Paudie Coffey (Fine Gael)

Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, and 20 are technical in nature. I welcome the introduction of amendment No. 19 to address the issues raised by amendment No. 20. The Minister of State has repeatedly agreed to consider bringing forward amendments in the Dáil. There is a feeling on this side of the House that we are being treated with a degree of contempt. We raised many of these issues early in the Second and Committee Stage debates. I begin to wonder why the Government initiates Bills here if it will not have clarity and amendments on time for debate here. We saw that the Bill was rushed through Committee Stage and was left open-ended. There is no genuine attempt to accept recommendations or amendments from Senators on all sides of this House. That is not good enough. We have something credible and genuine to offer but to a degree we are disregarded . I hope the Minister of State and his officials might take that on board for future debates and Bills.

The Minister of State mentioned unfinished estates. They are a matter of concern. We spoke at length about major infrastructure such as sewerage and water supply systems in unfinished estates. I am amazed that local authorities are not telling the Minister of State that the bonds are inadequate. Every Senator knows full well that they are inadequate. Under previous planning legislation they were intended to address minor works in finishing an estate such as a missing public light or the final course on a piece of tarmacadam or a section of footpath, or correction of drainage covers. The bonds collected will not cover the finishing of estates which are only half finished or where houses are built with no water supply or sewerage infrastructure. When local authorities have tried to claim the bonds the banks, knowing the legislation inside out, have known full well that the planning permission must run its full term.

The Minister of State will put an amendment to increase the term for planning permission up to five years. This will have implications for unfinished estates because the banks that hold the bonds for those planning permissions will be within their rights to retain the bonds until the full five years of that extended permission passes. This will create many problems for those living in estates who are lobbying hard to have those estates taken in charge by the local authority or to have the local authority force the developers to finish the estate. The Minister of State and his officials need to be aware of the implications of this Bill and its impact. I can understand why he is tabling an amendment to extend the permission to five years but will address that later. It will, however, have an impact on unfinished estates and delay the rights of council to draw down the bonds which are totally insufficient.

I suggest that the Minister of State issue a circular to all local authorities. There is no reason why the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who issued a circular to local authorities about councillors' expenditure on conferences, should not issue a similar circular on a major issue such as unfinished estates and bonds, requiring them to submit or furnish information regarding the number of unfinished estates in their jurisdictions, the amount of outstanding bonds due to them and their view on whether those bonds will be adequate to finish the estates to an acceptable level. Many issues surround this section that will have far-reaching implications. One of the biggest challenges facing local authorities and councillors and more important, their communities who live in these unfinished housing estates, is trying to finish those estates. This requires the Department's and Minister's special attention. He could in early course send out that circular and get the information in as soon as possible. I am amazed that local authorities are not telling the Minister of State that bonds are an issue because they most certainly are a serious issue.