Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I indicate my strong support for Senator Boyhan's amendment. It is a good reminder and comes at a crucial point. It would anchor the purposes of the Bill and recognise the essential involvement and contribution of members of local authorities. It is an appropriate place for this strong amendment. The Minister will be aware that I tabled amendments on Committee Stage which I have not reintroduced because they have been pressed. I would like a section of the Bill to be stronger and clearer about public, social and affordable housing being central rather than a subsection of housing, which is the language used throughout. I knew we had limited time so I have not introduced more amendments to that section. I will fully support Senator Boyhan's amendment and know that Senators Black, Flynn and Ruane are also supportive of it.

We have a number of amendments of our own in the same grouping. They all relate to section 183. Amendment No. 23 effectively seeks to undo the impact of section 58 of the Bill. It would mean that sections 183 and 211(2) of the Act of 2000 would still apply. We have removed the word "not" and state that it shall apply, not that it shall not apply. We insist that this is important. It is perhaps more important in this area when we are looking at potentially large volumes of disposals of land over a short period.Amendment No. 24, which I tabled, is a compromise amendment that, in my reasonableness, I had to produce. It proposes that if that power is to be removed in any one instance, it should only be removed if a majority of the councillors in the area agree for section 183 not to apply. They should have to agree to that in respect of any given land. That is an extremely reasonable amendment. I will be clear that my preference is to leave section 183 as it stands.

Reference was made to the reserved function. It is a reserved function and what the Bill is doing is removing that function in particular circumstances which are, I am afraid to say, still very wide. Unfortunately, they are not, as Senator Fitzpatrick stated, confined to circumstances in which the land is zoned residential and not being developed. That is not what the Bill provides. It refers to land that is zoned for solely residential use or a mix of residential and other uses in the development plan. It does not state that it is land that nobody has agreed to develop. There may well be plans, proposals or ideas coming forward through a local development or local area plan. It is not just residential, but a mix of residential and other uses. That is the land in the context of which section 183 is being waived. Section 183 is incredibly important. This is not to say that the vendor will not dispose of the land, it is that when the land is disposed of, it comes with covenants, conditions and agreements which reflect the understanding, wisdom, knowledge and local information of local councillors. For example, where the land is a mixture of residential and other uses, there may well be conditions in respect of public amenities, such as whether there will be a playground, levels of accessibility, the connectivity of the site and how it is planned. I still regard the reservation for social and affordable, to which we will come at a later stage, to be overly restrictive. It may be the case that local authority members and councillors may have specific suggestions on how that breakdown between social and affordable or cost rental might most appropriately be reflected in their area.

When I encourage people to get involved in politics, I tell them not to be cynical, that they can do things and that politics matters. I tell them that policy is ultimately just the decisions we make about how we want to live together. Councillors and those who put themselves forward for the gruelling task of local election are not doing it for all the long meetings or the often-noted poor pay. They are certainly not doing it for the pay, although it is good that the pay has improved. They are doing it because they have something to bring to the decisions on how we want to live together. They have something they wish to say because they care about their local place. This is one of the key ways and reserved functions for local councillors to input their ideas and wisdom, to highlight something that is important and to remember a cohort that might otherwise be forgotten in terms of how we live together. They may agree to dispose of the land but only with conditions, ideas and insights attached. I do not believe the Government, the Minister, the Land Development Agency or anyone else should be afraid of having conditions attached to the disposal of land from local councillors because those conditions will be useful and more likely to lead to projects that are successful.

In the context of the strategic housing development project initiative not having succeeded, I and others warned of that possibility at the time but were told it was needed because there was a requirement to bypass local councils as they were the problem, which was why there was a need to skip the councils and go straight to An Bord Pleanála. That has not worked out very well, first because a majority of those that have received strategic housing development planning permission have not built. That is not just as a result of Covid. I was in the Seanad when the Bill relating to strategic housing development and fast-track planning was passed in 2016. Such development has not started. In the cases where An Bord Pleanála has granted planning permission, it did so without local knowledge and constantly came up against information it did not have because, to be generous, it is a national body and did not realise the kinds of conditions and factors that local authorities and local authority members can bring. That is the kind of knowledge that makes projects work.

I urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 2, tabled by Senator Boyhan, and to listen to local authority members around the country because they are rooted in their communities. The Minister should not cut himself off from the roots. I also ask him to accept my amendment No. 23 which would reverse the impact of section 58 and ensure that section 183 and those covenants, conditions and agreements and the right to have an input, give ideas and suggestions and attach them to disposal would continue. If the Minister cannot do that, amendment No. 24 adds a third condition. It provides that the conditions may not apply if the land is in a local authority area and is zoned for residential or a mix of residential and other uses and where a majority of local authority members agree to the suspension of section 183. That is a reasonable caveat and condition to be attached. That is the compromise amendment and I hope that if the Minister does not accept amendment No. 2 tabled by Senator Boyhan or my amendment No. 23, he will accept amendment No. 24 tabled by me, Senator Black and Senator Flynn.