The Minister put into that list two circumstances that are already in the planning code, failure to comply with a previous permission and failure to comply with a condition in a previous development. Then he adds to that the business about carrying out a substantial unauthorised development and being convicted of an offence under the Act. If the person is guilty of any one of those four circumstances on the list, the person should not be given planning permission. What is the problem about adding a fifth?

The Minister is already stating an errant builder who finds himself or herself in one of these four categories cannot be given planning permission. He is already establishing the principle of excluding people from being given planning permission if they have done something wrong, and there is no debate about that. There are four different types of person who have done wrong as a developer and the Minister will exclude them from future permissions, and we propose he adds a fifth, that is, a person who has failed to complete a development.

It is all very well to speak of bonds. The bond system is a good system if it works. I have no difficulty with the bond system. However, this is not a substitute for the bond system. Neither is the bond system a substitute for what I am talking about. We need both.