Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The Bill, when enacted, will not just be part of the jigsaw, but a monumental part and a step in the right direction to tackle possibly the greatest challenge facing our country right now. Notwithstanding that and notwithstanding that I am Senator from a Government party, there is a tradition in this House, when we have constructive criticism to make of a legislative provision, to ventilate that and share it with our fellow legislators. Otherwise, the House would be bland. It would be impossible to lump in all Senators from Government parties 100% on every issue. I am proudly a member of a party that is in government and I believe in the work of this Government but that does not mean I do not have my own view on different issues.

While my view is different to that of the Minister and Senator Fitzpatrick, I do not question their dedication or the value they place on the work of local government. In this instance, I ask Government Senators to discount the maxim "Attack is the best form of defence". I thank the Government for making moves to restore terms and conditions for councillors but the amendment proposed in the names of Senators Boyhan and Craughwell goes to the heart of an issue of local government, namely, the section 183 reserved power. It is one of the last vestiges of power for county councillors. Urban district councillors were abolished. It and the power of rezoning are the two biggest powers left to country councillors. As Senator Boyhan said, the report is drawn up by the CEO to advise councillors in the operation of their reserved function.Regrettably, as I have said in the House before, it does not automatically include a written independent expert valuation to assist councillors in the most momentous of tasks. They are not selling their own land. It is a much higher threshold since they are selling the people's land. I have written to dozens of local authorities and they were at sixes and sevens. My written inquiries date back some years. There was no uniform approach to that.

I am trying to look at this positively. I see a few small but important balancing checks. They are small crumbs that I spotted in the legislation. Despite taking the power of section 183 from the councillors in certain circumstances, which I disagree with, I understand that at least the Minister must be in the signing off position. The Minister of the day, in the absence of taking that power away, plays an important role in that he or she must ultimately sign off and approve it. Another safeguard has arrived in recent weeks which protects local public lands in Cork and Dublin where this Government has delivered 100% public housing on public lands. I am a passionate believer in decision-making at the lowest effective level. No one knows better than local councillors, who have valued experience. Notwithstanding that, there is a safeguard for whatever is done in Cork and Dublin. It was the manifestation of a long-held view of the Green Party. It will hopefully be in the form of a cost-rental housing model. That is the second safeguard. It is open to councillors to rezone that land before it is wrestled away from their decision-making powers. I am not advising that as a knee-jerk reaction but it is possible, if they fear that the land is going to be taken from them and they need more consideration and time, that they could put the land beyond the remit of this if it has a zoning designation other than residential.

At the end of the day, what has happened here? I know the legislative intent behind this. I know it is noble and that we are in a crisis. This is an extreme reaction to a local authority, duly elected to represent the people, with which I cannot agree. Perhaps Senator Fitzpatrick is right that some people are exploiting the issue but I do not believe that it should just be removed from the councils. It is like a child in a playground not liking the way the match is going, so he runs away and goes home with the ball. I am not sure if this is a proportionate response to unseemly disagreement in our local authorities. People are possibly playing party politics with the fundamental right for people to put a roof over their head.

Even at this late stage, much thought and consideration has clearly gone into the wording of this amendment. It has been tabled in the utmost good faith. I have heard today that it has been tabled after much consultation with people in local authorities. The people in local authorities are the heroes of the hour. They are underpaid and overworked. They are the heartbeat of local democracy and where it all begins. Many of those people will feel put out, that we do not trust them and that if CEOs do not like how it is going, they can just dispose of the land on their own. Section 183 was sacrosanct when I was an elected member of local government. It would be unheard of for the CEO to ever say that he or she did not like it and to act on it alone. It is the people's land and might have been in the parish for dozens of years, but it would be unheard of for the CEO to guillotine the debate and hand the land over to what is, in this instance, a well-intended agency, which I have significant hope, faith and confidence in.

The biggest role that I see for this Land Development Agency is probably with public lands which are in the ownership of the HSE, Defence Forces or different State agencies. I know that every house is invaluable but the number of instances where this would cause a Minister concern that it is not moving fast enough fades into less significance and it is not worth watering down the power of a county councillor. At face value, this is a diminution of the power of a county councillor. County councillors do not have too many powers and they will take offence at this. It is not on their own behalf since this is not an ego hit, but that they feel that their local communities, which they serve to the best of their abilities with their unique knowledge, have been bypassed because people do not like outcomes, results, debates and arguments.

I am happy to vote for this in its entirety and I urge everyone to do so. I know people have strong feelings on section 183. There is so much good in this. I will proudly support it. The Government has to get its business done. Government Senators have a large majority in this Chamber. As we approach the end of our first year, we should take on board more of the Opposition's constructive amendments and, in the good spirit of this Chamber, allow Government Senators to table amendments. We are not going absent without leave or off-script. When I address legislation, it would be bland if I agreed with everything. I hope that in the next year, we will see more of this constructive debate. How I vote is a different matter but the least that I owe the people and this Seanad as a legislator is to remain objective and to offer what I see as constructive criticism. It is not a matter of kicking things around for the sake of it. This is an example of where the diminution and dilution of section 183, although I except that it is in certain circumstances only, is unnecessary and a bridge too far.