Seanad E´Ireann

Vol. 198 Wednesday, No. 7 25 November 2009

DI´OSPO´ IREACHTAI´ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD E´ IREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIU´ IL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Wednesday, 25 November 2009.

Election of Member ………………………………531 Business of Seanad ………………………………531 Order of Business …………………………………532 Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (resumed)…………552 Business of Seanad ………………………………561 Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (resumed)…………562 Business of Seanad ………………………………566 Flooding: Statements ………………………………566 Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (resumed)…………574 Flooding: Statements (resumed)……………………………596 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009 Committee and Remaining Stages … … … 616 Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (resumed)…………624 Adjournment Matters: World Population Report ……………………………663 Third Level Charges ………………………………665 Social Welfare Benefits ……………………………668 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Dé Céadaoin, 25 Samhain 2009. Wednesday, 25 November 2009.

————

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Paidir. Prayer.

————

Election of Member. An Cathaoirleach: I have to announce that the following Member has been elected to fill the casual vacancy in the membership of the Seanad to which the resolution of Seanad Éireann of 30 October 2009 has reference — Administrative Panel, Nominating Bodies Sub-Panel: James Carroll. Senator James Carroll was introduced to the Cathaoirleach and then took his seat.

Business of Seanad. An Cathaoirleach: I have notice from Senator Fiona O’Malley that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, she proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss the UNSPA world population report and his views on the effect the growth in population has on climate change.

I have also received notice from Senator Rónán Mullen of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Education and Science to clarify whether a significant portion of the \1,500 student services charge is being used to fund sections of higher education institutes other than student services.

I have also received notice from Senator Pearse Doherty of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to reverse the decision to abolish the Christmas bonus.

I have also received notice from Senator Dan Boyle of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Finance to make a statement on the actions taken by his Department after the recent severe flooding throughout the country.

I have also received notice from Senator Jerry Buttimer of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Finance to make a statement on his plans to alleviate flooding, provide compensation for residents and reinstatement of damaged road surfaces, given the deterioration in road conditions due to extensive flooding in Cork city and areas adjacent to metropolitan Cork. 531 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

[An Cathaoirleach.]

I have also received notice from Senator Fidelma Healy Eames of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Transport to confirm the security of the funding for the western rail corridor and to outline the timeframe for implementation of same.

I regard the matters raised as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment. I have selected raised by Senators O’Malley, Mullen and Doherty and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. The other Senators may give notice on another day of the matters they wish to raise.

Order of Business. Senator Donie Cassidy: As Leader, I welcome Senator James Carroll from Monasterboice, County Louth as a Member of this Seanad. He is the first Member of the Oireachtas elected who was born in the 1980s. We welcome this young man to the House today. A UCD law graduate, James has worked in Leinster House with Deputy Margaret Conlon as her parliamentary assistant and has excelled in this area for the past two years. He is a former president of UCD Students Union and a former chairman of Fianna Fáil’s largest cumann in the country, the Kevin Barry Cumann at UCD. He was elected at the last local elections with 1,495 votes on the first count at his first time running at any election for the Drogheda East area in Louth County Council elections. A keen sportsman, James has played Gaelic with Naomh Mairtin in Monasterboice and has represented Ireland as an international pitch and putt player when he played against Holland in October 2008. I look forward to serving with him, him serving the people of his constituency and making contributions. James will be an excellent public representative. The Order of Business is No. 1, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 — Committee Stage (Resumed), to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business, to adjourn not later than 5 p.m., if not previously concluded, and to resume at the conclusion of No. 3; No. 2, the Private Members’ Bill, Consumer Protection (Gift Vouchers) Bill 2009 — Second Stage, to be taken not earlier then 5 p.m. and to conclude not later than 7 p.m.; and No. 3, Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009 — Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 2 but not earlier than 7 p.m. It is proposed to make an amendment to the Order of Business as notified to Members to allow statements on the recent flooding to take place between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m., on which all Senators may speak for not more than five minutes and may share time, by agreement of the House. If need be, on every sitting day I intend to propose to allow one hour for statements, particularly for those colleagues from areas experiencing serious flooding. Right before our eyes, all over the west, in particular, in the south and now in Athlone this morning, there are devastating experiences because of the heavy rains, strong winds and flooding.

An Cathaoirleach: As it is a roll-over debate, is the Leader allowing time for the Minister to reply today to queries raised?

Senator Donie Cassidy: I would wish the Minister to make a statement for five minutes to allow colleagues time.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Leader allowing time for the Minister to reply to Members?

Senator Donie Cassidy: The Minister is to be called on five minutes from the conclusion of statements. 532 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I welcome the newest Member of this House, Senator James Carroll. This is a proud and memorable day for James, his family and his supporters as he is elected to the Seanad on the Administrative Panel. On behalf of all in the Fine Gael Seanad group, I extend to him our congratulations and best wishes and hope that he has a worthwhile time in this House in the future. All three events yesterday raise questions about Government leadership, and this is a serious issue. The front pages of the newspapers illustrate in photographs the problem: people whose homes have been destroyed by floods, strikers outside our buildings and the queues going to Newry. There is a link between all three, and that link is about leadership. Let us take them one by one. Let us take the pre-emptive strike yesterday. We hear that the social partners are to have discussions today and I really hope they succeed. We also hear that there is another proposed strike next Thursday. This morning I spoke to a woman whose mother is due to have a serious operation next Thursday but she does not know whether it will go ahead. This is no way for us to be today. That woman should not have to worry about whether her mother will be operated on next Thursday, yet it is an example which shows that the workers who went out yesterday do not trust their interests will be looked after in this national emergency. They do not trust they will be more than a line in the budget. There is a crisis of leadership concerning public sector workers and how they feel about the Government. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Seanad discuss the talks and the financial emergency facing the country, as well as the flooding. What do the traffic queues into Newry tell us? They tell us that the Minister for Finance made a mistake on the issue of VAT.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: That is certainly one of the things the queues tell us. The Minister announced the VAT rate and has not changed it. We have repeatedly discussed such issues and the need for the economy to be more competitive. The queues are an example of the failure of the Government’s financial and economic policy. I am glad the Minister will attend the House to discuss the flooding, although I would like more time for questions. Many of my colleagues, including Senator Healy Eames from Galway and Senators Buttimer and Bradford from Cork, will speak about the impact of the floods, as well as the response required.

An Cathaoirleach: We can deal with that issue later.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I welcome the fact that we are having a debate, but I want more time for the Minister to answer the many questions that will arise. I hope the Leader can manage to arrange this. The floods show that people will pull together and that communities can work together. Irish people will respond when they are shown leadership, but we need to see leadership on this and the other issues I have raised.

Senator Joe O’Toole: I am at one with previous speakers in welcoming Senator James Carroll’s election. However, we would have wished him to be elected through a reformed process, but this is not the time to discuss the issue.

Senator David Norris: Yes, it is.

Senator Joe O’Toole: We welcome him.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: What about the Trinity College by-election? 533 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

An Cathaoirleach: Senator O’Toole without interruption, please.

Senator Joe O’Toole: Senator Carroll’s youth will do much to reduce the average age of Members of the House. To give him a kick-start, going back to his student background, I suggest he might like to raise on the Order of Business today the slowness of the Government in bringing forward the student support Bill which is of such interest to the people he left behind in UCD. I ask him to open with that issue. I wish him well and congratulate him on putting himself forward for public representation, not the most popular of choices at this time. My colleagues and I on this side of the House will be more than happy to provide him with any help we can give. He will receive all of the serious advice from here.

Senator Michael McCarthy: They are a very accommodating group.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Very accommodating.

Senator Joe O’Toole: Senator Fitzgerald’s points are true; we are certainly living in difficult times. People hold different views on the strike, but they should listen closely to what is being said. We should welcome the courageous stance taken in statements by leaders of the public sector unions in recent days. However, it sticks in my throat to hear calls for social solidarity from certain people. Recently I heard the leader of the IBEC group on television. That is the person who represents the six main banks, the people who brought us to the financial crisis. She said we should look to them to lead us out of the crisis, but they are the people who brought us to it. Somebody should remind her that people in Cork who could not get drinking water for the last two weeks had to go to her members in order to be charged \5or\6 for bottled water. If that is the social solidarity promised by IBEC, there is no future for this country. However, we can listen to what is being said by the trade union movement leaders. They have to be courageous in their stand, must ensure they make the hard choices in terms of fairness and recognise that a pragmatic approach is required. The Government needs to make savings of \4 billion, an issue which must be delivered; therefore, hard choices will have to be made. With regard to the announcement of a strike next week, it is very important in such circumstances that everybody recognises choices, including the choices to strike, stay at work or agree to difficult decisions. One must agree on the options to make the choices. There is a deal that can be done. There is no doubt that if we proceed with fairness and pragmatism, we can certainly move forward. The attitude of the Ministers over recent days to the choice to be made in these difficult times has been quite admirable. They showed an understanding of where people stood although they were opposed to the strike. I spoke to people from different unions and backgrounds who were picketing yesterday and discovered that they know where the world is at. There are ways to do business. The Government must reduce the cost and size of the public sector and do so in a creative, fair, pragmatic and courageous way. By doing so, we can make progress. Let us not listen to the Pharisees of IBEC who are trying to lead us down the road from which we came and who are looking back to the future. There is no salvation from those who created this difficulty.

Senator Michael McCarthy: I warmly welcome and congratulate Senator Carroll. I hope he will have a very long and successful career in politics and that he will find his time in this House as fulfilling and enjoyable as the rest of us do. I am sure his membership will go a long way towards ensuring the sanity of the Government Whip who has been trying his best to win votes over recent months. I wish Senator Carroll well and hope he will have a very fulfilling and rewarding experience in this House. 534 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

While I recognise that the Leader is making time available for a roll-over debate on flooding and is taking into consideration the views of many Senators, an hour is insufficient for the debate. If I had my way, I could speak for at least half an hour to reflect the experiences in west Cork over the past week. I propose that we make our Private Members’ slot available to the Leader this evening to allow for a meaningful and lengthy debate on flooding and a ministerial reply.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I second that.

Senator Michael McCarthy: I hope the Leader will accept my proposal in the spirit in which it is intended. I recognise the intervention of the Government and acknowledge the \10 million in relief aid that is being made available. However, it is not enough.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator proposing an amendment to the Order of Business?

Senator Michael McCarthy: Yes. With regard to the public sector strike, if we want lessons about social solidarity or pointers on how to get out of this economic crisis, we need not look to our colleagues in IBEC. Senator O’Toole stated correctly and consistently that the six largest members of IBEC brought us to the brink of economic collapse. It is a damned cheek for them to suggest people should lose medical cards and that the minimum wage is too high. IBEC represents the organisations that almost bankrupted this economy. It is not good enough for it to be lecturing at length to those on lower and middle incomes because these are the people who are suffering the most as the Government seeks to find solutions to the economic turmoil. I hope the Leader will take my amendment in the spirit in which it is proposed.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Yes, I do.

Senator Dan Boyle: On behalf of my party, I welcome Senator James Carroll as a new Member of the House and wish him well in all his deliberations. With regard to the Order of Business and the various calls for debates, I very much welcome the proposal of the Labour Party to allow its Private Members’ time for a debate on flooding. Allied to the hour already proposed for debate, this will give some of us an opportunity to——

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator seconding the amendment?

Senator Dan Boyle: I would be quite happy to second the amendment. The hour proposed will give many Members an opportunity to respond in an immediate way to what we have witnessed in our local communities in the past week or so. The debate will allow us to talk about the changing weather patterns, how much they will be part of our immediate future and how we need to respond to the problem with co-ordinated policy. Many speakers will discuss the extent to which we need to provide adequate resources to ensure we deal with emergencies as and when they happen. I do not regard this as an immediate political problem. Many of the issues we will be addressing as a result of the flooding arise because of a combination of climate change and what we as a people have done with our planet. In a local context it is also a result of some appalling planning decisions in recent decades. I would like Members to address that when we have an opportunity to speak later in the debate. On yesterday’s national day of action, all of us accept the need for the trade union movement acting democratically to express the will of its members about ongoing concerns. Yesterday was such an exercise. Several hundred people were present in the immediate environs of Leins- 535 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

[Senator Dan Boyle.] ter House and Departments nearby and were not in Newry. I do not see any linkage between the floods, the national day of action and whatever shopping took place in Newry yesterday.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: No preventative solutions.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The lack of a plan.

An Cathaoirleach: There should be no interruption from Members. If that behaviour continues in this House I will ask anyone who interrupts a speaker to quickly leave this Chamber. I will no longer put up with that.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Dan Boyle: I will make one important linkage. There is a variation between our VAT rates and our VAT rates are too high. We have too much dependence on spending taxes in this jurisdiction. However, the British tax rate in Northern Ireland will increase. We see the real variation when we consider the levels of pay that allow the cost of living in Northern Ireland in terms of the private sector, the public sector and social welfare rates. That is what we need to debate in this country, not only in terms of our ongoing debate but events that will be crystallised on 9 December.

Senator Paul Bradford: I congratulate Senator Carroll on his election to this House. He will find it an extremely interesting and challenging place of political debate. I hope he enjoys his time here. No doubt he has plans to wander down other corridors in Leinster House but I hope he enjoys his time in the Seanad. I sincerely wish him the best. I hope my history and geography are correct. I learned with interest that this new Senator is from Monasterboice. Another Member of the Leinster House establishment from my party was from that area. If Senator Carroll makes half the impact of that man he will be fondly and long remembered.

Senator Joe O’Toole: He may not want to.

Senator Camillus Glynn: It all happened in Mullingar.

Senator Paul Bradford: It is important that we would have a much more lengthy debate on the flooding. There is a crisis across the State, but we will get to that later. I hope the Leader will reflect on the fact that one hour is inadequate. I am disappointed with the Leader. We are two short weeks away from the most crucial budget in the history of the State and most of my colleagues and I have been asking him to arrange a thorough, sensible and full economic debate in this House for the past month or six weeks in which we could raise the issues, present our opinions and listen to alternatives and, I hope, contribute in some small fashion to the economic turnaround of this country. It is not good enough on the part of the Leader to say that we might have a chance of an hour’s debate or even a half day’s debate next week. If we want this Chamber of the Oireachtas to be real and relevant at this time when there is only one topic on the public mind, namely, the economy, it should be what we are talking about virtually every single day, not just in a talking shop fashion but listening to people, presenting ideas, challenging opinions and, I hope, putting forward solutions. I do not normally make political charges but I regret to say that the Leader is remiss in his duty in not having presented an opportunity for us to have such a debate to date. I would like time to be provided for such a debate with the utmost haste. 536 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: Is mian liom fáilte Uí Cheallaigh a chur roimh an Seanadóir nua. Táim cinnte go ndéanfaidh sé sár-jab san Oireachtas. Beidh áthas orainn go léir ar ndóigh cabhrú leis in aon tslí gur féidir linn. As regards yesterday’s events, a number of significant issues became evident. First, we saw how the dreadful flooding disaster in many parts of the country and the trauma of the people who were at the receiving end of those floods competed for headlines with the general strike. I was inspired by the victims of the floods, the manner in which they had 11 o’clock responded and their resolve, not just to be negative in their reaction but to find a method of progressing a solution to the problem. In fairness, we must salute the Taoiseach and the Government also because they have responded quickly. It was evident that people were delighted to see the Taoiseach — indeed, all public representatives — as he went from one area to the next. On the other hand, as regards the general strike, a number of aspects were evident to me. First, people on the picket line felt particularly uncomfortable being outside their workplace. They would have preferred to be at work. They are decent and honourable people who have given service to the country during the years and it is to their eternal credit that they made sure that in the midst of the flooding crisis they responded positively. It was clear that had been done, wherever their assistance was required. There is only one way we can move forward in the current economic crisis and that is united. I do not accept any single partner should be kept outside the loop — the trade unions, employers and everybody who has an interest in the future of the country. I am delighted, therefore, that the unions are going back in to talk to the Government. I felt last night listening to the union leaders that it was their intention to make every effort to do a deal. If they do, they will be doing it not only for their members but for the future of the country.

Senator David Norris: I also welcome our new Member. There will be a further occasion to discuss the process of election and everything else but he is very welcome. It is good to have young people in the House. With regard to the situation that confronts us nationally, these are apocalyptic times. We have an economic emergency and then are hit by the weather. As a trade unionist, I was extremely proud of the members of the front-line services who acted in a humanitarian response to the crisis. I commend them for this but wonder if the penny has dropped about the catastrophic seriousness of the financial position in which we find ourselves. I listened to people being interviewed and a number of them said they knew there would have to be cuts but they could not afford to them. They said they hoped their union or representative could find a way of doing it but that they did not know the solution. It reminded me of the late John Kelly who took James Joyce’s comment about Ireland being the old sow that eats her farrow, turned it around and said the old sow was now in danger of being devoured by her cannibal piglets. If we consider what happened yesterday, I was proud of the trade unions in one sense but it is noticeable that there was a Gadarene rush to Newry which created a traffic jam two or six miles long. Where is the sense of patriotism? I call for it, just as I called for it from the other end of the social spectrum when bankers appeared to think \500,000 was not enough for them in an age when people were losing their jobs, homes and businesses. There is a need for a degree of patriotism. We have a situation that we confront daily in this House where, on the one hand, people want to get their elderly parents into hospitals and, on the other, younger people must be looked after, all at taxpayer’s expense. We must come back to the State. When people talk about the State, they are actually talking about money taken in taxes from everybody, including old age pensioners. With the compensation culture, people do not realise that when they sue the State and look for compensation, it comes out of other people’s pockets. 537 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

[Senator David Norris.]

I raise a final point, which is a real scandal. I have raised in this House on a few occasions the case of the former head of the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association, ISME, who was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice. This was established in this House. In recent years no less than six senior gardaí at the rank of superintendent, chief inspector and so on have been appointed. Every one of them resigned within either weeks or a few months of being appointed and no inquiry has ever been conducted. This is a scandalous cover-up and an abrogation of the human and civil rights of the person concerned. I call on the Leader to investigate the matter.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: I welcome Senator Carroll to the House. I read in the newspaper that he was elected last week. I thought it was a joke because I thought one would at least have to go through the ritual of arranging an election but I congratulate him on his appointment. He will never have it as easy from now on.

Senator Michael McCarthy: Says she who was appointed by the Taoiseach.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: That is a good point. The Senator might be lucky, like I was; my history of hard work earned me that merit.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator O’Malley raised a point that I wish to clarify. The ruling on the nomination was held on Monday, 23 November and Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns, President of the High Court, was in attendance. Section 68(2)(d) of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act 1947, as amended, provides that, on completion of ruling upon nominations, if only one candidate stands validly nominated, the Seanad returning officer shall declare that person to be elected. James Carroll was the only candidate validly nominated and, in accordance with the said section 68, was declared to be elected by the returning officer.

Senator David Norris: On a point of order, as a sporting man, would the Cathaoirleach describe that as a one horse race?

An Cathaoirleach: I would always count it as a good result.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: Now Senator Carroll knows how lucky he was officially. I agree with those Members who have spoken about the strike yesterday and the positive and realistic attitude of one of the union leaders who has expressed himself keen to arrive at a solution. I look forward to this because, as Senator Ó Murchú said, this concerns the future of the country and its viability. It is in all of our interests to have the strike stopped and get everyone working together, recognising the need for the \4 billion cuts next year. We must also keep an eye on the \4 billion in cuts that will be necessary the following year. We cannot get carried away about this year because there will be difficult times and if we have learned one thing from the 1980s, it is that we must do this fast and furious. My colleague Senator McDonald said she would persist with this issue, but at a briefing this morning by Women’s Aid, we found out that today is the first of 16 days in highlighting the issue of domestic violence. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on the topic. This is pertinent because the 16 days are not just a recognition of the problem in Ireland but globally. We could do our bit by showing solidarity with the rest of the world in highlighting the issue. I hope I have saved Senator McDonald raising the issue every day and that we will have a debate on it within the next 16 days.

538 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Seanadóir nua, James Carroll, agus déanaim comhghairdeas leis. In welcoming Senator Carroll I am conscious that, like Senator O’Malley, he is joining a political party with an opinion poll rating that has fallen drastically — in Senator O’Malley’s case, the party has disappeared. I second Senator Fitzgerald’s amendment to the Order of Business. As someone who comes from an area suffering from flooding, where people are deprived of water and hundreds have been displaced, I am calling for more than an hour’s debate. The Minister must also answer questions. I am not trying to score points but the people of Cork, Galway, Clare, Limerick and Athlone deserve and require answers. They require answers from the ESB about the release of water from Inniscarra and Ardnacrusha. They also require answers from the Government, particularly the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Mini- ster of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, as to why there was no early warning system. The events of the weekend demonstrate the need for a national independent investigation into what happened. The people of Cork require and deserve answers. As someone immersed in the community, I recognise the patriotic reaction of the citizens of Cork, the Defence Forces, Civil Defence, the Garda and front-line staff of the public service. The HSE and Cork City Council deserve to be praised because they put people first. Senator Fitzgerald is right, however — the linkage between the Government and the failure in the last couple of weeks is the lack of leadership. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government announced a fund of \10 million, placing the onus on community welfare officers who are already inundated with claims.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: How will they cope with the demands put on them? The Taoiseach swans around in his helicopter. The people want leadership. They have not been getting it. The Leader may nod his head but he knows full well this Government has let the people down.

An Cathaoirleach: Thank you, Senator Buttimer.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: As Senator Norris said, we live in different apocalyptic times but the Leader’s time is up.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Is mian liom an deis seo a ghlacadh chun comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an Seanadóir nua-thofa, James Carroll, as Contae Lú. Cuirim fáílte mór roimh James, nó Séamus, go dtí an Seanad. I congratulate James and welcome him to the Seanad. It is great to see a new young Member in the Seanad and I know he will make a massive contribution and a big impact to the workings of Seanad Éireann in the years ahead. I wish him well in that. I wish to touch on another issue raised by Senator Joe O’Toole in respect of the Student Support Bill. This year more than ever we recognise the need to move on this Bill, particularly in light of the fact that this year there are major difficulties across local authorities in processing third level maintenance grant applications. There are considerable delays and many students are forced to leave their courses of study because the grants are not being processed in time. I do not blame local authorities or the vocational education committees which do not have the staff to process the applications. The Student Support Bill proposes the centralising of those applications and we should fast-track it if at all possible. I hope the Leader can provide us with an update, perhaps not today but in coming days. The Union of Students in Ireland is to appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science to make a presentation on this matter and we welcome its views. 539 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

[Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.]

The issue was raised of VAT rates with regard to cross-Border shopping and was also referred to in national media yesterday. A survey report by the chambers of commerce was published this morning regarding cross-Border shopping and the views of Border county business owners. Some 90% of business owners in the six Border counties said they would welcome a reduction in VAT. However, VAT is not the sole issue. We can say it is but it is not. There are three issues involved and Senator Dan Boyle touched on one. First, there is the sterling issue, over which we have no control. The British have printed additional sterling and reduced the value of their currency. We cannot deal with that but we can deal with the two other issues. Regarding VAT, this year we will have an advantage, or the Minister for Finance will have an advantage, because the Irish budget will come after the British budget. Last year it was the other way round. The Minister will use the forewarning of the British budget to deal with that issue. Senator Boyle referred to the third issue, namely, the cost of doing business here as opposed to in the North. That relates to wages. If one considers individuals on social welfare, here they get about a quarter more than in the North. We must look at the global picture and deal with wages and the cost of living here versus in the North. There are many issues involved and we should have a debate before the budget if at all possible so that we may bring our own views to the Minister.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I, too, extend a céad míle fáilte to the Seanadóir nua, James Carroll. He is very welcome. I support my colleague, Senator McCarthy, in his proposal to give over our Private Members’ time today to discuss the serious issue of flooding, including the Clonmel aspect and what is going on there with respect to the flood alleviation process and the impact it has had. There have been some absolutely heroic actions by all members of the Defence Forces. On Monday I was in the Army barracks when the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, visited Clonmel. I was lucky enough to meet and be able to compliment Corporal David Aherne and Private Jason Daly who heroically waded into waist-high water to rescue two people who, I have no doubt, would have lost their lives had that action not been taken. There has been much activity such as this by young men in the Army, Civil Defence and all forces. I would be glad to have an opportunity to discuss it in a more formal debate later today if this is agreed by the House, as I am sure it will be. I acknowledge the enormous contribution made yesterday by all staff working in the HSE, free of charge. They provided an absolutely excellent service. Undoubtedly, the people with whom I walked yesterday outside the hospital in Clonmel would have much preferred to have been doing something positive, such as helping out people whose houses had flooded — they expressed that wish — rather than walking up and down outside a hospital. It certainly was not the action people wished to take. Those people are doing a fantastic job nationwide and should be commended because they continued to provide that service yesterday.

Senator Francis O’Brien: I join previous speakers in welcoming Senator James Carroll and in congratulating him on his election and elevation to Seanad Éireann. Young James was a wonderful choice for election to this House as is evident from his wonderful success story as recounted by the Leader. I refer in particular to his student union activities and his recent successful election to Louth County Council. He ran a wonderful campaign and is a good choice to represent County Louth in this House. Hopefully, he probably will be the replacement of the present Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Seamus Kirk. 540 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Senator Jerry Buttimer: What was that?

Senator Paddy Burke: The Senator should propose him as Ceann Comhairle himself.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Burke, no interruption.

Senator Francis O’Brien: I can state without fear of contradiction that he certainly is the youngest Member of this House. I wish him well in the future and he undoubtedly will be an excellent representative. I thank the Leader for arranging the debate on flooding. Lest any Member might think that County Monaghan was not affected, while I am unaware of houses being flooded, parts of Monaghan town were blocked off by flooding and were impassable. Moreover, other roads in the county were washed away by rivers bursting their banks and floods disrupted traffic. County Monaghan was affected, albeit not as badly as counties Cork, Tipperary or Galway or perhaps the midlands.

An Cathaoirleach: Or County Offaly.

Senator Francis O’Brien: However, it definitely was affected. Finally, I support Senator Ó Domhnaill’s call for the VAT rate to be considered in the forthcoming budget because this is a serious issue for the six Border counties——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is Senator O’Brien not in government?

An Cathaoirleach: No interruption, please. The Senator has gone over time.

Senator Francis O’Brien: Moreover, it is not only people from the Border counties who are shopping across the Border. They are coming from far further afield——

Senator Paddy Burke: Who else is going?

Senator Francis O’Brien: ——to shop in the North.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I join in the welcome for Senator James Carroll to the House. However, I also welcome my colleagues from County Cork and other counties that have been cut adrift, such as my native county of Galway, which have suffered severely in recent days from flood devastation. While I am delighted the Leader has facilitated the appearance today in the House of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, he should come into the House with a plan. He should have a flood relief plan, a financial plan and above all, a national template for an emergency. Members are aware that rainfall is on the increase. For instance, it was necessary to evacuate a family in Oranmore a year and a half ago and for three successive Christmases. While this phenomenon is not new in some counties, there has been neither prevention nor leadership on this issue. The Leader should communicate to the Minister that he should have detailed information. The Leader is aware that insurance companies now claim that floods are no longer unpredictable but are predictable and consequently are refusing to cover such homes in the future. For example, I refer to a home that had been given a quote of \3,000 previously for insurance but which was given a quote of \32,000 on foot of a previous flooding incident in Ardrahan, County Galway. As the householders could not afford to reinsure their home, they now have been wiped out. Consequently, action is required from the Government and it must find the requisite 541 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

[Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.] funding. I note it found funding for the banks and it should not come to pass that funding will not be found to save people’s homes, properties and livelihoods. Why was the fire service not fully engaged in Galway as it was in other counties in this emergency relief plan? For example, in Ennis the fire service made 130 calls but in Athenry it made only three. Serious questions arise and I would like an answer to them.

An Cathaoirleach: Ten Members have indicated that they wish to contribute but as there are only approximately 12 minutes remaining I ask them to be brief if there is to be any hope of even half that number getting a chance to speak.

Senator John Ellis: I congratulate Senator Carroll on his election to the House. Some of us might have arrived here at a similar age and I hope he remains a Member of the House as long as us. That is my only wish for him today. I compliment the staff who stayed at work yesterday, especially in my home county, Leitrim, where county council staff worked to alleviate the flooding problems in Carrick-on-Shannon, Leitrim village and other areas. There is a point that everyone here is missing in connection with this problem. The ESB controls several waterways, mainly the Shannon and the Iniscarra dam. It should have realised that it could have dropped the level of those dams months ago knowing that there would be sufficient water to refill them due to climate change and all the precedents but it has done nothing.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: That is a question.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: That is the question.

Senator John Ellis: It is doing nothing now but releasing more water on top of communities along the Shannon. I appeal to the ESB to examine whether it can release some of the flood water it is holding with its various dams up and down the country in a controlled manner, not as it has done over the past week. When we come to debate this we need to consider the wider problems being caused. The ESB is not the only cause.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I hope the Minister can explain it.

Senator John Ellis: Local authorities have in many cases walked away from their responsibilities for maintaining drainage schemes. Some of their planning decisions forced people to build houses in hollows that are now flooded. What will happen if those people tackle the local authorities that forced them to build on unsuitable sites?

Senator Joe O’Reilly: Ba mhaith liom mo comhghairdeas agus fáilte a gabháil don Seanadór nua, Séamus Carroll. The graphic images of the tailbacks into Newry and Enniskillen yesterday can leave us in no doubt that cross-Border shopping is a serious issue for retailers and those working in the retail trade along the Border. It is unfair to public service workers, and it is untrue, to say that they went en masse to the North yesterday. I know from family members that all those who were on strike went on a rota of picket duty and provided emergency cover too. Families whose children were at home from school yesterday took the opportunity to go shopping as traditionally happened on 8 December. 542 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

The large numbers travelling North were instructive. Last year the Minister for Finance admitted that \500 million was lost to this economy through VAT increases. It was an own goal to increase VAT rates last year. This needs correction and adjustment. Of course the cost issue arises. Costs are too high in this country and we need to examine our cost structure as part of an ongoing economic adjustment. The VAT issue can be resolved in the forthcoming budget. Taking into consideration the loss of wages, the payments to jobseekers and the loss of revenue, lowering VAT would be cost neutral. I put it to the Leader that something must be done about this problem. It is a crisis for ordinary people who work as retail assistants across the country.

Senator Ann Ormonde: I congratulate Senator Carroll. I admire his decision to come into politics at a time when there is such distaste for politicians. He was qualified to take another career path, if he so desired. I wish him well. He has a hard road ahead, particularly at a time when we are all being ridiculed by the public at large. I wish him luck and we will support him having gone through the mill ourselves. Many issues were raised today and there is one to which I wish to refer. I hope the Leader will incorporate a debate on cross-Border shopping and a reduction in VAT in the House’s pre-budget statements. Yesterday was a sad day for Ireland. On the one hand there were the flood catastrophes with many people’s homes destroyed and their morale ruined too. On the other hand, there were the strikes. Hopefully, it will be a day of reckoning. I believe there has been a mood change with the union leaders and they will sit around the table with the Govern- ment to reach some compromise so we will not have a repeat of yesterday next week. It is very serious for our country. We need to put our heads together on this. Will the Leader have the pre-budget statements so all views can be aired and trashed out? Hopefully, we might get some sort of brainstorming exercise on this.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I join with colleagues in congratulating Senator James Carroll on his election. Although I did not know he was going to be unveiled today, I felt a bit funny this morning as he has taken my mantle as the youngest Member of the Seanad which I had for seven years. My first name is a giveaway when it comes to my age. I wish Senator Carroll well in his time in the House. Will the Leader extend the time allowed for the debate on the recent flooding? County Kilkenny has had several serious days with flooding on the lower reaches of the River Nore. The investment by the Office of Public Works on the flood relief scheme in Kilkenny city has worked with no flooding there. However, it has led to an increased problem further down the river in Thomastown, Inistioge and New Ross. Will the leader organise a debate on school transport, which I have raised eight times since the House returned in September? Some young children cannot get school bus tickets when their older siblings may be travelling to both primary and secondary schools on the same school bus network. This is a serious matter for the families concerned. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, has been examining the matter and I would like a discussion on it in the House as soon as possible. I share the frustration of many low-paid public servants with the lack of leadership from the Government and respect their right to protest. I urge them, however, to reconsider next Thursday’s protest because they have made their mark. I hope the Government will take on board their frustrations and concerns when drafting the budget. This is all the more reason why the Seanad should have a discussion on the budget in advance of 9 December which the Leader has promised for weeks. I urge the public sector committee of the ICTU to reconsider Thursday’s proposed second day of unrest. 543 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Senator Mark Daly: I welcome Senator James Carroll to the House. His election in the local elections was as outstanding a feat as Louth’s victory in the 1957 All-Ireland football title. We welcome young Members to the House. I have sympathy with Senator John Paul Phelan on losing his title as youngest Member. One serious issue of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 is how banks can take possession of houses with an occupancy clause and get them lifted while the mortgage holder trying to sell such a house cannot. There is not a level playing pitch between the banks and the person struggling to sell his or her house. It is timely to raise this issue now given the representatives of the banks will today appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Fin- ance and the Public Service. The question we must pose to the chief executive officers of the banks is why cannot they live on \500,000. The banks are repossessing houses throughout the country and selling them off at will to whomever they wish, yet mortgage holders are not being given time to sell their homes. I ask the Leader to take up this issue with the Minister. Surely people struggling to sell their houses should be permitted to do so under the same terms and conditions as the banks.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I congratulate Senator Carroll on his election to the Seanad and wish him well in what surely will be a long and productive career in what remains, despite the actions of a few, a noble profession.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I congratulate the Leader on having the foresight and common decency to arrange for a debate on flooding in this House this afternoon. I believe that decision may have been driven by his experience in his own locality over the weekend. I heard on radio that Senator McFadden and her sisters are currently travelling around Athlone distributing sandbags to their neighbours to help stop the encroaching floods. This morning I left behind a county shrouded in devastation and despair, which are the only words I can find to describe the situation.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I have never witnessed anything like it. People in their 80s, some of whom are neighbours of mine, have never witnessed flooding of the like that has occurred during recent days. That despair was crystalised for me by a conversation I had with a businessman from Gort who telephoned me on Sunday night. He has been unable to secure insurance cover against flooding in recent years because the area in which he operates is constantly flooded and is now facing into Christmas with the possibility of no income for the next few weeks. The stock he had in for Christmas has been destroyed by the floods. He told me he finds it difficult to look across the breakfast table at his children because he is afraid they will see the fear and despair in his eyes. He does not know what to do and is turning to us, the Government and people who lead this country, for hope. I despair, if all we can offer these people, of whom there are thousands throughout the country, is a paltry \10 million. How detached or devoid of empathy have we become if the people who lead this country can offer the people suffering such devastation the paltry sum of \10 million? This day, the coffers of the National Pensions Reserve Fund amount to \21 billion, of which \1.4 billion is cash. This year we deemed it acceptable, and debatably so, for us to hand over \7 billion of those funds to the banks. We also deemed it acceptable, and rightly so, to hand over \750 million from our national budget to overseas development aid. How come, when our own people cry out for hope at the end of a long and traumatic experience, the most 544 Order of 25 November 2009. Business we can commit to them is \10 million? I despair. I ask Members opposite, if they are having a parliamentary party meeting this week, to raise this issue with their colleagues in the Lower House.

Senator Terry Leyden: I congratulate Senator James Carroll on his election to Seanad Éireann. His election was one of the handiest of all time. I thank the Fine Gael and Labour parties for not contesting the election. I presume they will not also be contesting the next two elections.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Wishful thinking.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Leyden must put a question to the Leader.

Senator Terry Leyden: My advice to Senator Carroll is to work hard to move to the Lower House because the future of this House does not look good if Fine Gael is ever to be returned to power in any shape or form.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: That is a vote of confidence in Fine Gael.

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Leyden must put a question to the Leader.

Senator Terry Leyden: Fianna Fáil needs a seat in Drogheda. I wish Senator Carroll well. Today is international day for the elimination of violence against women, an issue on which the Council of Europe has been particularly active. Every day, not alone today, should be a day for the elimination of violence against women, whether verbal or physical. We should all strive to that cause. I thank the Leader for arranging for a debate today on the issue of flooding. The town of Roscommon has been devastated, unfortunately, by unprecedented flooding of flood plains. The new government offices, in which the Office of Public Works was involved in terms of planning, were flooded by up to four feet of water. It is unprecedented. The \10 million being provided is only a start in this regard.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is only a dribble.

Senator Terry Leyden: It is to be hoped further moneys will be made available. I believe the Irish Red Cross should be called in to assist in this regard. It was involved in other emergencies. This flooding is unprecedented and everybody must show solidarity with those affected. I thank the county council workers in Roscommon who did not strike yesterday but remained at work to assist those in need.

An Cathaoirleach: Before calling Senator Carroll, I apologise to Senators Butler, Corrigan, Feeney, Glynn and O’Sullivan who indicated but were unable to raise their issues today.

Senator James Carroll: Gabhaim buíochas leis na Seanadóirí go léir as ucht na focail deasa ashín siad amach chugam. Tá mo chlann ar mo lámh dheis agus mo chairde ar mo lámh chlé. Is iad na daoine a chuir mé anseo i Seanad Éireann. Gabhaim buíochas leo. I thank Senators for their kind words. This is my first day as a Member of Seanad Éireann and I hope all other days I spend here will be as easy as today. This is a huge honour for me and my family. I am a 26 year old from Monasterboice starting out in life in many respects. My mother, father and two sisters, Fiona and Briege, are present in the Visitors Gallery. But 545 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

[Senator James Carroll.] for them and their superb support of me through my life so far, I would not be here today. I hope to do them, and everyone else, proud. I thank MS Ireland, the Central Remedial Clinic and the Irish Deaf Society, for their kind nomination, without which I would not have had an opportunity to contest the election. I was lucky given no other candidates put their names forward. I thank Deputy Margaret Conlon, my boss for the past two years. Working with her was a superb training ground. I wish Deputy Conlon, who is one of the most capable politicians I have ever met, all the best in the future. I hope she goes very far.

(Interruptions).

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Senator Carroll had a good woman behind him.

Senator James Carroll: One always needs a good woman behind them, a lesson I have learned. To the people of Drogheda east who elected me to the county council in June I wish to clarify that lest they think I will skive off to Dublin and forget them, I will continue to be their full-time public representative. I thank the people of Monasterboice, Togher, Clogher- head, Termonfeckin and Drogheda town who elected me to the council. The Visitors Gallery is filled with people who assisted in getting me elected. When I started on this road 12 months ago I did not know how to go about getting elected. I am forever indebted to the people in the Gallery who assisted me in this regard. Without their hard work and faith and belief in me I would not be here. My girlfriend, Alison, who is also in the Gallery has had to put up with for the past 12 months the worst boyfriend in history given the amount of canvassing and meetings involved in my getting elected. However, it is to be hoped things will improve now.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Senator Carroll has not yet seen the half of it.

Senator James Carroll: Exactly. I thank the Leader of the House, Senator Cassidy, and all Members of the Fianna Fáil Seanad group for their superb advice during recent weeks. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his kind introduction and the Clerk to the Seanad, Ms Deirdre Lane, for her assistance and guidance during the past two weeks. I hope to work closely with them in the future and to not cause any rows in the House. I know from watching the Seanad proceedings during the past two years that rows often erupt. I hope to remain on the right side of the Cathaoirleach at all times.

An Cathaoirleach: I welcome Senator Carroll and wish him well in the House. I know he will receive help and co-operation from Members on all sides of the House. That has been my experience of Members of all parties and none. People are only too willing to help a new Member of the House. The Senator will also receive outstanding help from his own party, particularly the Members on the Administrative Panel. They might get him elected to the Lower House, which they would consider very important. This is a great day for him, his family and the people of County Louth. I do not doubt that he will be a tremendous representative for them in the future. I wish to remember today the man the Senator replaces, the late Senator Tony Kett, who made an outstanding contribution to the Seanad. We should remember him in our prayers.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators Fitzgerald, O’Toole, McCarthy, Boyle, Ó Murchú, Norris, O’Malley, Buttimer, Ó Domhnaill, O’Brien, Healy Eames, Ellis, O’Reilly, Ormonde, Phelan, Daly, Cannon and Leyden expressed their serious concerns about the horrific weather we have 546 Order of 25 November 2009. Business been experiencing in the last few weeks. One’s heart goes out to the families caught up in these dreadful events. I like to believe the amount of money announced yesterday is only the initial sum that will be made available. Unfortunately, the forecast for the remainder of the week shows no improvement. The River Shannon is backing up into the River Inny which flows flowing into Athlone and will probably reach Mullingar by tonight. The western side of the country from County Donegal to County Cork and the midlands, including the Cathaoirleach’s area of Banagher, have experienced floods not seen in living memory, as we have been told by people much older than us. We must support the people who are enduring such dreadful circumstances, particularly those whose homes, properties and businesses have been decimated. It is a seriously bad start to the winter, particularly when there is a downturn in the economy. I compliment the Taoiseach. Most Members had at least one day off over the weekend but the Taoiseach worked every day. In chairing the committee he has taken a personal interest in the issue. Apart from his national constituency of Ireland, his electoral constituency has been seriously affected. What we have seen on our television screens, particularly what is happening to the people of Cork, is absolutely horrific. I have never seen anything like it. Parishes throughout the country have been seriously affected. In fact, I attended a funeral in Ardrahan three weeks ago and saw the beautiful area of Kinvara. It is hard to believe what has happened. I thank Senator McCarthy and the Labour Party for offering its Private Members’ time for statements which will continue for three hours from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. We will meet the leaders after the Order of Business to organise the times for contributions and I will return to the House with an amendment to the Order of Business to seek its approval for the arrangements. It is my intention that there will be statements on the issue every day the House sits until this dreadful weather recedes, particularly from colleagues whose areas are affected. We must ensure those who are suffering know we care and are here to do everything we can to help them. I thank Senator Cannon for his comments in this regard. It is a terrible situation for families, neighbours and friends. I wish those involved in the talks the very best of luck and, on behalf of all Members, hope the talks reach a successful conclusion. Everybody believes, regardless of who is in power, \4 billion is the figure that must be found in the budget. Let the experience around the negotiating table, the best in the country, decide and secure agreement. The last thing the 12 o’clock country wants is another day of stoppages. One’s heart goes out to the decent, hard-working people who built the Ireland of today and had to go out yesterday in inclement weather. They are the most decent of people and involved in every community and organisation in the country. They give of their time, mainly in a voluntary capacity, to church, State and sports organisations. They are the leaders in our communities. We all have a job to do; therefore, let us put what happened behind us and, from today, let us hope the negotiators find a successful formula, as Senator O’Toole said, that will secure agreement on how we can move forward with the budget. In response to the calls from Senators McCarthy, Boyle, Prendergast, O’Brien, Healy Eames and Bradford there will be a full day debate next Tuesday on the budget. I look forward to all colleagues making a contribution. I am disappointed Fine Gael has not brought forward its pre- budget proposals before that debate. I understand they will be released two days afterwards. If the House thinks we could be of assistance, perhaps on the Friday after it publishes its pre- budget submission——

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: There have been many recommendations which the Government has ignored. 547 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Government has many of our proposals.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Government has no proposals.

An Cathaoirleach: There must be no interruption of the Leader of the House.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Our proposals are well known. Let us hear the Government’s.

Senator Donie Cassidy: If the House wishes to comment on the Fine Gael proposals——

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Let us hear the Government’s proposals and the response to what we recommend.

Senator Donie Cassidy: ——I have no difficulty with the House sitting on 4 December to consider them.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Ring the Drumcondra mafia to find out its plans.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I will convey Senator Norris’s views on human rights.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Let us hear the Government’s proposals.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators O’Malley and Leyden——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It has had 12 years to run the country.

An Cathaoirleach: I warned Members about interrupting. There are to be no interruptions of the Leader in replying on the Order of Business. Members have had an opportunity to speak. The Leader is replying.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I meant to mention earlier with regard to the floods that a considerable amount of work had been done on the Doherty report of 1995. I will ask the Oireachtas Library to circulate a copy of that report to all colleagues in the House in the next few days. We should ask the Government to seriously consider implementing its conclusions in the next two or three years.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Some 14 years later.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The Senator’s party was in government at the time.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: For two years.

An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Healy Eames going to continue interrupting? If there is one more interruption, I will ask the Senator concerned to leave.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I will ask the Oireachtas Library to circulate a copy of the Doherty report to show Members the conclusions it reached. We discussed the report in the House previously but nothing has happened with the silt at the bottom of the River Shannon. Some colleagues in the House probably know more about this problem than me but there is a report available for our consideration and I will ensure it is circulated to Members. Senator Prendergast complimented the HSE on its work yesterday. I share her sentiments. Senators O’Toole and Ó Domhnaill asked about the Student Support Bill and the timeframe for dealing with it. I will respond to their queries in the House tomorrow morning. 548 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Senator John Paul Phelan called for a debate on school transport. I have already given a commitment to the House that the debate will take place and the Minister has agreed to attend. Legislation is given precedence in the House but we will certainly discuss school transport before Christmas, if possible. Turning to the matter of cross-Border trading, Senator Ó Domhnaill outlined the challenges facing the retail sector in the northern part of our country thanks to sterling issue, over which we have no control. As he stated concerning VAT, our budget will come after the British budget, but this is a question of one word, that is, “competitiveness”. This will be the greatest challenge to face the country in the coming years. We must be more competitive.

Senator Paddy Burke: Change the Government.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Leader obviously does not understand the word. That is why we are where we are.

An Cathaoirleach: People will be marched out of here soon. To show this type of example to a new Member is wrong.

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Fitzgerald has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That statements on the partnership talks and the present financial emergency be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Yes.

An Cathaoirleach: I remind Members that any division will be a manual vote because the electronic system has not been sorted for our new Member.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 28.

Tá

Bradford, Paul. Mullen, Rónán. Burke, Paddy. Norris, David. Buttimer, Jerry. O’Reilly, Joe. O’Toole, Joe. Cannon, Ciaran. Phelan, John Paul. Coffey, Paudie. Prendergast, Phil. Coghlan, Paul. Quinn, Feargal. Cummins, Maurice. Ross, Shane. Fitzgerald, Frances. Twomey, Liam. Healy Eames, Fidelma. White, Alex. McCarthy, Michael.

Níl

Boyle, Dan. Feeney, Geraldine. Brady, Martin. Glynn, Camillus. Butler, Larry. Hanafin, John. Callely, Ivor. Leyden, Terry. Carroll, James. MacSharry, Marc. Carty, John. McDonald, Lisa. Cassidy, Donie. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Corrigan, Maria. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Daly, Mark. O’Brien, Francis. de Búrca, Déirdre. O’Donovan, Denis. Ellis, John. O’Malley, Fiona. 549 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

Níl—continued

O’Sullivan, Ned. Walsh, Jim. Ormonde, Ann. White, Mary M. Phelan, Kieran. Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Maurice Cummins and Fidelma Healy Eames; Níl, Diarmuid Wilson and Camillus Glynn.

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator McCarthy has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, that statements on the flooding be substituted for No. 2. Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Alex White: It is not being pressed on the basis of a discussion I have had with the Leader that there will be statements on the flooding between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., with the Labour Party leading off, spokespersons having ten minutes and all other Members having eight minutes——

An Cathaoirleach: We do not want the detail. The Senators have agreed and the amendment is not being pressed.

Senator Alex White: We have agreed, but I always wanted to say: all other Members will have eight minutes, that they may share time with the agreement of the House——

An Cathaoirleach: It is not relevant. The amendment is not being pressed.

Senator Alex White: ——and that the Minister will be called upon to reply 15 minutes before the end of the debate. The amendment is not being pressed.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: On a point of information, will the Leader clarify——

An Cathaoirleach: No.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: This is important.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should speak to the Leader afterwards.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: On a point of order, the Leader has amended the Order of Business for today and I am seeking clarification from him.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should speak to him afterwards.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: This is a matter of importance to the people I represent and the people in general. I ask the Leader to explain to the House the exact format from 1.30 p.m.——

An Cathaoirleach: Two hours.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Sorry, a Chathaoirligh;I am not being political.

An Cathaoirleach: Please, Senator, look at the time.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: This is a matter of extreme importance. On a point of order, I am seeking clarification about the Order of Business between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. 550 Order of 25 November 2009. Business

An Cathaoirleach: There has been a discussion with the leaders of the groups who know exactly what will happen.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: This is the forum in which to discuss it.

Senator John Paul Phelan: What is the Order of Business?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: What is the Order of Business between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.?

An Cathaoirleach: It was agreed.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: The Leader is prepared to answer.

Senator Donie Cassidy: We are discussing what will happen between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.——

An Cathaoirleach: Sorry, there was an important delegation from Northern Ireland present which I wished to welcome to the House and it has now left simply because Members were interrupting.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: On a point of order, what I am raising on behalf of the people of Cork is important——

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: ——and I will not take that remark, a Chathaoirligh. You are being unfair to me.

An Cathaoirleach: Was Senator Buttimer listening to the Leader?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I did not understand his remark. I asked him to reply.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader has replied to the Order of Business.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He was unclear in what he was saying.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: In fairness, there has been a change.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: A Chathaoirligh, I resent the remark you made. I take my job seriously and contribute. I did not understand the Leader’s remarks.

An Cathaoirleach: I may be forced to adjourn the House. I also take my job seriously. Statements were ordered for between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am seeking clarification.

An Cathaoirleach: Surely, the Senator does not need clarification in that regard.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Will the Leader explain the format between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m.?

An Cathaoirleach: He did. He has outlined it clearly. I ask the Senator to look at the record.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I will.

Order of Business agreed to. 551 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 7.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 19:

In page 12, lines 12 and 13, to delete “a vote of not less than two-thirds” and substitute “a majority”. (Senator Paudie Coffey). An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Before recommencing I welcome the new Member, Senator James Carroll, to the House. I congratulate him and wish him the best of luck. When the debate was adjourned, we were discussing Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 25, 26 and 46. I call Senator Coffey.

Senator Paudie Coffey: This amendment is about trying to retain the existing system within local authorities whereby a simple majority of the council can make material amendments, or whatever is required to make those amendments, to a development plan. Requiring two thirds of the members of a council to make these amendments could cause difficulty in trying to get development plans passed. That is our fundamental difficulty with the legislation as drafted. We feel it gives an unfair advantage to the minority within councils. There is a danger that a rump could form within a council and exclude good amendments that would have the support of the majority. That is our simple and fundamental view. In his speech on Second Stage, the Minister said this Bill was about empowering local authorities and enhancing the powers of their members. As drafted, however, the legislation diminishes the power of elected representatives, be they from villages, towns or cities. In most council votes, a simple majority is required to elect a cathaoirleach or mayor. It is recognised as being the required majority of those particular councils, so that is the reason we have tabled these amendments. Last week, some speakers on the Government side expressed concerns about the legislation as it is drafted. Before Report Stage, the Minister of State and his officials should consider deleting the two thirds requirement to pass material amendments to development plans.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): As regards amendments Nos. 19, 20, 25, 26 and 46, I acknowledge that differing views have been expressed. They may have arisen from a lack of clarity on the proposal of these amendments to increase the voting threshold in the case of material amendments to the draft development plan. First of all, I take the opportunity to clarify the intent of my Department in regard to these amendments. The proposed legislative amendment to introduce the two thirds majority was intended to ensure that any further changes proposed by members to those amendments to the draft plan, that had been the subject of public consultation — i.e. the second consultation period — were subject to a higher approval threshold because such changes would not be subject to any further scrutiny. It was always intended that a simple majority vote by members would be required, as is currently the case, in respect of approving a draft development plan; a draft variation for the initial public consultation; proposing and approving amendments to the draft plan, which would then be issued for a further public consultation phase, as the amended development plan — i.e. there would be no second consultation phase concerning a variation or a draft local area plan; and approving by resolution to make a development plan and variations. The amendments were proposed in order that approval of any further changes would require the higher threshold of a two thirds majority. From the reaction I have received, it would seem the legislation is perhaps not sufficiently clear in this regard. Therefore I propose to revert to 552 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) the parliamentary counsel for further legal advice with a view to bringing forward some technical amendments to address the matter. We will find another opportunity on which to do that. That is my position. I have asked the parliamentary counsel to clarify this particular area.

Senator Alex White: The Minister of State’s comments are very useful and I will therefore be withdrawing my two amendments to allow him to come back to the House on this matter. It may be, however, that this is not purely a technical issue, as the Minister of State stated. In fact, there is an issue of principle as regards the voting requirement at that particular stage of a development plan. Given the circumstances, I will reserve my position on the issue until Report Stage, as I do not accept that it is purely a technical drafting issue. There is an issue of principle involved. In deference to what the Minister of State has said, however, I will be withdrawing my amendments and will revisit the matter on Report Stage.

Deputy Michael Finneran: On a point of clarification, I said I would bring forward some technical amendments. I am not saying it is a technical issue.

Senator Alex White: I understand that.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I thank the Minister of State for his response. I understand that he will bring forward technical amendments, but I am not sure that will change the fundamental difficulty that my party has with the issue. We are prepared, however, to await whatever technical amendments the Minister of State will bring forward. We reserve the right to table amendments on Report Stage. The Minister of State made some interesting comments on the clarification, understanding and interpretation of the Bill. That is a general problem that we have with this legislation. There is a profusion of Planning and Development Acts because of the failure by the Government to consolidate the legislation. If we have difficulties in interpreting and understanding the legislation in this House, what will the reality be for local authorities and applicants? It might transpire that court cases will refer to this legislation also. The Planning and Development Act 2000 was substantially amended in 2006. We now have another substantially amended Bill before us. The absence of any consolidated text makes the legislation confusing and difficult to follow. It concerns us that it will be a source of significant income for lawyers because of the lack of clarity in the legislation. The Minister of State has hit the nail on the head in saying it is a serious concern. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, while reserving the right to resubmit it on Report Stage in light of what the Minister of State has said.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I thank the Minister of State for acknowledging that Members have a difficulty with this section on which clarification is needed. His comments have been helpful. I will wait to see what emanates from the entity into whose hands he has placed this matter. It is important for locally elected members to retain their powers. They are afraid of losing those powers, as we are also on their behalf.

Senator Mark Daly: I also welcome the comments by the Minister of State. I agree with my colleague Senator Glynn about locally elected members retaining their powers. The provision whereby a majority of two thirds would be required even for a minor amendment to a draft development plan is serious, as my colleagues on the Opposition side have pointed out. Con- tained within the section is a reference to the regional planning authorities, which are to be given more power in this Bill, including policing power. The authorities are to propose special strategies but the special strategy is now under review. It is a case of giving power to the regional authorities before knowing the exact policing powers they will have. This is putting the cart before the House. The Minister of State should consider this. 553 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Mark Daly.]

There are powers vested in the regional authorities at present. However, in a recent High Court challenge it was clarified that they could make guidelines but that the guidelines are for consideration only and can be ignored by the local authority, councillors and county manager if there is sufficient reason for doing so. There is often sufficient reason. Who knows better how to plan and develop a county than those democratically elected to do so? Reference was made to there being too many quangos. The regional authorities are another form of quango. This issue was raised with me by Councillor P. J. Kelly and I will pass the information on to the Minister of State for his consideration.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That has nothing to do with the amendments; it has more to do with the section.

Senator Mark Daly: It concerns the regional authorities.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator may discuss that when discussing the section.

Senator Mark Daly: I will pass the documentation to the Minister of State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 21 and 27 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Government amendment No. 21: In page 12, to delete lines 18 to 28 and substitute the following: “(d) A further modification to the amendment— (i) may be made where it is minor in nature, (ii) shall not be made where it refers to— (I) an increase in the area of land zoned for any purpose, or (II) an addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures.”,”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Amendments Nos. 21 and 27 propose to delete the obligation to publish notice of any further minor modifications to proposed material amendments and any further minor modifications to proposed variations, as long as they are minor in nature and would not warrant further consultation.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 22: In page 12, lines 30 to 33, to delete paragraph (g) and substitute the following: “(g) by the substitution of the following for subsection (14): “(14) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, where a planning authority fails to make a development plan within a period referred to in paragraph (b), the manager shall make the plan provided that so much of the plan as had been agreed by the members of the planning authority shall be included as part of the plan as made by the manager. 554 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

(b) The period referred to in paragraph (a)is— (i) not more than 2 years from the giving of notice under section 11(1), or (ii) where subsection (7)(aa) (inserted by section 7 of the Act of 2009) applies— (I) not more than 2 years and 4 months, or (II) if appropriate in the circumstances, such longer period than 2 years and 4 months as is specified under subsection (7)(ab) (inserted by section 7 of the Act of 2009) by the manager as being required to facilitate an assessment referred to in subsection (7)(aa).”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: “That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Maurice Cummins: Clarity is sought on regional authorities and on regional plans. Senator Daly is right that we are putting the cart before the horse regarding regional authorities. Who puts in place the regional draft plans for regional authorities? Is it the county managers or the regional manager? It seems county plans are just fed into the regional plan and that this is how the latter is thought out. There is insufficient thought put into section 7 of the Bill. Regional authorities do not know what their responsibilities are under the legislation. They are being given significant additional responsibilities under the legislation which the local authorities will have to feed into. There is confusion in section 7 over the production of draft plans, for regional authorities in particular. Perhaps the Minister of State will expand on what he envisages will occur with regard to the expanded role of regional authorities where planning is concerned. Local authorities are being told they must refer to the spatial strategy and regional plans. Who has an input into the regional plans? Is it just the county managers or is there a draft regional plan put on display which everybody in the region can examine and on which one can make observations? The system proposed is different from the one in operation. We need to know the changes and what they will mean for local councillors and local authorities. How can the observations of the public be processed? We are giving many additional powers to regional authorities and they need to be explained further to everybody concerned.

Senator Mark Daly: I want to follow on from what I stated earlier. I agree with my colleague in respect of moving powers from the local base to regional authorities. The latter are only reviewing and refreshing their own guidelines at present. We do not know what powers we will be transferring up the line from councillors to the regional authorities. We do not know what process will be in place for people to view new guidelines or plans. At present, guidelines can be observed where appropriate or set aside where there is significant reason for doing so. We are now putting in place a system whereby the regional authorities will basically have a policing role. They will be judge and jury and will be able to rule whether development plans and actions by county councils are appropriate. They will be able to overrule the county councils. All public representatives are concerned that power will be moved from them to regional authorities, which will have elected members but also public servants adjudicating on their role.

Senator Larry Butler: I am worried about this also. The county council is sacrosanct in terms of how it develops the county without interference from a regional authority. The role of the latter should be to standardise practices in the region. That is fine but I am quite worried about how a regional authority will be able to affect a local county council and its development plan 555 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Larry Butler.] for the county. All regional authorities have representation from the county councils but we know the real decisions are made by county managers, who are involved in the regional authorities. I know this because I was a member of a regional authority and know how it works. It is for this reason that I have concerns.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I am something of a believer in the old adage, “If it is not broken, don’t fix it.” While we are talking primarily about county councils and county borough councils, I have concerns about any dilution of the powers of county councils, borough councils and town councils. They have worked well and we should be augmenting them in such a way that they will have additional powers that would allow them discharge their duties in a better way. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this matter to ensure power remains with all relevant local authorities. Local government, by its very nature, is such that people who are locally elected are best placed to determine what is best for their local communities. “Local” is the operative word. When one operates on a regional basis, the concept of the local gets lost. I urge caution.

Senator Paddy Burke: I support what Senator Cummins said on regional authorities. Other Senators agree on the importance of determining how regional authorities will work in conjunction with local authorities. We saw recently that regional authorities play a bigger role than we give them credit for in terms of the adoption of county development plans. One could say the regional authority plan is sacrosanct when it comes to local authority members adopting their plans. It is interesting how all of this pans out locally. When a regional plan comes before a local authority or the county manager says that the regional authority has agreed it, then the local authority members have to take the regional authorities’ ideas and plans on board and incorporate them into their plan. Senator Cummins made an important point when he inquired where the regional authority plan originates. Is it with the regional authority manager? Do we have regional authority planners? Is it with the county managers from within the region who put their proposals together? Do the planning officers within each local authority meet and formulate the plans? Do the plans come from the Minister’s office or central government to the regions based on decisions taken, for example, by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Transport, which state what they require in the regional plans? Do the regional authorities’ rubber-stamp those plans without going into them in any great depth or consideration of the consequences of the adoption of the various development plans? I agree with the point made by Senators Cummins and Butler that the county development plan should be the real plan. Before regional authorities were put in place we saw that adjoining local authorities worked well together. I would like to know the strategy for major schemes such as waste water. For example, the Dublin waste water treatment unit goes through a number of local authorities. Does the plan for such a project come from central government or the local authorities within a region? I presume the plans for national primary routes and national secondary routes come from the National Roads Authority rather than from a regional authority. Perhaps the National Roads Authority issues guidelines to regional authorities and those plans are put into county development plans as well. Senator Cummins raises a very important point on how regional development plans originate and who has the input into them. Ultimately, local authority members’ rubber-stamp them and when the plans go to county councils the councillors automatically include the regional plans, in many cases without considering the consequences of that. We need to debate carefully how the regional plans work out on the ground. 556 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: We are debating an important section which deserves time and consideration. What we are dealing with is a proposal to change essentially and fundamentally how county and city development plans are formed. Senators on the Government side are also concerned with this section and how it is elevating the role of regional authorities in the making of development plans. The Bill gives primacy to regional authorities in the making of development plans. All city and county development plans will be required to comply with whatever is contained within a regional development plan. We need to think through the matter fully before we take that step. I sat on a regional authority. Senators previously referred to an issue about which I am concerned, namely, that regional authorities do not have the expertise in terms of full-time permanent staff to deal with planning issues. Currently, planning staff are seconded either from the Department or local authorities to draw up regional plans. The regional authority structure is underdeveloped. I was chairman of a regional authority and I am aware of the commitment of staff who go beyond the call of duty to try to make regional authorities relevant. Unfortu- nately, they are not given the resources or the teeth to do what is required of them by the Department. The Bill proposes a serious escalation in their obligations and requirements, yet no detail is provided on how the planning departments, which do not currently exist, are to be staffed and resourced. Neither is information provided on how the public will engage with the formulation of regional plans, which is the most fundamental right of any individual or community. In essence, what we are doing is removing the making of development plans one step away from the public. What the Minister of State is trying to do is micromanage local authorities from a regional perspective. I acknowledge that there is a role for regional co-ordination. It is important that there is a regional strategy on how regions develop. However, not every local authority in every county and city within a region is the same. As I said previously, one size does not fit all. Every county has its unique attributes and strengths and it also has weaknesses. Why are we trying to make every county and city uniformly the same when in essence they are not? That is the effect the Bill will have. It will take power from counties and cities and funnel them back up through the regional structure to make them all look the same. That is not a good thing. Senators need to contemplate the issue seriously. I urge the Minister of State to review this section with a view to providing more detail on how he proposes regional authorities will cope with the extra important obligation. Section 7 gives primacy for the formulation of development plans to regional authorities rather than local authorities. It is formulating plans from the top down rather than the bottom up. That is diminishing local democracy vis-a`-vis elected members and the ability of the public to engage in terms of easy access to the making of development plans. If a survey was carried out in the morning I am not sure how many members of the public would even know that a regional authority exists, but in spite of that we intend to give it primacy in the making of development plans. There is a serious job to be done. I urge caution on all sides. We should think the issue through seriously before we try to implement it in law.

Deputy Michael Finneran: A national strategy is required for the country. We have a national spatial strategy. It is appropriate to put in place regional planning guidelines. We should remember that they are only guidelines. The Bill does not change in any way the powers of local authorities. The central point is to achieve consistency between national and regional guidelines and what is adopted in the plan. It is a straightforward and streamlined approach to what is necessary in planning. It is important to remember that the members of regional authorities are members of local authorities. The guidelines that are agreed at regional level are put forward by local 557 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Finneran.] authority members and the manager and his or her executive. The local authority then decides on its development plan. This Bill does not take away the entitlement or the right of a local authority to bring in its country development plan.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I appreciate the Minister of State’s response but we have serious concerns. We are not saying the power is being taken away, rather that the primacy is being taken away. More authority through law is being given to regional authority development plans and there is now an insistence through law that local city and county development plans comply with regional guidelines. The concern is that it is becoming stricter and more managed from the top down. The Minister of State mentioned the members of regional authorities. I accept they are councillors representing each individual local authority but if we are giving this power to regional authorities, which is what we are doing in that we are giving them power but we have not seen how they will deal with the resources, perhaps we should consider having directly elected members to regional authorities where they are fully accountable to the entire region if they are making decisions that will affect all the constituents of that region. It is an issue we must consider because what they are, in essence, are delegations from local authorities. They are coming to the regional table with the views of the particular constituency, county or city they represent. In this legislation, however, they are being required to have a broader view, which is fair enough. Those of us on this side of the House accept the need for regional and national guidelines and national strategies but we have a problem with the accountability and the fundamental change to the democratic making of development plans. If councillors who sit on regional authorities are more accountable to the entire region, perhaps we should consider having a process of directly elected members but we believe this has not been thought through. The Minister of State is using the structures of regional authorities that until now have been toothless and under-resourced to carry the vehicle that will micromanage development plans from a national and regional perspective. That is the way it appears to those of us on this side of the House and unless we hear more detail on the way it will be fleshed out and resourced, we will continue to have concerns and this is the place to express those concerns. I urge caution across all sides of this House in that we are fundamentally changing the way local, county and city development plans are being made and that will have implications locally.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I agree with my colleague, Senator Coffey, in this regard. The Minister of State is correct that we must have a national spatial strategy. We must have regional guidelines which come from the top but it is the make-up of the regional development plans specifically we are speaking about rather than the guidelines in terms of who organises them, puts them into place and operates them. As has been stated, regional authorities do not have the resources where planning is concerned. I want to refer to the actual plans rather than guidelines, the make-up of those and the power of regional development plans now which I understand will have greater strength where planning is concerned than they had previously. The goalposts have changed. We will not be in the same position we were in previously if this Bill is passed. This legislation will give greater control to regional authorities in terms of the input into their plans in particular and regional authorities having to refer to the regional plans. It is another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that is being put into the planning system.

Senator Larry Butler: The Minister of State is correct. He is not taking any power away from local authorities. When the draft development plan is done by the local authorities and the authorities consider what the regional authorities are doing, the most important aspect, and there has been no mention of it in the legislation, is the local area plan, which is a bigger and 558 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) more important plan. Each local area in the Dublin region has its own plan. That is not so much the case in the country but in the Dublin region each local area has its own plan. For example, the Cherrywood local area plan has been on hold for three, four or five years because there was no proper infrastructure in place such as the Luas in the Cherrywood area. The Luas has now gone in and the local area plan can be completed for that area. There is a science and technology park in that area as well. When we take into consideration the draft development plan, the local area plan and the regional plan, it is important we do it in that way because it is the local people who will decide. For example, there will be 25,000 people living in Cherrywood. We cannot willy-nilly have a draft development plan and say there will be development in a particular area. It must be thought out. The infrastructure must be put in place and the jobs created. It must be sustainable. These are the relevant issues. I agree with the Minister of State in terms of what he is trying to do. He is trying to tie those three aspects together. That is welcome but I caution the Minister of State against giving the regional authorities too much power because it will affect the local county. That is the problem. The Minister of State should be careful about that aspect of it.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I agree with Senator Butler. We have the county development plan, the integrated area plans, IAPs, and the town plans and there must be co-ordination among those but too often those of us who are in public life a long time, and I am in public life 30 years, have seen development take place in the absence of appropriate infrastructure. I am not necessarily talking about water and sewerage, which is important, but in the absence of schools and amenity services, all of which are important. There is a great deal of merit in what the Members said earlier. They are sounding a word of caution about protecting the powers of the local authorities but, equally, we must acknowledge the Minister of State’s remarks that we will have to have an approach above and beyond that, which is more or less what Senator Butler said. We must be able to tie in all of them, and that is something that will require a great deal of debate. I am jealous of the powers of local authorities — the county council, the county borough and the town council. They are important units of local government and there is no better person to determine what is best for an area than the person elected to represent that area because they are suitably educated, if I may use that word, and informed by their local electorate.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I welcome the discussion, which has been positive, but it is important that I clarify a number of matters raised. The staffing and resourcing of regional authorities is negotiated between the directors in the regional authorities and the individual county managers on the councils. That is the process, and I am confident that process will continue. On the matter of regional authorities and their plans, the simple fact is that they do not have plans. There is not a regional authority plan. There are regional authority guidelines for county councils to take into consideration in developing their plans in the same way as there is a national spatial strategy. Senator Butler put his finger on it. It is a process of having a national spatial strategy. We have regional planning guidelines. This legislation does not in any way take away the powers of a local authority to do its plans. I am not giving extra powers to the regional authorities. Senator Coffey asked if they should be directly elected but that is a matter to be considered in the White Paper or legislation at another time. It will be dealt with next year and people can make an input then. I am not giving extra authority to regional authorities in this legislation. I am not taking away the authority of local authorities over their plans but 559 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Finneran.] it is sensible that we observe what is necessary in an overall context for an area. All of us in public life want to take the common good into consideration in development plans. The authority of local authority members remains.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I thank the Minister of State for trying to clarify the matter but I disagree fundamentally with his claim that he is not taking power from local authorities or materially affecting regional authorities. If that is the case, why are there sections in the Bill that apply to regional authorities? Why are we changing the law such that it will require local authorities to comply with regional authority guidelines? That is a fundamental change and to say otherwise is wrong. We agree that there are regional planning guidelines and it is important that we have them in co-ordinating strategies in local authorities. However, to say the Bill does not change anything is wrong because it obliges local authorities by law to comply with regional planning guidelines, something they have not had to do heretofore. They have had to take account of and refer to them but they have not had by law to comply with them. That is a fundamental change to the way development plans are made. We agree that there should be a national spatial strategy but who makes that strategy? What democratic consultation has there been on it? When will it be sent for public consultation, seeking submissions from the public, as happens in the case of a development plan? The national spatial strategy does not have the approval of the Oireachtas. It has the 1o’clock approval of the Minister and the Government. That could change at any time but we are obliging all local authorities to comply with the views of the Minister, the strategy and the regional authority guidelines. That is the problem; we have a top-down approach that fundamentally changes the way development plans are drawn up. I am trying to be fair and voice the concerns of those who are concerned that the fundamental mechanisms proposed in the Bill for making development plans are to be changed dramatically. There is no point in pretending otherwise.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I am not changing the powers of regional authorities. There is no provision in the Bill to do this. Local development plans must take into consideration regional planning guidelines. As for the national spatial strategy, there was extensive national consultation. Even small areas had an input into it. It was a very long process. I do not know if there is a single stake- holder in the country who did not have an input.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 14.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. Hanafin, John. Boyle, Dan. Leyden, Terry. Brady, Martin. MacSharry, Marc. Butler, Larry. McCarthy, Michael. Callely, Ivor. McDonald, Lisa. Carroll, James. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Carty, John. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Cassidy, Donie. O’Donovan, Denis. Corrigan, Maria. O’Sullivan, Ned. Daly, Mark. Ormonde, Ann. de Búrca, Déirdre. Phelan, Kieran. Ellis, John. Prendergast, Phil. Feeney, Geraldine. Quinn, Feargal. Glynn, Camillus. Ross, Shane. 560 Business 25 November 2009. of Seanad

Walsh, Jim. Wilson, Diarmuid. White, Alex. White, Mary M.

Níl

Bradford, Paul. Fitzgerald, Frances. Burke, Paddy. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Norris, David. Buttimer, Jerry. O’Reilly, Joe. Cannon, Ciaran. O’Toole, Joe. Coffey, Paudie. Phelan, John Paul. Coghlan, Paul. Twomey, Liam. Cummins, Maurice.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins.

Question declared carried.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Business of Seanad. Senator Donie Cassidy: As I indicated earlier, I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, namely, that statements on the recent floods should commence at 1.30 p.m. and adjourn at 2.30 p.m., resume at 5 p.m. and conclude not later than 7 p.m. Spokespersons may speak for ten minutes and all other Senators for eight. Senators may also share time by agreement of the House. The Minister will be called upon 15 minutes before the close of statements to make concluding comments. It is also intended that the Minister will address the House at the start of statements at 1.30 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator David Norris: What is the position on Private Members’ time?

Senator Donie Cassidy: This is Private Members’ time that has been allocated generously to the House by the Labour Party.

Senator David Norris: Has the Labour Party conceded its time?

Senator Donie Cassidy: On a point of clarification——

An Cathaoirleach: Members, please.

Senator Donie Cassidy: —— because of the present plight of the people of Ireland, the Labour Party has conceded it’s Private Members’ time for this week. While I have allocated next week’s time to the Labour Party, in the event that the flooding has not receded, I will call on it again next Wednesday to allow Members to make the case for their particular localities with the Minister present. As I already have indicated, Members will have an up-to-date situation report every day in this House on the present plight of the people regarding flooding.

Senator David Norris: That is quite different to what the Leader said previously.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I assume the Government will make time available as necessary.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The position is changing by the hour. 561 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

An Cathaoirleach: Members, please.

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 8. An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I call for silence please. Government amendment No. 23:

In page 13, paragraph (c), to delete lines 18 to 32 and substitute the following:

“(c) by the insertion of the following paragraph after subsection (5)(a):

“(aa) Following consideration of the proposed variation and the report of the manager under paragraph (a) where a planning authority, after considering a submission of, or observation or recommendation from the Minister made to the authority under this section or from a regional authority made to the authority under section 27C, decides not to comply with any recommendation made in the proposed variation and report, it shall so inform the Minister or regional authority, as the case may be, as soon as practi- cable by notice in writing which notice shall contain reasons for the decision.”,”.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): Amendment No. 23 simply provides for a technical Committee Stage amendment to correct the reference to “draft plan” to refer properly to “proposed variation”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, not moved.

Government amendment No. 27: In page 14, to delete lines 7 to 16 and substitute the following: “(d) a further modification to the variation— (i) may be made where it is minor in nature, (ii) shall not be made where it refers to— (I) an increase in the area of land zoned for any purpose, or (II) an addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 28: In page 15, line 10, to delete “last made a local area plan” and substitute “last made that local area plan”. 562 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 10 provides that the mandatory population threshold for preparing local area plans will be raised from 2,000 to 5,000 persons. The preparation of a local area plan is resource intensive and involves consultation with both elected members and the public. The discretionary threshold for the preparation of a local area plan will be when the population is between 2,000 and 5,000 and where the relevant area is to be subject to a large- scale development within the lifetime of the plan. To ensure that local area plans are comprehensively linked with the city and county development plans, which are reviewed every six years, the lifespan of a local area plan will be increased to ten years. However, when a local area plan no longer is consistent with the city and county development plan because the latter has been reviewed and varied, there is a requirement to vary the local area plan within one year. Provision also has been made for the phasing of development within a local area plan as provided for within the development plan, particularly given that zoning objectives are provided in a local area plan on foot of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002. Amendment No. 28 proposes to provide clarification in the reference to a local area plan by substituting “that local area plan” to avoid the risk that it could be interpreted as any local area plan. Amendment No. 29 proposes to insert the word “and”, which will provide a link to the next proposed Committee Stage amendment to be debated. It also inserts a new subsection (5), which proposes “there shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan”. This arises from section 8 of the 2002 Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, which provided for zoning in a local area plan by the incorporation of zoning provisions in section 19(2)(a) of the principal Act, which heretofore was only possible in a development plan. Consequently, this led to a greater level of zoning in local area plans by local authorities. It now is considered appropriate that the development plan provisions for down-zoning or unzoning land, namely, section 10 of the Act, must equally be applied to local area plans, that is, the provisions must be replicated within the local area plan provisions of the Act.

Senator Alex White: I have a couple of questions for the Minister of State in this regard. I seek clarity in respect of amendment No. 28. While I understood what the Minister of State said, I am not sure it makes complete sense. It is proposed that the planning authorities will send a notice under the relevant section of a proposal to make, amend or revoke a local area plan and will publish that notice under the relevant section within a period not exceeding ten years from the date on which the authority “last made that local area plan”, as distinct from the original provision to so do ten years from the date on which the authority “last made a local area plan”. While I may be missing something, what if it is the first such local area plan? If it is the first such local area plan, the time limit of ten years from the date on which the authority last made that local area plan will not apply, because there never has been a previous local area plan. Although I acknowledge I may be missing something, I wish to understand this point. The second issue pertains to amendment No. 29, with which I have no difficulty on the face of it. I presume the Minister of State has received advice to the effect that this proposed provision in the Act will be sound from a legal perspective. Perhaps the Minister of State will remind Members of the endurance of zoning in general and how long such decisions endure. Is a distinction now to be drawn between the duration of zonings within local area plans and more general zonings? I recognise the sense of what is being proposed. If there has been a proliferation of local area plans, one should have some view as to how long zonings made within a local area plan will endure. However, I wonder whether this opens a new area whereby some zonings last longer than others. I am curious in this regard.

563 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: This section provides that the mandatory population threshold for preparing local area plans will be raised from 2,000 to 5,000 persons, after which it will be discretionary. Fine Gael also has an issue with this provision because the language employed in this section is similar to that being used by planners and managers in local authorities to justify, as previously discussed, the new trend of moving away from statutory local area plans in favour of non-statutory master plans such as urban framework plans. This move away from statutory plans gives planners and managers more control and lessens the involvement of the public and the local elected representatives. Although I am unsure whether I can speak on this subject later, I refer to the proposal to increase the lifespan of local area plans from six years to ten years. This should be reviewed because the lifespan of local area plans should run concurrently with development plans. A ten-year time frame for a local area plan may seem excessive and would not allow for a quick response to changes in population or development contexts. It may be inappropriate for a local area plan to be in force for longer than a development plan. It projects how a local area plan should develop over a much longer period than a development plan and may not be responsive enough to trends within that area. We are concerned about that issue.

Deputy Michael Finneran: In response to Senator Alex White on amendment No. 28 , this is included on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel who says it is important to identify that plan so that it cannot be interpreted as any local area plan and that we must insert that into the legislation. In response to Senator Coffey, this raises the mandatory area for which there must be a plan but it in no way excludes the local authority from having an area plan for a smaller population. Under section 18 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 a planning authority may at any time and for any area within its fundamental area prepare a local area plan in respect of that area and there is no change in that provision. It was at 2,000 but we think it is important to raise the level for the mandatory regulation to 5,000.

Senator Alex White: I do not intend any disrespect to the Minister of State or anyone else but the answer that something is there because one has been advised to put it in is not an answer. I presume it is there on advice. I do not doubt that the Parliamentary Counsel advised it. My question is why is it there? We should get a clearer response, with all due respect. The basic proposition is that it is a requirement that a notice be sent in certain circumstances. If there has been no previous local area plan and if we accept the Minister of State’s amendment, there is no requirement to send a notice because it will not apply. I may be missing something here. Perhaps this is very simple. It refers to a notice being issued within a period not exceeding ten years from the date on which the authority last made that plan. Perhaps I am stupid but I want to clarify whether the notice requirements will apply at all if there has never been a local area plan. The Minister of State did not address the issue I raised under amendment No. 29.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I acknowledge the Minister of State’s remarks that this measure and this section do not exclude the development of local area plans but they remove the statutory requirement on local authorities to develop local area plans for towns with a population of 2,000 and more. In essence it is left to the discretion of senior planners and managers within a local authority area whether a local authority plan is developed because there is no longer a statutory requirement. The Minister of State might say that a councillor or councillors for a particular area might insist that a local area plan be done, but unless they have the full support of the majority of 564 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) the council, that may not happen. There is an element of discretion here that did not exist heretofore. The potential effect of this is that the development of towns of the size or order of 2,000 or more may be left behind in the hierarchy of development within a county or local authority jurisdiction. It may depend on how the officials or executive of that council view that town or village or what priority they give that place in the hierarchy of development needs within that county. That is not good enough. It moves away from the fundamental principle of making local area and development plans which is the accountability of the locally elected member with the assistance of the executive. This section and the entire Bill give primacy to the planner and while it gives the elected members and the public opportunities only to make submissions and observations, there is no statutory requirement to make the plan. That is a move away from strengthening local democracy and how towns, villages and communities develop. It is an attempt to manage from the top down.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I have visited most local authority areas and know from my contact with local authority members that area plans are being developed for villages with populations from 300 to 1,000. That will not change. We are raising the bar to 5,000 as the mandatory population base for which a plan must be made. I have not heard of any conflict between local authority members and their executive as regards area plans. This has been a working practice in recent years. I have said that local area plans, even for a small village, are helpful, even if there will be no development, as guidelines to communities for tidy towns and so on who see it as a blueprint for their work. I do not see that changing. In response to Senator Alex White, we are changing one word, from “a local area plan” to “that local area plan”. The subsection states:

Notwithstanding section 18(5), a planning authority shall send a notice under section 20(3)(i) of a proposal to make, amend or revoke a local area plan and publish a notice of the proposal under section 20(3)(ii) within a period not exceeding 10 years from the date on which the authority 10 last made a local area plan.

If there is no plan one will not send out a notice. That is my interpretation of this amendment. The Parliamentary Counsel has advised me that it is appropriate to make that minor change so that it is not possible to interpret the section as referring to any plan.

Senator Alex White: I do not wish to prolong this because we are not on the same wavelength on this issue. If we accept the Minister of State’s amendment, the Bill will require a notice requirement only where there was a previous plan. If there was no previous plan then subsection (c) does not apply. That is the effect of the amendment. I am trying to find out what are the notice requirements in circumstances where there is no previous plan. Maybe they are the ones that are set out in section 20 of the principal Act. I do not wish to prolong this discussion but I did not receive a clear answer or at least not one that I understand clearly. Maybe I am the problem. It is no answer to say that it is only one word. There are many words that on their own can make a significant difference to a Bill. I am still wondering what the Minister of State has to say about amendment No. 29 in respect of zonings. I am open to correction but my understanding is that a mainstream zoning decision under a development plan will endure indefinitely. They are in place year to year, development plan to development plan.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again. 565 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements

Business of Seanad. Senator John Ellis: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that the sitting be suspended until 1.40 p.m.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 1.40 p.m.

Flooding: Statements. Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): The House will now hear statements on flooding. I call on the Minister of State at the Department of Finance with special responsibility for the Office of Public Works to make the opening contribution.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I do not have a script and will be speaking on issues beyond the immediate remit of the Office of Public Works. I express my deep sympathy to all those whose lives have been inconvenienced, devastated and disrupted by the flooding, the most intense and extensive I can recall. I managed to visit some of the areas concerned, including counties Clare, Galway and Tipperary, and have seen first hand the damage and trauma caused by the flooding and the magnificent efforts of the emergency services, including local authorities, the Defence Forces, Civil Defence, the Garda Síochana and local volunteers. I pay tribute also to the role played by the media in communication and to public representatives in the affected areas who have been an important point of contact for families and communities in difficulty. I thank the trade union members who did not strike yesterday because they were involved in the rescue operation. The OPW regional headquarters in Limerick and Headford remained open yesterday. Severe weather events are likely to become more frequent, which underlines the importance of establishing a national flood warning system. There are some flood warning systems in place — on the Suir and Blackwater — which measure water levels upstream of places likely to be badly affected, thus ensuring places such as Clonmel, Mallow and Fermoy are given several hours notice of flooding and time to erect demountable barriers. In Mallow, where demountable barriers were erected for the first time, the operation worked well. Two websites, a flood hazard maps website, www.floodmaps.ie and www.flooding.ie , provide practical advice on how in particular areas people can contact the authorities, depending on the nature of the problem. We will be carrying out — this was the intention prior to the current floods — a flood risk assessment and management study of the entire country during the next six years. This study has commenced in particular areas. For example, a catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, study of the River Lee will deal with issues arising in regard to the Inishcarra dam. It is generally accepted that water had to be released and the issues that arose related to the controlled release of water. I note that, in so far as is possible, a controlled release of water at the weir in Ardnacrusha is taking place. Pilot studies are also being carried out on the River Dodder, River Suir and in the Fingal- east Meath area. There is now more understanding of the need for planning guidelines if we are to prevent, as far as possible, building on flood plains. There is little doubt that decisions taken in the context of providing housing as part of the process of urbanisation have, perhaps, contributed to the problems we face. I expressed the personal view last night that we needed to become more discriminating. I accept that in some instances they are needed for pollution control purposes but we will need to examine further the issue of the blanket concreting of yards, gardens, drives and so on, which reduces water absorption capacity. I get the impression that some planning authorities do not take seriously the importance of not allowing develop- 566 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements ment on flood plains. This also extends to An Bord Pleanála. There is also a balance to be struck or perhaps struck again between protecting other aspects of the environment, such as fauna, flora and so forth, and clearing streams, drains and waterways. That said, no amount of cleaning of drains and waterways would have prevented the flooding we have experienced over recent days. It is not a panacea and does not make other measures redundant. There are a number of major flood work schemes in progress at present. I mentioned Mallow north, which is complete, and Clonmel west, which unfortunately was not quite complete. While that area was not impacted nearly as badly as previously, there was still some impact. Work on Ennis upper is also substantially complete. A scheme is just beginning in Fermoy but it is too soon for it to have any impact. Work in Carlow is due to start at the beginning of next year and the first phase of Waterford is nearly complete. Studies have been conducted in Templemore and Enniscorthy. There is still an argument about dredging versus walls. The Clonmel scheme was delayed for several years because people did not want dredging for environmental reasons and wanted walls, while in Enniscorthy the objections are to walls and people want dredging. Our policy is to try to get a reasonable degree of agreement. We cannot simply impose a diktat on local communities. Some of the comments made outside this House suggest there should be one dictatorial authority that simply imposes whatever needs to be done. I do not believe we can proceed in that way but everybody concerned will realise the urgency that exists and that we must look again at some of our assumptions. We are also well advanced in planning work for Bray and Arklow. We have spent \190 million on capital projects since 1996 and \100 million in the last five years. We will spend \38 million this year and we will know in a couple of weeks the budget for next year. On the basis of statements made by the Taoiseach and other senior Ministers, I am confident there will be an adequate budget to carry out necessary works. Obviously, this issue is not all about big schemes, although they play a part. Important recommendations will no doubt emerge from the Lee CFRAM study relating to Cork and we will have to examine carefully the situation in Ballinasloe. I expect there will be a flood of applications, if Members will excuse the pun, from local authorities for assistance. In the middle of this year we introduced a minor works scheme and I announced a tranche of projects throughout the country two or three weeks ago. There might be other projects that could be done before the end of this calendar and budget year but there will be a new programme next year. Several Members of the Oireachtas have told me they have been in touch with their county councils about sending in applications. With regard to the assistance announced yesterday, there is an initial scheme, as the Taoiseach described it, of \10 million additional humanitarian assistance to be channelled through the community welfare officer who has discretion under existing schemes. I observed that system at close quarters in Clonmel last January and it can work very well without overly onerous or bureaucratic means tests. There is also a farm relief project. Some farmers have been very badly affected in terms of loss of animals and loss of fodder. A small scheme has been put in place to deal with that. We will see what the level of applications is as the waters recede. There are also issues relating to bank credit. The Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will discuss that matter with representatives of small firms today. There are similar issues with regard to how the insurance industry will deal with matters. There are two situations for the insurance industry. Places that have not been hit for decades by floods, probably most homes and businesses, are insured. However, there are limited parts of towns such as Clonmel which are and for a long time have been passed as uninsurable. That will be examined. There is also the question of whether any EU aid will be available. My understanding is that there must a high threshold of damage before that can come into play. 567 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements

[Deputy Martin Mansergh.] On the other hand, the EU has been anxious to play its part in many other situations by showing solidarity. Exploratory discussions are taking place in Brussels. Repairs to flood defences, roads, bridges and other infrastructure are an essential priority. Depending on the location and the damage, that will be a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heri- tage and Local Government, the local authority or, in certain instances, the Office of Public Works. Critical repairs are being carried out to water supplies in many areas of Cork. It is hoped the waterworks will be back at full production capacity before next Sunday, 29 November, although it might take an additional two to three days to return the distribution system for drinking water to normal. Emergency drinking water and sanitary water will con- 2o’clock tinue to be made available at 55 locations in the city until water supplies are satisfactorily restored. In the Cork area, as in the east Galway and north Clare area, the relevant authorities will have to conduct a hard examination of what has happened to see what can be done to prevent further flooding, certainly on the scale that occurred on this occasion. We must examine where there are gaps in our systems and defences and assess the future threat. Consider what happened in Cockermouth in Cumbria, just below the Scottish border. The town had constructed defences to withstand a one in 100 year flood, which is what we usually do, and they were completely overpowered by 12 inches of rainfall in 24 hours. The schemes we are constructing can be added to at relatively little cost. The greater the height, the less aesthetically pleasing, so we must make judgments as we go along. I have visited some parts of the country and hope to visit others in the next week to ten days, including Athlone, Cork and Carrick-on-Shannon. As an aid, it is important to see and discuss the problems. Our regional engineers on the ground are in constant touch and have provided back-up technical assistance and pumps to local authorities. I pay tribute to all those who have been working hard to mitigate the damage. Touch wood, we can be thankful that no life has been lost so far. Since entering office, I have regarded flood relief and prevention as priorities, which is clear to the public and my colleagues in the Government. We will be able to do what needs to be done, although much cannot be done overnight. In many areas, local initiatives have constructed temporary defences, sometimes with a bit of advice. In some instances, these have mitigated the problem and worked well. I look forward to hearing the views of Senators and assure them the OPW and other Depart- ments and authorities will take their comments into account.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his good work of recent days in travelling to places throughout the country, such as County Galway, to see the devastation that has befallen people in those areas. He has a sense of the despair and despondency there. Perhaps this sense of what has occurred and of the tragedy that has befallen many people has not dawned on some of his colleagues, but he is aware of what has occurred. From speaking to people who met him when he travelled around County Galway, his responses were impressive. These are unprecedented times and we must honestly acknowledge that, irrespective of what provisions were in place, nothing could have handled the climactic havoc wreaked upon the country during the past week. I spoke to neighbours of mine who are in their mid-80s and early 90s and they have never seen anything like this flooding or devastation. They remarked that flooded areas in their localities never flooded previously. The square in Ballinasloe flooded for the first time and flooding threatened the church. 568 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements

It is important to stress that the crisis is far from over. This morning in the Chamber there was a sense that we were examining the aftermath and that we needed to determine how to address such matters in future. As we speak, there are six feet of water in the church in Kiltartan in Gort and a Niagara-type waterfall is flowing across the N18 north of Gort town. The tragedy seems to be moving from one location to another. We must sincerely thank our local authorities for the way in which they have reacted. They have been assisted by the emergency services, the Army and even local radio. I am sure Senator Buttimer and the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, will acknowledge the true value of the contribution made by local radio to helping during this crisis. For example, Galway Bay FM has been giving updates 24 hours a day, sometimes every 15 minutes and every 30 minutes at other times. A member of the public rang me to say that he had telephoned the station with a particular issue and was answered by its chief broadcaster. This is how seriously our local radio station is taking people’s concerns. It is public service broadcasting at its best. The Minister of State mentioned the union members who undertook not to go on strike in affected areas. Members of the public service are often vilified for not having a sense of solidarity with the rest of the country, but I do not share this opinion. That they take their role as public servants seriously was shown. In recent days, it was their role to serve people upon whom such tragedy was visited. I was heartened by something referred to by the Taoiseach during his speech on the “Six One” news yesterday, namely, the sense of community and solidarity. The spirit of the meitheal broke out in urban and rural locations. People dropped whatever they were doing and went to the assistance of people in their areas whose properties were being damaged. People travelled up and down roads with sand bags and farmers offered lifts across floods to schoolchildren. Parents could not reach a school in County Galway to collect their children, so a number of farmers in the area drove their tractors and trailers across the flood to get the children home. This solidarity and sense of community in the face of adversity is heartening. We face two key issues. First, how do we react this minute to the ongoing crisis? Only a few minutes ago, I spoke to a friend in Athlone. Water levels at the Athlone lough on the Shannon are 50 cm above the highest level recorded. Athlone, south County Galway and other parts of the country are still suffering from this terrible climactic tragedy. We must consider how to address people’s needs and concerns over the coming days. Second, we will not be able to prevent such events from recurring but we must examine how to put measures in place that, in the long term, will be able to cope more comprehensively and cohesively with them. This is a once in a century event but, if we are to believe climatologists and others who have spoken in the media in recent days, it will become a once every ten years, 15 years or 20 years event. We must acknowledge the fact that we will face this challenge more often than we used to. Regarding the reaction to the crisis, people’s despair is unprecedented. I have spoken to couples who have worked all their lives to build and furnish their homes to put in place environments in which they can nurture and care for their children. They are returning to their homes. Last night, a woman who was distraught by the sight of what she would need to cope with rang me. Three or four weeks ahead of Christmas, her home had been destroyed. Christmas will be a bleak time for these people. The Minister of State referred to business people who were unable to secure flood insurance because the areas in which they operate flooded previously. At the weekend, a businessman in Clonmel appeared on television and told of how, after claiming on his insurance previously, his premium went from \4,000 per annum to \32,000 per annum. The second premium did not cover flooding because the insurance company refused to insure him against that eventuality. 569 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements

[Senator Ciaran Cannon.]

The Government needs to respond in a more caring and empathetic fashion than it has been doing in recent days. The \10 million was signalled as an initial compensation fund. That such a sum was the most that had been committed early on did not give people the hope they needed. It did not give them the sense of community and solidarity that they should feel with the Government in addressing such a crisis. One businessman rang me on Sunday night and I spoke about him earlier today in the Seanad. He spoke of his feeling of despair and fear, a word he used repeatedly. He had been operating in Gort but had no insurance because his premises had flooded previously. He had had all of his stock, including extra stock for Christmas, destroyed and had no mechanism to access social welfare payments because he was self-employed. He has had to lay-off all of his staff. He stated he was afraid to look into the eyes of his children at the breakfast table in the morning in case they would see the fear and despair in his eyes. He is telling them that everything will be okay but in his heart of hearts he does not believe this. What he needed to hear yesterday evening from the Taoiseach was that he and thousands like him would be supported in their hour of need. For me, initially making a commitment to provide \10 million did not instil confidence. People needed to hear, for example, the commitment the Taoiseach had made in June in addressing the banking crisis when he stated he would write whatever cheque was needed to address that crisis. A similar commitment should have been made by him in the past few days to offer such comprehensive and unlimited support to those who have been so badly affected. Nobody is suggesting we should open up a gravy train onto which everybody could hop, but there are people who need support and compensation and who simply will not be able to access it. They needed to have a sense of hope instilled in them as we approach Christmas but that was not evident. Therefore, I urge the Government, as I did this morning, to indicate that there is something available over and above the \10 million announced. The National Pension Reserve Fund is available. The phrase often used was, “It is money for a rainy day”. For many, that rainy day has arrived. If we could hand out \7 billion earlier in the year to the banking system, although one can argue whether it was necessary to do so, and can have a laudable aspiration to hand over \750 million in overseas development aid, surely \10 million is a paltry sum in comparison. I am also concerned that the new scheme, as unveiled by the Government, does not seem to cover businesses. It seems to cover private households only. We need a more comprehensive, caring and empathetic response from the Government. We need to look at how we should address these problems in the future. For example, I looked this morning for references to flooding on the Dunkellin river which drains most of south Galway and the earliest I could find in Dáil records was in 1972. Therefore, this is not an issue that has crept up on us; it has been evident for almost 40 years. There are many reports gathering dust that need to be dusted down and acted upon. We need an early warning system, co-operation between climatologists and hydrologists in order that situations such as those involving the ESB on the River Shannon and in Cork will not happen again. The fisheries authorities in Galway city, for example, opened the salmon weir completely on 11 November in order that all of the flood waters from the Clare river into the Corrib would disperse normally into the Atlantic Ocean. Somebody was keeping an eye on things; perhaps others were not. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, for his contribution and work over the weekend in touring the country. I hope the Government will respond in the next few days in 570 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements a far more meaningful manner to give people genuine hope and the support necessary in their hour of need.

Senator John Ellis: Like my colleagues, I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, and in so doing acknowledge his actions and those of all the other Ministers involved, including the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, and the Taoiseach, in going to see immediately what the problems were on the ground. It was not a case of going when the floods had subsided. They all are to be complimented. I sympathise with householders, businesses, farmers, travellers in trying to get from A to B and everybody who has been affected by the floods and inconvenienced by what has happened in the past week. I also compliment the emergency services, as I did this morning. I particularly compliment the staff of Leitrim County Council who stayed at work yesterday when they should have been on strike and who prevented the town of Carrick-on-Shannon from becoming a total disaster zone. The same may be said for towns such as Leitrim. The people concerned have shown their commitment to the community and that there will be no backing off when they are needed. We also must compliment the Army personnel who did tremendous work wherever they were called out. On radio this morning Councillor Kevin “Boxer” Moran complimented them on the work they had done in Athlone. The Defence Forces, Civil Defence and other groups have put in a tremendous effort in the past week, especially over the weekend. We now face the problem of what can be done in the aftermath. We must look to the future, as we can do nothing about what happened yesterday or the current floods. There are a number of things that can be done. The Minister of State outlined proposals to provide various defences which would help to alleviate the problem, but there are many actions that could be taken that would have helped to prevent some of the problems we are facing. The ESB controls a number of major rivers and sets the levels it wishes to maintain for generation purposes. Is it right in August and September when it knows what average rainfall will be that it should allow what it sees as surplus water to be dispersed into the ocean? This issue must be looked at. There was a Shannon forum among other fora that discussed such matters, but they never led to action being taken. They discussed and debated the issue, but nobody came to an agreement because what the OPW wanted was not agreeable to the ESB and what Inland Waterways of Ireland wanted was not agreeable also. Then there were, as the Minister of State mentioned, certain vested interests who were responsible for protecting flow- ers, fauna, bird life and other matters. The latter should be protected, but should it be at the expense of John and Mary citizen? We must take the decision and come down in favour of citizens because they have suffered as a result of the floods. If common sense is applied, in most of these cases the matter will be resolved. People who are totally committed beyond reason on one side or the other of the argument are a menace to the cause they promote because they prevent us from going anywhere. I appeal that we go about setting up a body to take responsibility for dealing with flooding problems. I am not a lover of quangos, as I have stated on numerous occasions, but this is a matter on which we need to have co-ordination between local authorities, local interests, whether business or otherwise, the ESB, householders and community representatives. Many in our communities have been pointing to some of these problems for years, but nobody is prepared to take them on because it is not the responsibility of the county council, the ESB or the OPW. There is a need for a new body to be put in place. In addition, when it comes to the winter months the group responsible for the particular river should meet on a weekly basis. There now are excellent weather forecasting capabilities. With the weather forecasts over the weekend we were able to pinpoint the areas that would be affected. 571 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements

[Senator John Ellis.]

The Minister of State mentioned Cockermouth in Cumbria. I spoke to Lord Dubs who lives there at a British-Irish interparliamentary meeting on Monday in Wales. He told me they knew exactly what would happen. They had done whatever they could but they had to put up their hands and state they could not do anymore. The weather forecast should show where the rainfall will be heaviest. It singled out Galway and Cumbria as the areas which would be hardest hit during the week, with counties Cork, Kerry and Limerick. This shows we are now in a position to forecast where there will be serious problems. If the ESB had moved in two weeks ago and allowed the extra reservoir water to escape, there would at least have been that much more capacity for the deluge that came afterwards. The ESB has traditionally used Lough Allen as one of its dams and there is another weir south of Carrick-on-Shannon, which it uses to keep up the volume. Anyone who was around Carrick-on-Shannon two weeks ago knew that it was up to the maximum level and that something needed to be done in case of flooding, such as we have had. We must tackle this matter as a priority. We all saw the Inniscarra dam on television earlier this week, as well as Meelick and the others, but there must be proper co- ordination when dam waters are released. There is less danger of Ireland running out of water to run Ardnacrusha or other hydroelectric stations than anywhere else in the world. We must take on the ESB in this regard. I am not being critical of the ESB, but it must act for the greater good. In September, the ESB allowed the water north of Meelick to rise by three feet, which did untold damage to farmland and the Shannon Callows in County Offaly. There is no need for that, however, because we do not suffer from drought in this country. We must examine what must be done to co-ordinate the flood management plan. I am sure that local authorities are sweating at the moment because they forced people to build houses on low-lying ground, because they would affect the skyline if they were built on higher ground. The net result is that many such houses have been written off. It is terrible to think that this has happened. In some cases, planners have been irresponsible as regards where they forced people to build. In other cases, they have been irresponsible in allowing people to build on flood plains. It might have been attractive for them in some cases because the rates base was being increased and they were getting plenty of rates and development charges. The net result, however, is that the people concerned now own worthless properties. We know they will not get insurance in future, so does it mean they will be forced out of business because they cannot get cover? We will all have to pay for insurance whether or not we claim. We need to examine the possibility of some sort of State insurance scheme to deal with those who cannot obtain cover. Some years ago, the State intervened to ensure young drivers could get insurance cover. A similar intervention will be required now, whereby people could pay into a State policy to cover their potential losses as a result of flooding. The State is providing approximately \12 million as an initial allocation to deal with the flood problems: \10 million for householders and \2 million for farmers. I hope that common sense will prevail when it comes to paying this money to those who need it. I remember the famous fodder vouchers when farmers claimed for feed they had never lost. We do not want to see that happening again, but neither do we want to see a situation develop where people are prevented from getting the necessary funding to survive. The Minister of State has outlined that in future we will have to take an overall view of the entire position. We will not be able to solve every problem in every townland, but we will have to tackle the major difficulties. Let nobody say county councils cannot identify the flash flood points that will arise in future, because they have all come up this week. Another aspect has caused untold environmental damage, although people may not realise it. Many of the soak-holes or soak-pits in drained-off land are now filled with plastic fertiliser 572 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements bags. They are not biodegradable, so they are still causing serious problems in preventing drainage. I know the Minister of State is sympathetic to these proposals. We need to examine the flooding flash-points and how the ESB has reacted in managing the waterways it controls. While there has not been a word of criticism against the OPW, it might well look at returning to some of the small arterial drainage projects, which would help to alleviate flash flooding in some areas. Such work would allow water to escape as quickly as possible. We extend our sympathy to those affected by the floods and hope that we will not get the downpour that is threatened for the coming weekend. In some areas it can take up to a week for the real damage to become apparent, while in others the flooding can disappear within 24 hours. As far as the upper Shannon is concerned, it takes a week before it really starts to hurt, and the same problem applies further down the Shannon.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Cuirim fáilte roimh an tAire Stáit. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, and thank him for the work he is doing. I begin by extending my sympathy and solidarity with the people of Cork, Galway, Clare and elsewhere who have been hit by flooding. No words of mine can adequately express the devastation and loss that people feel as a result of this flooding, whether they are in Grattan Street in Cork city, Bandon or elsewhere. People have been devastated. I want to pay tribute to the many volunteers and public servants who are providing frontline services to those affected. Gardaí, members of the Civil Defence, the Defence Forces, city and county council workers, HSE staff and fire brigade staff have done great work since last Thursday. The Bishop of Cork and Ross, Bishop Colton, issued a pastoral message this morning. He said that many people are rediscovering the value of neighbourliness, friendship and community life at this time. He is right. There is a sense of camaraderie and team spirit among the people of Cork. However, serious questions must be addressed and answers must be forthcoming. I am not apportioning blame to anybody, but it would be remiss of me in my duties as a public representative not to ask whether the ESB gave adequate warning. Did the ESB have the right intention in releasing water from the Inniscarra and Ardnacrusha dams? Is the Inniscarra dam big enough to cope with climate change, or do we need to alter the system? Will the Govern- ment fund city and county council flood protection schemes? In the case of Cork, will it fund the strengthening and enhancing of the city’s quay walls? I am glad the Minister of State has agreed to the need for a national flood alert system, as per the Fine Gael motion in the Dáil yesterday. We need an early warning system because the problem is ongoing. People will need to receive notification of such matters. I have spoken to people in Cork whose homes have been damaged, but compensation is not at the top of their list. They are seeking help, but they want to know why they were not told in advance so that sandbags could be put in place. Why was there no such mechanism? I agree with the Minister of State, as well as Senator Cannon and others, that this is about people.

Acting Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the Senator. He will have five minutes in which to finish his speech at 5 p.m. The order of the House is that we resume Committee Stage of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 now.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I believed we were to continue until 2.40 p.m. given that we adjourned until 1.40 p.m.

Acting Chairman: I am sorry.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: That is fine.

Acting Chairman: The Senator will have a chance to resume at 5 p.m. 573 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I thank the Chair.

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 10.

Debate resumed on Government amendment No. 28: In page 15, line 10, to delete “last made a local area plan” and substitute “last made that local area plan”.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Coghlan): Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are being discussed together. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Finneran. Senator Alex White was in possession. In his absence, I call Senator Coffey.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I will be brief because I have already outlined my views and some of the views of Fine Gael on this amendment. We see no logical reason the statutory threshold for local area plans should be increased from 2,000 to 5,000 people. I still have not heard from the Government side or the Minister of State why this measure is being taken and the benefit associated therewith. It is moving responsibility for the making of local area plans and development plans further from ordinary people and further depriving them of the democratic right to contribute to the making of the plans. Consider the number of towns and villages with populations of less than 2,000, not to mind less than 5,000. There is clearly a move by the Government to establish a hierarchy within the planning process whereby local area plans and county development plans are to be formulated and managed from the top down under guidance. Traditionally, development plans were formulated from the bottom up, albeit with faults. Perhaps we should be focusing on the faults. We should be trying to improve the say of local people in local area plans. The Minister stated there is nothing stopping local authorities from having a local area plan, but the proposal is removing the mandatory obligation on local authorities to have a plan in place for towns with a population of 2,000 or more. We are genuinely concerned that such towns may be neglected in the hierarchy of development that starts with the national spatial strategy and extends down to the regional strategy and then the local area plans. I am interested in hearing the comments of my colleagues on this.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Cuirim fáilte roimh an tAire Stáit. As Senator Coffey rightly stated, we do not understand the rationale behind this section. In the context of where we are going as a society, local area plans have never been more necessary. If we are to talk of creating hierarchies, let us start at the bottom and work up. I am interested in determining where we will go. The local area plan is our Bible for the area in question and, as Senator Coffey stated, it allows for the participation of people. The Minister of State said people are not precluded but they will be. Towns of 5,000 or 10,000 will be able to dominate as a consequence, with a spin-off effect. The Minister of State knows that, in the context of the changes to business, commerce and rural Ireland, local area plans are imperative and have never been more necessary. In this regard one must consider population trends, infrastructural developments by the NRA and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and how Bus Éireann and Irish Rail deal with communities. The local area plan is critical to the creation of sustainable communities. I am disappointed no Member from the Green Party is present. Section 10 goes against the ethos of creating sustainable communities and does not give them a say. Despite the spin, it 574 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) removes local democracy. The objectives of local area plans are important and must be consistent with the objectives of the development plans. I look forward to hearing what the Minister of State has to say. Senator Coffey is correct. We have all come through the local authority system. We are now starting to micro-manage from the top down. Is this a case of the Fianna Fáil Government allowing us to sleepwalk into this Bill?

Senator John Ellis: The Senator’s party is doing it for 20 years.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is he taking away the power from his local authorities and members and keeping them like mushrooms in the dark with no sustainable plan?

Senator John Ellis: The Senator’s party controls them all now anyway.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Perhaps that is why Fianna Fáil is doing this. It knows it has lost control and will not be back for another generation. This is serious. It is a question of representing people and giving them a say in their own area. We are taking power from them and diluting local democracy. The Minister of State should really examine this again.

Senator John Ellis: Senators Buttimer and Coffey are very passionate about this but local councillors are probably the most passionate about it because they are the ones who wanted certain areas rezoned. Some of them were of questionable intent, to put it mildly, in certain areas of the country. This is to be regretted. It is up to local authorities to decide how to implement the planning laws within certain guidelines. Leitrim County Council has designated areas where development is allowed or otherwise, even in the smallest of villages. Up and down the country, major towns have been destroyed absolutely by planning decisions that allowed multiples to set up on the outskirts. There is no life left in the middle of some towns as all the business has been taken from their centres. This is more worrying than anything else in the debate on development plans. While Senator Coffey might see certain merit in what he is advocating, what is probably needed is a strengthening of the powers of local authority members regarding total planning. They should be accountable. I refer to accountability in terms of wrong decisions that are not in the interests of the communities in which councillors live. In many cases decisions are taken by people who do not live in the area, who exempt themselves from certain planning decisions because they know that they have a vested interest, directly or indirectly.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Senator Ellis’s party has a good track record in that regard.

Senator John Ellis: Senator Coffey should consider his own party’s record.

Senator Paudie Coffey: It is on the public record.

Senator John Ellis: If Senator Coffey wants me to comment on that issue I could embarrass certain Members of both House.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Senator Ellis is pontificating about Fine Gael. He should look more closely at Fianna Fáil.

Senator John Ellis: Only for the shoe was hurting them they would not open their mouths. Senator Coffey knows what I am talking about.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Senator Ellis is pontificating. 575 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator John Ellis: It is up to local authority members who are in a position to do so to deal with everything in their own area. They must be vigilant. It does not matter what one sets the limit at, be it two or 2,000, it is up to local authority members and planners to ensure that what is decided is in the best interests of the communities, and not similar to decisions we have discussed where houses were allowed to be built on flood plains. Such decisions were against the environment and the common good.

Senator Alex White: I will not engage in the manner of the previous discussion where, suffice to say, there are many glasshouses with objects bouncing off them. I will not indulge in that approach. I wish to return to the two issues I raised previously. I was not going to return to amendment No. 28 as the Minister of State pointed out that he is only changing one word but for two reasons I will briefly return to it. First, I noticed that section 20 of the principal Act deals with the problem about which I was concerned. The Internet is a good thing. This is precisely the type of debate we hope the wider community could access, not to participate in the debate but to take an interest in it and to provide an opportunity for people to have their views heard. Over lunchtime I was delighted to receive an email from someone who was doing just that. Mr. Gavin Daly was watching our proceedings somewhere in the country and he pointed out that section 20 deals with the issue of a new local area plan and the notices that are required to be sent out in respect of such a plan. I am sorted in that regard. However, I still await clarification on the issue we were discussing before we took a break, namely, the question of zoning made pursuant to a local area plan and the provision that it is proposed to insert whereby, “There shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan”. How does that sit with the generality of the law in respect of zoning? My understanding is that zonings made pursuant to a development plan by a local authority continue in being from year to year or from development plan to development plan. Are we now to have a distinction in respect of the longevity of zoning decisions between local area plan zonings and mainstream zonings?

Senator Paddy Burke: I intended to ask the exact same question as Senator White. Will all areas that have been previously zoned have to be revisited in every plan? I was of the opinion that once a decision was made on a zoning that it would remain in force. Does it mean that when councillors adopted a plan they would have to go through the plan again and reconsider all zonings? On the increase in population from 2,000 to 5,000, Senator Coffey made the point that there is a hierarchy of towns. We discussed that issue on Second Stage and in earlier sections on Committee Stage. Unlike previous Bills, this one contains a reference to a hierarchy of towns. It takes into account the national spatial strategy and gives priority to gateway towns, hub towns and smaller towns and villages. It has been decided to increase the population requirement from 2,000 to 5,000 for areas in which a local area plan can be made. The Minister specifically outlined that development plans must take into account the national spatial strategy and that gateways, hubs and other urban centres must reach a certain level of population before development can take place. That will hinder development in smaller urban centres, as all of the investment will be made in gateway towns and hub towns at the expense of smaller towns. I refer to towns with a population of between 2,000 and 5,000. When the population increases to 5,000 there is an obligation on a local authority to put a plan in place. That will affect large urban areas more than rural counties such as Mayo. I wish to ask the Minister of State about hub towns. In my county, Castlebar and Ballina are hub towns. Claremorris has a population of less than 5,000 and it is equidistant between Castle- bar and Tuam, which is also a hub town. The Minister indicated in the context of the Mayo county development plan that councillors there did not adhere to the national spatial strategy 576 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) on hub towns. The reference was to Castlebar and Ballina and there was no reference to Tuam. I seek clarification on hub towns that are in other local authority areas but that are within striking distance of towns, which under this plan will probably be required to put local area plans in place. In some cases those towns will have a population of approximately 5,000. I am still not happy with how area development plans will be carried out. The Minister of State indicated the Bill will not take any power away from local authority members in terms of designing plans. Senator Ellis said development plans in Leitrim were drawn up for all towns and villages. We did that in my county also. Funding will be geared towards gateways and hubs for water, sewerage and waste water. There will not be an onus on county managers to draw up plans for smaller areas. That is where we will lose out. There will be nothing in the legislation to say we must put a plan in place for a town with a population of less than 5,000. It can be done if need be, but there is no compulsion. There will not be any rush with such plans. That is one of the big problems I have with the proposed hierarchy of towns. There are some lovely small towns. For example, great work could be done in Louisburgh in west Mayo by local authorities but there would not be any onus on the county manager to bring forward a plan for it and it would probably lose out under the proposals by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, whereby a town such as Castlebar would be allowed to grow to the detriment of Louisburgh. That is the reality of what is proposed in the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): Under section 18 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 a planning authority may, at any time and for any particular area within its functional area, prepare a local area plan in respect of that area. I want to elaborate on the way that is happening currently. If I were to accept the argument that only areas with a population of 5,000 will be developed, am I to conclude that any area with a population under 2,000 does not have an area plan? I know that not to be the case. I am aware that in local authority areas throughout the country there are area plans for small towns of 1,000, 1,200 and 1,500. Why does the Senator say this section will change the operational work of the local authority? It must be remembered that all area plans are madein the context of the existing county or city development plan. That is the position. Nothing is being taken away from local authority members in this Bill. The opportunity presents itself in the 2000 Act but that is not being changed in this legislation. I would expect that local authority members throughout the country will continue the current practice. I spoke about this matter in Limerick recently. There appears to be a perception that in some way the intentions of the national spatial strategy are to the detriment of rural areas and smaller areas generally. I state firmly that is not the case. As a Minister from a rural area I appreciate people’s concerns but I reject that perception. The national spatial strategy, which has been raised on a number of occasions in the debate, is not just about the development of the gateways and hubs to the detriment of all other areas. It is about maximising the potential of all regions, both urban and rural areas, to the benefit of inhabitants and the country as a whole. That is fundamental to the national spatial strategy. I want to reassure Members that there is no taking away from the entitlement of local authorities in session with their executive doing a local area plan for a village with a population of 1,000, 1,500, 2,000 or 3,000. I am accommodating a position whereby it is mandatory to have a plan for development in areas with a population of 5,000. Senator Butler spoke earlier on that issue and it is important that areas have a plan that refers to amenities such as schools, roads or other infrastructure. That is what is involved here. I do not see the position in the way it has been stated. That is not my intention. 577 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: I thank the Minister for putting that view on the record but if that is the view and if nothing changes with regard to the local area plans and the way councils operate them, why is it proposed to insert a new section in the Bill which changes the way local area plans are to be managed within the councils? What is the rationale for doing that if there is to be no change? Are we further complicating an already complicated Bill? If there is to be no change, why are we inserting new interpretations in the Bill? This represents a change. The threshold is being increased from populations of 2,000 to 5,000. The Minister is saying there will not be any material change on the ground but if that is the case what is the rationale for inserting this section with regard to the local area plan? Are we meddling in something in which we should not be meddling in terms of a centralised, top-down approach? That is the problem we have with it. With regard to the national spatial strategy, I hope the Minister is not of the view that those of us on this side of the House believe the national spatial strategy will have a detrimental effect on development throughout the country because that is not the case. Fine Gael believes there should be a national spatial strategy and we agree with 90% or even more of the content of the existing national spatial strategy but our problem is with the way the national spatial strategy is formulated and implemented. Fine Gael is concerned that this has not been subjected to the same rigours of a development plan. It is formulated by the Department and by the Minister of the day and that Minister, whomever it is and from whatever party, can change the national spatial strategy. That change can then have a knock-on effect throughout the entire planning system. That is our concern. We do not believe the existing national spatial strategy will have a detrimental effect on development but we believe changes could be brought in easily by any Minister or senior officials in the Department that could have a serious effect on development plans from the top down to local area plans and county and city development plans. I wanted to clarify that important point. We are not opposing the national spatial strategy. We are opposing the way it is framed and adopted. It does not have the endorsement of the Oireachtas and under this new Bill that measure can materially affect every local city and county development plan throughout this country at the whim of a Minister of the day.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Minister seems to be at cross-purposes regarding this because if what the Minister is saying is correct, why is a new section being inserted in the Bill? I have a difficulty with this. The Minister is erroneous in his view that Fine Gael is opposed to the national spatial strategy. It is not, but who endorses it? Who writes it? Where are the checks and balances in the national spatial strategy? It is not endorsed in the council or in the Oireachtas. Does it come before the environment or transport committees in the Oireachtas? Where is it scrutinised? All of us understand the issue of the hub towns and cities and the gateways. There is no difficulty with that. The difficulty, as Senator Coffey said, is in the formulation of policy. My difficulty with this section is that a small area is being excluded as the Bill refers to a population in excess of 2,000 persons and less than 5,000.

Senator Paddy Burke: I do not want to hog this issue but if we were to believe what the Minister is telling us one would say there will be no change from the previous position. At the same time the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, has said on television and radio programmes that there will be major changes in planning laws and that he will control planning. The Minister of State appears to suggest there will not be much of a change but the reality is that there will be changes. On the hub towns and gateways, the Minister has said clearly that the hubs and the gateways must grow to a certain population. We are aware from the Central Statistic Office figures that there is no growth in population but the Minister has said they must grow to the projected figures. If somebody brings forward a plan for a village or a small town which involves any 578 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) small amount of zoning, the Minister will reject it because all those plans will have to go to the Minister’s office. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, put his hand on the Mayo county development plan and said the plan did not take into consideration the hub status of Castlebar and Ballina and that it had to grow to a projected population before any of those other towns could grow or that a certain area within towns would not be released for development until Castlebar and Ballina have grown to a certain population. That is the crux of the issue, and that is the reality. We can have all the plans we want but the Minister, Deputy Gormley, will not allow them because they will involve extra zoning around small towns and villages which will curtail the hub towns and gateways growing to their projected populations. The third point, which the Minister has not answered, concerns hub towns in different local authority areas such as Tuam in Galway and Castlebar in Mayo, and a town like Claremorris that is equidistant. Castlebar could have grown to its projected population but Tuam may not have done so, or vice versa. What will be the position with towns like Claremorris 3o’clock when it comes up for consideration for an area plan? The Minister will probably say that cannot be allowed because Tuam has not grown to its projected population or that Castlebar has not grown to its projected population. The Minister of State’s office made clear to me that hub towns have been taken into account to allow for development in smaller towns. Will smaller towns have an effect on area plans if they are in a different local authority area?

Deputy Michael Finneran: It is important to restate that all area plans are set within the context of a county development plan. That is a given. This gives greater flexibility to local authority members. The opportunity they have to draw up area plans is not being changed, it will continue to exist once the Bill has passed. I was asked of population bases of up to 2,000 being left to one side at the moment in the relevant local authorities because of the 2,000 limit. That is not the case. This gives flexibility to the elected members of local authorities by increasing the threshold. There is no ulterior motive. It is important we address matters related to where development is taking place and the opportunities it presents. It is important that if there is a population of 5,000 in an area that there is a mandatory obligation for the local authority to have a plan. That is what the Bill does and I have tried to explain that as clearly as possible. The point was made about two different jurisdictions and obligations on county development plans to take into consideration regional planning guidelines. The Bill offers an all-encom- passing approach to planning and development of areas whether they are in one jurisdiction or two. That is common sense. Amendment No. 29 inserts a new section 5 which proposes that there shall be no presumption that any zoned land in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan. This arises from section 8 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002, which provided for zoning in a local area plan by the incorporation of zoning provisions in section 19(2)(a), which heretofore was only possible in a development plan. Consequently, this led to a greater level of zoning in local area plans and therefore it is now considered appropriate that the development plan provisions for down-zoning or de-zoning land, namely section 10(8) of the Act, must be applied equally to both the local area plans, replicating the provisions within the local area plan provisions of the Act. We are bringing local area plans into line with county development plans.

Senator Alex White: Would the legal position of the survivability of the zoning be no different irrespective of land being zoned in a development plan or a local area plan? 579 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Michael Finneran: At the moment, in subsequent county development plans, land can be de-zoned. We are bringing local area plans into line with that.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I can understand the rationale behind amendment No. 29, whereby there shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan. We agree with that, because it clarifies this whole area. What is the present position regarding zoning? Is the Government introducing this amendment because there are problems around the interpretation of zoning? During the debate on NAMA, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government signalled there will be de-zonings in many areas. Does the amendment address an anomaly in the existing law concerning de-zoning?

Deputy Michael Finneran: There is no presumption in law at present that zoning in a county development cannot be changed in a subsequent plan. We are bringing that idea to bear on local area plans.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 29: In page 15, line 27, to delete “of the development plan” and substitute “of the development plan.”, and (e) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):

“(5) There shall be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan shall remain so zoned in any subsequent local area plan.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put: “That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 17.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. Leyden, Terry. Boyle, Dan. MacSharry, Marc. Brady, Martin. McCarthy, Michael. Butler, Larry. McDonald, Lisa. Callely, Ivor. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. O’Brien, Francis. Carroll, James. O’Malley, Fiona. Carty, John. Ormonde, Ann. Cassidy, Donie. Phelan, Kieran. Cummins, Maurice. Ryan, Brendan. Daly, Mark. Walsh, Jim. de Búrca, Déirdre. White, Alex. Ellis, John. White, Mary M. Feeney, Geraldine. Wilson, Diarmuid. Hanafin, John.

Níl

Bradford, Paul. Coffey, Paudie. Burke, Paddy. Coghlan, Paul. Buttimer, Jerry. Doherty, Pearse. Cannon, Ciaran. Donohoe, Paschal. 580 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Níl—continued

Fitzgerald, Frances. Phelan, John Paul. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Quinn, Feargal. Norris, David. Ross, Shane. O’Reilly, Joe. Twomey, Liam. O’Toole, Joe.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Paul Coghlan.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 11.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are related. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are alternatives to amendment No. 31. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, may be discussed together? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 30: In page 15, lines 29 to 34, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following: “(a) in subsection (1) by the substitution of “including consultations with the Minister, any local residents” for “including consultations with any local residents”,”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Amendment No. 30 proposes to amend section 11 by the insertion of a single reference to consulting the Minister before a planning authority prepares, amends or revokes a local area plan. Amendment No. 31 proposes amendments to section 11 to provide for consistency of the terminology used in the local area and development planning processes. Essentially, it now is proposed to delete that which already was put forward in the Bill to take the opportunity to provide comprehensively for greater consistency in the terminology used in the local area plan and development planning process. In the light of the good observations received since the publication of the Bill and recognising that the local area plan always is subservient to the development plan but with which it must be consistent, a more significant overhauling and streamlining has been proposed for the local area plan process.

Senator Paddy Burke: I believe the proposed amendments will create a great deal of red tape. I do not know how many towns have a population of approximately 5,000 people. More- over, the Minister of State noted earlier that this legislation will not prohibit any local area plan from being put in place. Consequently, hundreds of local area plans may be produced. If local authorities prepare plans for hundreds of local areas, they will be obliged to notify the Minister and An Bord Pleanála regarding any consultations that took place with residents. Will this not necessitate the movement of a great deal of information from local authorities to An Bord Pleanála and to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government? Who will read all this information? The county manager and his or her planning officials will have dealt with the matter in detail with locally elected councillors and probably with the residents’ associations. However, that will not be good enough as the Minister and An Bord Pleanála must be notified. While Members probably will deal with An Bord Pleanála in another section, I note it is unable to deal with its existing workload as it takes it six months to deal with anything at present. Nevertheless, the board must receive all this information. I consider this to be a wasted exercise in red tape. It probably will entail departmental officials reading 581 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paddy Burke.] details of meetings that took place between residents, local councillors and local authority staff in the formulation of local area plans.

Senator Alex White: I refer to Government amendments Nos. 30 and 31 and to amendment No. 31 in particular. I take it that the two amendments I tabled still must be taken. I draw the Minister of State’s and the Cathaoirleach’s attention to amendment No. 31 because it seems to propose deleting lines 1 to 41 on page 16. Am I correct?

Deputy Michael Finneran: Is this amendment No. 30?

Senator Alex White: No I am talking about amendment No. 31 which states: “In page 15, to delete lines 39 to 46 and in page 16 to delete lines 1 to 41”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The Senator should look at the Act.

Senator Alex White: Yes, I have the Act here.

Deputy Michael Finneran: It is there twice, under (i) and (ii) in line 30 and the amendment puts the two into one.

Senator Alex White: Do the two subsections of the Bill that I propose to amend survive? Is the Minister of State proposing to delete them? Will the two sections that I am trying to amend survive the Minister of State’s change? I am referring to amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I will deal with amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 30 proposes to delete lines 29 to 34 on page 15.

Senator Alex White: I understood that the amendments were being taken together. Are amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, being taken together?

An Cathaoirleach: Yes.

Senator Alex White: My amendments are Nos. 32 and 33. Is the Minister of State trying to remove the section that I am trying to amend? I will in any event make the points that I want to make on these amendments, which have been made in the earlier discussion.

An Cathaoirleach: If amendment No. 31 is agreed, those amendments cannot be moved. They can be discussed now as part of the group of amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive.

Senator Alex White: That was what I thought because if amendment No. 31 is agreed, it would render my amendments void. In respect of amendment No. 32 we believe that we should have an exception in respect of a resolution where the manager approves an amendment. Why should there be a two thirds majority? We want to make an exception for that type of circumstance. The question remains whether it is necessary or appropriate to require a two thirds majority. We will probably have a fuller debate on this on Report Stage so I will not press the point. I wanted to mention it on Committee Stage so that it can be dealt with on Report Stage.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I have responded to amendments Nos. 30 and 31. Are amendments Nos. 32 and 33 being taken too?

An Cathaoirleach: Yes we are taking amendments Nos. 30 to 33, inclusive, together. 582 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Michael Finneran: In response to the question about the two thirds majority, I am prepared to discuss this with the Parliamentary Counsel to see if we can have a simple majority decision. I will return to the House on that matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 31: In page 15, to delete lines 39 to 46 and in page 16, to delete lines 1 to 41 and substitute the following: “(ii) by the substitution of the following for subparagraph (I) of paragraph (d)(ii): “(I) subject to paragraphs (e)to(q), decides to make or amend the plan otherwise than as recommended in the manager’s report, or”, and (iii) by the substitution of the following for paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i): “(e) Where, following the consideration of the manager’s report, it appears to the members of the authority that the draft local area plan should be altered, and the proposed alteration would, if made, be a material alteration of the draft local area plan concerned, the planning authority shall, not later than 3 weeks after the passing of a resolution under paragraph (d)(ii) (inserted by section 9 of the Act of 2002), publish notice of the proposed material alteration in one or more newspapers circulating in its area, and send notice of the proposed material alteration to the Minister, the Board and to the prescribed authorities (enclosing where the authority considers it appropriate a copy of the proposed material alteration). (f) Notwithstanding paragraph (e), in the performance of its functions under regulations made under section 10(5), a planning authority shall determine if there is, or may be, a requirement to carry out an assessment of the effects on the environment of one or more than one of the proposed alteration that would, if made, be a material alteration of the draft local area plan. (g) The manager, not later than 6 weeks after a determination under paragraph (e) shall specify such a period as he or she considers necessary following the passing of a resolution under paragraph (d)(ii) as being required to facilitate an assessment referred to in that paragraph. (h) The planning authority shall publish notice of the proposed alteration, and where appropriate in the circumstances, the making of a determination that an assessment referred to in paragraph (f) is required in at least one newspaper circulating in its area. (i) The planning authority shall cause an assessment referred to in paragraph (f)tobe carried out of the proposed alteration of the local area plan within the period specified by the manager. (j) A notice under paragraph (e)or(h) as the case may be shall state that— (i) a copy of the proposed material alteration of the draft local area plan may be inspected at a stated place and at stated times during a stated period of not less than 4 weeks (and the copy shall be kept available for inspection accordingly), and (ii) written submissions or observations with respect to the proposed material alteration of the draft local area plan may be made to the planning authority within the stated period and shall be taken into consideration before the making of any material alteration. 583 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

(k) Not later than 8 weeks after publishing a notice under paragraph (e)or(h)asthe case may be, or such period as may be specified by the manager under paragraph (g), the manager shall prepare a report on any submissions or observations received pursuant to a notice under that paragraph and submit the report to the members of the authority for their consideration. (l) A report under paragraph (k) shall— (i) list the persons who made submissions or observations under paragraph (j)(ii), (ii) summarise the issues raised by the persons in the submissions or observations, (iii) contain the opinion of the manager in relation to the issues raised, and his or her recommendations in relation to the proposed material alteration to the draft local area plan, including any change to the proposed material alteration as he or she considers appropriate, taking account of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or of any Minister of the Government. (m) The members of the authority shall consider the proposed material alteration of the draft local area plan and the report of the manager under paragraph (k). (n) Following consideration of the manager’s report under paragraph (m), the local area plan shall be made or amended as appropriate by the planning authority by resolution no later than a period of 6 weeks after the report has been furnished to all the members of the authority with all, some or none of the material alterations as published in accordance with paragraph (e)or(h) as the case may be. (o) Where the planning authority decides to make or amend the local area plan or change the material alteration of the plan by resolution as provided in paragraph (n)— (i) paragraph (p) shall apply in relation to the making of the resolution, and (ii) paragraph (q) shall apply in relation to any change to the material alteration proposed. (p) It shall be necessary for the passing of the resolution referred to in paragraph (n) that it shall be passed by not less than half of the members of the planning authority and the requirements of this paragraph are in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other requirements applying in relation to such a resolution. (q) A change to the material alteration— (i) may be made where it is minor in nature, (ii) shall not be made where it refers to— (I) an increase in the area of land zoned for any purpose, or (II) an addition to or deletion from the record of protected structures. (r) When performing their functions under this subsection, the members of the planning authority shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the statutory obligations of any local authority in the area and any relevant policies or objectives for the time being of the Government or of any Mini- ster of the Government.”.”.

Amendment agreed to. 584 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 34:

In page 17, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“(a) The National Spatial Strategy shall be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas.”.

This amendment returns to the argument about the formulation of the national spatial strategy and the effect it has on all county and city development plans and regional and local area plans. It is an attempt to endorse democratically the content of the national spatial strategy. We are concerned that it is not compiled in the same democratic and transparent way as any local area plan or development plan and we believe it should be. The national spatial strategy should be compiled after thorough consultation and engagement with the public. Section 12 requires explicitly that regional planning guidelines be prepared to support the implementation of the national spatial strategy. Could local authorities not be similarly required to support it? They could be empowered or a direct line could be created from the local authority to the strategy and the same should apply to any other authorities, such as the regional authorities or agencies that would have an interest in formulating the strategy. The recent flooding shows how other agencies such as the Office of Public Works and emergency services could feed into the strategy through a consultation process. This amendment proposes to address the democratic deficit in compiling the national spatial strategy. The Bill gives an opportunity to enhance the strategy by requiring that the Oireachtas approve it. In that way the Oireachtas could scrutinise the strategy properly. This could be done through the various Oireachtas joint committees, whether on transport, environment, heritage and local government, or whatever. They could all express their views. The national spatial strategy is mentioned so often in this Bill that it will achieve major significance for planning when the Bill is passed. Heretofore it was only a reference guide but it will become obligatory for all regional plans to comply with it. Fine Gael agrees with the strategy and most of its contents but we are trying to enhance any future national spatial strategies such that the elected Members are consulted and endorse it properly. It must be accountable to the people and the best way to achieve that is to have the Oireachtas approve it. The various Oireachtas joint committees can scrutinise it further. That is the reasoning behind this amendment. I will be interested to hear the Minister of State’s views on this proposal.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The national spatial strategy is a Government strategy and is therefore the responsibility of the Government as part of overall Cabinet responsibilities. Therefore amendment No. 34 is not accepted.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I am disappointed by the Minister of State’s very short response to a significant and fundamental issue. The Bill, which contains a great deal of detail, with much of which we agree, goes back to the national spatial strategy. I understand that the Government must have policies in place for its direction but the Government of the day holds the democratic majority in the Oireachtas. It does not seem logical to me, nor does it pose any threat to the national spatial strategy, to have the approval of the Oireachtas to implement Government policy. 585 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paudie Coffey.]

Almost daily Government policy comes before us in various Bills and the majority rules. As difficult as it can be at times to be in Opposition we are democrats and respect the majority and the Government when it has the numbers to implement whatever laws it sees fit to enact. I can see no reason the national spatial strategy should not be subject to the same scrutiny as the laws we implement every day. This is a fundamental and significant strategy in which every citizen and elected representative should have a say. That is the nub of the problem Fine Gael has with the Bill. It has had to oppose many sections which I do not like doing because we want to see improvements in the planning and development process. Many improvements are needed and addressed in the Bill. Unfortunately, there are some missed opportunities in the provisions, with a democratic deficit in this case. The national spatial strategy has been given much significance and importance but it does not have accountability and transparency through the electoral process or engagement with citizens. That is the fundamental reason the amendment has been tabled.

Senator Paddy Burke: Until several years ago the dual mandate was in place and provided a direct link between both Houses of the Oireachtas and local authorities. As Senator Coffey pointed out, this Bill very much involves the national spatial strategy. His amendment provides an ideal opportunity to have a link between local authorities’ involvement with the strategy and the national Parliament. Such a link would assist local authority members who have a direct input in the adoption of county development plans and how they pan out with the national spatial strategy. While I accept the strategy is Government policy, there are other provisions in the legislation that affect other Government policies. Senator Coffey has put his finger on it, the need for Oireachtas Members to have a role in the strategy and provide a link between local government and the national Parliament on it. This is a good and worthwhile amendment.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I have outlined the position on collective Cabinet responsibility for the national spatial strategy. I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 34.

Amendment put and declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and may be discussed together.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 35:

In page 17, paragraph (a), to delete lines 4 to 10.

These amendments depended on acceptance of amendment No. 34. They are aimed at ensuring the national spatial strategy and regional population targets would be further endorsed by the Oireachtas.

Senator Paddy Burke: All powers in the development process are being taken away from local authority members by the Bill. The Minister will have a direct hand in all the policies related to the national spatial strategy. Regional population targets will take effect with no variation for hubs and gateways. I will not labour the point but that is the nub of problem with the Bill. The Minister will refer to the national spatial strategy when deciding the regional population targets for hubs and gateways. This will be to the detriment of smaller towns not designated as hubs or gateways which we want to make viable. For instance, Belmullet is 50 miles from Castlebar and 45 miles from Ballina. It should be able to grow to become an independent town with transport links to the hubs. However, it will not be able to grow until the populations of 586 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Castlebar and Ballina reach the projected target figures set by the Minister as per the legislation. Some guidelines must be introduced for these targets. If they are not reached, the smaller towns should be allowed to develop independently.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The proposed deletions refer to the core of section 12 which provides explicitly for the link between regional planning guidelines and the national spatial strategy which post-dated the passage of the Planning and Development Act 2000. An explicit requirement is, therefore, provided for regional planning guidelines to be prepared to support the implementation of the national spatial strategy. It also ensures the regional planning guidelines shall be set within the policy framework of the national spatial strategy, including its population targets which will be updated from time to time. Regional planning guidelines also have to address the promotion of sustainable settlement and transportation strategies in urban and rural areas, including the promotion of measures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and measures to address the necessity of adap- tation to climate change. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 35 and 36.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand,” put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 36:

In page 17, paragraph (b), to delete lines 12 to 17.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand,” put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Question put: “That section 12 stand part of the Bill.”

The Committee divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 15.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. McCarthy, Michael. Boyle, Dan. McDonald, Lisa. Brady, Martin. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Butler, Larry. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Callely, Ivor. O’Brien, Francis. Carroll, James. O’Donovan, Denis. O’Malley, Fiona. Carty, John. O’Sullivan, Ned. Cassidy, Donie. Ormonde, Ann. Corrigan, Maria. Phelan, Kieran. Daly, Mark. Prendergast, Phil. de Búrca, Déirdre. Quinn, Feargal. Ellis, John. Ross, Shane. Feeney, Geraldine. Ryan, Brendan. Glynn, Camillus. Walsh, Jim. Hanafin, John. White, Mary M. Leyden, Terry. Wilson, Diarmuid. MacSharry, Marc.

Níl

Bradford, Paul. Cannon, Ciaran. Burke, Paddy. Coffey, Paudie. Buttimer, Jerry. Coghlan, Paul. 587 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Níl—continued

Cummins, Maurice. O’Reilly, Joe. Donohoe, Paschal. O’Toole, Joe. Fitzgerald, Frances. Phelan, John Paul. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Twomey, Liam. Norris, David.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins.

Question declared carried.

NEW SECTION.

Government amendment No. 37: In page 17, before section 13, to insert the following new section: 13.—Section 27 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1): “(1) A planning authority shall ensure, when making a development plan or a local area plan, that the plan is consistent with any regional planning guidelines in force for its area.”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The amendment proposes to insert a reference to local area plans which are also to be consistent with any regional planning guidelines in force for the area.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 13 deleted.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: “That section 14 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paddy Burke: Section 14 reads: “27A.--(1) Where a regional authority receives a notice from a planning authority under section 11(1) it shall prepare submissions or observations for the purposes of section 11(2)”. In preparing these submissions will the regional authority hold public briefing sessions? Will it receive submissions from agencies 4o’clock other than the local authority? How will it prepare the submissions or observations? Will it be done by the manager of the regional authority or its members? From where will it receive submissions? Will it propose public consultations or how will it gather the information? I understand how there could be communication between the local authority and the regional authority but how otherwise will the regional authority gather submissions and observations?

Senator Paudie Coffey: There must be clear information on how the regional authorities will draft the planning guidelines. The Minister of State said there would be consultation with the various local authorities. My concern is that regional authorities do not have dedicated planning departments. Usually, a member of a planning authority is seconded to the regional authority to co-ordinate the guidelines. Obviously, the regional authorities depend a great deal on the various counties for their submissions and proposals. My fear about the compilation of the regional planning guidelines — this is not a slight on executives, managers or planners — is that while I foresee that there will be consultation with the executives and planning departments of each local authority which will give the regional authorities their views, where will the demo- 588 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) cratic engagement occur? Where do the councillors, other than those on the regional authority, have a direct say in the compilation by the regional authority? Where does the general public have a say, similar to the input it has in the formulation of a county, city or local area development plan? That is the reason I posed the question about regional authority members. They are the people who will be required to adopt the regional planning guidelines. Under the current system, they are essentially a delegation representing the views of their local authority on the regional authority. They do not have the entire region as their focus. If this is what the Minister of State wants, should there not be proper regional structures with proper accountability, departments, resources and empowerment? The Bill proposes to give regional authorities considerable power but few resources. Their elected members should be directly elected and be accountable to their regions for any decisions they make. Clarity on how regional authorities will function in the development of plans would provide a reassurance that is currently lacking, namely, that there is full democratic accountability in the formulation of regional plans. I would be interested in hearing the Minister of State’s views in this regard.

Deputy Michael Finneran: In opposing section 14, Senator Coffey proposes to delete the proposed amendments to provide that the regional authority has a more explicit role in the draft development plan preparation process to ensure consistency between it and the regional planning guidelines, including informing the Minster of its views. This is clearly not acceptable for the reasons I have outlined, as the regional planning guidelines are the linchpin between the national spatial strategy, which sets the broader strategic planning framework at central Government level, and local planning, which sets the local context for development planning and management. To answer Senator Burke, there will be public consultation on regional planning guidelines after their publication in the new year. It is important to state that the guidelines are prepared in consultation with local authorities and their managers.

Senator Paddy Burke: The Minister of State has gone down the road a good bit in bringing clarity to this issue. According to him, the regional planning guidelines will be the linchpin for a strategy comprising local area plans, county development plans, regional authorities and the national spatial strategy all the way up to Government thinking. However, I am unsure as to the stage at which there will be public consultation. Will it be before the final draft of a regional plan? According to the Minister of State, there will be consultation with local authorities, but will he clarify whether the main regional planning guidelines come from the Minister? Some will come from county managers, senior planners and the major stakeholders, such as energy companies, within the regional authority areas, but the Minister’s office and the Government will surely have some involvement. Is it fair to say the guidelines, which will be the linchpin, will comprise a considerable amount of Government thinking and strategies? If so, is there a need for regional authorities? Much of the contents of regional planning guidelines will reflect Government thinking. At what stage will the public consultation process occur? Will the Government, working with county managers and regional authority managers, introduce guidelines? They will be published, public consultation will occur for a period and a plan will go on public display. Will it go on display in the same way as a county development plan? When local area plans and county development plans are being adopted by local authorities, will they need to take regional planning guidelines into account? 589 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Michael Finneran: I cannot give a definite date, but I expect the draft regional development guidelines to be published in the first half of the new year, and perhaps earlier. There will be a public consultation process. The Senator referred to the Government, but I was referring to the national spatial strategy when I referred to the linchpin. In the planning process, it is practical to adhere to strategic decisions by the Government. Local authority plans receive many inputs that are no one else’s business as long as the regional planning guidelines implement Government policy. The consultation process will occur. Every local authority will hold a meeting or several meetings to discuss the draft guidelines, and rightly so, as this will be where consultation occurs. I assure the House that these measures will be introduced early in the new year and that there will be a public consultation process.

Senator Paddy Burke: I welcome the Minister of State’s clarification to the effect that the guidelines will be introduced in the new year and that there will be a public consultation process thereon. However, will they constitute a fait accompli? Although there will be public consultation on the guidelines, there is no reference to their being amended. Local authorities will have an input in them and they will be discussed by regional authorities and various stakeholders. Let us be fair and frank. These regional guidelines will have a considerable input in county development plans and local area plans. They will form the kernel of every local authority plan. Can they be amended following a public consultation process? For what length of time will they be on public display? When the Government issues guidelines, they are law, a fait accompli. In this instance, there will be public consultation on the guidelines, but we know they must be taken into consideration in every plan that is tabled.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I welcome the Minister of State’s assurance that there will be public consultation on the preparation of the regional planning guidelines as it will be essential. As Senator Burke alluded, however, the engagement with the public when the guidelines are being consulted on will be interesting. I doubt that many citizens know who it is that sits on regional authorities and formulates plans that will affect the ways communities develop. This will be the Bill’s impact on the ground. I have attended regional authority meetings. The media do not even attend those meetings. When this Bill goes through, if it will empower the regional authorities like we think it will, it is in the public interest that the media would attend regional authority meetings because it seems important decisions will now be made there. Those are merely some of the practical implications of this Bill. I say that because I am concerned about the democratic deficit and the lack of transparency around the adoption of the regional planning guidelines. Transparency is certainly not evident at present. I would be interested to know how the Minister hopes to increase public awareness of the importance of these regional planning guidelines and their impact on the development of communities. How often have we heard managers tell councillors that the development plan is theirs and the planners and the executive are only there to help formulate and assist in its compilation? When this Bill becomes law, my understanding is it will no longer be the councillors’ development plan because the contents of all county and city development plans will be dictated by what is in the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines, and by the Mini- ster’s view on policy. In turn, it will be only the members who sit on a regional authority who will have the power to amend or change that. The local councillors’ say in the development of the local plan will be greatly diminished. That is the reality. I am trying to see how it could be 590 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) otherwise. In effect, the councillors will just rubber-stamp what will be dictated from national policy through the regional authorities. Visiting the Oireachtas today is a delegation from Carlow County Council’s strategic policy committee on planning. This is a cross-party delegation, including councillors from the Govern- ment parties, who are very concerned with the direction in which this Bill is going. I do not know whether the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, has met them, but I will outline some of their concerns which relate directly to the regional planning guidelines and the projections. They state that the Government, through the national spatial strategy, determined that more balanced regional development should be a priority for the country so as to have a better spread of jobs, a better quality of life and a better place in which to live. We all agree with that. They go on to say that the regional population targets for 2010 to 2022 were issued in January 2009 giving a low to high range in 2022 of 5,375,000 to 5,523,000. The lower figure would represent a 14.5% increase while the higher figure would mean an increase of approximately 20% over the 12-year period. They state that the higher figure more accurately represents the recorded population changes in the State. The delegation states further that on 1 October 2009, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, directed that the minimum population targets only should be used for the preparation of the regional planning guidelines. There must be some reasoning or rationale behind this direction. Why take the minimum? The effect of this will be to limit the population increase in the regions. For example, during the period 2010 to 2022 the south east will increase by 72,600, the midlands by 41,500 and Dublin by 207,300. This is the real impact of these regional planning guidelines and the population targets about which the Carlow County Council members and the SPC are concerned. They state that in compliance with the national spatial strategy, the population will be diverted to the gateways, where there will be a minimum 50% increase, and the hub towns, where there will be a minimum 33% increase. They state that Carlow, as a county town, will also increase by 27% during this period and because of the requirement to boost the gateways and the hubs and in light of the new minimum population targets, the county area of Carlow, including Tullow, Rathvilly, Bagenalstown and many of their rural hinterlands, will be allowed build a total of only 60 houses over that seven-year period under these guidelines. That is what Carlow County Council is stating, and I only repeat it. I would not expect the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, to answer that today, but perhaps he would address these points on Report Stage. I refer to Carlow only as an example of a local authority. The members stated that there are similar consequences in other counties. The obligation to create the critical mass allied to the new minimum population targets will allow little development outside of the cities. These are the concerns of an SPC that has travelled from Carlow to Dublin today to outline them because they know this Bill is going through the Houses of the Oireachtas. These are the practical concerns about the implications of the regional planning guidelines and the way it is proposed to manage planning. It stakes up many of the arguments made by Senators in this House where they are concerned about towns and villages which could have genuine aspir- ations, to which they are entitled. No matter how small a town or village and no matter what background an individual has come from, as an Irish community or an Irish person they are entitled to aspire to develop their communities. This planning process and the Bill will restrict that potential and that aspiration. I cannot see how anybody could argue otherwise.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The answer to the question whether the regional planning guidelines be modified is “Yes”. They are draft regional planning guidelines. They go out for public consultation and they can be modified on foot of that. 591 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Finneran.]

One of the key objectives in requiring development plans to include a core strategy is to ensure greater consistency between the national spatial strategy and the regional planning guidelines on the one hand and the city and county development plans on the other. This is of particular importance in co-ordinating development objectives across local authority boundaries, for example, where within a national spatial strategy gateway two or more authorities control parts of the city, as in Waterford where there are three authorities within the gateway, those of Waterford city, Waterford county and Kilkenny county, and also in co-ordinating development of strategic infrastructure within the region. I do not know where the figure mentioned for Carlow of 60 houses came from. Every local authority and housing authority has had engagement with my Department’s officials over recent weeks on their plans for the coming year and I have not seen anything to suggest that I, as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, am to instruct housing authorities on their housing needs in their areas. I cannot state off-hand what are the housing needs in County Carlow, but I can state what they are nationally. There are 56,000 people on the housing lists of this country. They are spread throughout all of the local authorities. Without having figures in front of me for Carlow, I would be of the opinion that the members of Carlow County Council have a requirement way in excess of 60 houses. There is no question that any national spatial strategy would interfere with the entitlement of a local authority to house citizens on its housing list. The big issue is whether I have enough resources for them to do it, and that is why I brought in some schemes. On taking the low figure, the Central Statistics Office figures are being taken. The general expectation now is that population growth will not be as large as might have been expected some time ago. The lower figure is possibly a more realistic figure to be working off at this time.

Senator Paddy Burke: I thank the Minister of State. In fairness, he is putting his own interpretation on some of this. He spoke about the lower of the CSO figures, and I welcome what he said in that regard. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, would seem to suggest there is no movement away from the higher figures. I also welcome his statement that there will be public consultation on the regional guidelines. When these guidelines are to be published, it should be well flagged and the local authorities should be notified. I hope the Houses of the Oireachtas get an opportunity to discuss those regional guidelines before their final adoption. Whether we like it or not, from the Minister’s viewpoint, these regional guidelines will be the kernel of formulating area and county development plans. These guidelines are important and will require much debate. I hope this House will get a chance to debate them when they are published.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I wish to raise one matter I omitted to mention earlier and I hope the Minister of State will take account of it. It concerns the resourcing of regional authorities with their new obligations under this Bill. I spoke earlier about the professional resources, directorates and staff of regional authorities. As a result of the significant authority they will now be given, what measures will the Minister and the Department take to ensure members of regional authorities are appropriately resourced and trained to implement these statutory regional planning guidelines? Up to now they have just been rubber-stamping them after they are presented by the seconded planner, although they may amend them to some degree. The bar has been raised with regard to the importance of regional authorities. Local authorities inform councillors, as well as preparing and training them in the implementation process. Are 592 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) there plans now, however, to use similar measures and resources to assist members of regional authorities? Do those members even know about the new obligations that are being placed on them by this Bill? Do the directorships and executives of regional authorities know about the new obligations? Will there be consultation at those levels prior to the enactment of the Bill? Have the Minister and the Department taken soundings from regional authorities to ascertain their views on the new powers? I would be interested to know whether there has been such consultation with the staff and members of regional authorities concerning the new measures envisaged in the Bill. That is an important question.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The sourcing and funding of regional authorities is agreed between local authorities, managers and directors. I am confident that level of funding will continue and that will continue to be the funding process. As regards the planning areas and what the Senator says will be new responsibilities, I am of the view that the planning sections of our local authorities have a reduced work load on the basis of the number of planning applications they are dealing with, compared to what they have been dealing with in recent years. If anything, I would think that any extra work would be welcome in those planning sections at this time.

Question put and declared carried.

Question put: “That section 15 stand part of the Bill.”

The Committee divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 14.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. McCarthy, Michael. Boyle, Dan. McDonald, Lisa. Brady, Martin. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Butler, Larry. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Callely, Ivor. O’Brien, Francis. Carroll, James. O’Donovan, Denis. Carty, John. O’Malley, Fiona. Cassidy, Donie. O’Toole, Joe. Corrigan, Maria. Ormonde, Ann. Daly, Mark. Phelan, Kieran. de Búrca, Déirdre. Prendergast, Phil. Doherty, Pearse. Quinn, Feargal. Ellis, John. Ross, Shane. Feeney, Geraldine. Ryan, Brendan. Glynn, Camillus. Walsh, Jim. Hanafin, John. White, Mary M. Leyden, Terry. Wilson, Diarmuid. MacSharry, Marc.

Níl

Bradford, Paul. Donohoe, Paschal. Burke, Paddy. Fitzgerald, Frances. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Buttimer, Jerry. Norris, David. Cannon, Ciaran. O’Reilly, Joe. Coffey, Paudie. Phelan, John Paul. Coghlan, Paul. Twomey, Liam. Cummins, Maurice.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins.

Question declared carried.

593 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: “That section 16 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paudie Coffey: Section 16 deals with the role of regional authorities in variations of development plans. Reference is made in section 16 to section 27C(1), which states: “Where a regional authority receives a notice from a planning authority under section 13(1)”. I presume that refers to a proposal to vary a development plan. Section 27C(3) states: “Where the opinion of the regional authority stated in the submissions or observations made and the report issued is that the proposed variation of the development plan and its core strategy are not consistent with the regional planning guidelines”. Who will dictate that those submissions are not consistent with the regional planning guidelines? Will it be the Minister or the director of that regional authority? A variation would not come before a regional authority unless it had been proposed by the constituent local authorities or by the county or city manager and subsequently approved by that local authority. Who has the final say in whether a variation is consistent with the regional planning guidelines if that is proposed in a regional plan? Where does the accountability lie for that decision? Clarity is required in such a fundamental aspect of our planning legislation. If a variation is proposed it will be decided upon by either the regional authority as a body, the director or the Minister. I would appreciate if the Minister of State would provide clarification on that point.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: There are inconsistencies in what the Minister of State is saying. We are removing the element of accountability. What is the tic-tac between the county council and the regional authority? I repeat the question asked by Senator Coffey about who has the power to be the final arbitrator. I am concerned that we are vesting this power in the few and that we are making them powerful. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, is on a crusade to be the white knight on the horse for local authorities. We are becoming secretive and pejorative in what we are doing. We must ask what the criteria will be when we vary development plans. What is the pattern and who will activate the process? Who will decide on whether the plans are consistent? Section 27C(3) refers to “Where the opinion of the regional authority stated in the submissions or observations made and the report issued is that the proposed variation of the development plan and its core strategy are not consistent”. Who is the conduit between the local authority and the regional authority?

Deputy Michael Finneran: In opposing section 16 Senator Coffey proposes to delete the proposed amendments to provide that the regional authority has a more explicit role in the draft variation process to a development plan to ensure consistency between it and the regional planning guidelines in force, including informing the Minister of its views. That is not acceptable as the regional authority planning guidelines are the linch-pin between the national spatial strategy which sets the broader strategic planning framework at central government and local planning which sets the local context for development planning and development management. It is a matter for those responsible for planning in each local authority to interpret and implement regional planning guidelines. The current position is that all development plans are submitted to the Minister to be signed off. I am not in a position to accept what is proposed by Senator Coffey.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Minister of State appears to be indicating that the Minister will have the final say on what can be varied in a development plan according to regional planning guidelines. Perhaps he will clarify that. It is not clear in the Bill who will have the final say. If there is to be a variation in a county development plan, it is either proposed by the executive 594 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) or the manager and then the elected members of the local authority debate and decide on that and vote accordingly. Such a variation involves a transparent democratic process. Reference is made to proposed variations of the development plan that are not consistent with the regional planning guidelines. I am not clear about who makes that decision. Is it the director of the regional planning authority, the Minister or the Department? That needs to be clear.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It does.

Senator Paudie Coffey: We are dictating planning policy from a regional point of view. I do not like to repeat myself but that is the way it is. We are dictating policy from the top down. This will have serious implications for local communities and how towns and villages develop. We need to know who makes the decision if a variation proposed by a local authority to the regional authority that has been proposed by the manager, executive and planners of the authority and approved by the elected members of the authority is found not to be consistent with the regional planning guidelines? Whether we like it or not, we are giving that power in the legislation to regional authorities. We need accountability in our planning decisions. We will be talking later about An Bord Pleanála. I will discuss that in a more detailed fashion. We are removing another layer of accountability and pushing it out to the regions where a person from a small town or village will not have any recourse. That is the way we are going. It is a sad day that we are taking this approach. I accept improvements are needed in the planning process and that significant mistakes have been made. On behalf of Fine Gael I am the first to admit that. Such issues need to be addressed but I am not sure we are doing so in the correct manner. We are implementing a planning process that will be directed from Dublin and then from the regions where people in small towns and villages will have no say. That appears to be the motive behind the legislation. That becomes clearer as we scrutinise the Bill further.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I agree fully with my colleague, Senator Coffey. The principle of subsidiarity has not been considered in drawing up the Bill. Many people talk about subsidiarity and bringing issues down to a local level for people to decide on them, but this is practically a case of asking the Minister to rubber-stamp everything a local authority or regional authority does. The Minister of State indicated that once a regional authority signs off on a plan then everything has to be approved by the Minister. We have a centralised system where the Mini- ster will decide practically everything in regard to planning. That goes against the principle of subsidiarity. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider that approach. The arguments that are made in favour of aspects of the Bill do not hold up. They are not firm arguments and they have little foundation. The authority of local authorities will be diminished as a result of section 16 in particular.

Deputy Michael Finneran: In some way this debate is a bit unreal, in so far as it is currently the case that county development plans and variations to them are agreed by the Minister. What is involved is that the opinion of the regional authorities is to be taken into 5o’clock consideration in terms of whether those regional planning guidelines are in place. It must be remembered there are regional planning guidelines in place since 2004. They are in place in local authorities. This is not an attempt to take away any opportunity for local authority members. We have a national spatial strategy, regional planning guidelines, county development plans and local area plans. The legislation provides that the local authority, in drawing up or varying its county development plan, adhere to the regional planning guidelines. That is important in the areas the two Senators come from in that there would be a co- ordinated approach for Waterford, Waterford city or anywhere else where there are two auth- 595 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Finneran.] orities dealing with the one area. This is a streamlining measure and it will be beneficial to the planning sections of our local authorities.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Flooding: Statements (Resumed). An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brady. Senator Buttimer has five minutes remaining.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brady, and thank her for coming to the House. It is disappointing the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is not in the Chamber. This debate is about looking after people following the destruction of their homes and livelihoods. In the city of Cork there is no running water and flooding is continuing. Extraordinary efforts have been made by front-line services and volunteers, whom I commend again. As Bishop Colton said this morning, people are reconnecting with their values of neighbourliness and friendliness. I pay tribute also to the local media, be it radio, television or newspapers, for the work they did in communicating with people, and the council staff. We must invest in the quay walls in Cork. Every year for the past eight years Councillor Jim Corr, at estimates time and before it when we were doing the roads budget, advocated the enhancement, reinforcement and provision of funding for the quay walls yet we have had no money from central Government for the quay walls in Cork. That is a project that cannot be done by the local authority on its own. It carried out works near City Hall at a huge cost but assistance is needed from the State. It is extraordinary that all the money from the Celtic tiger era has evaporated and as Senator Boyle is well aware, as a former member of Cork City Council, the key job of restoring and enhancing the quay walls in Cork has not been done. Local authorities do not have the funding. They need capital funding from central Government to do that. In my remarks prior to the adjournment of the debate I spoke about the role of the ESB. I do not want to castigate anybody but it must answer questions about the rate of the release of water. I am told 530 cubic metres per second were released down the Lee Valley and in the catchment reserve coming into it 800 cubic metres per second were released. Those figures illustrate there was a real crisis in water management and with the level of water in Cork on Thursday night. I agree with Deputy Phil Hogan that an investigation is needed, devoid of politics, into how we can learn from this experience and avoid a repetition in the future. The areas that were flooded in Cork city, for example, have not been flooded in 50 years. I was in homes and businesses on Friday morning and afternoon which were ruined. One poor woman refused to go back into her home of more than 50 years. This issue is important. It is not about compensation but ensuring we learn from this experience. I am sure we will get the lecture about climate change. I agree with the Minister, Deputy Gormley. The planning decisions taken were daft, futile and ill-thought out and in some cases we are paying the price for that now. I have no difficulty saying that because the Minister is right. I have a history of standing up to developers on different planning issues but I want to know why this happened and how it happened in Cork. How effective was the management plan in answering the need when it was greatest? I would like that question answered in this independent review or investigation. How did the plan work in the affected areas? 596 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

On the issue of compensation outlined eloquently by Senator Cannon this morning, it is \10 million plus \2 million. The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, spoke about it being an initial assessment but we must look after people. The early warning system must be put in place. We need a national flood alert system and we must give support to local authorities. I commend the local authority in Cork and the volunteers on the great work they are doing in providing safe drinking water to people in the communities. We must support local authorities. The water table is at a certain level but remedial work to clear the drains has not been done. I saw Michael Cullen clearing the drains in the middle parish last Friday. I see Denis Coffey in the Mahon community centre spearheading volunteerism. Those two people are working flat-out on behalf of the community and the Government must come in behind them. I do not blame the Govern- ment for the flooding but we must recognise that people are in distress. The concern must be to have a co-ordinated plan to assist the people in putting right what has happened as a consequence of the flooding. If we are to develop a serious response to this crisis it requires local authorities, central Government, the OPW and whoever else should be in that mix sitting down with the ESB in Cork and representatives of Ardnacrusha in the west and discussing how we can move forward from this crisis. Allowing for the fact that climate change is upon us, and anybody who is honest recognises that our weather patterns have changed, we must have an integrated response. I welcome the fact the Government has embraced some of the Fine Gael proposals made over the weekend. I commend the volunteerism and the spirit of the people in Cork but we must have an independent review of what happened so we can learn from this experience and prevent it happening again.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: As this is the Labour Party’s Private Members’ time I call on Senator Prendergast.

Senator Phil Prendergast: I join with you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, in welcoming the Minister to discuss this problem, which is country-wide. I sympathise with the thousands of people throughout the country who have been or will be affected by the ongoing floods. I include those in my county of Tipperary. We have a little more insight than most people into the hardship flooding causes for people. I live in Clonmel, a town in south Tipperary, which unfortunately is synonymous with flooding. We have experienced serious flooding in the town on an almost annual basis in the past few years and there are immediate and long-term effects. I hate to be the bearer of bad news for people in other southern and western counties but it is important the full implications of the effects of flooding are understood by people and made known to the wider public. At a time of crisis, members of the public who are not directly affected are sympathetic, as we have seen in the past week. We have seen people being helpful. I pay tribute to the community spirit evident throughout the county since the flooding started. What will happen when the cameras stop rolling? Life will not return to normal for victims of the floods. The smell of stale water and sewage will linger for months. Solid wood floors will be warped and will have to be replaced. Some concrete floors will be so wet that dehumidi- fiers will be needed at considerable expense before new flooring can be laid. Carpets and furnishings must be thrown out. As we saw on television last night, councils are taking away furniture that has been destroyed. Even after dehumidifying, walls will be stained, even if they are painted, and dampness will set in again. Houses will need extensive electrical work, often full rewiring. Warping and rot will mean some interior walls and even ceilings will need to be rebuilt. Some houses are only fit to be knocked. Consideration may be given to relocating these residents. I have seen this happen in Clonmel many times, with businesses on the quay being affected. One hotel located there was forced to close. It had a devastating effect on the town because 597 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Phil Prendergast.] people were worried about access, with many of the bridges and access points cut off such as Convent Bridge, the Gashouse Bridge, the Raheen Road and the Davis Road. People do not realise the problems caused by floods but business really takes a hard knock. For farmers, the floods have become a nightmare scenario. After an unusually wet year that had played havoc across all sectors of agriculture, the IFA has stated farm incomes have fallen 41% in two years. If the collapse in prices for output this year is not enough, they must witness their livelihoods being washed away before them, as they look on helplessly at land and live- stock, often in a state of distress, rendered inaccessible by high flood waters. The fodder harvest was poor this year and maize and beet that farmers should be harvesting now will be ruined or, at best, of poor quality. This is not a matter for politics but the Government must look at the compensation being set aside for farmers, which at \2 million is nowhere near enough. As well as the financial cost, there is also a human cost. The dampness that will linger in affected homes is a danger to the health of anyone with breathing problems or joint pain. There is also an emotional cost. We are a house-proud nation and people have spent years getting their houses nice. Many had prized items of furniture or heirlooms they had kept in their houses and to see them destroyed is awful for them. It is emotionally scarring to see the work and money put into a home being washed away while not being able to do anything about it. That is one of the elements that is hardest to accept. The greatest cost will be the fall in the value of the property because it is a flood risk. There are insurance companies which will not give quotations to people from south Tipperary. It does not matter where a person’s house is; someone who lives in south Tipperary is seen as a flood risk and, therefore, cannot be given a quotation. Victims of flooding will see their premiums shoot up or, in the worst case scenario, they will be refused insurance entirely. I pay tribute to Clonmel Borough Council, Civil Defence, the Garda, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, charities and the Defence Forces. Almost 7,000 sandbags were delivered in the south Tipperary area to alleviate the worst effects of the flooding. I mentioned two brave soldiers this morning, Corporal David Aherne and Private Jason Daly, who saved two people from a car. They were waist high in water and very frightened and there is no doubt that they would have been in a far worse situation were it not for the brave efforts of those lads who experienced such terrible conditions. When we look at what were once rivers, we now see lakes. It is difficult to see where the flooding is and where the river used to be. For those caught in such a situation, when the surface of the water was rough with waves, it was horrific. Clonmel has experience of flooding to the extent that it has an early warning system, with a data feed from all the tributaries that feed into the Suir. It is computerised and linked with the borough council. The town clerk, Mr. Billy Doyle, and his early response team got together this week with Civil Defence, the HSE and borough councils workers. They were up all night on Sunday night to monitor the situation. Tipp FM and Tipp Mid West Radio did a great job carrying updates people wanted. I acknowledge those schools that closed because they did not want to put the children or parents at risk because cars going through flooded areas also have an impact on houses in the area, causing a tidal effect. The flooding also causes damage to cars that must be abandoned, putting real pressure on the Fire Brigade when the passengers need help to get out of the floods. The Army was simply superb in dealing with such instances. The Taoiseach came to Clonmel, visited the Army barracks and went with local representatives to look at areas of the town that were flooded. The number who came out to help, 598 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed) working as good neighbours, was incredible. They were cleaning up and mopping up, taking in others in flooded areas. Phase 1 of the flood alleviation programme is almost complete in Clonmel; therefore, areas that had previously flooded did not flood this time. While there is such disruption with the flood alleviation programme, \13 million has been invested and the early warning system, in conjunction with the level of experience, meant that people had advance notice. When the programme is finished, we will see a significant improvement but for those I have mentioned who have suffered damage to their property and are suffering ongoing worry about the weather, it is no comfort. The system is now so refined people know to ring for information and put sandbags in place but older people often find it too much to lift sodden sandbags. The good neighbourliness and the help offered by those involved in the clean up process, Civil Defence and the Army cannot be praised highly enough. We also received extensive help from community gardaí and gardaí in general with traffic management to try to avoid a further impact caused by the flooding. Little solace was taken in Clonmel from the fact that other areas were so badly affected. What we have known for many years in Clonmel is being seen for the first time in these other areas. The devastation that was clear on the faces of those affected was very upsetting because we had felt it ourselves. We must examine how community welfare officers will assess need. When someone’s house is destroyed by a flood, the upset does not go away. To fix it and still be in an area prone to flooding is very distressing. People have made life-changing decisions, having had to move from what may have been their family home all their lives or from one that had a particular impact on them. I thank the Minister of State for the opportunity to speak about this serious issue today. I reiterate my sympathy to all the families and people who have been so affected by this awful inclement weather.

Senator Dan Boyle: At this moment the ESB is briefing representatives from the Cork area regarding the release of water from the Inniscarra dam and its effect on the flooding events in Cork during the past week. I hope to be there shortly to hear what has to be said because I believe an investigation is needed. That event was possibly a factor in what transpired. That said, the flooding that occurred in the country this week would have occurred in any case. We are talking about the degree of flooding and the damage that was caused in consequence. The re-emergence and regularity of catastrophic weather events in the past decade would have been met ten years ago by county and city engineers with the attitude that such floods were a once in 20, 30 or 50 years event. Everybody now realises that the fact they are occurring every two to five years represents a fundamental change in weather and climate. We cannot divorce ourselves from the fact that we have contributed to the climate in which we live and this is one of the effects. The other side of the coin is that local authorities have far from commended themselves by the type of planning decisions that were made throughout the country, for example, the large degree of building on flood plains. Every member of a local authority during the past 20 years must take stock of decisions they made as individuals——

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Dan Boyle: ——or acting in concert with each other, very often in conspiratorial political groups, to override the decisions of planners and county managers and organise the building of housing and other amenities on areas that should never have been built upon. We are beginning to live with the effect of this. 599 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Dan Boyle.]

I speak as a representative of the Cork area which, in the current set of circumstances, was probably the largest affected. Geographically and historically, Cork has been open to widespread flooding. Cork has an island city centre and an area below sea level. However, despite those factors, tremendous efforts were made, especially with the creation of the Cork main drainage scheme in recent years to lessen the impact and incidence of flooding. The events of the past week have undermined much of the confidence built up with regard to those changes during recent years. The reality is that we can and probably will be subject to this type of flooding more regularly. What is especially disturbing about the Cork situation is that in addition to the devastation caused in Cork city, on the same night and on different watercourses throughout County Cork, half a dozen other towns were affected. These were not only the traditional towns of Mallow and Fermoy which are always prone to flooding but the towns of Bandon, which was particularly hard hit, Clonakilty and Skibbereen. This shows we are dealing with an extraordinary set of circumstances. If we add in the effects of flooding in Limerick, Clare, Galway, Westmeath and Athlone, we are talking about a new reality that requires a different type of thinking, a different way of allocating resources and a better way to be prepared for a new future that will involve catastrophic weather as part of our future lives. I do not believe this reality has been grasped because the policy implication means changing how we live our lives. As we debate whether particular taxes should be levied or whether we should change public behaviour at certain times, we should be conscious that the reason for proposing such measures now, even if they are politically unpopular and in the short term may bring about a widespread public reaction, is to avoid the type of occurrences we experienced in the past week. The fact is they are likely to be more regular and more intense in the future. I do not believe we have had a proper or honest political debate on these issues. It could very well be that this is what we will be most concerned about in the future. In recent years we have been rightly concerned with our immediate economic well-being and issues such as health and education come into our intellectual debate from time to time. However, we have not debated the extent to which this issue will impact on people’s everyday lives, where they live, how they live and the services and amenities that are immediately available to them. This more than any other issue may determine our future given the impact of a situation such as this, not only in terms of flooded buildings but also in terms of the knock-on effects of not having access to drinking water for days on end, the spill-over effects, if one pardons the pun, of what that does to public health, and the economic by-product of people not being able to work, generate wealth or distribute that wealth in the economy. As an island country and, ironically enough, as a country that is meant to be least affected by the effects of climate change in the future, when we see how this impacts on us now and is likely to worsen in the future, we can understand some kind of context for how it will affect the planet. Believe it or not, we are getting away with it more easily than are others and yet we are suffering as a result. Until we have that realisation and understand the reality for people whose homes are submerged in water, who are isolated as a result of events such as this, who are uncertain as to when, how or if these events are going to happen in the near or medium- term future, we will fail. I hope we learn from the experience and discover whether our emergency services responded adequately and quickly. Given the resources under which they operate, I believe they perfor- med heroically. As other speakers said, the concept of individuals and communities being under pressure has reinvented the traditional Irish attitude of meitheal. However, we cannot rely on these factors in every set of circumstances. There is an expectation that the system of govern- 600 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed) ment we have, at both national and local levels, is there to meet an immediate need when a crisis arises. There is uncertainty on the part of people who find themselves with damaged houses and without access to water. They may not find the situation is being responded to as it can be. If we learn appropriate lessons from this there may be in it the means of economic salvation. There is need for a massive repair programme which will be a stimulus in itself, not only by dealing with the effects of the damage created by the immediate flooding but by putting in place proper safeguards that will meet the future dangers of probable higher levels of water in many watercourses throughout the country. On those grounds, I hope the debate that follows is less about the immediate effects we have suffered and more about the long-term situation we must face as a people. I am confident there are some in this Chamber who are willing to participate and lead such a debate. I look forward to how the Government, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works respond to this debate and to consideration of the likelihood of future incidents of this type.

Senator Feargal Quinn: May I have the permission of the House to share equal time with Senator Norris?

Acting Chairman (Senator Geraldine Feeney): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Feargal Quinn: The Minister of State, Deputy Brady, is very welcome to the House to hear this debate. I listened very carefully to the two previous speakers. It was very interesting to hear the contrast of the two. Senator Boyle talked about the long-term effect on the environment of what is happening with the change in our climate and the threat to the entire future world ecology. It was very interesting to hear and was a reminder to us of what is important. I listened very carefully to Senator Prendergast. I have had a business in Clonmel for some 15 years and every time there is a flood we get telephone calls saying Clonmel is affected badly. However, Senator Prendergast was not necessarily talking about the physical repairs. She spoke of the wonderful spirit of neighbourliness that occurred in Clonmel. She spoke of all those others who came to help, such as the neighbours who came next door and all the social workers and volunteers who decided to help their neighbours. We need this sort of spirit. It was good to hear that in at least three areas in the south and west, local authority employees decided not to go ahead with their protest and strike yesterday because of the huge threat to their local communities. Yet, I saw on television last night that the workers in Athlone went ahead with it although the devastation in that area was evident. This is a reminder that to solve our economic problems, we will need such a spirit of friendship, neighbourliness and what I term economic patriotism. I refer to what was evident in so many areas yesterday. People in Dublin have been protected in this regard and have been watching the floods on television, reading about them in newspapers or hearing about them on radio. We both heard and saw the devastation that has occurred. I do not refer to property but to people such as those who had given their lives to their homesteads, families and whose personal effects have been destroyed but whose neighbours came to help them with their tractors, cars, trucks and bicycles. This represents the spirit of what one can do when one is put to the pin of one’s collar or when one realises one has a crisis on one’s hands and that one must help one’s neighbours and one another to get out of trouble. People have done this so well in these areas. However, this is exactly what we must do as a nation with the threat that is facing us on an economic basis. While I am talking about the two Ps, namely, property and people, I am really 601 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Feargal Quinn.] talking about the effect on people and their willingness to work. It has been proven repeatedly both in Ireland and elsewhere that whenever a threat emerges, people are willing to help their neighbours. We must do this as a nation because of both floods of water and the economic flood that assails us. We must make sure that we get together and decide that it is up to us to do something about it. Let us not think of mé féin, but of ourselves as a nation. We should establish what we can do to ensure that all the threats facing us will enable us to act like those who acted so well in the last couple of days in the face of those flood threats, which I gather will not recede as quickly as one otherwise would wish.

Senator David Norris: I thank my colleague, Senator Quinn, for sharing time and I welcome the Minister of State. This undoubtedly is a significant climatic event that can be placed in a number of different contexts, that is, local, national and global. At the national level, the most significant point is that a natural calamity was augmented by the release of water. I do not take sides in this regard and am not trying to apportion blame. However, it is important to recognise that in at least two or three of the worst affected areas, the floods were worsened significantly and dramatically by the release of water from hydroelectric projects. It may well be that the dams themselves were in danger and that would have been a far greater catastrophe. However, this raises the question of water management and its efficiency. What plans were in place and at what point did those responsible know? We now have computerised weather models and significant weather forecasting capacity that can be reasonably accurate. Consequently, there must have been at least five or six days’ warning of this kind of rainfall pattern over the island of Ireland. This may be the time, not for recrimination but for planning forward to ensure steps can be taken to ensure this does not happen in the same way in future. There should have been other channels and areas to which the excess water could have been directed instead of down towards major population centres in which there was inevitable destruction. My second point concerns the comments of an old farmer. I always have liked old farmers because my grandfather was something of one and they have much wisdom. The person in question stated that the rivers have not been managed or drained for the past 40 years. The management of our water resources should be brought to the attention of local authorities. In addition, this affects the question of the management of drinking water. Although this country is rained on from one end of the year to the other, we experience water shortages. I do not understand this and there is something dramatically wrong with water management here. On the global level, this also is a significant event because although it is not anything like as catastrophic as the kind of events that have taken place in Bangladesh and elsewhere, we have got our toes wet. People have received a significant shock and my heart goes out to them. Perhaps, as a nation, we will realise the reality of global climate change. This is the good that can come out of it. Senator Bacik, with the assistance of campaigning groups, produced fine legislation on climate change. She received a series of undertakings from the Government which were never honoured. This afternoon I attended a joint sitting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. Although the latter all-party committee also produced a Bill and recommended it to the Government, nothing has happened. I am unsure whether the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, will have an opportunity to reply as I am unsure of the format of these statements. All Members will testify that the business of this House is as chaotic as anything happening in Gort, Ennis or Limerick. However, if she gets the opportunity, she might address the question of the Government’s response on climate change and its commitment to legislation. The imminent climate change conference in Copenhagen finds both the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government absolutely naked in respect of any legislative proposal they could demonstrate convincingly to our neighbours. 602 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

On the local level, I was moved by Senator Prendergast’s comments as she put the human face on the crisis. I saw pictures in the newspapers and images on television of a religious institution, the name of which I am unsure of. I believe that wonderful Roman Catholic bishop, Willie Walsh, lives there but I cannot remember what it is called. The water was pouring out over a marvellous stone breast-high crenellated wall as though it were a sluice gate. It was absolutely astonishing. I listened today to a radio broadcast that featured a man from Gort who was in tears talking about his furniture shop. He had been obliged to dump all his stock. Moreover, he had employed his two brothers in the business over the past 15 years but they are now on the dole and are jobseekers. His mother did not know where she would end up and he observed that he was standing there looking out at a 17 acre lake. This is absolutely astonishing, as are the roads that have been swept away. As for Cork, I note the involvement of the electricity systems. While I do not blame anyone, this issue must be examined and I am glad Senator Boyle made that point. In respect of the Glucksman gallery, a joined-up approach is required. There must be a relationship between the electricity generators and the weather forecasters. Moreover, one needs a list of significant buildings of either cultural or social interest that must be warned. It is a real shame the Glucksman gallery, which is the result of truly benevolent giving on the part of a great Irish-American woman, should be so sadly damaged. I pay tribute to the staff in UCC who managed to rescue so much in difficult circumstances. My final point is that we must consider insurance and Senator Prendergast is quite correct in this regard. Apart from the hard-hearted insurance industry, which must be monitored as it attempts to milk the floods to put up its premiums, I thank God for those decent trade unionists who, even on their day of strike about which I had some reservations, suspended the strike in the interests of neighbourliness and helping other people in a critical period. This is a significant climatic phenomenon. If we are wise, we can learn from it. However, if we are foolish we will ignore the lessons it is possible to draw from it.

Senator Francis O’Brien: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, as Members debate this important subject, namely, statements on flooding. I agree with the comments of all previous speakers. The farming community has been mentioned and one should consider the amount of rainfall experienced over the past year, as well as the highly unfortunate bad weather this spring and in the early summer involving much rainfall. Farmers already were suffering depression over the bad weather and depressed prices. The major flood disaster that struck in the past week has put many farmers under extreme pressure. Many cattle were housed but even some houses in County Monaghan were flooded. The same is probably true of other parts of the country. Slatted sheds were also flooded in low lying areas of County Monaghan and cattle had to be removed to sheds on higher ground. I am sure this also happened in County Galway and many other parts of the country. Farmers are suffering severely as a result of the flooding. County councils will have a major problem in the months and years ahead with the roads as a result of the flooding. In some parts of County Monaghan rivers have burst their banks and washed some of the minor roads away. Monaghan town did not feature in the news reports but one of the main roadways there was flooded. I was not aware of any houses being flooded or any serious damage such as there was in other parts of the country. Nevertheless, many roads were flooded and car engines blew up when people drove into the floods. Insurance companies and county councils will face significant bills. Many houses in counties Galway, Cork, Tipperary and Westmeath were damaged and people’s livelihoods taken away. My heart goes out to all those whose homes, shops or goods suffered serious damage. That is very sad. 603 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Francis O’Brien.]

I compliment the Taoiseach and the Government on putting in place \10 million for immediate relief measures. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, to convey to the Taoiseach and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the need for more funding when this \10 million is spent. This is an emergency fund the Taoiseach and the Government have put in place to provide immediate relief for those who most need it. I compliment the Government on doing this as swiftly as it did. There is no doubt the Minister of State will convey to the Government the need for more funding when this is spent. The \10 million may be adequate today but it will not be in two or three weeks’ time. I am sure the Government will make more funds available when that money is spent. The goodwill of neighbours and communities who have come together has been wonderful. It is great to see this in a crisis. I do not wish to repeat myself but the roads will need to be addressed, as they will deteriorate drastically as a result of the wet weather. The floods have torn away some of them, as I have seen in parts of counties Monaghan and Cavan. I am sure other Senators have had similar experiences. I refer to main roads where houses are blocked in by flood waters. There are three or four families in my area who cannot get out of their houses unless they cross fields to high ground. I spoke to the engineer in Monaghan County Council today about this issue. Some funds will have to be made available to raise the roads in these areas. I know houses in County Galway, the Minister of State’s home area, and across the country were blocked in. It is frightening for people to be locked into their homes. I have no doubt the Minister of State will convey the views of this Chamber to the Government.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I welcome the Minister of State. Future flooding is now predictable. It is no longer unpredictable. The fact that it is predictable means that people are extremely vulnerable unless the Government acts responsibly. We all insure our homes and properties against disasters or acts of God. Insurance companies, however, have issued a clear warning that we can no longer say flooding is unpredictable in areas where it has already happened. My county which is also the home of the Minister of State has been devastated. The county manager is quoted in TheIrish Times todayassaying 13,000 square miles of land have been flooded and 65 roads have been closed. That is only a minor number of roads compared with all those that carry “Road Flooded” signs. The Garda was slow to close roads. We face a mammoth task. I understand \10 million has been allocated but that would not even take care of the damage caused in the Oranmore electoral area which is minor compared with the damage caused in Galway East. I ask the Minister of State to listen to her colleague, Senator O’Brien, who has said this is just a start. This places a huge onus on the Government to find the money needed. I urge it to go to the European Commission to get it, if necessary, because there must be a financial plan in place. I would like to see a commitment given to the House that it would receive a monthly update until the clean up plan has been sorted out because this involves a major short-term issue. The long-term cost will be the preventive plan because we must learn from this experience and seek solutions. We need a national emergency template similar to that in place in other countries. We know that flooding is predictable because of increased rainfall owing to climate change because, unfortunately, flood plains were built on during the crazy Celtic tiger years. While many communities such as those in the Oranmore and Carrowmoneash flood plains resisted these developments and paid large amounts of money in pursuing objections to An Bord Pleanála, developers have persisted in lodging applications. Some have even been granted. 604 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

As Senator Norris said, we have a lackadaisical attitude to cleaning our waterways and drains which need to be regularly maintained. For several years a family had to be evacuated in Oranmore owing to flooding. As it had made the national news, one and a half years ago it was decided to dredge the river behind the Allied Irish Banks branch in Oranmore to prevent further flooding of the family’s home. To get permission to clean up one river, three agencies, the Office of Public Works, Galway County Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, had to be asked. In the recent flooding this area was not affected as quickly as others. This highlights the benefits of dredging rivers to allow water flow easily to the sea. Oranmore is close to the sea. This time the flooding affected areas further inland. I know of a family in Derrydonnell with a 13 week old baby whose home was flooded. Other areas further inland such as Bushfield Gardens and Claregalway were completely flooded. In Cúirt na hAbhann up to 30 houses are flooded, with all of the back gardens in the Lakeview estate. Further east, Kinvara and Ballinasloe are flooded. The whole area of south Galway has been described as a disaster zone. What is the financial plan for these affected areas? How much will be committed nationally and how much to Galway? How much will be set aside for the immediate clean-up and the subsequent significant investment that the county manager has said is needed in the road and bridge infrastructure? Already where the water has receded in Galway, one can see the roads ripped up. This is coming at a really bad time in our economic history as already the councils have no money. They will have to be resourced nationally. If the Government cannot raise the funds nationally, it will have to seek them from the European Central Bank. Up to \54 billion has been secured for the banks at an interest rate of 1.5%. We cannot leave people’s homes, businesses and livelihood without support. The larger issue is what will be the long-term solution and plans for a national emergency template. What if this were a nuclear emergency at Sellafield? Ireland needs to be more ready for emergencies. As Senator Norris said, we are not used to natural disasters in this country — thankfully. However, that is the reason we were unprepared for the latest flooding. We need a co-ordinated emergency plan between national and local agencies. Galway County Council, Galway Bay FM, Civil Defence and the Army have been wonderful in dealing with the floods. However, as I passed through Athenry this morning, the firemen there informed me they were not needed. Apparently, the fire chiefs consider call-outs should only be to deal with life and death emergencies. In Athenry there were only three 6o’clock call-outs to help with the flooding compared with 130 in Ennis. These three call- outs involved moving a woman from under three feet of water, relieving flood waters at the agricultural college to allow motorists to proceed and assisting a man whose car had got stuck in a flood. These are common emergencies. Roads are the least of our worries when it should be people trapped in their homes. I know of a woman who is homebound in Ballinacloughy, Maree, because of the floods. The council will not raise the road for her and Civil Defence is only present as backup. Surely the fire service should be engaged in assisting this woman. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State on the short and long-term plans for dealing with the aftermath of this flooding and a template for national emergencies.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I appreciate the magnanimous and generous gesture made by my colleague Senator McCarthy and the Labour Party in giving up their Private Members’ time for this debate. No place has been left untouched by the recent devastating floods. Thank God, no lives have been lost to date. After a disastrously wet summer and with so much rain already in the early 605 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Denis O’Donovan.] part of the winter, my concern is that there will be much more rainfall by 1 May. I hope we will not have another onslaught but we must be prepared for it if there is. South-west Cork — in particular, Bandon, Clonakilty and Skibbereen — suffered severe damage in the floods. It is worrying that Bandon saw damage never seen before in my lifetime. Is the dredging and drainage management of the waterways being carried out? If not, why not? A dredging operation of the River Bandon, at the cost of \1.3 million, was done near Dunman- way some five years ago which I hope alleviated flooding in the area. However, this piecemeal approach to waterways management could have had knock-on effects downstream on Manch and Bandon. A full appraisal of such works must be carried out. I am also concerned about the questions raised about the Inniscarra dam and the flooding of Cork city. Despite the co-ordinated efforts of local authorities, the Department and other agencies such as the HSE, it is not good that there has been an unspoken argument between them and the ESB about the release of water from the dam. This must be better managed and releases should occur when tides are low and the rivers can take the water. A combination of swollen rivers and high tides is a catalyst for disaster when one tries to release water from a dam. After 35 years of waiting, the new relief road for Skibbereen was completed two years ago. At one stage on Friday night, 20 November, this new road was covered in three feet of water, an alarming development on such a new road. There was some criticism earlier of the Taoiseach’s announcement of a \10 million package. He indicated this was the first amount to be allocated to kick-start the fund. Today’s Irish Examiner states that only \10 million is being provided, which indicates to me that the reporter concerned was not listening to what the Taoiseach had to say. This type of unnecessary remark can inflame people. The Taoiseach said that as a starting point \10 million will be provided. I am sure more money will be provided in due course. Senator O’Brien referred to the farming community. There is no doubt that the farming community, be they dairy farmers or subsistence farmers in the west of Ireland or in west Cork depending on REPS and other payments, have had an appalling year. As a farmer’s son, my heart goes out to them. I am concerned they are facing into a winter of water-logged land and so on. There is no doubt that shopkeepers in areas such as Bandon, Skibbereen and Clonakilty have suffered tremendously. This flooding came like a thief in the night. Waters rose suddenly, which nobody expected or could have predicted. Given our planning laws and the forecasting services of Met Éireann we should be able to obtain more advanced warning of flooding. It is obvious to anyone that when the Lee Valley becomes swollen to approximately 18 inches above normal levels and the Bandon River becomes swollen, coming events cast their shadows afore. People should be on the ball. Thankfully, we did not have flooding in Bandon this time around. However, traditional fishermen and locals involved in seafaring know that a combination of a high tide, heavy rainfall and south-east wind inevitably result in flooding. I am concerned about our early warning system. We are speaking here today about what we can do to assist in this regard. I am not suggesting there is a lot we can do other than to provide whatever assistance we can through Government agencies. Proper warning systems would allow shopkeepers when flooding is expected to move items upstairs or off the premises. Also, people could move furniture upstairs in an effort to minimise any damage. I can only speak about Cork because I have not visited other parts of the country but these floods came like a thief in the night. In these days of forward planning and so on this should not have happened. 606 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

I compliment the local authorities, councillors, city workers, firemen, Civil Defence, HSE, Naval Service and volunteers for their tremendous work during this plight. Despite the difficulties we are experiencing and the economic gloom and bad weather this summer, when push came to shove these people came out and worked through the night in difficult conditions to help alleviate the situation. I believe we should devise a national plan for water management. If one currently exists, it is inadequate. I am concerned about insurance companies refusing to provide insurance cover against flooding. We must introduce legislation to address this because it is not good enough from insurance companies who have made a great deal of money from people living in areas that are likely to be flooded. As far as I am aware approximately 70% of people who take out home insurance never make a claim against it. The insurance companies should not be allowed to refuse cover to people in these areas. People, in particular home owners, must be guaranteed insurance cover until such time as we have in place successful water and flood management such as those in Mallow, Fermoy and Kilkenny. This type of system must be put in place in vulnerable areas such as Cork city and so on. I thank the House for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Senator Michael McCarthy: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey. I record my appreciation of the agreement of Senator Brendan Ryan, whose Private Members’ Bill was due to be debated this evening, to a discussion on this urgent matter. I am aware issues arose in the other House in terms of the length of debate on this issue. However, I am delighted this House — it is most important I say this — has been able to put aside party politics and unite behind the people affected by this severe and disastrous flooding. I am glad the Government acceded to our proposal to take this business this evening. It is the least we can do for the victims of the flooding. Information was made available to me last week by way of a parliamentary question raised in the Lower House by a colleague. This information deals with local authority resources and the number of jobs lost on local councils throughout the country and also contains figures as they pertain to Cork County Council. Senator O’Donovan will be aware that in excess of 500 jobs on Cork County Council have been lost during the past year. These relate to contracts not renewed, outdoor local authority staff and area engineers who have not been replaced owing to the ban on recruitment in the public service, which is having a telling effect in this particular area. I believe this ban on recruitment is impacting in terms of the stretching of resources over a smaller workforce and its ability to respond to the crisis that was last week’s flooding. Unfortunately, it continues in other parts of the island tonight. I pay tribute to those involved in the fall-out from this crisis. Areas such as Skibbereen, Clonakilty and, in particular, Bandon have been badly affected by the flooding. On Saturday afternoon last, I along with the Mayor of Bandon, Councillor Gearóid Buckley, visited what is left of some of the businesses in south Main Street. While I am normally well composed, my heart bled for those who have lost their entire business, many of whom will not, unfortunately, be in a position to recover from this crisis. These people were barely surviving the economic circumstances of the past 12 to 18 months. What was keeping them going was the prospect of business over the Christmas period. One particular business has been completely wiped out. The owner was in tears because all of the Christmas stock had been destroyed and he had no guarantee of insurance cover. I witnessed skips being filled by the drivers of lorries and tractors, members of the Garda Síochána, local authority staff and volunteers. One former business is now being used to distribute soup, tea and sandwiches to the many volunteers involved. I agree with Senator O’Donovan that it is miraculous nobody was badly or fatally injured as a result of this disaster. We must be thankful for this. While I do not wish to take from all that 607 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Michael McCarthy.] has been done, I honestly believe there is almost a disconnect in terms of the coverage of this crisis. To witness at first hand what has happened and to listen to people’s stories is eerie. It had a profound impact on me in terms of how we can respond. The Garda divisional headquarters for west Cork was completely flooded. There were many patrol, unmarked and civilian cars floating around its yard while concentration inside was on moving files and equipment upstairs. The bursting of the river banks had untold disastrous consequences for many organs of different function in the town of Bandon. Towns and streets in Skibbereen have been destroyed and people are prisoners in their own homes. Many homes and businesses have been flooded by in excess of 7 ft of water. We must consider how we are to deal with this issue. While climate change will inevitably impact on this, the degree to which we cannot determine, we can be sure this type of flooding will be more frequent in the future. It is imperative we carry out flood relief works in areas known to be blackspots for flooding. There is also the issue of warnings and the role the ESB played in this by the release of water from the Inniscarra dam. I accept there are other issues and I am not judging anybody, but the ESB played a huge role in that regard. All the western part of Cork city is still submerged in water. Drinking water is not available to thousands of homes in Cork city and county. It is unbelievable. I am convinced this is our equivalent of 11 September 2001. The measure of the political response will not be reflected in the relief aid that is made available. I have an issue with the \10 million. It is a little like the response at Christmas 2004 when the tsunami hit Asia with such devastating consequences. Our initial response was something equally paltry. I do not say that disparagingly as it was amended by the Government when the sheer scale of what happened became obvious. I do not believe \10 million is enough. It would not go far in the two areas I mentioned, Bandon and Skibbereen. We debated overseas development aid in this House last Wednesday evening. Ireland has a commendable scheme, although it has been reduced due to budgetary difficulties. However, it is \750 million per annum. We have our own clear and urgent need for as much funding in this country. There will be issues relating to the role of the HSE, the Garda Síochána, the local authority and the Army. The Irish Red Cross is expert at dealing with the fall-out from disasters such as this. We should examine the role the Irish Red Cross can play in responding to such events in future. There is also the huge issue of how the insurance companies will respond to the claims that will inevitably be made. Some businesses have been told by assessors not to go near them. Where does that leave these people? We must ensure there is an adequate compensatory scheme for them. Lives have been destroyed. I was lucky last Thursday to be able to return to Dunmanway. I travelled to Cork and had to meander around various towns to get back. It took longer than usual but I was one of the lucky ones. There were cars submerged in water and abandoned along the R586. I welcome the fact we are debating this important issue. However, there must be a continuous debate about our response. People’s lives have been ruined. There must be a co-ordinated, strategic response in terms of flood warning systems and flood relief works. Has the scheme whereby the \10 million will be administered through community welfare offices been properly thought out? Community welfare officers are under huge pressure due to the economic circumstances in the past year. The officers in my area in west Cork were involved in a type of protest from July to the end of October this year. They were not accepting any extra applications for mortgage subsidy or community welfare. The Government has now dumped more work on these people. Is that the wisest course to take? Can we have a commitment that there will be a bigger, strategic and co-ordinated response so we can help ease the suffering on our doorstep? 608 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

Senator Déirdre de Búrca: I welcome this opportunity to make a statement on the recent flooding. I feel very passionately about flooding because in my eight years as a member of Wicklow County Council some of the most difficult planning situations I had to deal with or be involved with were cases in which flood plains were being zoned. Public representatives have probably only begun to wake up to the enormous responsibility they have when zoning land to ensure they are not planning development in areas which will cause major flood risk problems in the future. Unfortunately, this is something we have not been sufficiently aware of until now. I listened with interest to the debate today. Senators have spoken movingly about the distress of constituents throughout the country. It is right and proper that we use our positions to do that. However, there is something fundamentally unsatisfactory about the fact that at national level, all the political parties are saying the right things about flooding — how dreadful it is, asking how it happened and saying more must done through the provision of emergency funding and so forth — but at local level on the part of all the political parties there is very irresponsible zoning of flood risk areas and flood plains. Even as we speak decisions are probably being made in which people are convincing themselves that it will not make a difference or that they can zone an area if they put in certain measures as well. It must be recognised that we are in a new era in terms of climate change. We will continue to experience the type of high and extreme levels of precipitation we have seen over recent years. Our drainage systems will be under extraordinary pressure and the type of flooding we are experiencing at present will happen again. Hopefully, we will be able to mitigate and reduce the drastic impact of that flooding, but it will happen more regularly. What we once considered to be once in 100 years storms will become once in 50 years, once in 20 years or once in ten years storms. We must do everything we can, particularly in the way we plan our communities in future, to ensure we do not worsen the situation or create an environment where people are left in the conditions we have seen through the excellent coverage by the national broadcaster. Through that coverage one is almost with the people in their kitchens, walking around with them knee high in flood waters and empathising fully with them. One of the worst things that can happen to anybody is to have their home and belongings subject to flooding. It has an effect not just at the time of the flooding but in the weeks and months afterwards when the clean-up is taking place and one must go through the awful business of trying to find out if the insurance company is prepared to provide funding for the work required to restore the property and replace the belongings that have been damaged. We have heard many stories of insurance companies that are refusing to provide insurance to homeowners who have claimed once as a result of flooding of their property. As people who are involved in making critical planning decisions, we cannot continue to allow this to happen. At this time when we are discussing the issue of zoning, all political parties should pledge to ensure that what they say at national level will be implemented and complied with by their councillors at local level. If they do not, they will be guilty of extreme hypocrisy. There is little good when the damage is done asking the Government to provide funds to mitigate or try to remedy some of that damage because at that stage the expense is huge. People are already trying to calculate the economic damage that has been done throughout the country as a result of flooding. Every political party must resolve that the message will go to local councillors that the flood guidelines the Minister, Deputy Gormley, is due to introduce in the near future must be adhered to. This country must also examine the issue of the accountability we will seek if people continue to zone and make planning decisions in irresponsible ways. Recently we have seen in the banking sector how people behaved in a very reckless way and appear to date to have suffered 609 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Déirdre de Búrca.] few consequences for that behaviour, even though the livelihoods of many people have been destroyed. We must examine the planning process and if people are ignoring recommendations of planners and flood management guidelines, proceeding to zone flood plains and grant planning permission in areas that are susceptible to flooding or are recognised as flood plains, there should be some serious penalty and the people who are making those critical decisions should be held responsible. We must make this a serious issue and make the consequences clear so we can persuade councillors in future to be mindful of this when making planning decisions. With regard to what can be done, I agree with Senator Norris’s remarks about water management. There must be better water management systems. The water framework directive is a very good policy framework for improving our water management systems. The policy is based on national river basins and catchment areas. We must ensure local authorities are working together well so they do not view this matter in terms of artificial local authority areas, but as the natural catchment areas and basins of our rivers. We need to identify flood risk and flood prone areas and flood plains in our county and local area development plans. We need to ensure full implementation of the national guidelines that will be introduced soon by the Mini- ster for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley. We must ask local authorities to audit their drainage systems and set out clear plans over the next year or two to improve them. The Government must ensure flood protection measures in high-risk areas are implemented and that funding is providing. We will not have enough funding to implement them everywhere, but we are all aware of certain high-risk areas, including Clonmel where flood protection measures are not completed but are in progress, Bray and other areas that are regularly subjected to serious flooding. We need to consider the issue of reservoirs and hydroelectric power stations to ensure the types of problem experienced in the past week or so do not recur. We must increase their capacities to take account of the fact that flooding will be a more regular occurrence.

Senator Paul Bradford: It is fair to say the dreadful weather of the past week has visited disaster on tens of thousands of families. My colleagues have clearly outlined the significant scale of the problem in counties Cork, Galway and Tipperary. As with the state of the economy, we are where we are and it is a question of what we can do, what leadership can be provided by politicians and what approach we will take in conjunction with local authorities to alleviate distress, provide whatever financial compensation is possible and plan for the future. Grave scenes of devastation in towns and townlands, communities ravaged by floods, families in distress and people being helicoptered to safety have been shown on our television screens and across the media. The latter is a scene we associate with disasters abroad, but it happened on our doorstep. In County Cork, the town of Mallow benefited significantly from flood alleviation works carried out by the OPW, Cork County Council and Mallow town council. Other towns where works were not as advanced, such as Fermoy, were hit by flooding more severely. Many towns in west Cork have been gravely affected. The national response should be the swifter implementation of the flood relief plans that are on the shelves of various Departments and councils. This will require funding, but the questions for the immediate future relate to the clean-up and what compensation can be provided. The figure of \10 million for relief is a drop in the ocean, if the House will excuse the pun. There is an absolute expectation that, notwithstanding our financial state, there will be a genuine effort to secure serious levels of compensation for those who have been most gravely affected financially or in terms of property. My colleague, Senator Healy Eames, stated we have been in a position to provide money for the banking system. This was badly needed, as we all require a banking system, but an 610 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed) equivalent effort must be made to compensate the thousands of families that have been affected. Unfortunately, the moneys received from house or business insurance will not solve the problem, since policies in this respect can prove difficult. In most cases, compensation will not be payable under these policies and people who claimed 12 or 24 months ago are no longer covered. The State has an obligation to respond to the financial distress of which we are all aware. We can all agree that \10 million would not solve the problem of one town in the west or south west. I hope the Minister of State, in his summation, will indicate that greater investment will be provided. Like many colleagues across parties, I wish to express my appreciation for the people in State offices, be they council, HSE, OPW or departmental officials, who have worked so effectively during the past week to try to help. The public servants were at their best, a fact that needs to be noted at this difficult time in the debate on the future funding of public services. This shows that we need a public service that can respond to the crisis of the time. The current response has been effective, but it can only go so far, given the scale of the problem. One cannot turn back the tide or make the floods disappear. For some towns and villages, the crisis will continue during the coming weeks. Local authorities will be left holding a large bill. They must try to pay for the overtime of staff who have been working nearly 24/7. They must also repair roads, dangerous bridges, gullies, streams, rivers etc. The Department must work closely with local authorities to address this urgent need for funding, resources and manpower. All colleagues in the Chamber might have received a submission today from one of our councillors in Cork, Councillor Daly, who suggested the Department should consider a social employment-type scheme on a trial basis. In this way, local authorities would be allowed to employ people who are currently unemployed at a rate of approximately \400 per week, comprising the social welfare payment and a further \200. In Cork and other affected counties, approximately 200 people could be employed to help repair local roads, re-open drains, clean up etc. Machinery helps a lot, but the councils need more people to work with them during the coming weeks and months, which will be crucial. There is an embargo on public sector recruitment, but this is a national disaster and resources must be provided to local authorities. At a time when virtually 500,000 people are unemployed, we must give some consideration to this suggestion on a short-term basis. In Cork, this sort of direct employment would shorten our lengthening dole queues by approximately 200 people. As part of the broader debate, we must listen to the argument made by Senator de Búrca on planning and development, but we are not in a position to knock down housing estates which have been built. It is a question of planning for the future but, more importantly, dealing with the current crisis, financially and physically.

Senator Larry Butler: I wish to share time with Senator Ó Murchú.

Acting Chairman (Senator Geraldine Feeney): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Larry Butler: I sympathise with all those throughout the country who have had their homes flooded. I come from a town, Graiguenamanagh, that floods on a regular basis. We are well used to flood waters, as the town floods virtually every year. My house is beside the canal, 20 yards from the water. Some years ago we decided to take action and construct defences. We decided during the renovation work to construct all solid floors inside, take out all of the vents underneath the floors, put in new DPC and have flood barriers on the doors. This option is available to most people whose property is flooded on a regular basis. Where there is regular flooding, there should be a grants system under which 611 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

[Senator Larry Butler.] houses can be adapted to protect against flooding. This would be invaluable. We all can speak about building on flood plains, but there are many houses not built on flood plains which are being flooded. We are dealing with a new phenomenon. More rain falls now in one hour than used to fall in a week. I agree that we are not taking a long-term view and that we should plan ahead. Many drains are not being cleared on a regular basis, which causes flooding. It is not true to state there is nothing we can do. We are our own managers when it comes to defending ourselves against flooding. The quay in Graiguenamanagh was raised successfully three or four years ago. As a result, unless there are extremely high floods, the water will not come over the quay. We should look at raising quay heights in certain areas, which would not cost vast sums of money. We should ensure such an investment is made. We should invest to ensure houses are designed to withstand water. Flood barriers fitted on doors will keep water out of most houses with solid floors. We should look at the possibility of not using timber floors in houses. They are not necessary. One can have a solid floor with a membrane. All bathrooms could be fitted with bucon traps which allow water out but not in. That is another way a house with a bathroom on the ground floor is flooded — water rises high outside and then runs back up pipes. A bucon trap could be fitted to prevent flooding in bathrooms and stop water from coming into houses. That is vitally important. I ask the Minister to look at the possibility of providing grants towards adapting houses to prevent flooding.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I thank Senator Butler for sharing his time with me. I want to reflect on some of the comments he made. He made some exceptionally good and pragmatic suggestions, which is what we need. We can foresee circumstances where flooding may recur and if it is possible to treat a house to ensure flood waters would not get in, the matter should be looked at in the context of the provision of grant aid because a stitch in time could save a great deal of money at a later stage. Incidentally, I am glad these statements are being made, for which I thank the Leader. I note that he stated on the Order of Business he would be prepared to provide a certain amount of time for a number of weeks to discuss the issue of flooding where it might be necessary to do so. That, in itself, is a good idea. It is not necessary to reiterate what has been stated about the trauma experienced by so many throughout the country. Even to watch it on television, it is clear it is a shocking experience for anyone to have his or her home invaded by water. One’s home, above all else, is the one place one thinks of as being a refuge and safe. There were a number of messages from the terrible events of the past few days. First, on the quick response of the Taoiseach and the Government, the fact that the Taoiseach visited all of the flashpoints was very much appreciated. It underlined clearly that the Government was anxious to respond promptly. It also was important to respond by committing financial assistance. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, who has been right at the heart of matters, not just throughout the country but in the town of Clonmel also. There has been high praise for him today which I am sure he does not need for the manner in which he made himself available at the coalface. Let me make a suggestion. Everybody is underlining the nature of the crisis and emergency. That is true but there is a need at local level to bring together all those with resources and also those in the commmunity who want to help. It is overwhelming the way communities react in times of crisis. We should formalise this and bring the various groupings together almost like 612 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

— I do not mean this in the wrong sense — a council of war because there may be a degree of fragmentation. There is potential in this and I recommend that statutory and community bodies come together. It would indicate clearly to those on the receiving end of this terrible crisis that we were united because Irish people are good when it comes to such matters.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I wish to share time with Senators O’Reilly and Cummins.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh. I also welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate on flooding and the terrible difficulties seen across the country in recent days. It looks as if we will see more in the next few days because the weather forecast is not good. I refer to the difficulties encountered in my part of the world, particularly on the lower parts of the River Nore. There was a very successful OPW flood relief scheme completed in Kilkenny city at great cost a number of years ago. However, it has resulted in transferring the effects of flooding to Thomastown and Inistioge. In Thomastown, where my office is located, the down- stairs dwelling was flooded on Friday morning last. It was the worse flooding in 41 years. It seems the relief works in Kilkenny have led to worse problems for people in Thomastown and Inistioge. I appreciate the OPW has a difficult job in overseeing flood relief schemes across the country, but I have never been able to receive a satisfactory response from it to queries I have raised, particularly with regard to Thomastown, an issue I have been raising with it for years. To be perfectly honest and blunt, there is far too much political interference at that level in how public money is spent. Senators from the Green Party have mentioned there is too much political interference at planning level, which might well be true. I do not see consistency in the actions of the OPW, so I would like to see a change in the way it carries out its work. Apart from the rain, the biggest cause of flooding is the change in land use that has occurred throughout the country. Large parts of rural Ireland have been planted with trees and new drainage systems and such areas have seen much greater volumes of water coming to a point more rapidly than heretofore. That is leading to difficulties at those locations. Senator Butler mentioned Graiguenamanagh and Tinahinch, which experienced bad flooding last weekend. Recently, I met the chairman of Carlow County Council whose house in Loughlinbridge on the River Barrow is under two feet of water. There are significant difficulties throughout the country, not just west of the Shannon or in County Cork. Senator Butler’s proposal is the best one I have heard for a long time in the Seanad — that the Government should investigate some sort of initiative whereby people could protect their own dwellings. It is a very good idea and I would ask the Minister to examine it. I also want to discuss the construction of new roads, especially motorways. We had a problem in Dunkitt on the edge of Waterford city where flooding has always been an issue. It experienced the worst flash flood in the country, with water rising above the roofs of cars. It only affected a small number of houses but they were badly damaged. The new Dublin-Waterford road is a welcome development but it appears that the construction work has redirected water resulting in a disaster for those in affected areas. Much damage has been done to local roads also, as previous speakers have said. While local authority staff numbers have been reduced, I am aware there is machinery available to do the work that used to be done manually, such as cleaning drains and opening shores. That is no longer done but when it was carried out in the past, there was less damage to roads as a result. It should be resumed now. 613 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

Senator Joe O’Reilly: I express my sincere sympathy with the victims of flooding throughout the country. It is a horrible thing to happen to anyone. It happened to me once and it is a terrible domestic experience. While this is happening throughout the country, there are certain blackspots. The Cavan-Monaghan constituency is not immune from the problem as there are pockets of flooding. Individuals have been badly affected. This week, one local newspaper carried a front page photograph of a gentleman whose house was submerged in water. Other people’s cars were submerged on roads. Much farmland, which was sodden already, is under water. While we are not in the same awful position as other counties, the Minister of State should note that the Cavan-Monaghan area has suffered localised effects. Although the numbers are small, the people affected in Cavan-Monaghan will require the same kind of relief package as those in the blackspots. The impact is as great for them as for those affected by flooding elsewhere. I ask the Minister of State to consider that matter seriously. We will have to put more money into a drainage programme because the old river drainage schemes carried out by county councils and the OPW have been left aside in recent years. It will not halt the rain but it will have an impact on the solution. It was clearly a mistake to build houses on flood plains. In addition, we put too many houses in hollows and valleys to avoid affecting the skyline, so that should be examined. I want to put on record the degree to which the Cavan-Monaghan area has been affected. Farmers have been hit and road surfaces have been damaged, which has implications for the roads programme. In addition, individual householders have been flooded in pockets. They should get the same relief as those in other flooded areas.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The first phase of the Clonmel flood relief scheme, which is in the Minister of State’s constituency, will not be finished until next year. There are two other phases which have not even gone to tender. I spoke to Councillors Acheson and Murphy earlier today and they say those two phases have not gone out to tender. Will the Minister of State update the House on the current situation? I am sure he has that information. The sum of \10 million is paltry and totally inadequate to help families in dire straits as a result of this disastrous flooding. Such inundation has not been seen for 40 or 50 years. The \10 million is being administered by the Department of Social and Family Affairs but the Irish Red Cross should also be involved. It administered grants for people affected by flooding some years ago. Will local authorities be given the money to repair roads and bridges which have been damaged by these floods? They cannot continue with the reduced road grants they got last year. If the same thing occurs this year, we will have potholes throughout the country as a result and local authorities will not have the resources to repair them. I ask the Minister of State to address those issues.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I thank all the Senators who contributed to what has been a very good debate. It was full of suggestions and proposals, as well as expressions of concern for those worst affected, and commendation for those involved in the humanitarian rescue efforts of recent days. We all desire the same objective of alleviating distress in the short-term. Once the emergency has been overcome, however, we must tackle the longer-term problems. In so far as we can, we will seek to mitigate the effects of flooding and climate change. There are broadly two types of situation involved. There are towns or parts of cities where flood protection schemes have been completed or are under way. In other areas, such schemes have yet to be devised, if they are appropriate, which they may not be in all cases. It should be noted that where works have been carried out, and to the extent to which they have been completed, they have made a big difference. Mallow north is the most obvious example, while 614 Flooding: 25 November 2009. Statements (Resumed)

Carrick-on-Suir is another one. In Clonmel there was quite a bad flood in January, although not as bad as the current one. In the meantime, phase one of the town’s flood protection scheme has nearly been completed. More credit should have been given to that situation, which means that areas that were previously badly flooded have been spared to a greater extent. There are another two or three weeks in the first phase. There is one exception, namely an archaeological find in a particular area. It will take until the end of January for that hole to be plugged. Phases two and three of the scheme will start towards the end of the first quarter of next year.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Have they gone to tender yet?

Deputy Martin Mansergh: The contracts will be signed in January. They have gone to pre- tender. The Senator will be aware of the works that have been done in Waterford, which look fairly well. As far as I appreciate, they have not prevented flooding in Waterford because the scheme there is not complete. There are a number of towns with flood relief schemes, including Ennis, Waterford, Clonmel and Mallow. The one in Fermoy is only just starting. All these works should be completed within the next couple of years. There is no political interference whatso- ever in terms of the selection of towns or cities in which projects must be progressed. The schemes are based purely on need. The main political task is to ensure funding is in place to support the schemes. Over the past two or three weeks, before the flooding problem of the past few days, I and senior officials were in conversation with the Department of Finance about next year’s budget. Since I was appointed, I have accorded that the highest priority in my office. It is important to stress there is not a cap on the schemes run by the community welfare officer in respect of distress caused by flooding. The \10 million, which is an initial allocation, has been deemed insufficient by many but, as the Taoiseach said, it is important to establish a budget line. The same applies to the agricultural aspect which involves a separate scheme. The important point is to establish the principle. If the funding is insufficient, I am sure it can be increased. The Taoiseach stated on the Order of Business that the county enterprise boards may have a role to play with regard to business. Senator O’Reilly raised the question of relatively small incidents in Cavan which were none the less very severe to the people concerned. If my geography is correct, Cavan is more covered by lakes and water than any other county. Perhaps, therefore, the lakes take care of some of the problem. As I stated in my initial contribution, the point is that there is a small works scheme. It was established by the OPW in the middle of last year. One aspect pertains to inland works and another to coastal works. It is open to local authorities to make applications to the OPW for assistance with relatively minor works that will make a difference. We have a framework for emergency management. It was put in place in recent years and enables the Garda, the Health Service Executive and local authorities to prepare for and make a co-ordinated response to a variety of major emergencies, including flooding. It enables them to co-ordinate their efforts whenever a major emergency occurs. At county level, both in Clare and Tipperary, I have seen the system working very well. My office, while not the primary response agency in such emergencies, has nevertheless supplemented the efforts of the local authorities in recent days by offering them services, manpower and equipment in addition to undertaking measures regarding its own schemes and defences. For example, in the mid-west, the OPW has provided pumping facilities in Plassey, Limerick and the Sixmilebridge-Bunratty area. It has also drafted in pumping facilities to Ennis and Shannon Banks and various areas of Limerick to help with circumstances there. As I saw 615 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Martin Mansergh.] myself, the OPW has been very active in the Galway and south Mayo areas by providing pumping facilities to clear roads and help relieve flooding around housing in less urban areas. The staff are in the affected areas all the time offering advice and collecting data. They also undertake aerial surveys. It is very important to have photos of the extent of the damage so the current floods can be compared with others. With regard to Cork city wall, a preliminary assessment of all the defences in Cork city has been undertaken as part of the LeeCFRAM study. The assessment shows that all of the defences are generally in poor condition. To provide the necessary protection against fluvial flooding, it will most likely be necessary to replace existing defences rather than increase their height. The highest priority in the LeeCFRAM study is to increase flood forecasting so the ESB will have at least four days of warning before adhering to a set of regulations to be drawn up with regard to the release of water. This may be a joined-up system between the OPW and ESB. The LeeCFRAM plan is likely to be put out for public consultation within the next four weeks for 12 weeks. In the interim, the wall that was knocked down will be assessed as soon as possible and any action necessary will be decided upon jointly by the OPW and Cork City Council. There has been much reference to drainage schemes. With regard to arterial drainage, the OPW has responsibility for a network of channels throughout the country as a result of arterial drainage schemes carried out under the 1945 Act. In this regard, it carries out an annual maintenance programme. The programme has an annual budget of approximately \19 million. In light of recent flooding events, the programme will be reviewed and, if necessary, changes made thereto. I noted a point made by Senator Norris on the need to draw up a list of significant buildings, including cultural buildings and hospitals, that might be at risk of flooding. Many of us are upset that the art collections in UCC have been jeopardised by there being insufficient time to move them to a safe place. Planning guidelines will need to be adhered to strictly when published. This will require changes in attitudes because, to date, people have sometimes taken the view that one should not worry too much about a flood plain if there is an attractive development thereon. We will have to worry about this in the future. Development plans will have to protect against flooding much better than they have done in the past. Preferably the developments should not be built on the flood plains at all. I take the point that planners have, on the whole, tended to keep heights and hills free of development and to put housing lower down. This is a practice that will have to be examined. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from the experience of the past week or so on many levels. It is not a case of one solution being a panacea; a variety of measures will 7o’clock be required and different agencies will contribute to a solution. However, there is no doubt about the pressing priority attached to the issue. The flooding has brought us face to face in a way that floods in individual areas have not done with the real threat we are facing in the rest of this century and into the future. Other countries, especially what used to be called the Low Countries, had to put their defences in place 350 years ago. We will have to strengthen our defences no end.

Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages. An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to. 616 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

NEW SECTION.

Senator Paul Bradford: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, before section 5, but in Chapter 2, to insert the following new section:

“5.—The Minister shall publish and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a strategic review of existing foreshore legislation and a new framework for foreshore licensing and development within six months of the enactment of the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009.”.

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House and thank him for his constructive comments on Second Stage. The amendment arises from what has been at the kernel of the debate so far. The point has been made by a number of speakers on all sides of the House that the existing foreshore framework is inadequate and outdated. It is no longer able to cope with the changes that have taken place and the opportunities that have come to the fore — excuse the pun — in recent years. I refer to opportunities in sea fishing, aquaculture, wastewater treatment plants, commercial harbour developments, and wind, wave and tidal energy projects. The legislation governing these areas dates back to 1933. It is fair to say that, not surprisingly, that legislation was not drafted with these modern projects in mind. This is resulting in significant delays in processing applications for licences for aquaculture and renewable energy projects, both desirable fields of endeavour, which means there has not been adequate consideration of planning and development needs in the areas concerned. It is appropriate that we are discussing the Bill immediately following statements on the devastation caused by flooding across the country because the latter demonstrates the importance of proper planning measures and procedures. We cannot afford to drag our feet any further. As the Minister of State is aware from queries to his Department, there are many instances of applications being put on hold indefinitely. First-time applicants or those renewing applications do not receive a response within an acceptable timeframe. This is largely due to the outdated system, one that could be said to be stifling progress and frustrating people. No doubt departmental officials find it difficult to deal with the cumbersome system in place. On Second Stage the Minister of State promised a strategic review of the foreshore planning system was being considered. He indicated that a new framework would be drafted and put in place to expedite projects. The philosophy behind the amendment is to ensure the Minister of State’s aspiration will become a reality, as will ours, and that we will not miss out on opportunities for investment in job creation and economic growth. We have delayed for long enough. Fine Gael suggests a target should be set to reform the system to avoid further delays and produce badly needed jobs across the various sectors. We believe the framework we have suggested would be adequate, given the extent of the work already done, in particular by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. That committee, under the chairmanship of my party colleague, Deputy Barrett, has carried out investigations and done significant work, including the production of a draft Bill, which appears to have provided the Minister of State and his officials with a firm footing on which to begin a strategic review and bring forward much delayed and much needed legislation. We heard on Second Stage that investments in the region of \16 billion, which is an enormous sum, are at our disposal in terms of potential investments in renewables and other energy generating projects. All of those projects are now in a queue, so to speak, awaiting approval to some degree or other. The message from the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and from this debate is that we must capture that potential and reach our renewable energy 2020 targets 617 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

[Senator Paul Bradford.] and to do that we must push these projects forward. Our amendment is designed to help in that regard and I hope the Minister of State will give it consideration. I look forward to his observations on where we should move in regard to the thinking behind this amendment.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: There is certain merit in Senator Bradford’s amendment. He has rehearsed the arguments and I will not repeat them but the lack of a timescale is a concern. There is no limit as to the period by which a licence application must be granted. It has been a major problem. It is also a problem with the Bill currently before the other House and which we argued here. It would appear to be a sort of protection mechanism if there is no time limit by which a person can reasonably expect to have a foreshore licence granted, particularly in this area of foreshore licences where there is major exploration involving massive costs. The costs for ships that go out to do explorations are massive. There might only be three or four of them in the world and they must be booked well in advance. That is the reason time delays are critical. Senator Bradford, in his Second Stage contribution, referred to the cost to this country’s economy of allowing these delays continue for years. There are many projects in the pipeline about which there is deep frustration which will be lost because we do not have a time line. The all-party committee on climate change examined this in the Bill we produced but it is important we have some form of recognition that matters need to be expedited in this area fairly quickly.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Tony Killeen): I should point out that the objective of the Bill is to transfer specific foreshore functions from this Department to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and to transfer the dumping at sea functions to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has already indicated his intention to reform significantly the foreshore legislation following the transfer. The amendment proposed by Senator Bradford properly belongs within the reform package envisaged by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, given the degree of consultation with stakeholders such a strategic review would require. I am aware that officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment previously met with the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and that they are happy to come before the committee again to update it on developments. Along with the two Senators who have spoken, I agree with the principle of the amendment but my concern is that it would be inappropriate to include it in this kind of legislation, which is merely transferring functions, when what they are talking about, and what we all want to see achieved, is a different review and one that will be undertaken by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as soon as we complete this process and hand it over to him.

Senator Paul Bradford: I welcome the fact the Minister does not appear to oppose the principle of what we are trying to put in place. His suggestion is that it would be more appropriately presented when the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government legislation is produced but our concern is the delay and the time factor. I welcome the words of support from Senator O’Malley because we are all trying to achieve the same target. We are all trying to ensure that blockages and delays are removed. We believe the insertion of this new section in the legislation would be more than an aspirational demand but rather put pressure on all of us and the various Government agencies and Departments, and the Government itself, to respond. Unfortunately, legislation can remain in the pipeline not just for months but for years and, in some cases, decades and if we are to bring about the situation we all desire, we 618 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages must remove the blockages and the delays. That is the reason this section would put a demand on Government to react rather than simply kick to touch.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Paul Bradford: Yes.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 5 agreed to.

Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Senator Paul Bradford: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, subsection (1), after line 42, to insert the following:

“(c) regulation made under paragraph (b) shall be made within 30 days of the commencement of this section.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Minister outlines a timeframe for the submission of observations and applications for foreshore leases, licences etc. within 30 days of the commencement of this section of the Bill. It goes back to my submission on the first amendment that much of the difficulty arising in this area has to do with a general lack of progress in processing applications. They do not appear to be expedited at the rate people would desire. We recognise there are serious environmental issues at stake and these matters of concern must be adequately considered during the consultation process but at the very least the Minister should make every effort to ensure the process is in some way defined and that an adequate but not unduly excessive timeframe is allowed for the submission of observations and presentations from the various bodies and groups interested in whatever applications are made. We welcome the observations to be presented to the Minister’s Department but some limit must be put in place to ensure we can deal with delays. If we want to move this legislation forward and making it work we must set the bar at a reasonable height for ourselves and 30 days would be a reasonable limit in that regard. It should not be so open-ended that it goes on forever. I ask the Minister to consider our request favourably.

Senator Fiona O’Malley: I echo Senator Bradford’s words for the same reason because if one knows there is a closing date by which submissions must be made matters can move on. There is merit in the amendment but I look forward to the Minister of State’s reasoning as to whether he will accept it. He gave good cause for not accepting the previous amendment. I am glad Senator Bradford did not press it to a vote because the Minister gave a good reason it need not go that far. I am supportive, as I believe the Minister is, in that we are keen to get applications expedited as quickly as possible. There is merit in the amendment but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reasoning.

Deputy Tony Killeen: This section of the Bill gives the Minister for the Environment, Heri- tage and Local Government, following consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, power to make regulations specifying the bodies which are to submit their observations and also the time period within which such observations are to be submitted to either Minister, or sometimes to both, in regard to foreshore consent applications. It is the intention 619 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Tony Killeen.] of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to make these regulations as and when appropriate. Such a measure will be part of the reform proposals envisaged by the Minister to which I have already referred. It would not be possible or even desirable at this stage to have a 30 day time limit on the process. It is, however, fair to say section 12 achieves what both Senators have been talking about in terms of a time limit. What falls to be decided is when the Minister will be in a position to do this. There are considerations about projects that might come into play, particularly bodies which might be specified as bodies for consultation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 12, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“(4) The making of submissions by a local authority under regulations under this section or under section 19A shall be a reserved function.”.

This amendment speaks for itself. We are calling for the making of submissions by a local authority to be a reserved function in order that there would be a role for councillors.

Deputy Tony Killeen: The purpose of the Bill is merely to transfer the functions to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who has indicated his intention to undertake a significant reform of the foreshore legislation. The amendment would result in a substantial change to procedures and, therefore, must be considered in the context of the proposed reform package. For that reason, I cannot accept it in the context of the legislation we are dealing with.

Senator Brendan Ryan: In so many ways the Government appears to have little confidence in councillors and has engaged in a long campaign to deprive them of powers using a range of Bills. One small way to reverse that trend would be to provide that, when the local authority is consulted under this section, making submissions would be a matter for councillors, not the manager. I note, however, the Minister of State’s remarks in the context of the Bill and will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 12, line 12, to delete “2005” and substitute “2009”.

This is a technical amendment that updates the citation of the Harbours Act to reflect the recent Act. Our legal opinion has indicated that it would be possible for the Government to accept the amendment.

Deputy Tony Killeen: Initially I thought the amendment was appropriate but the citation in section 12 is appropriate in these circumstances because paragraph (d) deals with the term “harbour authority” which is defined in the Harbours Acts 1946 to 2005, not “harbour companies” which are dealt with in the Harbour (Amendment) Act 2009. That is why the reference is appropriate.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I defer to the Minister of State’s legal advice on that basis. 620 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Senator Paul Bradford: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 12, line 25, after “be” to insert “but not later than 30 days”.

This amendment deals with the timeframe for the publication of notices in newspapers for the receipt of submissions on environmental impact statements. The purpose is to stipulate that a person who has submitted an EIA related to an application should place a notice in a newspaper within a specific timeframe to let other interested parties know it has happened and to ensure the process is not delayed by a lack of awareness or consultation. It would be preferable for it to happen earlier than 30 days but at least the timeframe should be introduced because the wording in the Bill is not definite and could act to delay the consultation process. It is a reasonable suggestion.

Deputy Tony Killeen: The subsection is an amendment of the European Communities Fore- shore Regulations, SI 404 of 2009. The amendment, as proposed, would require the applicant to advertise public consultation in newspapers within 30 days of making the application. These applications which require an environmental impact assessment are very complex and will often take years to compile. The Department must first assess the completeness of the application and then arrange the logistics of making the application available in local Garda stations, libraries and other places. In addition, the applications are usually advertised in fishing and coastal newspapers and periodicals. The amendment would substantially reduce the access of local communities to the environmental impact statement and application, running counter to the State’s obligation under the Aarhus Convention. For that reason, I cannot accept it. I understand the intent of the Senator but it would not be feasible in this instance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Senator Paul Bradford: I move amendment No. 6:

In page 14, line 14, after “time,” to insert “but not less than twice a year”.

This amendment relates to the publication of objections or representations made to the Mini- ster with regard to applications for licences. We are trying to ensure a strong level of transparency in the application process in order that access to objections or representations made that may have an impact on a licensing decision would be available to the public and that the public would be aware of them. The section suggests the Minister may make such information available from time to time at his or her discretion. We want to ensure it would happen not less than twice a year at least. We consider this would encourage transparency and be of benefit to the overall process. “Transparency” and “accountability” have become buzzwords in recent years but we must ensure there is both. This amendment would help in that regard.

Deputy Tony Killeen: On line 14, page 14, there is a reference to the European Communities Foreshore Regulation 2009, SI 404 of 2009, which implements the EU public participation directive in respect of the foreshore Acts. This directive is a key component of the Aarhus 621 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

[Deputy Tony Killeen.] Convention. These regulations concern the foreshore consents for large projects where an environmental impact assessment is required by regulation. The words “from time to time” reflect the practice that, as environmental information is received by the Department when processing these applications under the foreshore regulations, the information is made available to the public on the Department’s website within days of its receipt. The consequence of accepting the amendment would be that a view could be formed that this information would only need to be made available at designated intervals, as little as twice a year, which would not be in accordance with Ireland’s obligations under the convention or the public participation directive and would run counter to the intention of the Senator’s proposal. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will continue the practice of making environmental information available on a timely basis. The current practice is to put it on the website within days of it being received. I would not like to create a situation where people would be encouraged to hold the view that they need only do this twice a year.

Senator Paul Bradford: Will the Minister of State clarify the wording of the section? It states the Minister may make information available in a manner determined by him or her “from time to time”. Is that grammatically correct? Is the Minister making the information available from time to time or is he determining the manner from time to time?

Deputy Tony Killeen: The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has informed me that the import of the words “from time to time” reflects current practice to make the information available quickly on its receipt. One thing we must remember about these applications, particularly with regard to larger projects and sometimes to smaller ones, is that important pieces of information are received from time to time and are made available to the public as close to immediately as possible. That has been the practice heretofore. I would be very concerned if we were to indicate to the authority that in future it would be acceptable to put them up only twice a year. The current practice is more desirable from a transparency point of view and is certainly more desirable from a public information point of view.

Senator Paul Bradford: I understand the Minister of State’s point. Perhaps I did not present my argument correctly. It refers, literally, to the way the paragraph is written: “The appropriate Minister shall make available, in a manner determined by that Minister from time to time”.Is it intended to read: “The appropriate Minister shall make available from time to time”? The sentence might be constructed differently but, as it stands, it states “in a manner determined by that Minister from time to time”, as if the Minister can make one determination today and a different one some time later. It would be better if it read: “The appropriate Minister shall make available, from time to time, in a manner determined by that Minister”, etc. That may be a minute point but the language needs to be corrected. Perhaps the other House can deal with such minor matters.

Deputy Tony Killeen: I suspect the point made by Senator Bradford could be dealt with if the comma were to come immediately after “Minister”. Section 4 states: “The appropriate Minister shall make available, in a manner determined by that Minister”. If the comma were inserted before “from time to time”, any additional material would read better in grammatical terms. However, I have had the text examined by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and have an assurance from that office that, as presented, it has the effect of continuing the current practice. In general, that serves the interest of the public particularly well, whatever about the applicant. 622 Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages

An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Paul Bradford: No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Senator Paul Bradford: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 15, lines 8 and 9, to delete all words from and including “for” in line 8 down to and including “appropriate” in line 9.

This is my last effort to put my stamp on the legislation. The reason for this amendment goes back to my party’s attempt to ensure greater levels of transparency surround the processing of applications and the decision-making methodology. I suggest the environmental impact statement and other documentation upon which a decision is based should be made available for an unlimited period in the same way that a planning decision may be queried and the paperwork surrounding same is available for an unlimited period.

Deputy Tony Killeen: This section deals with the consultation and information obligations in the context of public participation and directive regulations. The intention of the directive is to make information available during and shortly after the period within which a foreshore application is considered. It is appropriate that this will vary from application to application in accordance with the complexity and impact of the proposed development. The availability of environmental information is covered, in the longer term, by the European Community’s access to information on the environment regulation 2007; SI 133 2007, which ensures environmental information is always made available, regardless of a time period in which the application is processed. This amendment is not necessary, having regard to the fact the existing framework covers such matter adequately.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Paul Bradford: No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 15 agreed to.

Sections 16 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 28.

Question proposed: “That section 28 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Brendan Ryan: Section 28 comes into Part 3. I raise the case of the missing amendment. I understand my party proposed an amendment on this matter on the basis that Part 3 does not have a subject matter or heading. That appears to be a mistake and without precedent. Our amendment was to insert a heading, namely, “Dumping at Sea”.

An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Ryan discussing section 28? 623 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Brendan Ryan: It is a general heading for the sections that commence with section 28.

An Cathaoirleach: It does not require a formal amendment.

Deputy Tony Killeen: It is accepted that it is an administrative amendment and will be included subsequently in the circulated copy of the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach: Will it be an administrative change?

Senator Brendan Ryan: We submitted it as an amendment but it seems this was not required.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 29 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Tony Killeen): I thank all Members who contributed on Second and Committee Stages.

An Cathaoirleach: I thank the Minister of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 16.

Question again proposed: “That section 16 stand part of the Bill.” Senator Paudie Coffey: As I already have spoken on this subject in some detail, I will not continue at length. Fine Gael had concerns regarding variations in county development plans. I refer to the scenario whereby a regional authority receives notice of such variations which, in the opinion of the regional authority, are not consistent with the regional planning guidelines. I seek clarity from the Minister of State as to exactly who will make this decision within the regional authority structure. Will it be the director or the elected members?

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): The people who will make the decision are the members of the regional authority.

Question put and declared carried.

Section 17 agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Government amendment No. 38: 624 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

In page 21, lines 33 and 34, to delete “(inserted by section 11(c))” and substitute “(inserted by section 11(c) of the Act of 2009)”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Amendment No. 38 is a technical amendment to clarify that the reference to the time period for the coming into effect of section 11(c) refers to the 2009 Act as distinct from the 2000 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 39:

In page 23, to delete lines 5 to 9.

This amendment pertains to the proposed new section 31(12), which states:

The inspector appointed under subsection (11)(b) shall be a person who, in the opinion of the Minister, has satisfactory experience and competence to perform the functions required of him or her pursuant to this section and shall be independent in the performance of his or her [duties].

Fine Gael is concerned about the wording of this provision. While reference is made in this part of the Bill to an inspector, no definition or indication is given as to who that inspector will be. Is it intended that the Minister will have power to appoint a completely new category of inspector or is it intended to be an inspector appointed by An Bord Pleanála? This is a reflec- tion on the Bill’s complexity and clarity is required in respect of its wording in order that it will not be subject to challenges when it is being enforced or implemented. I do not believe there is a clear definition of the inspector or the process of appointing that inspector. The Minister of State should clarify this point for me further.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Amendment No. 39 seeks the deletion of the proposed new section 31(12). This would remove the selection criteria for the inspector to be appointed by the Minister to report to him or her on the draft direction. There must be overarching criteria that will determine whether a person is experienced and qualified to act as an inspector for the purpose of reporting to the Minister on planning and development issues. Without such selection criteria, the inspector’s report would not have credibility and would be open to challenge. Therefore, this amendment is not acceptable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman (Senator Kieran Phelan): Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 40: In page 23, to delete lines 15 to 18 and substitute the following: “(b) shall consult with the manager and elected members of the planning authority, (c) may consult with the regional authority and persons who made submissions under subsection (7)(c), and”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: These amendments are considered prudent and practical, given that the local manager and elected members should be consulted by the inspector on foot of their central statutory role, while leaving consultation with the regional authority and other persons who have made submissions at the inspector’s discretion. 625 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 41: In page 23, to delete line 19 and substitute the following: “(d) shall no later than 3 weeks after he or she was”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 42:

In page 24, line 12, after “public” to insert “within 7 days of receiving such direction”.

We seek a clear definition of the timeframe for inspections by members of the public. We do not want to leave this open-ended but want clarity on the progress of any directions issued under this legislation. The new section 31(19) provides that the “planning authority shall make a direction issued to it under subsection (16) available for inspection by members of the public, during office hours of the authority, at the offices of the authority”. There is, however, no provision in the subsection stipulating when that should be done, for example, if it be done within seven days of receipt of the direction. No effort is made to provide for the length of time it should be available for inspection. These are basic omissions. In the present planning process there are clear timeframes for various stages and directions. We propose this amendment to bring clarity to the Bill and to give all stakeholders an idea of the lengths of time that will be allocated to these stages when directions are issued under this section. Would the Minister of State consider implementing some timeframe if not seven days then two weeks or whatever to give clearer definition to this section?

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I have listened intently to Senator Coffey and there is a great deal of merit in his suggestion. I urge the Minister of State to consider examining this and coming back to the matter on Report Stage.

Senator Paddy Burke: I support Senator Coffey’s amendment. It is important to have a timeframe because it is not possible to leave the matter open-ended. Senator Coffey makes a valid point about the timeframe and two weeks is a generous enough time.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Senator Coffey’s amendment has some merit in respect of transparency. It may not, however, be consistent with other statutory provisions for making official documents available to the public. While I do not propose to accept the amendments as part of the primary legislation I will consider addressing best practice in communicating with the public within any statutory guidance which may issue to planning authorities on the direction process. I am trying to come some way towards meeting the Senator on this point. We will see what guidance we can give.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I am happy to hear the Minister of State say he will consider this aspect of the Bill. We bring it to his attention because there is a clearer definition of the timeframe required. We will be happy to withdraw our amendment and reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage. The Minister of State has said he will take on board what we have said and hopefully he will address it with an amendment we can support. 626 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Michael Finneran: I did not say I would deal with this by an amendment. I will consider it in the context of best practice in communicating with the public. I will report back to the House and the Senator on that matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paudie Coffey: This section refers to the powers of the Minister to issue a direction under section 31 of the principal Act to local area plans. It prescribes a new consultative procedure whereby the Minister can issue a proposed direction and seek views from local stakeholders. I was a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Envir- 8o’clock onment, Heritage and Local Government that heard delegations from Mayo County Council which had concerns and reservations about ministerial direction to it. Without getting involved in the planning aspect of that issue, which is a matter for the council and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I welcome the fact the Minister has listened to the committee’s recommendations for a consultation procedure prior to direction. Mayo County Council decided unanimously to adopt the county development plan but it had concerns about the handling of direction by the Minister’s office. It felt this was to a degree an attack on local democracy. Whether it was right or wrong is for another day but I welcome the proposal in this Bill for a consultation process that engages the stakeholders, including elected members, local authority and departmental officials, and the Minister prior to direction. That will help the communication of the essential thrust of planning policy.

Senator Paddy Burke: I welcome the provision in the section for local authority members to make a submission to the Minister when he has issued a direction to the local authority in respect of its development plan. He has, however, taken on a serious power. He has the ultimate power in the adoption of a county development plan because if there are aspects of it that he does not like he can change the plan. Even if the local authority members make a further submission to the Minister’s intervention he still has the whip hand to make whatever direction, and put into law, whatever he feels necessary. We have seen the powers that some Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have taken on themselves. The Minister has the ultimate power here and while I do not fully agree with it I welcome the provision that local authority members can make a submission to the Minister on his intervention in a plan.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 18 amends section 31 of the principal Act where there was no consultative process in the Minister’s power. This enhances the position because now there is a consultative process with stakeholders, including the council. I note the Senators’ comments.

Senator Alex White: Does the Minister intend the powers in section 18 to be retrospective to plans that have already been adopted, when the section becomes law? The powers should be retrospective only if there is a significant issue to be addressed. What are the Minister’s intentions for these powers? I am not sure whether my colleagues have touched on this issue and apologise if they have. I am interested in the Minister of State’s view.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I am of the opinion that it would not be possible to have the powers adopted retrospectively but I will seek clarification on it for the Senator. 627 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Alex White: I am grateful to the Minister for that.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Government amendment No. 45: In page 24, before section 19, to insert the following new section: “19.—Section 34(6) of the Principal Act is amended in paragraph (a): (a) by the substitution of “concerned would contravene materially the development plan or local area plan” for “concerned would contravene materially the development plan”, (b) in subparagraph (iii) by the substitution of “authority,” for “authority, and”, and (c) by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (iii): “(iiia) not later than 6 weeks from the publication of the notice under subparagraph (i), the manager shall prepare a report for the planning authority advising the authority of his or her opinion regarding the compliance or otherwise of the proposed development with any relevant Ministerial guidelines under section 28 or any relevant policies or objectives of the Government or Minister of the Government or with any regional planning guidelines and the report shall be considered by the authority before a resolution is passed under subparagraph (iv), and”.”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Amendment No. 45 proposes to provide for material contra- ventions of local area plans and the overall consistency of approach to development plans and local area plans. It also proposes to obligate the manager to prepare a report for the planning authority advising it of his or her opinion regarding compliance, or otherwise, of the proposed development with any relevant ministerial guidelines under section 28 or any relevant policies or objectives of the Government or Minister or with any regional planning guidelines. This report will have to be considered by the authority before a resolution is passed on the proposed development.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 46 not moved.

Section 19 agreed to.

SECTION 20.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 47 to 52, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 47:

In page 24, line 38, after “other” to insert “connected”.

These technical amendments seek to bring clarity to section 20 which amends section 35 of the principal Act. A provision that will be inserted in the section states, “any information available to the planning authority concerning development carried out by a person to whom this section applies pursuant to a permission (in this section referred to as a ‘previous permission’) granted 628 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) to the applicant or to any other person under this Part or Part IV of the Act of 1963,”. The insertion of the term “connected person”, from a point of law, brings clarity to this section. The amending section also contains a provision about substantial unauthorised developments. What is the definition of a “substantial unauthorised” development? Why does the legislation need to be too specific in this regard?

Senator Paddy Burke: It is hard to define a “substantial development”. In some cases a house at roof level could be termed “substantial” while in others, it could be the site works. A clear definition would be better. I support Senator Coffey’s amendment.

Senator Alex White: Section 35 of the principal Act lists a series of persons who can be refused planning permission. This amending section contains a provision that states, “the planning authority is satisfied that a person to whom this section applies is not in compliance with a previous permission or with a condition to which the previous permission is subject, has carried out a substantial unauthorised development, or has been convicted of an offence under this Act,”. The Labour Party’s amendment No. 51 wants to add to that, a person who has failed to complete a development. All Members will be familiar with the phenomenon of unfinished estates. While there are many fine builders who do as they are contracted, unfortunately some rogue builders do not complete estates leaving home owners with difficulties and no recourse. I accept finishing estates has become a condition of planning permissions and a refusal can be made if the applicant is not in compliance with a previous permission. However, this amendment will put the matter beyond doubt.

Senator Camillus Glynn: Whether we like it or not, regrettably there is a lack of planning enforcement. Last year a case was brought to my attention concerning a young married couple in the west. It would take \100,000 to put their house right but the builder did not want to know. He was driving around in a BMW car but had to all intents and purposes gone bust legally. Another case involved a young couple in the midlands. The house was finished so badly and was so unsafe, they had to move out. There are too many instances of unauthorised developments with subsequent applications for retention. Often this is refused at all stages of the planning process up to An Bord Pleanála. An enforcement order for demolition may be served but it may never be followed up. I have always been for people who invest to create jobs and build infrastructure. I have no time, however, for the fly-by-night builder who leaves estates unfinished resulting in the local authority and the residents picking up the tab. As a consequence, other necessary local authority works have to be cancelled because of the lack of funds. I welcome this section if it eliminates this problem to any extent.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 20 amends section 35 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 which deals with the grounds on which planning permission can be refused on the basis of past performance of a developer. Amendment No. 47 concerns the insertion of the word “connected”. The current provision allows for a planning authority, when deciding whether it is appropriate that permission should be refused on the basis of past performance of a developer, to have regard to any information available to it concerning the development being carried out by a person to whom the section applies, pursuant to permission granted to the applicant or to any other person. To insert the word “connected” would mean the planning authority could only have regard to the development being carried out pursuant to the permission granted to the applicant or the person connected to the applicant. It would mean the planning authority could not have regard to the 629 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Finneran.] development carried out pursuant to the permission granted to another person other than a connected person. The planning authority could not, therefore, have regard to the development carried out by the applicant pursuant to a permission granted to a person for whom the applicant had bought the land or the premises concerned unless this person was connected to the applicant. I am sure it was not the Senator’s intention to limit the scope of the provision in this way. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment No. 48 concerns the insertion of the words “body corporate”. I recognise the intent of Senator Coffey in regard to this amendment and while I am willing to reconsider it, I must first take legal advice on the matter. Amendment No. 49 concerns the deletion of the word “any” from the provision that a planning authority may, in deciding whether it is appropriate that permission should be refused on the basis of past performance of a developer, have regard to any information concerning a conviction for an offence. I am unclear as to what would be the effect of the deletion of the word “any” but I am willing to have the matter examined from a legal perspective and come back to the House on it. Amendment No. 50 concerns the deletion of the word “substantial” from the provision which allows a planning authority to refuse permission, subject to certain conditions, including where a developer has in the past carried out a “substantial unauthorised development”. I am not in favour of removing the word “substantial”. It must be borne in mind that the term “unauthorised development” comprises any development, regardless of how minor, which required permission and did not obtain it such as a garden wall which is slightly higher than two metres. “Unauthorised development” also includes any development which deviated from the planning permission, even in a minor way owing to an error on the part of the recipient of the permission. It is reasonable that consideration of refusal of permission for past unauthorised development be confined to cases of “substantial unauthorised development”. Amendment No. 51 proposes to insert a further ground for refusal of permission, namely, the developer has failed to complete a development. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, planning permission may be refused to a developer who has substantially failed to comply with a previous permission. It is generally a condition of every planning permission that a development be completed in accordance with the plans and drawings submitted by the applicant. Such a condition and all other conditions of permission must be complied with, including conditions in regard to the standard of footpaths, public lighting and so on which the developer is obliged to meet. Accordingly, the proposed amendment is not necessary. Where a development is left substantially unfinished, this would be substantial non-compliance with permission by a developer which is already a grounds for refusal of permission. The provisions in regard to the refusal of permission for past non-compliance permit refusal only where the planning authority forms the opinion that because of past non-compliance there is a real and substantial risk that a future planning permission would not be complied with. We may now be faced with the situation where developers fail to complete developments not because of a disregard of planning law but because they are bankrupt. It is questionable whether such non-completion would entitle a planning authority to form the opinion in some future, I hope entirely changed, circumstances that such developers are unlikely to comply with future permissions. I am willing to re-examine amendment No. 52 but will also have to take legal advice on the matter.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I welcome the fact that the Minister of State is open to further examining the Fine Gael amendments which seek to bring clarity to the legislation. I accept 630 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) that he must take further legal advice on the amendments. On that basis I am prepared to withdraw them while reserving the right to resubmit them on Report Stage. I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not agreed to reconsider amendment No. 50 which seeks the deletion of the word “substantial”. The word “substantial” is not defined and could become a point of argument in law. The amendment seeks to clarify and simplify the legislation. While the Minister of State has gone to great lengths to explain the reasons he cannot accept the amendment, I ask that he re-examine the matter with his officials between now and Report Stage. It is our advice that acceptance of the amendment would clarify and improve the legislation.

Senator Paddy Burke: I welcome the Minister of State’s commitment to re-examine the Fine Gael amendments and come back to us on them on Report Stage. As regards the deletion of the word “substantial”, the Minister of State will agree that the history of some developers, in terms of works carried out by them in other jurisdictions, must be taken into account. How does a local authority obtain this information? We all know in respect of planning permission that it comes down to the view of a particular planner and that there can be many interpretations in this regard. A window overlooking a property could in one person’s opinion represent a serious breach of planning law but not in that of another person. Would this be considered a substantial breach? We are all aware that some planners can hold grievances against developers. Will it be the chief planner or county development manager who will put the brakes on a developer having previously been involved in an unauthorised development? With whom will the buck stop in this regard? I am sure the county manager as chief planning officer will be the person with whom the buck stops in regard to the refusal of permission to a person who on a previous occasion carried out an unauthorised development.

Senator Alex White: I agree with Senators Coffey and Burke on their proposal to delete the word “substantial” from the Bill. The Minister of State should, as urged by Senator Coffey, revisit the issue for precisely the reasons outlined. One person’s view of what constitutes a substantial unauthorised development is not necessarily held by another. There is no doubt but that this will lead to litigation. A person trying to have himself or herself removed from the list of, say, prevented persons will unquestionably try to litigate his or her point around the word “substantial”. I do not see any reason it cannot be deleted. The Minister of State said acceptance of the amendment would result in the exclusion of people guilty of carrying out even the most minor of unauthorised developments, which may be a valid point. However, it could be addressed by him re-examining the wording of the section. Senators Coffey and Burke are correct to maintain the position that the word “substantial” should be deleted. On amendment No. 51, I do not, regrettably and with respect to the Minister of State, accept the explanation for his refusal to accept the amendment. The phrase “a failure to comply with a previous permission or condition” does not, it appears, include within it a situation where a developer has failed to complete a development. The Minister of State is saying a failure to complete a development amounts to non-compliance with a condition. He gave examples of the conditions he had in mind in his response to the amendment. It is right that people should be excluded for a failure to comply with a previous condition, but that is different from the person who has failed to complete a development. The two are not the same and I remain to be convinced that the phrase “failure to comply with a condition” comprehends the person who has failed to complete a development. They are two entirely different propositions. 631 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Alex White.]

I ask the Minister of State to reconsider. As Senator Glynn said, this issue is a plague throughout the country. The fact that estates might not be completed for some other reason now does not take from the fact that all Members have experienced the problem of estates not being finished by builders who were in a well funded position and perfectly capable of doing so but who just made themselves scarce. We are aware of the rows about what must be done to finish the estate, long delays amounting to years before an estate can be taken in charge by a local authority and many other complications that have a huge effect on people living in estates. I ask the Minister of State to recognise that the failure to comply with a condition is one thing, but the failure to complete a development is something else.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The existing ground for refusal is that the applicant has substantially failed to comply with a previous permission. The Bill proposes to add two further grounds for refusal of permission, that the developer has carried out a substantial unauthorised development or has been convicted of an offence under the planning Acts. The amendment proposes to insert a further ground for refusal, that is, the developer has failed to complete a development. Obviously, in current economic circumstances there may be many developers who have run out of funds to complete developments. It is open to such developers to apply for extensions of the planning permission which, if granted, would give them a further period of up to five years to complete the development. If they do not complete the development within any further extensions of permissions, such developments would be technically in non-compliance with planning permission. In such cases the planning authority should take such enforcement actions as are possible to compel the completion of the development by the developer. Where the developers are bankrupt, there might be little point in taking such enforcement action. In such cases the planning authority should call in any bonds in so far as that is possible to complete the footpaths, lighting and services in the phases of the development that have not been completed. We have tried to cover all areas.

Senator Alex White: 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. 632 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Michael Finneran: The existing ground for refusal is that the applicant has substantially failed to comply with a previous permission. There is the opportunity for a person to go to the High Court about the matter. The Deputy is aware that happens, although not on a regular basis. The Bill provides for two further grounds, that the developer has carried out a substantial unauthorised development or has been convicted of an offence under the planning Acts. The amendment proposes to insert a further ground for refusal of permission, that the developer has failed to complete a development. We have already included two more grounds. That is the position.

Senator Alex White: I know that two additional grounds are included in the Bill but neither of them covers the issue of unfinished estates. I will accept the Minister of State’s word that the previous two are already included in the planning code. They are already grounds for refusing permission, that is, if somebody is not in compliance with a previous permission or with a condition to which the previous permission is subject. He is adding two additional grounds but they certainly do not cover the problem of unfinished estates, whatever about the existing ones. The fact that he is introducing two new grounds is neither here nor there with regard to the point I am making. The previous two might cover unfinished estates but I believe they do not. If they do, it should be spelled out and amending the Bill would be the perfect opportunity to do so. All Members are aware of the problem of unfinished estates. It is all very well to say that if a builder does not finish an estate, people can take an action against him or her in court. The vast majority of people who buy a house in an estate are not in a position to mount court challenges or chase builders. The way to ensure such rogue builders are caught is by not giving them planning permission in the future when they do not finish estates.

Senator Paddy Burke: I agree with Senator White. This has been a huge issue during the years. In my years as a member of a local authority and as a Member of this House, over 30 years, I could never see how councils could get the upper hand with regard to unfinished estates and developments. They have tried several means ranging from bonds to taking in charge of part of a site, but in the end they always ended up worse off. In most cases where the rogue developer took off and left an unfinished estate, the local authority was left with a big bill. There must be some way around this problem. Senator White has proposed that such rogue developers should not get permission to build another development but I presume the developer could build in another local authority area. There must be a way of curtailing these builders. Taking bonds and sites has not worked; therefore, councils do not have the right mechanism. If they do not have a mechanism, we should include a proper one in the Bill. If we miss this opportunity, we will be discussing the problem for the next 30 years.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I spoke on my amendments about the technical language used. With regard to unauthorised development and the refusal of permission for future developments, this is the one power local authorities should have in recouping costs in respect of unfinished estates. Some Senators mentioned bonds that form part of the conditions in planning permissions. However, they relate to the completion of minor jobs, such as a road’s final surface, a section of footpath or a light in an open space. Bonds were adequate. The Bill does not meet the new challenges. Estates lie unfinished, lacking major infrastructure such as roads, drainage or sewerage. Completing these estates will take considerable investment, which their developers cannot do. As mentioned, local authorities need a mechanism to empower them to finish estates. Banks will not release bonds because they are relying on the legislation and challenging the conditions set by planning authorities. The banks do not have the money to give. The bonds 633 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paudie Coffey.] and planning conditions have been found to be too weak to ensure the bonds, no matter how small, are captured to try to finish estates. The councils do not have the money to finish them. This legislation presents an opportunity. I do not have all of the answers or wording. Senator Alex White’s reasonable proposal should be considered. Unfinished estates will develop into one of the largest issues at council meetings. The Minister of State knows this, since he deals with housing. The hundreds of unfinished estates have serious infrastructural deficits. Devel- opers and councils do not have money to finish them and bonds are sitting in the banks which are challenging the councils seeking them. We have an opportunity in law to address this matter and to empower councils to finish estates. It would be a progressive measure.

Senator Paddy Burke: While I agree with Senator Alex White, the Minister of State could consider another matter. When one buys a house in an estate, one hands over money to a solicitor. Could a portion not be held back until the applicant is satisfied the estate is properly finished? Some \5,000 or \10,000 could be held back until footpaths, public lighting, green areas and roads are completed to the satisfaction of a residents’ association. The final part of the payment could be handed over to the developer.

Senator Camillus Glynn: It is my experience that not all developers failed to complete estates because they could not afford to.

Senator Paddy Burke: True.

Senator Camillus Glynn: In too many cases for my liking, developers drew down money from purchasers, put it in their pockets and clipped it away. If any entity is to retain funding appropriately, it should be the planning authority. We have been discussing this matter for years. I discussed it 30 years ago. The late Gerry L’Estrange, God rest his soul, was a member of Westmeath County Council in 1979 when he and I tabled a joint motion. I am glad it will be addressed at long last.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I agree with Senators but I do not agree with the method of their proposal. The current legislation addresses their issue exactly. The difficulty used to lie with the guidelines not being up to date, but we updated them in respect of the local authority system in June 2007. We made development management guidelines available. We also updated them in February 2008. The guidelines state that the bond is to reflect what works remain to be done by the developer. Under the principal Act, local authorities have all the powers requested by Senators. I do not need to include further measures.

Senator Larry Butler: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council only accepts cash bonds. Alternatively, the county manager and law agent can draw up a contract for the bond in which the guidelines clearly set out what must be done. County councils were not diligent enough in putting proper contracts in place for bonds. This was the problem. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council had little trouble because it always had control of the money and was able to finish the job if the developer did not. The Minister of State is right, in that the powers exist. Councils have not been diligent enough in following up with people or drafting proper contracts when the bonds were lodged with banks. Loopholes were found in the contracts. It is up to every law agent to have the right procedures in place.

Acting Chairman: We have had a lot of discussion on this matter. 634 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paddy Burke: Some bonds have been used for more than one estate irrespective of whether local authorities allowed it.

Senator Larry Butler: That is the point.

Senator Paddy Burke: It is amazing that every local authority, with the exception of the one mentioned by Senator Butler, is in the same boat.

Senator Larry Butler: Most of Dublin’s local authorities, including Fingal——

Acting Chairman: Senator Burke has the floor.

Senator Paddy Burke: In my town, 20 estates are unfinished.

Senator Camillus Glynn: Are they by one developer?

Senator Paddy Burke: No, by several developers. As Senator Alex White stated, the legislation is not strong enough. The Minister of State is clearly saying that local authorities have the power to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure a bond is taken from a developer, even a rogue one, thereby prompting him or her to complete the job.

Deputy Michael Finneran: There is a roll-over bond situation, but guidelines were issued in 2007 and updated in 2008 to address the specific issue under discussion. As Senator Butler stated, it is a matter for the local authority to ensure the bond it signs covers what it wants to get done. It is not a question of further legislation. Rather, authorities must implement the law and draw up their bonds in line with our guidelines. They must work in a way that protects them and the public.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I do not wish to go over ground that has been covered, but unfinished estates constitute a major problem. I live and operate in Fingal, where this has been a significant problem for years. Notwithstanding the Minister of State’s assertion that the local authority has powers to deal with it, the council is obviously not using those powers. Should we be happy that authorities are not using their powers and allow the problem to continue or could we be more explicit, insert these powers in the legislation and leave people in no doubt? Even if local authorities have the powers in question, I do not see the problem with including this condition on unfinished estates in the Bill.

Senator Alex White: 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 635 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Alex White.] 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.

Senator Paddy Burke: Safeguards.

Senator Alex White: They are safeguards, and certainly the bond system should be in place. In response to what Senator Butler stated, I personally am aware of a considerable number of examples on the south side of the city where bonds were taken up and were inadequate, not slightly but grossly, to deal with the problem that emerged at the end of the day. The council was fumbling around for a few bob to finish an estate and was tens of thousands of euro short of what was required. As Senator Burke stated, we should have the bond system but it is not a perfect system. The Minister has his guidelines etc. That is all fine. I congratulate him on that. That work should continue. Let us just keep our eye on the ball here. We are talking about four different examples of where one will be excluded, and we want to add a fifth.

Senator Camillus Glynn: In my time on the local authority, every year the county engineer, as he was then known, would bring a list of estates before the members. There would be X number which would be recommended for taking in charge, then there would be information on others which had so much works to be done etc. Given that planning and planning enforcement is an executive function in the main, it might be an idea to give the elected member something of a role on a reserve function basis. The Minister tells us the law is there but de facto it is just not happening.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Agreed.

Senator Camillus Glynn: Clearly, we do not like it. I ask the Minister of State to consider coming back on Report Stage with a Government amendment to give the locally elected members a role in directing the chief planning executive, which is the county manager, to take action against rogue developers. Clearly, what is obtaining at present is not successful.

Senator Larry Butler: During my time on Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council I proposed a motion that the developer’s bond had to be supported by an engineer’s report. The engineer drew up the plans for the estate outlining clearly what was to be done and when the estate was finished the engineer was totally responsible for that estate. I got that motion passed in the local authority and instead of our engineer going out and checking the estate, the developer’s engineer had to give a full report on the estate and a guarantee, and his indemnity was called on——

Senator Paudie Coffey: Is Senator Butler proposing that model for the rest of the country?

Senator Larry Butler: Anyone can do it.

Senator Paddy Burke: It might work. 636 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Acting Chairman: I ask Senator Butler to stick to the amendments with which we are dealing. We have gone off track completely.

Senator Larry Butler: We have not gone off track completely. The idea was to ensure local authorities were acting correctly. The other action I had to take during my time on the local authority was to put down a number of section 4 motions to ensure the manager carried out the work. If the councillors or the council are not active, the manager will not do the work. We have seen it all over the country. Unless one has good councillors putting down section 4 motions on a monthly basis, the manager will not do the work. He will do as little as he can for one. Everybody who has been a councillor knows that.

Acting Chairman: Before we go any further, I ask Senators to stick to the amendments. We are going off course completely. We will be here all night.

Deputy Michael Finneran: In line with the development management guidelines issued in June 2007 and updated in February 2008, there was also a request sent to local authorities that they submit to the Department all estates taken in charge and all of the requests for estates to be taken in charge and the reasons they have not been taken in charge. The findings of that will be issued shortly and that will enlighten this House and the public of what has been happening in the local authority system.

Senator Alex White: Twenty years in some cases.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Senator Alex White stated there are four circumstances where planning can be refused and he wants a fifth. The fifth one is included in section 35 of the principal Act, and it is clear. The existing grounds for refusal are the applicant has substantially failed to comply with a previous permission. That is the fifth one. How it is implemented by the local authority is what the development management guidelines are about, and that is the reason we issue them. It is a matter for local authorities to stick to the guidelines, and cover the local authority and the public, when they give planning permission and, subsequently, put a bond in place. The bond should be adequate and substantial enough to carry out the works that are left unfinished if that be the case. That is the position on the matter.

Acting Chairman: In fairness, the Minister of State has given a commitment that he would look at some of those again on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 50:

In page 25, line 2, to delete “substantial”.

Question “That the word proposed to be deleted stand” put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 20 stand part of the Bill.” 637 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: Fine Gael agrees with the general thrust of this section whereby it will empower planning authorities to refuse permission where the applicant has carried out an unauthorised development. I stated earlier in some of my submissions that Fine Gael should not be seen as being against every aspect of the Bill because we realise the Planning and Development Acts need to be amended and revised. We opposed large sections of the Bill today, but we welcome section 20 whereby it would empower local authorities to ensure persons who have not been compliant certainly do not get permission again. We debated the issues on how best that is done and the responsibilities of the executives of local authorities. We have heard examples here from around the country where they are not doing their job. It may be in the interests of proper planning and development if a circular letter issued to local authority executives to remind them of their obligations in this part of the legislation. We have heard from all sections of the country that there are problems with this regard. In the current economic climate, it is more relevant than ever. I would like the Minister of State to comment on those points.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I agree with the last comment by Senator Coffey.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: “That section 21 stand part of the Bill.”

Acting Chairman: I call Senator Coffey to speak on section 21, which is opposed.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The explanatory memorandum states:

Section 21 provides for the extension of cost recovery to pre-application, scoping requests for Environmental Impact Assessment for strategic infrastructure development cases under the Seventh Schedule of the Principal Act in addition to cost recovery for cases that proceed to full application and determination by An Bord Pleanála.

I have some views on this which I will offer to the House, but I am interested to hear an explanation of this matter from the Minister of State, as well as what his intentions are for this section. It seems to be an entirely new departure in the planning process to recover costs incurred in planning applications. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say on it and I will come back in later.

Senator Paddy Burke: In support of Senator Coffey, the remit of An Bord Pleanála has changed completely in recent years. It has a much wider remit now than when it was established. The Bill proposes to confer more powers on it as regards the charges it can make. If we allow this it will, in some cases, put it outside the reach of the normal person who may object to a planning application. I hope the Minister of State will reconsider this matter. If one is looking for an expert opinion from An Bord Pleanála, God only knows what the cost would be. From my reading of this section, in some cases, one might be paying for an engineer’s report as An Bord Pleanála would be entitled to charge for it.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 21 amends section 37H(2)(c) of the principal Act by providing for the extension of cost recovery to pre-application consultations and scoping requests related to environmental impact assessment for strategic infrastructure development cases under the Seventh Schedule of the principal Act in addition to cost recovery for cases that proceed to full application and determination by An Bord Pleanála. This Bill maintains the provision in the principal Act whereby the board shall state a reasonable sum to be paid and 638 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) direct the payment of that sum to any planning authority that incurs costs during the course of the consideration of the application, and to any other person as a contribution to the cost incurred by that person during the consideration of the application. This amendment therefore provides for the recovery of costs associated with pre-application stage. Such costs can be offset against the formal application fee for those cases that proceed to a determination by the board. The “applicant pays” principle is the basis for the payment of costs under the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I thank the Minister of State for that clarification. Is he saying that if it does get to full application stage, costs that have accrued pre-application can be allowed by the board? If so, I welcome it. I have already highlighted my concerns over costs. The planning process and the decision making around it must enjoy public confidence. In recent years An Bord Pleanála has been involved in a high profile case which involved a huge cost to the Exchequer due to the way in which the board responded to an application to the High Court for a judicial review of a case in County Kildare. I will not go into the details of the planning aspects because that does not interest me. The case went to the High Court and in 2007 Mr. Justice Kelly quashed a decision by An Bord Pleanála on the grounds that the court found there was objective bias against An Bord Pleanála and there were irregular planning procedures within its decision-making process. No minutes were taken of the An Bord Pleanála meetings that decided this planning application, which was for a landfill in Usk, County Kildare. Under this Bill, would the board be in a position to try to recover its costs having defended its decision in court and lost? This could be seen as essential infrastructure. It is a fundamental question. In that High Court case Mr. Justice Kelly quashed a decision but he also made recommendations to An Bord Pleanála to minimise any further risk or costs. He made two recommendations to the board. One was to take legal advice before proceeding further on the application. The other was that any board members previously involved in the original decision should not be involved in any further consideration of the application. They were reasonable recommendations by the judge to guard against any further costs to the State and to ensure An Bord Pleanála would follow the proper procedure. I was concerned to discover that these recommendations were ignored by An Bord Pleanála at huge cost to the taxpayer. In July 2009, there was a second High Court case regarding the same matter. An Bord Pleanála’s decision was quashed again, by Mr. Justice MacMenamin, owing to irregular procedures in the planning process within the board. I was horrified to discover that the chief executive of An Bord Pleanála reappointed almost all the same board members in the decision-making process, despite the previous High Court recommendations. We are told that he also did not seek legal advice, despite being recommended to do so previously by the High Court. Therefore there was a blatant disregard of court recommendations at a huge cost to the taxpayer by the actions of An Bord Pleanála. I have a serious difficulty with this. I have no issue concerning the planning matters and An Bord Pleanála needs to be independent of all politics and any interventions. However, I have a problem with the whole procedure, including the transparency and accountability with which An Bord Pleanála does its work. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify whether section 21 allows An Bord Pleanála to recover costs owing to some crazy decisions it has made to defend decisions without proper accountability and transparency. I certain hope it does not. It has been found by the courts to have objective bias, which is a serious attack on the fundamental integrity of the planning process. An Bord Pleanála failed to oversee and ensure proper procedures within the decision-making process. 639 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paudie Coffey.]

I asked this question at a sitting of an Oireachtas joint committee and I was told that the judge had made a wrong assumption. That was a serious statement of arrogance by An Bord Pleanála. The following day the Courts Service took issue with that assertion by the head of An Bord Pleanála. I have concerns about the transparency, accountability and integrity of An Bord Pleanála’s planning process and how it arrives at its decisions. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify whether any element of this section refers to the recovery of costs where An Bord Pleanála has made decisions that were wrong and should never have been taken. I would appreciate some clarity on that matter.

Deputy Michael Finneran: What has been stated is outside what we are discussing here. Section 30 prohibits me from making any comment on any cases that have been mentioned by the Senator. Therefore I cannot comment and it would not be appropriate for me to do so.

Senator Paudie Coffey: What excludes the Minister of State from making a comment?

Deputy Michael Finneran: Individual cases.

Senator Paudie Coffey: This is not an individual case that is before any court. It is a decided case. It goes to the fundamental trust and integrity of the planning process, how An Bord Pleanála carries out its functions, the costs it accrues because of its decisions, and the cost to the taxpayer. An Bord Pleanála should be accountable to somebody, be it the Minister or otherwise, for the actions it takes. It is estimated that its actions in the case to which I refer could cost from \1.5 million to \2 million. The Attorney General was engaged in legal argument for over a week on this matter because the board had insisted on driving forward with its decision. This is a major issue that involves the whole planning process. The transparency and integrity of An Bord Pleanála in dealing with planning applications have been called into question. The board has been found by the courts to have objective bias. This is a serious statement by the courts and should not be ignored. If the Minister of State cannot say anything about this today, he should take note of what I have said. It 9o’clock is serious for the board to lose two cases in a row and ignore totally the recommendations of the High Court at great cost to the taxpayer. This is serious and I certainly would not like to see it happening again. The Minister of State and his office should take account of it. Somebody within An Bord Pleanála should be held accountable for the manner in which it dealt with the application in question.

Acting Chairman: In fairness, the Minister of State said he could not respond on an individual case. I ask him to take note of it.

Question put and declared carried.

Section 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 53 to 55, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 53:

In page 27, line 12, to delete “each of”. 640 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Section 23 refers to the extension of planning permission. In the light of the current economic circumstances, it is proposed to extend the period of planning permission from two years to five to cater for unfinished developments with planning permission where the developers are under financial strain. I can understand why one would press for an extension of planing permission owing to the economic climate. There is no demand for a lot of property; it is not selling and the markets are down. This will have an impact on how communities develop. This, I presume, is the reason the Minister of State is proposing to extend the period. I have concerns about the extension. Members referred to bonds for unfinished estates and developments. Once a development has substantially commenced, a developer is entitled, by law, to seek an extension of the time to complete it. The council must grant such an extension and the period is usually up to two years. If I understand the matter correctly, it is being proposed to extend it to five years. The legal advice is that one cannot try to use the bonds set down as part of a planning permission unless the developer has been given the opportunity to finish the development in the extended period allowed. There are implications associated with the extension from two years to five. Councils cannot call in the bonds until the planning permission has expired. There is a catch-22 in that, while one may be helping developers by extending the period to five years and allowing them time to recover financially and the markets to recover, estates and developments will remain unfinished for a long period. As public representatives all know, residents of estates and people in communities will complain about half-built infrastructure and developments, most likely boarded up. They are constantly calling on their local elected representatives and councils to enforce enforcement orders to have the developments finished. By enforcing this section of the Bill, it will tie the hands of councils in trying to make developers finish their developments. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State to take the amendment on board. I am interested in hearing his views. Amendment No. 54 more or less speaks for itself. We propose that the creation of jobs be considered by the Minister of State in this context.

Senator Paddy Burke: I agree with Senator Coffey on this issue. Perhaps what is proposed could be achieved on a phased basis. As Senator Coffey stated, we will extend planning permissions for a further five years and large parts of estates will be left unfinished. This will cause serious problems for residents’ associations because they will not have the money to carry out works themselves. It will fall to the local authorities to do so. If the extensions are to be granted, something substantial should be done to complete unfinished works. An extension for another five years at that point would leave residents thrown to the wolves.

Senator Mark Daly: I welcome the inclusion of section 23. It is very important because it amends section 42 of the 2000 Act, under which, if somebody’s property has been substantially completed, he or she can obtain an extension of the period in which the works may be completed. The main reason for the exercise of section 23 is to address the needs of those who cannot get a loan from the bank. Such persons would be able to apply for an extension of the period in which to complete their building. It could happen that they could not go ahead and their planning permission would lapse, thus leaving them unable to obtain planning permission again on the site and leaving them stuck, having bought the site for \50,000 or \100,000 and having been paying a mortgage thereon. In such cases, they would be stuck with a field without planning permission. We could work on one measure, a power given to NAMA. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber and around the country will be aware that in recent months a number of planning permissions lapsed. I refer to one-off cases in rural areas where those who bought sites were 641 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Mark Daly.] not able to proceed with their developments. They are now left with land that is no longer an asset. As planning restrictions become tighter in rural Ireland, such persons may not be able to obtain planning permission. I ask the Minister of State to backdate the legislation to benefit those who have fallen into this trap. There is a precedent for so doing in Schedule 2 to the NAMA Act, whereby NAMA can apply to local authorities to backdate planning permissions that have expired since 1 January. If we are to give the power to NAMA to revive planning permissions, a matter which is very difficult for local authorities to deal with, it must be taken into account. If a local authority is to give planning permission, it must know that all the permissions it has issued are extinct. NAMA will be reviving planning permissions and putting a strain on services. I ask the Minister of State to consider that people would be able to do what NAMA will be able to do, namely, to backdate planning permissions that have died since 1 January 2009 and revive them in the same way as NAMA will be able to do.

Senator Alex White: I am conscious that the Minister of State has not had an opportunity yet to address the amendment. Perhaps I should have waited until he spoke. Is it the case that section 23 deals with, as Senator Daly outlined, people who find themselves in financial difficulty with the banks or otherwise? That was not immediately apparent to me, but if that is what is intended, I would be interested to hear the Minister of State confirm that. I will speak further on the matter later.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I apologise as I did not explain myself properly when moving amendments No. 53. The aim is to delete “each of” in line 12. We have been advised about the clumsiness of language in the Bill. We refer to “each of” in line 12 and then we use “either” in a subsequent part of the section. There is no point in having both “each of” and “either“.It is something lawyers would love to debate, that “the permission relates to be completed provided that, each of the following requirements is complied with. We must take out “each of” or “either”. We are open on the issue. It is an attempt to clarify the language in that part of the Bill. Amendment No. 55 is similar to an earlier amendment whereby we tried to define a time limit for the recording of applications on the relevant entry in the register. We suggest the insertion of “within one week of such application or decision” in order not to leave the matter open-ended. We propose one week, although we accept the Minister of State might have a better idea. It is a technical amendment to try to bring clarity to the Bill. I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendments or consider tabling a Government amendment on Report Stage to address those issues.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Existing legislation covers planning permission where substantial work has been carried out on developments. If one has substantially completed works, one is entitled to an extension of planning permission to continue the development. The provision in question is an attempt to address cases where work has not commenced. Section 23 seeks to amend section 42 of the principal Act to permit an application to be made to a local authority to seek the extension of existing permission. That mirrors the existing legal provision that allows the life of a permission to be extended where substantial works have been undertaken. The section provides for the extension of the permission for a period not exceeding five years in circumstances where substantial works have not been carried out but where there were commercial, economic or technical reasons beyond the control of the applicant which substantially mitigated against either the commencement of the development or the carrying out of substantial works. 642 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

My Department is examining section 23 with a view to bringing forward further amendments that set out the conditionality that will apply to the section. Amendments Nos. 53 to 55, inclusive, will be considered in that context and on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General. We will propose amendments on Report Stage to address the issues further. I am not in a position to give any comfort to Senator Daly on his suggestion. I accept he has not tabled an amendment.

Senator Alex White: The Minister of State was to reply on the issue of further conditionality. In terms of the overall intention of section 23, we are familiar with situations where developments have been substantially completed. It is a new section 42 of the principal Act. There is no controversy about that, but the Minister of State is adding the new circumstance where developments have not been completed but where some other issue has arisen for the developer. That is covered by the provision “the authority is satisfied that there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant”. Senator Daly and others were unsure of what problem the measure was intended to solve. Senator Daly inquired whether it related to cases where people find themselves financially unable to secure funding from a bank or other source of funding of which they had expected to avail. Is that the reason? What is the basic rationale for the provision? Is it what Senator Daly was canvassing? I am just curious.

Senator Paddy Burke: Some types of developments where work has not commenced are not environmentally friendly. For example, in some cases in Dublin developments have been built with hollow blocks with no insulation. Will new conditions be imposed on a developer responsible for such a development who applies for an extension of planning permission for five years to ensure he or she conforms to the new green technology? Is it the case that an application for an extension would consist of a formal letter seeking an extension of time owing to the fact that he or she ran into financial difficulties? This could be a golden opportunity to ensure developments which use poor quality insulation are brought up to the required standard. A motion was tabled in the House a number of years ago to make developers in the Dublin region conform with the insulation standards that existed in the rest of the country. I believe some developers in Dublin are still building with hollow blocks and I suggest that conditions to bring them into line with green technology would be applied to any applications by them for a further extension of time. I refer to solar panels and proper cavity insulation.

Acting Chairman: I ask Senators to stick to discussion of amendments, please, because we will be here all night if we do not.

Senator Mark Daly: On a point of clarification for Senator White, I was not quite canvassing for it. The most important aspect of the section is——

Senator Alex White: In fairness to Senator Daly, I did not mean canvassing in that sense.

Acting Chairman: Senator Daly is canvassing all the time.

Senator Mark Daly: Thank you, Acting Chairman. The issue is one of saving the taxpayer money more than anything else. That is one of the most important sections in that many of these developments will come under the remit of NAMA and therefore if their planning permission runs out and NAMA has to revive the planning permission by paying fees to architects and engineers, it will keep them all very busy but it will also incur costs of tens of millions when one takes all the projects combined. 643 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: I thought the plan was to rezone some of the developments.

Senator Mark Daly: That is a different issue. We are trying to save the taxpayer money. That is why I welcome the Minister of State’s insertion of the provision. It is probably the most important section in the Bill because it is about saving the taxpayer a fortune.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Senator Daly raised the matter of planning permission that has expired. I am not in a position to give any comfort on that matter. The grounds for extension of a planning permission are for commercial, economic or technical reasons. I intend to table further amendments on Report Stage to deal with issues such as that raised by Senator Burke. He is aware that since I took over responsibility for this area we have introduced strict regulations on energy and building standards. That is the law of the land. Even if a permission is four years old, it must still comply with the building regulations. If that is what the Senator is referring to, as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, I would not be interested in people building a structure on the basis of permission granted four years ago that did not comply with existing regulations and legislation I had brought forward.

Senator Alex White: In terms of the phrase “commercial, economic or technical”, does the Minister of State have in mind a person who has run out of money?

Senator Paudie Coffey: Will the Minister of State consider amendment No. 54, particularly subparagraph (II) — he may want to introduce in his own format on Report Stage — to the effect that the proposed use of a development would lead to the creation of at least ten full- time jobs? If there was a clear commitment that jobs would be created on a particular development, it might be reasonable to consider extending the permission. I ask the Minister of State to outline his view on that matter. If he does not accept the full Fine Gael amendment, I ask him to consider that part of it.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The phrase “commercial, economic or technical” may refer to what the Senator said. It may be a situation where someone is extending their hotel, the financial arrangement with their bank was withdrawn 12 months ago but might be reinstated in six or 12 months’ time. I presume that is one situation that might arise and there may be others. I said in reply to Senator Coffey that amendments Nos. 53 to 55, inclusive, will be considered on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General’s office. As I said, I will come back to the House on section 23.

Senator Paddy Burke: I welcome the Minister of State’s decision to come back to the House with further amendments. I welcome also his comments on developments that have not taken place and where further improvements can be made to plans.

Senator Alex White: I, too, will be very interested in the Report Stage debate on this aspect and what the Minister of State will bring before the House, particularly in regard to the phrase “commercial, economic or technical”. I am not saying we should not do it but we should be careful about allowing a non-planning circumstance to find its way into planning decisions. If a person has funding at a particular stage and it runs out at a later stage, that is a serious position for him or her to be in and one has enormous sympathy for a person in that position. It may affect many others also who are depending on what is to happen but it is not a planning issue. I do not want to be too po faced about it but we are talking about planning legislation. People run out of money or are financially compromised and so on but, with respect, the planning code is not the place to deal with that issue. People know what to expect from the code. There are many rules and regulations in place for good reasons and if we start introducing 644 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) to the planning code extraneous issues such as people running out of money, which I accept is a serious extraneous issue, we will undermine its integrity if we go too far.

Deputy Michael Finneran: We have existing legislation for properties on which substantial works have been done, in respect of which the period is two years. There is an extension in that regard, so to speak, to five years. These are properties which have planning permission.

Senator Alex White: Yes.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Mention has been made of properties for which permission has run out. I have addressed that matter. I am talking about properties which have live planning permission.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 not moved.

Section 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 56 is in the name of Senator Quinn. Senator Mullen wishes to be associated with this amendment.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 56:

In page 28, paragraph (b), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

“(i) the provision of facilities for physical activity to promote a healthy lifestyle.”.

Section 24 amends section 48(17) of the Principal Act. Section 48 provides that: “A planning authority may, when granting a permission under section 34, include conditions for requiring the payment of a contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area of the planning authority and that is provided, or that it is intended will be provided, by or on behalf of a local authority (regardless of other sources of funding for the infrastructure and facilities)”. Subsection (17) provides the necessary definition of public infrastructure and facilities under various headings. Section 24 proposes the extension of the wording to include, within the definition of public infrastructure and facilities, the refur- bishment, upgrading, enlargement and replacement of roads, car parks, car parking etc.; the provision of high capacity telecommunications infrastructure such as broadband; and the provision of school sites etc. I strongly welcomed section 24 on Second Stage. In the context of the Bill, it is particularly desirable that there be that focus on the communitarian dimension. I welcome and support Senator Quinn’s proposed addition which would on page 28, paragraph (b), between lines 39 and 40, to insert a new paragraph (i), the provision of facilities for physical activity to promote a healthy lifestyle. On Second Stage Senator Quinn made some valuable points on the importance of promoting physical activity and a healthy lifestyle. He made the point that urban planning should promote an active lifestyle to ensure citizens could lead a healthy life. He noted that the Bill called on local authorities to show how their future planning strategy would align with national and regional policy and how the provision of land for residential development would align with population projections. Senator Quinn made particularly valid points about obesity levels in Ireland and said we had not done enough in that regard, which is the case. He noted a 2007 report by the World Health 645 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Rónán Mullen.] Organization which showed the link between physical activity and health and the need to create opportunities to engage in active living in urban environments. The WHO argues that issues such as access to physical activity facilities, land use mix, transport opportunities and perceived safety measures in neighbourhoods impact on physical activity levels and, therefore, on life expectancy. While the Senator accepts that where a person lives is linked with leading an active lifestyle, he said — I agree with him — that there was a lack of integration when it came to urban planning. It is appropriate that Senator Quinn’s amendment to insert a reference to the provision of facilities for physical activity to promote a healthy lifestyle should be considered. This would be included in substitution for the existing paragraphs (e) and (f) in the principal Act. I urge the Minister of State to take a positive view of the proposal.

Senator Paul Coghlan: I strongly support the amendment. Senator Mullen eloquently laid out the reasons it would fit with the provision of broadband and the other ancillary services required in a state of reasonable size. It makes sense to promote such facilities to encourage a healthy lifestyle through the provision of physical activity within any estate of a reasonable size. Without labouring the point, because Senator Mullen has made it so well there is nothing for me to add, the Minister of State can see how well this simple amendment fits with the section.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Senator Quinn made a good contribution on Second Stage and has discussed the matter with me since then and I understand where he is coming from. I accept the intention behind the amendment but I will not accept it because I do not think it is necessary. Section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 currently provides for the development contribution system to be drawn up by each planning authority and approved by elected members following a consultation process. It is a matter for the members of the planning authority to determine the level of contribution and the types of development to which they will apply. Planning authorities may levy development contributions in respect of public infrastructure and facilities provided by or on behalf of the local community that benefit development in the area, including recreational facilities. It is the reserve function of the elected members in each local authority to specify the nature of such facilities in their adopted schemes. The Planning and Development Acts, therefore, already provide for the provision of facilities for physical activity. The Minister has already stated his intention to provide statutory guidance under section 28 of the Planning Acts on development levies. This guidance will provide for the appropriate mechanism to clarify what is meant by recreational facilities, including the provision of facilities for physical activity and to promote healthy lifestyles.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I support this amendment. It is harmless but it puts into law the provision of facilities. There is a healthy lifestyle aspect to life. We have huge challenges around obesity and related illnesses. We are talking about planning, infrastructure and development but we must plan to allow our communities to develop healthy lifestyle attitudes and activities. I generally support this section of the Bill and the thrust of the Bill is to empower local authorities to ensure proper community infrastructure is provided for when developments happen. It is no harm, therefore, to include the healthy lifestyle aspect to that provision of community infrastructure. Health is as important as education or any other of the aspects mentioned, such as broadband. I have a niggling concern about how this would be implemented by local authorities on the ground. I am concerned that where a development happens, it should not act as an opponent 646 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) to incentive for development. There are costs associated with all of this infrastructure and previously they should have been provided by condition or otherwise but the cost of this infrastructure, which is expensive, with waste water treatment plants, broadband and school sites, will be passed on by developers to purchasers within the community. I hope that niggling concern does not stop development due to unsustainable costs in the private sector or for people who are purchasing. The general thrust is right. It is an attempt to rebalance development to ensure proper facilities where development occurs. We should learn from the mistakes of the past when there were not enough of those facilities. I welcomed the inclusion of flood relief and proper drainage. There was a debate on flooding earlier and we can see the devastation around the country in regards to this at the moment. It is important that proper assessments of flooding and impacts on surface water and drainage are carried out and the appropriate infrastructure is installed when developments happen. I am happy to see it written in law that it is considered prior to planning permission being granted. It is important from a infrastructural point of view and for proper and sustainable development.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I hear what Senator Coffey has to say and he would not resist me too strongly when I say that obviously there is a need to be concerned about the idea of any costs being passed on to buyers but it is like the debate on whether people exist for the economy or the economy for people. We can say the same about development. We have just lived through a period where people existed to suit developers whereas development should be at the service of the community and the needs of people. Senator Coffey was right to raise the issue of flooding. The amendment of section 48(17)(c) of the principal Act, which specifically refers to the inclusion of water mains and flood relief works in section 24(a) is highly topical and welcome and ultimately focused on addressing people’s needs. We are talking about developers’ levies but here we are talking about the extension of the potential application of the funds to come from such levies in favour of communities and much needed amenities. It would be more than within the spirit of the Bill with regard to the needs of communities and the well-being of people given the concerns there are about obesity and that we need to encourage active lifestyles in the school curricula in terms of how much time children spend doing physical education during the school week, developing public spaces to encourage people to be active for their benefit and, ultimately, for the economic benefit of the State. If we have healthier citizens there will be less of a drain down the line on our health services and on the Exchequer. That is why I hoped that in the spirit of the topicality of the Bill, as in the inclusion of flood relief work, this specific proposal by Senator Quinn would be taken on board. The Minister of State says it is not necessary, but that is not the test. The question he should ask himself is if such a section would do any harm. I have not heard from the Minister of State that it would. If it would not, surely a public policy objective would be achieved by stitching into the legislation this important social objective. I have not been shown how Senator Quinn’s amendment would bring about undesired consequences. The Minister has not given the House a reason why the subsection should not be added.

Senator Paul Coghlan: I remind the House that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, when he introduced this Bill, rightly made a point of the fact that planning is about people and the provision of what is necessary by way of infrastructure and otherwise. What more than this is necessary to promote a more active and healthy lifestyle? This is totally in keeping with what the Minister outlined to the House on Second Stage. It fits perfectly and for all the reasons advanced by Senator Mullen and Senator Coffey, I plead with 647 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paul Coghlan.] the Minister of State to reconsider the matter. It will not do any harm, it will do great good and it is proper and correct to achieve the active, healthy lifestyle we need for our citizens.

Senator Ivor Callely: I rise to support Senator Quinn’s proposal for the provision of facilities for physical activity to promote a healthy lifestyle in principle. Not many people would disagree with it so I await clarity from the Minister of State on the stance of the Department with interest. Section 24 provides for a wider definition of public infrastructure and facilities to reflect newer infrastructural requirements. One of the newer requirements we have witnessed is that of facilities for physical activity. In saying that, I commend the local authority in my area, Dublin City Council, which has assisted with other joint ventures to maximise the potential of existing facilities that are under-utilised and to bring on and roll out new facilities. I can speak only for my own local authority. I shall not list them tonight but in a number of instances and within a stone’s throw of where I reside a multi-million euro facility is being developed in a joint venture. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify the position regarding the sustainable communities agenda and other policy developments such as the developing areas initiative. What is included concerning facilities for physical activity? In all the years of experience between the Depart- ment of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local authorities has any model of suitable density been recognised by the Department as one that would accommodate all that is required? This includes what was mentioned, which we all support, namely, school sites, infrastructural development, broadband provision and, as we speak, flood relief works. The last is required in my constituency. Has any type of density model been accepted and recognised as self-sustaining, requiring all the ingredients one would understand to be required? It is important we should acknowledge in some form the need for facilities for physical activity. On the other hand, as a person who had a stint in the Department of Health and Children, we promoted this issue under health awareness as the importance of physical activity. If we are to do this in one part of Government policy, are we going to implement it in others? I look forward to the Minister of State clarifying the position with regard to the three items I mentioned, namely, the sustainable communities agenda, the development areas initiative and the suitable model for sustainable densities.

Senator Paddy Burke: May I speak on the section?

An Cathaoirleach: We are speaking on the amendment.

Deputy Michael Finneran: We are very much at one on this issue. Senator Quinn rightly referred to the relationship between planning policy and promoting healthy lifestyles. Under existing planning legislation, planning authorities’ development plans must include objectives for the integration of the planning and sustainable development of an area, with social, community and cultural requirements for the age of population and the preservation, improvement and extension of recreational amenities. Statutory planning guidelines, such as the guidelines for the planning of authorities on sustainable residential development in urban areas, cities, towns and villages and guidelines for planning authorities on design standards for apartments 2007 have been provided to planning authorities. They reinforce the need for providing adequate open space and recreational facilities, especially for children, and for designing new residential developments which should prioritise cycling and walking and minimise the need for private cars. The residential development guidelines recommend integrated housing and public transport development which minimise the requirement for car use and for proper footpaths and 648 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) cycleways to be assessed in new developments. It also recommends direct walking and cycling routes to local facilities such as shops and schools and sets quantitative open space standards for active or passive use within developments. Those guidelines can be accessed through my Department’s website. I believe legislation and guidance exist which provide the framework and tools for planning authorities to make provisions in their development plan policies which positively address obesity and support general healthy well-being for people of all ages. In addition, my Department is represented on the task force on obesity which is under the remit of the Department of Health and Children. It will continue to play a full role in the cross-departmental initiatives in this area. In the existing legislation, section 48(17) of the Act states there should be provision of open spaces, recreational and community facilities and amenities and landscaping works. The Bill emphasises what is stated already. Regarding the local authority to which Senator Callely referred, it was under the provisions of the existing legislation it was able to do that work. It is not that I wish to exclude in any way the intent of the amendment. I spoke to Senator Quinn on this matter at lunchtime today and told him of my support for the principle involved but I am conscious of a particular area, namely, a reserve function of local authority members with regard to the disbursement of levies. I wish to let the House know that.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Rónán Mullen: No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: “That section 24 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paddy Burke: I wish to speak on this section which is a very important part of the Bill. We should have a land use policy but do not seem to have one across the various local authorities. Economies of scale are needed with regard to some of the issues proposed by the Minister of State, for example, infrastructure such as schools and so forth. Local authorities do not appear to have any real guidelines that stipulate that where a certain number of houses are being built a school and certain other facilities are also needed in the area. We do not have those types of guidelines although we have various others concerning regional authority planning and so forth. In the area of development planning we do not have guidelines in respect of schools and such facilities. We can consider current development charges which are quite significant and place a severe onus on developers to come upfront with development charges at the beginning for roadways, water, waste water, public lighting and so forth. There are additional costs included in the Bill regarding infrastructure for broadband and schools. Is this to be an additional cost to those already put in place by local authorities? I understand the costs put in place so far are ring- fenced with regard to some of the facilities, as the Minister of State said. It is a reserve function of local authority members to disperse that funding in a manner that is ring-fenced. This is an area that requires a much bigger debate than we are having today. Regarding county development plans, for land use where areas are zoned, the Minister of State wants planning to be done on a piecemeal or staged basis as land becomes available. This is where one might talk of a school and other pieces of infrastructure to be included. There should be certain guidelines to say that if there is going to be development in an area for houses then schools and accompanying infrastructure are needed. If there is commercial or industrial activity in another section of a town there must be the necessary infrastructure to go 649 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paddy Burke.] with them. Consequently, some land use policy is needed in this section, as are guidelines for local authorities in respect of the specific amount of development that takes place. In other words, if a specific amount of development takes place, there should be certain requirements regarding schools, broadband and other infrastructural items. As Senator Coffey mentioned in the context of flood relief works and schemes, this is where the system has fallen down. All of these factors would kick into play were one to conduct planning on such a basis. I will return to the issue of development contributions. Does the Minister of State envisage this as another development contribution in addition to the contributions local authorities already have put in place? Were that to be the case, as Senator Coffey correctly noted, it would place an enormous cost on those who intend to buy a house. Moreover, first-time buyers would be the purchasers of the majority of such houses. Second, development charges for commercial activity would be enormous and are already quite significant. In fact, the charges have become so ridiculous that they have put off development in many cases. If this issue cannot be dealt with in the section, it should be revisited. Alternatively, the Minister of State might revert to the House on Report Stage with some guidelines.

Senator Ivor Callely: I welcome the inclusion of this section in the Bill. However, the Minister of State and his departmental colleagues should put in place a mechanism, whereby one could adjudicate on the benefits accruing from the implementation of the section. Were one in private business, one could put in place a mechanism to enable one to make an assessment after an appropriate time, be it 12 months, 24 months or otherwise. One would have clear knowledge of the reason for the section’s inclusion and would have a form of ready reckoner as to when one would expect to see benefits accruing from that mechanism. As section 24 is being included, can the Minister of State indicate what mechanism will be in place to evaluate its benefits? When can he revert to the House or me as an individual with an assessment of the merits or otherwise of section 24? I make this point with reference to my local authority area in the capital city which has massive infrastructure. If one takes as an example the single area of drinking water infrastructure within the capital city, it is known that it is ancient, is leaking at all levels and will cost an arm and a leg to replace. However, to be practical, I met the city manager last week who informed me that the amount in development levies he expected to collect this year would be approximately 15% of the amount in development levies he had collected two years ago. Consequently, this provision does not match up. I do not suggest this is an issue on which the Minister of State should respond in the Chamber this evening because I am sure he did not draft this provision. However, while section 24 may be merited, it does not appear to stack up in respect of the practical realities of the section’s implications. I seek clarity from the Minister of State. While I welcome the redefinition and, as I stated previously, the newer infrastructural requirements, I note the line in the explanatory memorandum which states the definition “is re-defined to allow development contributions to be levied”. I seek clarification in this regard. While development levies are already in place, this refers to allowing “development contributions to be levied and used to fund”. I return to the point I made on the section previously and to which I believe Senator Burke also alluded, that is, the density models appropriate for sustainable development and to meet the required level of infrastructure that all Members have discussed. Is there progress in that regard?

Deputy Michael Finneran: First, aside from the legislation under discussion, one of my del- egated responsibilities in my Department is for developing areas.

650 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

As for timescales, the existing law is that a council brings forward development charges and a set of schemes. It must report within five years and bring a further set of schemes at that time. Consequently, there is a timescale, although whether it is considered to be too wide is another matter. In practical terms, this provision gives a wider definition to a local authority and its members of what are its public infrastructure and facilities. This is long overdue, if one considers some of the decisions that had to be taken recently such as on the provision of schools in the outlying areas of the city. This matter possibly should have been dealt with at the time the developments were under way. This legislation and the developing areas initiative give an authority the entitlement to make such a decision. I appreciate the point made by Senator Callely on the reduction in development charges on account of the decreased amount of construction activity in local authorities. However, that should not prevent one from introducing good legislation on the matter or updating legislation to allow local authorities to define and have a wider definition on what constitutes 10 o’clock public infrastructure and facilities. This provision is a facility in law for them and their members as regards infrastructure. It does not differ in respect of levies under existing mechanisms. Members are aware this is a reserved function and is a decision that must be taken by elected members. As I noted previously, the five-year rule is in place and it is a matter for elected members to ensure it is adhered to. I am sure they do because it is one of their more important functions. Up to now, it was a function that was helpful to local authority members in their own areas. They could ensure their localities had facilities when a scheme was being put in place and at the same time they knew that adequate finance was available through the development charges to meet them. This may not be the case this year or perhaps next year. I hope, however, it soon will be the case again that there will be such development charges or, if not, that a different source of resources will be available in this regard. I do not have anything further to say other than to note that its purpose is to give the opportunity to local authorities to cover new infrastructure in their plans. Essentially, this follows on from Members’ previous discussions about recreational facilities and so on. I am highly conscious of the subject of sustainable communities and the developing areas initiative is one of my areas of responsibility. For the benefit of the House, I note that I intend to bring a report to the Government on the issue very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 25 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 28.

Question proposed: “That section 28 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paudie Coffey: This section pertains to An Bord Pleanála and the required quorum to decide on applications before it. In this section the Minister proposes to reduce the quorum from three to two. We oppose this idea and section because we see no logic in reducing the quorum and wonder what it will achieve. I understand that during the construction boom An Bord Pleanála was under serious pressure because of the number of applications before it. In the current climate, however, this move is not necessary. In his speech the Minister stated “Section 28 amends the principal Act to empower An Bord Pleanála to reduce the quorum for meetings from three members to two on the recommendation of the chairperson that such a reduction is necessary to ensure the efficient discharge of the business of the board”. We do not agree because we cannot see why An Bord Pleanála 651 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paudie Coffey.] would put so much emphasis on the board. The Government emphasises the fact that An Bord Pleanála is widely representative of society yet there is the ridiculous situation that only two random members can be left to make legally binding decisions and in doing so can apply their own views unchecked. This does not achieve anything. According to the explanatory memorandum “If a meeting where a quorum is 2 is evenly divided on a vote, the matter shall be referred to a meeting where the quorum is 3”. This is unnecessary layering and bureaucracy. The existing legislation, which requires three members for a quorum, should remain. This proposal is completely at odds with the idea of comprehensive and balanced decision-making and raises the issue of potential deadlock between the two board members and difficulty in determining whether a borderline case requires the consideration of a third member. I am calling for a review of An Bord Pleanála and earlier outlined some serious issues I have with the manner in which it carries out its work. I mentioned specific cases and I hope the Minister of State and his officials were listening. This may not be the legislation in which to address the review and reform of An Bord Pleanála. It needs more transparency and integrity in the way it deals with the matters before it. This section does not improve the legislation. Reducing the quorum from three to two is a measure to try to create efficiencies that are no longer relevant. There will be cases in which the two will reach a deadlock and have to return to a quorum of three. This is unnecessary and we oppose it.

Senator Ivor Callely: How many board members should be available to attend meetings? What is the quorum requirement? I can support some of Senator Coffey’s points about An Bord Pleanála decisions which are legally binding, some of which may be challenged. There may be a need to revisit the board. Anyone can make an error or be responsible for a misunderstanding but this can have serious financial implications for the individual involved. I am aware of such a case. We all support the aim of this amendment which is to secure a higher compliance rate with the statutory objective period of 18 weeks for a decision on an appeal. That is very important. We all know it was put in place but not met. An Bord Pleanála brought in some consultancies. I understand that it used UK planners to make decisions and adjudications some of which these individuals misunderstood and that led to ambiguity. That is why I support the suggestion of some reform or a mechanism to deal with a decision of the board, other than judicial review or reapplication for planning permission.

Deputy Michael Finneran: An Bord Pleanála has a crucial role in providing an independent appeal mechanism for planning cases and in processing strategic infrastructure and other cases. Delivering on a high number of cases in recent years while incorporating all elements of environmental assessment and public participation has been challenging for the board. I propose to assist the board in achieving efficiencies of operation by providing for a reduction in the current statutory requirement quorum of board members from two to three for the purpose of determining certain classes of routine cases. The chairperson or deputy chairperson of the board will have the power to recommend which cases are suitable for a reduced quorum. The provision in this amendment will not apply in the following case types: development that would materially contravene an irrelevant development plan, strategic infrastructural development or a development or class of development referred to in the regulations made under section 176 of the principal Act, or EIA type development. If there is a deadlock it will be referred to a quorum of three. The issue is to try to speed up decisions in An Bord Pleanála. We have all received complaints about the length of delay and time spent. 652 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

The board has reduced its backlog by 46% to 1,499 cases on hand at the end of October from 2,799 for the same period in 2008. The board’s 18 week compliance rate for 2008 was 23%. It is envisaged that in the coming months that will double to over 50% and will continue to rise in 2010, aided by this amendment. There is nothing more in it. There are ten members on the board, a chairperson and nine ordinary members. That is what is involved and the chairperson or deputy chairperson will recommend moving on some suitable cases and that there would be a quorum of two, and there is a prohibition on certain types of case.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I accept the Minister of State’s view that this section is included in the Bill to try to speed up the appeals before An Bord Pleanála but it is not the correct mechanism to speed up appeals before the board. Reducing the quorum from three to two enhances the power of the individual members of the board. This can create deadlock in many decisions and further bureaucracy because the decision will then have to go to the three member quorum. The Minister of State believes that it is necessary for An Bord Pleanála to speed up the way it does its business, but this section is the wrong vehicle for reform. The Minister of State and the Department could consider the reform of An Bord Pleanála under separate legislation or in a separate debate rather than try to stitch it in here. I cannot see how this will improve matters, especially in the current climate because there will be fewer appeals to the board. If the Minister of State is serious about speeding up how the board does its business he should maybe examine the formation of the board. The rural sector feels that it is not represented. Perhaps there would be an opportunity to appoint two additional board members so that the quorum of three for minor appeals will remain. The section is irrelevant and Fine Gael will be opposing it because it has not heard any strong reasons why the quorum should be reduced.

Deputy Michael Finneran: The amendment aims to improve the throughput of An Bord Pleanála and secure a higher compliance rate with the statutory objectives for appeals at no additional staff costs. It is estimated that over 60% of the current caseloads will be affected by this proposal, offering a significant potential for improved performance. It will also allow more board time to be allocated to complex and economically significant cases. The intention is to get cases outside of the areas I mentioned dealt with in as quick a time as possible. The opportunity is there for the chairman, or the deputy chairman in his or her absence, to recommend particular cases to a two-member quorum meeting. If there is a dispute, it can be referred to a three-quorum meeting.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I accept the intention of the section in terms of making efficiencies. If there are relatively minor appeals that can be easily dealt with, then three board members, when they meet, can deal with them swiftly. I am not convinced the reduction in the quorum will solve the issue of time delays in the process. There is always an odd number in committee, interview panel, etc., for one reason — that there will not be deadlock and a democratic decision is taken at every level. Will the two-quorum meeting model be so efficient? If there were a deadlock between two members, they will have to send it to a three-quorum meeting. I do not believe it will improve how An Bord Pleanála functions. It may be better to examine the wider issue of setting regulations for board member attendance for appeals and properly resourcing the board to carry out its remit.

Senator Ivor Callely: I declare an interest in that I have referred some planning applications to the board in the past although I do not have any with it currently. All Members accept the board was under immense pressure because of the amount of development taking place. If this section assists the board to make decisions which heretofore 653 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Ivor Callely.] were taking an unacceptable time, then it is a good section. One would like to think the adjudi- cation process for such matters has been appropriate be it a two-member or three-member quorum. I support the move towards allowing the technical assessment of a proposal to be done by the two members rather than letting it sit for weeks. Certain issues will be referred to this group. However, one would have thought a board of nine members would be fit for purpose and organise its business to ensure the technical decisions in question would be adjudicated on properly and on time. It is not an easy process of just rubber-stamping decisions and this section contains appropriate mechanisms to deal with matters as suggested by the Minister of State.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Senator Callely has put his finger on it. This is a facilitation mechanism to move matters on. The chairman will refer files to a board meeting with a two-member quorum, at which stage it will have various reports. It is unlikely that the chairman will refer a contentious file or matter. It is disheartening for some people that because there must be a three-member quorum, their cases will not be dealt with for another six weeks. It would be better if the chairman could move it on in one day and get a decision made. It is not a rubber-stamping exercise but a mechanism to move cases on in a speedier way at the direction of the chairman. Developments which could contravene development plans, strategic infrastructure developments and developments listed in the regulations made under section 176 will not be dealt with by this mechanism.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 15.

Tá

Boyle, Dan. Leyden, Terry. Brady, Martin. MacSharry, Marc. Butler, Larry. McDonald, Lisa. Callely, Ivor. O’Brien, Francis. Carroll, James. O’Donovan, Denis. O’Malley, Fiona. Carty, John. O’Sullivan, Ned. Cassidy, Donie. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Corrigan, Maria. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Daly, Mark. Ormonde, Ann. de Búrca, Déirdre. Phelan, Kieran. Ellis, John. Ryan, Brendan. Feeney, Geraldine. Walsh, Jim. Glynn, Camillus. Wilson, Diarmuid. Hanafin, John.

Níl

Bradford, Paul. Donohoe, Paschal. Burke, Paddy. Fitzgerald, Frances. Buttimer, Jerry. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Cannon, Ciaran. Mullen, Rónán. Coffey, Paudie. O’Reilly, Joe. Coghlan, Paul. Phelan, John Paul. Cummins, Maurice. Twomey, Liam. Doherty, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Maurice Cummins.

654 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Question declared carried.

NEW SECTION.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I move amendment No. 57:

In page 29, before section 29, to insert the following new section:

29.—The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 151—

“151A.—A planning authority shall put in place procedures to ensure that a consistent approach to planning enforcement is taken throughout the functional area of the authority.“.”.

This amendment will require a planning authority to put in place procedures to ensure that a consistent approach to planning enforcement is taken throughout the functional area of the authority. It will insert a statutory obligation on planning authorities to have consistency with regard to planning enforcement. The Minister will recall that on Second Stage I raised concerns about the enforcement aspect of planning and the role of the planning enforcement officer, who has a great deal of power and against whose decisions there is no appeals mechanism. The amendment is a general provision and I ask the Minister to accept its objective. I will table a more specific amendment relating to an appeals mechanism on Report Stage. I can offer an example of the inconsistency in the enforcement process. It involves two side-by-side houses of similar build. Both owners installed a verandah but in one case the local authority pursued the home owner to the High Court while the development in the other case was okay. I could offer many other examples. On Second Stage I asked about the situation where a developer takes a chance and does something he did not propose to do in the hope of getting away with it. It is unauthorised development. On foot of a complaint by a citizen the enforcement officer could decide it is only a minor infringement and not take any action. There is no appeals mechanism in such circumstances and the developer gets away with it. The enforcement officer’s decision might be influenced, as I have observed, by lack of staff. The enforcement officer might decide at his desk in County Hall that it is only a minor matter, but it might be a very serious matter for the neighbours concerned. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, has been quoted as saying that planning is about people and has spoken about the effect such incidents can have. There is a need for consistency in view of the many examples of inconsistency. There is also a need for standardisation. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this amendment and on the possibility of an appeals mechanism, on which I will table an amendment on Report Stage.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I am aware that Senator Ryan raised this matter on Second Stage. The amendment proposes a new section providing that a planning authority should put in place procedures to ensure that a consistent approach is taken to planning enforcement throughout its functional area. The Planning and Development Act already imposes clear statutory obligations on planning authorities relating to unauthorised development. A planning authority must issue a warning letter regarding written complaints about unauthorised development or other unauthorised development it becomes aware of, except in the case of trivial or minor development; carry out an investigation; expeditiously decide whether an enforcement notice should be issued; enter its decision on whether to issue an enforcement notice on the planning register, including the reasons for that decision; and where it is decided not to issue an enforcement notice, to inform any complainant. 655 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Finneran.]

My Department’s development management guidelines make strong recommendations to planning authorities in respect of enforcement. These state that, while the issuing of an enforcement notice is discretionary, notices should issue in all cases where it has been established that an unauthorised development is being or has been carried out unless there are compelling and defensible reasons for not doing do. They also state that persons who do not comply with the enforcement notice should be prosecuted in all cases. These guidelines are issued under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and planning authorities must have regard to them in the exercise of planning functions. For this reason, I do not intend to accept the amendment, as I consider the current provisions adequate. That aside, I have some concerns. I will take further advice from the Parliamentary Counsel on this matter and revert to the House on Report Stage.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I appreciate the Minister of State’s comments on taking further advice and his sympathy for my case. He mentioned trivial and minor matters. Therein lies the problem. In many cases, an enforcement officer with an excessive workload defines something as a trivial or minor matter in his or her report to the complainant, but no further explanation is given. This does not help the person living next door who has a difficulty with the matter in question and to whom it is not trivial. There is no appeals mechanism. Most aspects of planning include an appeals mechanism, but the power afforded an enforcement officer in this instance cannot be appealed. If the office claims something is trivial, that is the end of the matter.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I referred to this matter and I am glad that the Minister of State will re-examine it. Whether something is a trivial matter depends on who is living next door. What seems trivial to a planning enforcement officer might be a major issue for the person living there.

Senator Brendan Ryan: That is right.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I know of such an instance, but I will leave it at that. As I am satisfied by the Minister of State’s comments, I will not contribute as I had intended.

Deputy Michael Finneran: I have stated my position. I will reconsider the matter and revert to the House on Report Stage. I will not give a cast iron agreement and I will not accept the amendment, but I am prepared to examine whether anything can be done in this regard.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I will not press the amendment, but I intend to deal with the matters I have raised on Report Stage. I also reserve the right to table a more specific amendment on an appeals mechanism.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 29.

Government amendment No. 58: In page 30, lines 6 to 8, to delete all words from and including ”“£1,500”,” in line 6 down to and including ““£400”.” in line 8 and substitute the following: ““£1,500”, (e) in subsection (5) by the substitution of “\1,500” for “£400”, and (f) by the substitution of the following for subsection (8)— 656 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

“(8) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 154, the Court in addition to imposing a penalty referred to in subsection (1) or (2) as the case may be, may order the person so convicted to take all or any steps specified in the relevant enforcement notice within such period as the court considers appropriate.”.”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 156(8) deals with the penalties in connection with unauthorised developments and provides that, where a person has been convicted of an offence under section 154, which is an offence of not complying with an enforcement notice, the court may, in addition to imposing a specific penalty, order the person to take steps notified in the enforcement order. However, the reference throughout the rest of the enforcement provisions of the Act is to an enforcement notice rather than an enforcement order. Accordingly, this is a technical amendment to replace the word “order” with “notice” for consistency. The other amendments to section 156 of the principal Act under amendment No. 58 are grammatical corrections.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Section 30 agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Question proposed: “That section 31 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Brendan Ryan: This section is a blow to democracy. Currently, the occupiers of a development have a right to vote on whether it is taken in charge. The Bill will remove this right and confer it on the owners rather than the occupiers. The Minister of State claims that he is following the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations, but we suggest that this provision be deleted.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Law Reform Commission, LRC, asserts that only the owners should have a say in whether an estate is taken in charge. The Bill’s explanatory memorandum refers to this regarding section 31. It states:

. . . the Principal Act which provides that a housing/residential estate would be taken in charge by the planning authority, in certain circumstances, on foot of a request from a majority of the owners or occupiers. The Law Reform Commission Report on Multi-Unit Developments recommended that it should be owners of units only who would have the right to determine whether the estate is taken in charge.

Am I right in believing that the Government is trying to encapsulate the owners and occupiers in this provision? Owners should have a say. A house’s occupants might move on, but the owners will still need to have their say. I am not sure that we entirely agree with Labour’s opposition to this section. The LRC recommends that the owner should have a say, but the Government’s section allows the owners and occupiers to have a say. Will the Minister of State clarify the situation?

Senator Larry Butler: I agree with Senator Coffey’s interpretation. As the tenant will move on, I support the legislation.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 180 of the principal Act provides that a residential housing estate would be taken in charge by the planning authority in certain circumstances on foot of 657 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Michael Finneran.] a request from the majority of the owners or occupiers. The LRC’s report on multi-unit developments recommended that only owners of units should have the right to determine whether the estate is taken in charge. This amendment implements that recommendation. The principal Act is also amended by the placement of the reference to open spaces and car parks in the list of facilities that must be taken in charge. This is to clarify that the planning authority’s obligation in respect of taking in charge in a residential estate does not extend to some spaces, such as private communal spaces, private playgrounds, bin storage areas, private car parks and allocated parking spaces. The planning authority is not required to take in charge communal spaces reserved for the use of the residents and that are not accessible to the public.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I acknowledge the Minister of State’s response, but the legislation will bestow the right on owners only. Since the occupiers should also have a role, we oppose this section. However, I do not propose to press the issue.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 32.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 59 in the name of Senator Coffey is ruled out of order, as it would impose a potential charge on revenue.

Amendment No. 59 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 32 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paudie Coffey: There is a reason for this section’s inclusion in the Bill. I assume that high costs are associated with An Bord Pleanála processing appeals and applications of large infrastructural nature. Where do these costs accrue now? Do the board and the State pay? Is it the intention of the Minister to recoup these costs by this section in the legislation? The Minister of State might clarify that for me. I would also make the point on the section that there are many proposed infrastructural projects and An Bord Pleanála will deal with quite a few of them, for example, the renewable energy wind projects, offshore or even onshore. The Spirit of Ireland has mentioned projects such as hydro schemes in combination with wind schemes and many of those will possibly come before An Bord Pleanála. I hope we are not excluding these sustainable infrastructural ventures or creating a disincentive by imposing costs on them. I urge caution on the Minister of State and the Department to ensure cost implications do not deny good infrastructural projects from happening in the private sector or wherever. I cite renewable energy projects as a good example. Senator Butler has often spoken about the Spirit of Ireland. He has an interest in that and so have I. I hope this legislation will not be used by agencies such as An Bord Pleanála to impose high costs which could cause those projects not to go ahead. I have a concern in that regard. The Minister of State might clarify it.

Deputy Michael Finneran: At present those costs are by subvention to the board. As I stated already when we dealt with this matter earlier, these costs can be offset against the planning application fees at a later stage. The determination of those are regular costs, and whether it is an environmental assessment, the pay of a consultant or whatever, the important aspect is that the board can charge these. The subvention pays for the developers’ investigation at infrastructural level at present. It is only proper that preplanning investigation is paid for. The developer has the opportunity of offsetting it at a later stage. 658 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: I thank the Minister of State for the clarification.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 60 in the name of Senator Coffey is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 60 not moved.

Section 33 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Government amendment No. 61:

In page 32, before section 34, to insert the following new section: “34.—Section 191(2) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of “the making of a new development plan under section 12 or the preparing, making, amending or revoking of a local area plan under section 18 or 20.” for “the making of a new development plan under section 12.”.”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Amendment No. 61 provides for an amendment to the right to compensation provided under Part XII, Chapter II of the principal Act, namely section 191, restriction of compensation. It is proposed to restrict compensation for the preparing, making, amending or revoking of a local area plan. This is a consequential amendment to restrict or rule out compensation on foot of a zoning decision in a local area plan which, under amendment No. 29 referred to earlier, provides for a section 19(5) in the Act to provide that there is to be no presumption in law that any land zoned in a particular local area plan is to remain so zoned in a subsequent local area plan.

Amendment agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 62:

In page 33, line 7, to delete “creation, management, restoration or”.

Fine Gael proposes in page 33, line 7, to delete the words “creation, management, restoration or” for the simple reason it is too prescriptive. The legislation would be quite sufficient if it stated “(g) secure the preservation of any site of scientific or ecological interest, including any Nature”. The preservation is the important matter and that encompasses all, including the term “creation, management, restoration or”. We believe it is just too much detail and too prescriptive in terminology. We do not need to make this planning Bill any more complex than it needs be. We must remember that this must be interpreted by every planner in the country. Any person who makes an application should be able to understand it. It should not be the job of law to over- prescribe on how planning is processed. It would be quite ample to remove the words “creation, management, restoration or” and I would ask the Minister of State to genuinely consider this. It is a reasonable request. In addition, this section refers to the national heritage areas, wildlife and such like, all of which are obviously important areas, and I want to make a general comment. 659 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We will deal with the amendment. I will let Senator Coffey in on the section.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I accept that ruling.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Where European, national or local nature sites are threatened, local authorities need to have the ability to intervene where appropriate to manage or restore the site or to provide for its management or restoration. This corresponds with the biodiversity responsibilities of local authorities. Where European or national sites or protected species are involved, it would be expected that there would be close liaison and co-operation with the national parks and wildlife service. I see the local authorities as having an important role and responsibility in ensuring Ireland complies with its obligations under the EU nature conservation law. Section 212, which is being amended, is not an obligatory provision but an enabling one. In effect, the proposed new provision will add an additional set of tools that local authorities will be able to use where warranted to protect the natural heritage in their areas. For that reason, I am unable to accept the change proposed by Senator Coffey in amendment No. 62.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: “That section 34 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paudie Coffey: I would ask the Minister of State to note the following general comment. Representatives of turf cutters made presentations last week to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They made a reasonable argument on the matter of conservation areas. These are the people who live and were reared on the land. It is important we note their views and that they are not lost. There is an important drive towards conservation and preservation, but it is also important we take account of the native people who were born and bred in these areas. We are talking about wildlife in this section but I would argue that we should also give due consideration to native inhabitants of rural Ireland and the practices they have carried out over generations. The representatives of the turf cutters made the reasonable argument about how they have contributed to the preservation of the wildlife and the countryside in which they live. While I understand the importance of the existence of the special areas of conservation, the way their boundaries are drawn needs to be reviewed. If one looks at the maps where they are delineated or marked, they normally follow, for example, a stream or a river course. They follow natural boundaries or fence lines. Sometimes they move out across road- 11 o’clock sides into fields and back down again, and there seems to be no logic to some of the areas included in special areas of conservation. If a planning application is made within those areas, local authorities automatically deem them unacceptable because they are in this hatched area which is a special area of conservation. However, when such a hatched area was being established on day one, there was no proper analysis of its boundaries. It creates many difficulties and much bureaucracy within the planning process. It is an area that needs to be revisited to come up with a better system of clearly delineating and understanding special areas of conservation on maps. There are many areas that should not be marked as special areas of conservation. If one analyses the maps, they jump outside areas that have any relevance to the protection of wildlife or special areas around rivers or streams. I have not tabled an amendment in this regard, but I wanted to make that general comment. I ask the Minister of State and his officials to take account of what I am saying because such areas do cause problems for planning authorities. There should be a better system whereby 660 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed) such areas could be reviewed by local authorities on a phased basis if resources are a problem. They should not be a problem now, however, because planning authorities do not have the workload they had heretofore. This may be an opportune time to revise special areas of conservation to see that they are being appropriately allocated for the reasons they were initially created.

Deputy Michael Finneran: One of the serious issues that needs to be addressed in the Plan- ning Acts is Ireland’s failure to meet the requirements of the habitats directive. In recent years, this has been the subject of two substantial judgments against Ireland by the European Court of Justice. The State is now obliged to address these judgments which found, inter alia, that Ireland had failed to transpose the Birds and Habitats Directives into Irish law. These two areas arise here. First, under Article 6 of the habitats directive, all State agencies, including planning authorities, must in the exercise of their functions take account of special protected areas, sites for the protection of birds, special areas of conservation and sites for the protection of other species of flora and fauna, and habitats. We have an obligation in that regard. Sites that have been selected for designation as SPAs and SACs must also be protected. Further- more, under Article 10 of the habitats directive, member states must endeavour, where they consider it necessary in their land use planning and development policies, to encourage the management of features of landscape, which are of major importance for wildlife and fauna.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 35 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS.

Government amendment No. 63: In page 34, before section 36, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section: “36.—Section 251 of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following for the section: “251.—Where calculating any appropriate period or other time limit referred to in this Act or in any regulations made under this Act, the period between the 24th day of December and the first day of January, both days inclusive, shall be disregarded.”.”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Amendment No. 63 provides for the holiday time period as it already applies to the development management process timeframe to be applicable to the development planning process timeframes.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 64: In page 34, before section 36, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section: “37.—Section 253 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “enter a premises or on land” for “enter any premises”, (b) in subsection (3)— (i) by the substitution of “enters a premises or on land” for “enters any premises”, and (ii) by the substitution of the following for paragraph (a): 661 Planning and Development (Amendment) 25 November 2009. Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed)

“(a) require from an occupier of the premises or land or any person employed on the premises or land or any other person on the premises or land such information, or” (c) in subsection (4)— (i) in paragraph (a) by the substitution of— (I) “prevented from entering a premises or on land” for “prevented from entering any premises”, (II) “present in a premises or on land” for “present in any premises”, and (III) “by the authorised person in the premises or on the land” for “by the authorised person in the premises”, (ii) in paragraph (b) by the substitution of— (I) “prevented from entering a premises or on land” for “prevented from entering a premises”, (II) “to enter the premises or on the land concerned, if need be by force” for “to enter, if need be by force, the premises concerned”.”.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Section 253 of the Act already gives an authorised person power to enter a premises in relation to the enforcement of planning control. For the avoidance of any doubt, a reference to land is also being added, that is, the power to “enter a premises or on land” is now being specified in the section. Each reference to a premises in which the section is being replaced by a reference to “a premises or on land”. The purpose of this amendment is to remove any doubt that the powers of entry extend to the power to enter onto land where there might not be a building, that is, in an extract of industry for the purpose of any enforcement provisions of the Planning Act. That is to say, in case it could have been considered that the word “premises” could not encompass land with no buildings on it, the word “land” is being added in each case. This is to ensure that there can be full access to all relevant places for the purpose of planning control.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 65: In page 34, before section 36, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section: “38.—Part I of the First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended— (a) by the substitution of the following for paragraph 6: “6. Carrying out flood risk assessment for the purpose of regulating, restricting, and controlling development in areas at risk of flooding (whether inland or coastal).”, and (b) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph 11: “12. Regulating, restricting and controlling development in areas at risk of erosion and other natural hazards.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 66 to 68, inclusive, have been ruled out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue. 662 World Population 25 November 2009. Report

Amendments Nos. 66 to 68, inclusive, not moved.

Section 36 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Senator Camillus Glynn: Next Tuesday.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 1 December 2009.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Camillus Glynn: Ag 10.30 maidin amárach.

Adjournment Matters.

————

World Population Report. Senator Fiona O’Malley: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the UNFPA’s annual world population report. The particular focus this year is on the effect the growth in population has on climate change. While I am delighted to see the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, I was particularly hoping to see the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power. I wanted to compliment him on the speech he made at the launch of the report. It was the first time I had seen a Minister passionately discuss what is one of the most serious issues concerning population development and climate change. The report is graphic. One section states that population growth is the most controversial and divisive topic concerning climate change itself. It adds that for a long time people have been afraid to discuss the issue of population and its effect on climate change. The report makes clear that population development is critical to climate change and, equally importantly, the fulfilment of the Millennium development goals. Having read the report, I learned how important meeting the global need for contraceptives is to delivering the Millennium development goals and also to climate change. In our country at the moment we are dealing with deluges in the south and west. I am sure those who have been affected by the recent flooding will blame climate change. It provides us with an example of the effects of climate change in our own community, not to mention in developing countries where the effects are even more acute. At the launch of the report, I could see clearly that the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, believed in the issue of population development and how central it is. The thinking now in the higher echelons of the United Nation is very much about allowing people to access family planning facilities voluntarily rather than about containing the population. Voluntary access will improve economic prosperity in developing countries. Equally, it will assist regarding climate change. I am very focused on the millennium development goals. The Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, is of the opinion that they cannot be delivered until there is universal voluntary access to family planning. In the UN report, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon asks that we elicit a new level of engagement by Governments in the areas of population and development and provide access 663 World Population 25 November 2009. Report

[Senator Fiona O’Malley.] to reproductive health and actively support gender equality. That is the essence of the report and what we should focus on. The purpose of raising this matter is to compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Power, on the approach he took at the launch some days ago and to encourage him to ensure the Government will continue to support the UNFPA and promote the delivery of the millennium development goals in particular.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): I thank the Senator for raising this matter and affording me the opportunity to address an issue of central importance to the objectives of Ireland’s international development co-operation and aid programme. I am responding on behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, to whom I will pass on the compliment paid to him by the Senator. Last Wednesday, the Minister of State, Deputy Power, launched the UNFPA State of the World Population report on the role of women, population and climate change. The report was launched simultaneously in 20 countries across the world and this underlines its global significance. The UNFPA produces a state of the world population report annually to further discussion on critically important topics. I am happy it has achieved its objectives in igniting the debate we are having tonight. This year’s report outlines in stark terms the negative impact climate change is having on the achievement of the millennium development goals. It outlines how water scarcity, food shortages and the consequences of unpredictable and increasingly severe weather patterns are threatening the hard-won development gains of the past decade. This year’s focus on climate change is particularly important because we begin in a few short weeks the climate change conference in Copenhagen. We hope the analysis UNFPA has provided in this report and its proposed five steps will be fully considered in the negotiations that will take place in Copenhagen. We know that in order to achieve the millennium development goals, we must accelerate the war against hunger, make progress on reducing maternal mortality, increase primary school enrolment and the provision of employment and, most critically in the context of this discussion, ensure the preservation of natural resources. The core priority of Ireland’s aid programme is the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger in the developing world, with a strong focus on the poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In response to the recommendations of the Government’s hunger task force, the Mini- ster of State established the fight against global hunger and food security as a cornerstone of the aid programme and of our development policy. Ireland is taking a strong lead internationally on the hunger crisis, highlighting the over- riding importance of the first millennium development goal, to halve the proportion of people living in poverty and hunger. UNFPA has reaffirmed the close connection between gender, farming and climate change. The hunger task force report and recommendations clearly recognise the importance of women in agriculture, in particular in food production, and the need to respond to the specific needs of women farmers in both policy and programmes. These include addressing legal systems which restrict the rights of women to land and natural resources in their own right, supporting research to improve farming technologies, developing food crops that are more productive and less labour intensive for women, addressing the issue of water management, increasing women’s access to financial services and improving women’s access to markets and ability to trade. Irish Aid has fully recognised the importance of the UNFPA mandate as articulated by the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, in reducing poverty and the achievement of the millennium development goals. 664 Third Level 25 November 2009. Charges

The statistics on maternal mortality in some of Irish Aid’s programme countries are truly shocking. In Ethiopia, 710 in every 100,000 women will die in childbirth, rising to over 2,000 in Sierra Leone. In Ireland, that ratio is one in 100,000. Reducing maternal mortality, the essence of the fifth millennium development goal, is one of the key areas of Irish Aid’s partnership with UNFPA. The issue of population growth is discussed by UNFPA as having an important, yet complex, role in climate change. We note that the world’s population could potentially reach between 8 billion and 10 billion by 2050. Even the most modest estimate suggests a dramatic increase. It has the real capacity to undermine global efforts to achieve the millennium development goals. The report advocates the achievement of the programme of action of the International Con- ference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, as a long-term mitigation strategy in the fight against global warming. We welcome the assertion that the ICPD agenda can contribute by achieving health and development objectives thereby reducing fertility, stabilising populations and in turn reducing emissions. High population growth has the potential to impact negatively on development progress, not least environmental sustainability. The provision of voluntary family planning allows women and couples to decide freely the number and spacing of their children and lies at the heart of the UNFPA mandate. Promotion of gender equality, including most critically the education of girls, has proven to be one of the most empowering policies in stabilising high population growth rates. In total, over the years 2005 to 2009, Ireland has contributed over \23 million to UNFPA in core funding and trust funds for reproductive health commodity security in addition to trust funds on maternal health, and on obstetric fistula and female genital mutilation and cutting issues that impact significantly on women’s reproductive health. The UN recently made significant progress towards the achievement of the goal of gender equality. We warmly welcome the recent General Assembly resolution on UN system-wide coherence and the unanimous support for the establishment of a “composite gender entity”, to be headed by an Under-Secretary General. This progress in strengthening the capacity, accountability and effectiveness of the work of the United Nations on gender equality and women’s empowerment which has been long awaited and is urgently needed.

Third Level Charges. Senator Rónán Mullen: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran. I welcomed the opportunity to hear the previous matter on the Adjournment. Some issues were raised on which Senator O’Malley and I could have interesting discussions in due course. My topic is the student services charges and the need for the Minister to clarify whether a significant proportion of the \1,500 student services charge is being used to fund aspects of higher education institutions other than student services. As recently as 3 July 2008, the Mini- ster for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, spoke about the student services charge, paid each year by students in college, that does not come under the heading “tuition fees”. He stated the charge was to defray costs of examination, registration and student services. Unfortunately, it is a long way from being a student services charge in that sense. Although the Government states the no-fees system remains in place, the reality is that tuition fees have returned by the back door. Has there been any honest announcement on the matter or any debate before such an announcement was made that there would be roll-back on the free fees scheme? Has there been any conscientious redesignation of the term since it can no longer fairly be called a student service charge if it is being used to effectively return money to the Exchequer and where students are paying moneys that are in fact used in lieu of tuition fees? The history of the issue is interesting. When free third level education was phased in over two years in the 1990s leaflets at the time made the point that students would not pay any 665 Third Level 25 November 2009. Charges

[Senator Rónán Mullen.] tuition fees, just the charge as it was then of £150 for student services, registration and examinations. I have a copy of such a leaflet from Trinity College. What happened in 2002 is that a letter issued from the Higher Education Authority, HEA, specifying the increases in the student charge at that time from \396 to \670, which was a massive increase. Apart from the 6% hike in the student services charge it made it clear that the extra hike over and above the 6%, which amounted to \250, was intended “to secure savings to the Exchequer in 2002 and subsequent financial years”. In effect, what happened is that the block grant to the colleges in respect of each student was reduced by X amount and the fees that the individual student and his or her parents and family had to pay went up by the same amount. In other words, the Government was removing a section of its funding for third level education and putting it back on to the students to pay. That bad practice continued in 2008 when the student services charge was increased from \825 to \900. Here again we saw the fite fuaite nature of this where we were told by the HEA that the block grant was to be reduced by three quarters of the amount of the increase of the student services grant. In other words, the student was paying \75 more for student services but \56.25 of that was being cut from the amount the Government was paying to the college in order to education students. Again, in effect, three quarters of the increase was going back to the Exchequer. A memo from the financial resources manager of Trinity College Dublin to the finance committee of that university earlier this year shows where this sleight of hand has led. I calcu- lated that students were being hit for approximately \12.5 million in total. When adding up the amount being spent on student services I got as far as \10 million. When one factors in some of the headings under which the student services portion was being spent, \1.5 million was being allocated for so-called space costs in regard to the provision of student services and \1.4 million was being spent on registration costs. One got the impression that the university was basically trying to bulk up its expenditure under academic or commercial-type headings so as to give the impression that the student services charge was being spent on student services when in fact it was not. What people understand by student services are counselling services, student health facilities and a career guidance office. The capitation grant goes to fund valuable student union activities and the activities of clubs and societies. We have dishonesty at the heart of Government. Has there been an announcement that free fees are gone and that part of the tuition fee is now to be paid by students? That is what has been happening since as far back as 2003, despite the fact that as recently as 2008 the Minister for Education and Science was characterising the student services fee as being there to defray the costs of examinations, registration and student services. There was no mention of space costs or the subtraction from the block grant and that being replaced by the addition of ever- increasing charges to the student services fee. This year we had an addition of \600 to the student services fee bringing it to \1,500 from \900. That is a direct tax on college students. Not one cent of that money is being spent on student services. It is coming off the block grant, which is being paid to universities in respect of each student. A letter from the president of the student’s union of Trinity College, Cónán Ó Broin to Deputy Gogarty, the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science, with accompanying documentation, outlines that of the \1,500 students are paying they receive at most \537.25 worth of services. Barely more than one third of what they are paying under the so-called heading of a student services charge is being disbursed on student services. It is time for the Government to level with people and to tell them whether it has reintro- duced fees by the back door. If that is the case what does the Green Party, which made so much of having talked down and negotiated out any possible reintroduction of third level fees, 666 Third Level 25 November 2009. Charges make of the fact that the reality is that third level fees have already re-entered by the back door and that the Government has not admitted that fact? What is the Government’s position on the issue? Will it level with people and does it propose to mitigate the situation in any way?

Deputy Michael Finneran: I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, who is unavoidably absent and is not in a position to attend tonight. I thank Senator Mullen for raising this matter. As the Senator will be aware the student services charge is levied by third level institutions to defray the cost of examinations, registration and students services. Those services may include on-campus medical and counselling facilities for students, access and disability services, careers advisory service, student facilities and student clubs and societies such as sports and recreation. The Government accepted increases in the level of that charge for the current academic year to bring it to a limit of \1,500, from \900, in individual higher education institutions. Prior to this academic year the level of the charge did not represent the total allocation made by institutions towards student services from institutions’ budgets and therefore such services were subsidised from the funding grant allocated by the Higher Education Authority. The increase in the charge for this academic year would have the effect of bringing the amount contributed by students more into line with the cost of providing student services in the institutions with funding then being freed up within the funding grant. The increase of up to \600 was agreed on the understanding that the revenue generated by the level of increase to be adopted by each institution is required to defray the cost of items that fall to be funded by this charge. All students who are eligible for means-tested student grants have the student services charge paid on their behalf by the relevant local authority or VEC, in addition to any maintenance or tuition fee grant to which they are entitled. The Higher Education Authority issued a framework of good practice for the provision of student services to the publicly funded higher education institutions in 1998. Particular reference was made to the principles of transparency and accountability. The framework consists of guidelines to establish an appropriate system of consultation with students on the allocation of funding from the charge and in the determination of student services to be funded from this source. The HEA has periodically written to all institutions to ensure that correct procedures are in place, and to remind them of their function in regard to the student services charge, in accordance with the framework of good practice. I thank the Senator for affording me the opportunity to respond to the House on this matter.

Senator Rónán Mullen: My comments are not directed at the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran. I am sorry to have to criticise the Department of Education and Science twice in one day but it is ironic to refer to the framework of good practice and to principles of transparency when there is little transparency evident in the reply. The word that comes to mind is “spin” when I consider the allegation that colleges are spending more on student services than they have been receiving by way of the student services charge and that the increase of up to \600 is somehow necessary to defray the costs of student services.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Mullen.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Would the Minister be willing to establish an investigation into the matter? I have figures from Trinity College that show clearly that the amount being spent on student services falls far short of what students are being charged by way of a student services charge even when——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: There is no provision for a more than a brief question. 667 Social Welfare 25 November 2009. Benefits

Senator Rónán Mullen: ——extraordinarily large figures are put in for registration costs and space costs associated with student facilities and other such strange designations.

Deputy Michael Finneran: If Senator Mullen wishes he can either give the document to me or I will arrange for it to be given to the Minister, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe.

Social Welfare Benefits. Senator Pearse Doherty: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach. Baineann an cheist gur mhaith liom a ardú os comhair an tSeanaid leis na bónais Nollag a bhíáíoc ag an Stáit dóibh siúd a fhaigheann airgead leasa sóisialta. Tá a fhios againn gur chuireadh ceal leis an íocaíocht sin i mí Aibreán na bliana seo. Agus muid ag tarraingt isteach ar an chéad seachtain de mí na Nollag, tá gá ann an íocaíocht a dhéanamh. An bhfuil sé ar intinn ag an Rialtas tarraingt siar ar an chinneadh atá déanta agus an airgead seo a íoc chuig na 1.3 milliún duine a bhraitheann go mór air le linn an Nollag? This matter concerns the need for the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Hanafin, to rein- troduce the Christmas bonus. The wording of the motion may not be correct in that I should have made it clear that I was talking about the Christmas bonus for social welfare recipients. When we consider the legislation passed in the House recently or some of the information we received, it is clear that bonuses are still being paid. In regard to NAMA, bonuses are being paid to the bankers who are being allowed to receive salaries of \500,000. Only a few weeks ago we heard that Professor Brendan Drumm who is earning a salary of over \400,000 had been paid a bonus of \70,000, yet in the April budget the Minister for Social Welfare decided to cancel the Christmas bonus for approximately 940,000 social welfare recipients and their dependants. Approximately 1.3 million people are dependent on some of the lowest payments from the State, many of them receiving \204 a week on which to survive. I am not talking about people who have lost their jobs in the last month or recent months or those who may have had savings in the bank but about those in receipt of long-term social welfare payments, for whom the \204 a week is all they have to survive. The term “bonus” is probably flawed because in real terms this double payment which was usually paid on 4 December was a necessary part of budgeting for those on the lowest incomes. In 2007 the then Minister said repeatedly that Christmas was one of the most expensive times of the year and that payment of the bonus would go some way towards meeting household Christmas costs. When the current Minister introduced the bonus last year, she said that, even in the challenging budgetary environment, the payment of this additional money to social welfare customers was a clear sign that helping those most in need of support remained the key priority for the Government. Since the Minister has decided to cancel the payment for 1.3 million people, it is clear the Government’s priorities have changed. What are its priorities if they are no longer helping those most in need? I have always found the Minister of State to be a fair person, although it is a pity the Minister cannot be here at this late hour in the Seanad because it is she who should be questioned on the issue, although I accept it is a Government decision. The reality is that by cancelling payment of the Christmas bonus for those paid \204 or even less a week the Minister is, in effect, cancelling Christmas for them. That is not just my view or that of Sinn Féin. Other organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which work with the most vulnerable and those at risk of poverty are of this view also because the additional payment was used to buy extra bags of coal to provide more heating, presents for grandchildren or new clothes for Christmas. A report issued today by Older and Bolder states many pensioners are deciding to heat only one room at a time because they cannot afford to heat the entire house and that many have forgone buying new clothes because of the restrictions the Government has imposed in the budget. 668 Social Welfare 25 November 2009. Benefits

I ask the Minister to consider an alternative to the cancelling of the Christmas bonus. The Government has told us it has no alternative because it must save the \223 million the Christmas bonus costs, but that is a flawed premise. If it were to pay the Christmas bonus, everyone who would receive it would spend it in the local economy. It is not like Professor Brendan Drumm and his salary of \400,000 and bonus of \70,000. He will not spend all his money, but the person who depends on the \204 a week would spend all of the bonus in local shops. There would be an immediate comeback for the Government in VAT receipts of approximately 21%, but it would also boost the local sectors into which the money would be injected. It amounts to a withdrawal of support from the local economy. In my county 54,000 people are dependent on social welfare payments. That is a huge number of people who next week will do without, many of them for the first time since the 1980s, the double payment at Christmas. It is estimated that the loss to the local economy alone will be \9.5 million. I ask the Minister to get her priorities right. Last week my party highlighted the areas where money could be raised, whether through additional taxation, including wealth taxes, or the standardisation of discretionary taxes. There are many avenues open that not only my party but others have highlighted, but, unfortunately, the Minister and the Government have decided that the first port of call is those who are dependent on a sum of just over \200 a week. I cannot understand the reason the Government did not consider asking those earning more than \200,000 a year to pay a little extra, but instead it has decided to take the Christmas bonus from those dependent on \204 a week. It does not make sense. I ask the Minister to listen not just to my plea on behalf of the 940,000 who would have been due to receive this payment next week but also to that of the many groups, charities and organisations which work with the most vulnerable which are stating this is one of the cruellest decisions the Government has made. It is Scrooge-like and mean. Of all the decisions it has made, this is the one on which it will look back with regret. A society is judged by the way it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members; we should not be screwing them. I use that terminology because I believe that is what the Government is doing to the most vulnerable and those most in need of this payment.

Deputy Michael Finneran: Bhí an cheist i mBéarla agus mar sin, tabharfaidh mé freagra i mBéarla. I thank the Senator for raising this matter which I am taking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin. Promoting social inclusion, protecting the most vulnerable and recognising the contribution older people have made to the country have always been major priorities for the Government. When we could, we provided for unprecedented increases in welfare payments and ensured, for example, that the value of the State contributory pension more than doubled in the past ten years from just \113 a week to more than \230. Even throughout the economic difficulties of the past two years, the Government has done its best to prioritise social welfare. The October 2008 budget provided for increases of between 3% and 3.8% in the basic payment rates at a time when inflation was expected to be 2.5% in 2009. In reality, prices have actually dropped considerably this year. In framing the April supplementary budget very tough decisions had to be made across a range of Government expenditure items. In that context, the provision of \21.3 billion for social welfare services in 2009 — 20% more than the amount spent in 2008 — was a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to protecting the most vulnerable in society. Both tax rates and borrowing had to be increased to fund this extra expenditure on social welfare. Providing a 100% Christmas bonus this year would have added another \223 million to the bill, money which, unfortunately, the State does not have. In seeking to contain the increased welfare budget to \21.3 billion, there were no easy options and I assure Deputies that the decision not to pay the Christmas bonus was not taken lightly. The increases provided for in the October budget were taken into account, as were the April forecasts for price 669 The 25 November 2009. Adjournment

[Deputy Michael Finneran.] deflation this year. The decision not to pay the bonus was announced in April so that people would have nine months’ notice. I appreciate that non-payment of the Christmas bonus effectively amounted to a 2% cut in the annual social welfare basic payments to those affected. It is important to recall that basic welfare payments were increased last January and that by September 2009 the consumer price index had fallen by 6.5%. The average decrease in the CPI is now expected to be between 4% and 5% this year. Given that tax revenue has deteriorated even further since April, putting increased pressure on the public finances as a whole, it will definitely not be possible to pay a Christmas bonus this year. Welfare cuts are difficult for people to cope with but if the Government does not take steps now to reduce overall public expenditure and restore stability to the public finances, we risk making the economic situation much worse for everyone, including welfare recipients, in the long term.

Senator Pearse Doherty: The Minister of State is right about the consumer price index. It has fallen by 6.5%, but when we are talking about those on the lowest incomes, many of the items on which they spend most of their money have increased. Fuel, transport and education have increased by up to 11%. The CPI talks about mortgages and new cars but very few old age pensioners or people depending on \204 are buying houses or new cars. In preparing for this Adjournment matter, I looked at the press statements released by Ministers when announcing the Christmas bonus in previous years. Each press release had two main points, that the payment would be made to about 1.3 million recipients, and that Christmas is a difficult time where people should avoid falling into debt and avail of services such as MABS. Does the Minister of State acknowledge that by cancelling the Christmas bonus, they have made that situation worse, something that has been acknowledged by different Mini- sters down the years? They are driving old and vulnerable people and those on low incomes into the arms of ruthless, unscrupulous moneylenders, thus burdening them with more debt. Does the Minister of State agree that many of these people will turn to moneylenders to avoid the cancellation of Christmas?

Deputy Michael Finneran: The Government is borrowing \400 million per week to run the country. It receives \34 billion in taxes and more than \21 billion of that is spent on social welfare. The Government must look to the country. It is not easy at any time to reduce payments to anyone but in the long-term the country must get its public finances correct. That applies to long-term recipients of social welfare.

The Seanad adjourned at 11.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 26 November 2009.

670