Victor Boyhan
Agricultural Panel · Independent · Ireland
“It also mentions the agrifood sector and the importance of diversification in agriculture, the maritime sector, coastal communities and fishing communities in terms of rural policy.”
“I know from my engagement with both the Department and the Minister that over 900 submissions to the consultation process were received. No Member or parliamentarian will have had the opportunity to consider the anonymised version of these consultations, which contain many good suggestions in favour of the regulations and many concerns in…”
“I welcome the Minister and the official to the Seanad. This is particularly important Private Members' business. I thank Senators Collins and Tully for setting out the background and the rationale behind their Private Members' motion. I acknowledge the Minister's exceptional commitment to rural Ireland and his Ministry.”
“I am conscious of the Minister's public consultation, and I acknowledge it and thank them for it, in relation to the Our Rural Future work programme in 2025. In fairness to him, he did not stop at that. I received a further update when I requested it from his office very recently.”
“This will come about through that process. It is for the Minister to decide. Maybe he will do so tomorrow when the regulations are dealt with. However, when Senators are in this Chamber discussing these regulations tomorrow, they will have no sight of any constituent who made a submission. That is my first item.”
“I am pleased to see Senator Byrne in the Leader’s chair. I wish him well in that job. I also wish him well in his new position as Government Whip. There are three items I wish to discuss today. First is the exempt development regulations, which are being covered extensively in the media.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,616 lines we hold for Victor Boyhan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 32 of 33.
“I suggested that we might look at this. There was an issue around repealing the Bill. The question was whether we would put revocations into Schedule 2. This one would be one of those. The process leading to this Bill involved a review carried out by the Law Reform Commission of more than 40,000 secondary instruments - that is a considerable amount of work and I acknowledge the amount of work the Minister of State has done - to ascertain if they were obsolete or were to be repealed or retained. That is where the Minister of State must rely on external professional advice and her Department officials. The 3,367 instruments that will be repealed by this Bill are all listed in Schedule 2. It is proposed to have five instruments that will be retained or listed in Schedule 1.”
“As agreed, I will speak on amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. I thank the Minister of State and the officials from the Law Reform Commission who are with us again today. We have had engagements with the Minister of State since we last spoke and I thank her office and staff for that. These have been meaningful and practical and we should reach some sort of reasonable compromise. This matter we are dealing with today is complex. I have learned an awful lot about it in the past two weeks. It is important, therefore, that we give the Bill time and consideration. The principal purpose of the Statute Law Revision Bill is to repeal the spent and obsolete secondary instruments enacted on or after 1 January 1821 and before 1 January 1861. That gives some measure of the complexities. I know that reviewing the Bill is a standard annual practice.”
“They have not been met. There is an inconsistency across the 31 local authorities. I can go to Cahersiveen to express a concern about a planning matter, but I have to come to Marlborough Street in Dublin to look at some of the coloured pictures with regard to planning. There are major shortcomings. There are concerns about the governance and the spending of public money. There is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability around this issue. I ask the Minister of State to convey this to the Minister as a matter of importance. It is my view that a number of parliamentary questions should be submitted the week after next to Dáil Éireann to flesh out this matter in more detail.”
“I thank the Minister of State very much. There is a lot of information in that, if I was ever convinced, or needed to be convinced, that the Department needed to exercise its governance and have a governance unit as regards An Bord Pleanála. I respectfully ask the Minister of State to take a message to the Department, including the senior manager, that it should initiate a full and comprehensive governance review of all matters relating to IT in An Bord Pleanála since 2014. I am deeply concerned and have substantial knowledge about some of the shortcomings. I am more than happy to assist the Department with any issues I can. If the Minister of State takes a trawl through the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, he will see back to Simon Coveney's time as Minister that commitments were consistently given.”
“Millions of euro have been spent by An Bord Pleanála and its agents in developing an IT system. We are familiar with the Arts Council saga and the investigation by Government into areas around that. I am deeply concerned about the public money that has been spent on a system that is not up and functioning. I therefore put the alarm bells out to the Minister of State today that I will be making further comment on it in the next week or so. We need to address the issue of what is the IT system that is appropriate for the Planning and Development Act. Let us get on with the issue of the IT systems.”
“First, it is important to use the Office of the Planning Regulator, which does an excellent job in this area, and the city and county council representative associations such as the Association of Irish Local Government and Local Authorities Members Association to set about training modules to introduce people, commensurate with the sections as they have been introduced. Our city and county councillors are on the ground. The Minister of State knows this area exceptionally well. It is important that we set about training and facilitating understanding both for the executives in the council and in particular the county councillors. For many years there has been an omission by Government to introduce the IT planning - pleanála.ie . I will suggest something, and I do not want to be too provocative.”
“That is not a matter for the Department but for the Oireachtas, and we have to bear with the Oireachtas and the enormous burden of this significant Bill, one of the biggest in the history of the State, that has to be fully translated into the Irish language in compliance with the Official Languages Act 2003. That process is in play and is being dealt with, so I am not asking the Minister of State to deal with that today. There is a substantial amount of learning and that is why the Government clearly set out its timeline for introduction of the various phases. That is clear and I am glad for the clarity we had on that this week. I ask therefore that the Minister of State address two issues.”
“Regardless of how Members voted and the outcome of the amendments, we now have this very important legislation. I am asking that we now proceed to roll-out. It is important to acknowledge that the Planning and Development Act 2024 introduced key reforms, like the introduction of statutory timelines for all consenting processes given the confidence we talked about. What I really want to concentrate on today is the significant reorganisation of An Bord Pleanála. The Act is not fully published yet because it has not been fully translated into Irish. I understand from officials in the Department that it requires a substantial body of work.”
“The systems are clearly well oiled in the Customs House, and they set out their schedule, which is interesting, and it is important to acknowledge that. The Planning and Development Act 2024 was the culmination of a comprehensive legal review of the Planning and Development Act 2000, led by the then Attorney General, and subsequently the Attorney General's office. It was initiated by the Government in July 2021. I acknowledge the role played by the Minister of State and his predecessors in that and, in essence, the key message was improving clarity, consistency and confidence within the planning system. They were the three underlying messages that Minister after Minister came into this House to set out. We have to take that as fact, and we have to progress.”
“I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. He has vast experience in this area as a Minister of State in the Department. My Commencement matter sets out the need for the Minister to make a statement on the timeline for the full publication of the Planning and Development Act 2024 and progress on the Am Bord Pleanála IT project. When I submitted this, the Government had not at that point issued its press release setting out its timeline of the implementation. Within an hour or two of it being submitted, I received a memo, via a journalist and not internally, to the effect that the press release would be issued later in the afternoon. Anyway, I saw that draft and therefore had to somewhat change my message.”
“I ask that he look at it to see how we can work to progress the issues raised in it. The programme for Government includes a commitment to proceed to publish the figures for the National Treatment Purchase Fund. I ask for that to be fulfilled. It is all very well supporting this important Private Members' motion, but the Minister of State will be judged on the delivery of the key aspects of his Ministry and the key aspects of this Private Members' business. I wish him well. It is important that we work. I ask the Minister of State to give a commitment that he will come back to this House within six months to give an update on progress on getting the initial stages of these proposals off the ground, working with all stakeholders.”
“I welcome the Government's express commitment to work towards an equitable funding model for fair deal pricing, which remains outdated and deeply unfair. Since 2018, 77 nursing homes have closed, leading to the loss of 2,800 beds. This has added pressure to the acute hospital bed services. A reformed, equitable, transparent and sustainable funding model for nursing homes is essential to prevent further closures and ensure older people receive appropriate care for their specific needs This afternoon, Nursing Homes Ireland circulated a document providing key details of the fair deal's "inequities", as it describes them, and broken promises and notes the urgent need for funding and reform. I also sent a copy of that document to the Minister of State's office today.”
“Real opportunities for community and cultural participation are key dimensions for the well-being of older people. I commend the former Fine Gael Member, Tánaiste, Minister and MEP, Frances Fitzgerald, who is now the chair of Home and Community Care Ireland. HCCI is, significantly, an all-Ireland body. All Members received a copy of a HCCI strategy titled Rising to the Challenge: Building Better Care, Stronger Communities. I emailed a copy of it to the Minister of State's office. I ask him to have regard to that. I wish Frances Fitzgerald every success in rolling out that strategy. As a former member of the National Treatment Purchase Fund board, I understand the concerns of Nursing Homes Ireland.”
“As that is a commitment in the programme for Government, I take it as a given, notwithstanding the motion. We should get ahead and do that, if possible. Enabling people to age with confidence, security and dignity in their own homes and communities is clearly a policy of the Government which all of us in the House supports. It is important that we have a collaborative approach involving the Government, communities, the voluntary sector, healthcare providers and individuals to advance that policy. Supporting ageing in place remains a central focus of the Sláintecare health reform. Let us go back and look at Sláintecare and see how that dovetails with the issues presented here today. Quality of life for older individuals is vitally important in assessing suitability for housing, physical and mental health services.”
“Taking this example as a single issue, will the Minister of State ask why this purpose-built day centre, which is a significant intervention, is not available to the people of Loughrea? I will send him the details. I wanted to flag this matter as this debate presents me with an opportunity to do so. The motion refers to a fully funded carer's guarantee. I support that. I will touch on the fair deal scheme and how it relates to nursing homes because I have served two terms as a director of the National Treatment Purchase Fund. As such, I am fully up to speed regarding the difficulties. There are difficulties and unfair aspects of that which I will touch on later. The motion also refers to publishing the National Treatment Purchase Fund pricing review in early 2025.”
“We must move forward, but it is important to take time to look back at the previous two programmes for Government to see why these things did not progress. There is learning for us in that. I am not being critical as there may be very good reasons that they did not progress as fast as they should have. I ask the Minister of State to look at that. I will deal with four specific issues relating to the asks set out in the motion. One refers to enhancing our network of day centres. Councillor Geraldine Donohue in Loughrea brought to my attention today that the Seven Springs purpose-built day centre in Loughrea has not returned to its pre-Covid opening hours and services. The service is being operated in a hotel.”
“I welcome the Minister of State to his important Ministry. I have no doubt he will do an exceptionally good job. He is fiercely committed and applies himself to the challenges put in front of him. I thank Fine Gael for using its Private Members' time to afford us an opportunity to discuss and debate care supports and enhanced provisions for services for older people. That is important. There are many asks in the motion. I am familiar with them, as Fine Gael Senators will be also, having prepared them. As the Leader said, all the suggestions, asks and proposals in the motion are in the programme for Government. Sadly, many of them were in the previous programme for Government but they were not delivered.”
“It is incompatible with stated Government policy and I am asking that something be done about it. I am asking for the Minister to come to the House for a debate specifically on rural housing and building houses in Gaeltacht communities because they need our support. We need to stop talking about gestures and put in place practical supports for people who want to build homes in rural parts of Ireland such as the Gaeltacht area where the Leader lives.”
“People cannot afford to buy a house in the Gaeltacht area within the price range that is being asked and therefore cannot provide a home. This is replicated throughout rural parts of Ireland and is unacceptable. For the past ten years, the Government has continually talked about new rural housing guidelines. Today, I reissue that call and ask the Government to publish the rural housing guidelines and subject them to a public consultation. No one wants one-off rural housing that is not properly and sensitively integrated into the landscape and does not adhere to planning conditions. In many rural parts of Ireland active farmers are also prevented from building a home on land representing their main place of work. These active farmers cannot build a home there and cannot live there. That is unfair and unacceptable.”
“I raise the issue of house planning in Gaeltacht communities and rural communities. I call on the Minister for housing and planning to take practical steps to allow native Irish speakers to be allowed to submit a planning application but, more importantly, to be granted planning permission to build a single home on their lands. We need to be mindful of Government policy on the Gaeltacht areas. If we have no Irish speakers, we will have no Gaeltacht areas. If we have no Gaeltacht areas, we will not have the provision and supports for Irish speakers, so it goes hand in hand. The Leader will be aware that this week, RTÉ featured a native Irish speaker born in Connemara, the Leader's area, who is seeking to build a three-bedroom house. That person made multiple applications and was refused on each one.”
“In light of what the Minister of State has said and the fact that there will be another Stage of the Bill next week, I will withdraw the amendment, take some further advice and have another opportunity to come in here next week. We will all have another opportunity to have a chat and we can pursue it on the next Stage. I will not pursue the amendment at this point.”
“Is there another way of dealing with this so that it could be put on Schedule 2 for revocation, as with a whole load of other aspects the Minister of State's officials have advised to be put on it? There is a bit of explaining and simplification to be done here. I hear what the Minister of State is saying and I take the view that we should proceed here, but I am also conscious that this is not the end of it and it will have another life further down the line. That is just some feedback on the Minister of State's contribution.”
“I will certainly be encouraging the people who engage with me to engage with the Department and the Minister of State's officials because we want to tease out any ambiguity and we want greater clarity on what the issues are. The Minister of State referred to the 1997 Act, which reflects on that position. I have come here to make the case that this amendment should go onto Schedule 2, rather than being taken away. Schedule 2 details the revoked instruments, and it can stay there. It does not have to be obliterated. The Minister of State and her officials have moved a number of sections from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, and there may very well be a case. I accept the Minister of State's officials cannot make a decision here and now on the floor of this House, but they might reflect on that when it goes to the Dáil.”
“Let us keep the language here simple because, as I always say, the public are listening in and this will be reported in Oireachtas reports on television, radio and wherever. People are hugely interested in these things and people will be scratching their heads and asking why we are keeping this when we have a Republic and where it goes. I am also conscious, although I am not going to dwell too much on it, that this Bill was initiated in this House. Therefore, the Bill will make its trajectory from here to the Dáil, where I know from speaking to a number of TDs yesterday that it is their intention to give this Bill very fine scrutiny. That is good and it is important we flag that with the Minister of State's Department and officials, because it gives them time to engage.”
“I will come back on that. I thank the Minister of State. One of the great things about this debate is that it puts all of this on the record, which is really important because it is a bit sketchy. Clearly, the Minister of State has the advice and I am very happy to take on board all of that. I am not an expert on genealogy by any stretch of the imagination, but this was an issue that was raised with me and there seems to be more than some logic in it. The Minister of State used the word "uninterrupted". Yes, it might be uninterrupted, but we are in a Republic. There has been no mention in the Minister of State's response about the fact that we operate and live in a Republic. Is there really a place for this in the Republic?”
“It mentions a range of proclamations going back as far as the 17th century. It reads as follows: "Proclamation authorising Ulster King of Arms to prevent improper use of arms, style of esquire or gentleman, etc." I am of the view that we are a Republic and have been for over 100 years. Such a proclamation should be removed from our Statute Book. It has no place in a republic. We are making laws and statutes. We live in a republic. We operate in a Parliament that is in a republic. We should be mindful of that. Amendment No. 2 is to insert more on page 11 between lines 8 and 9. These are revoked matters. "Revoke" is a more appropriate word than "deletion". The Minister of State's officials can correct me if I am wrong.”
“A concept that is underpinned by this 1685 proclamation that I talked about earlier is called the port of gentry. It is rather a strange title. It states that a man must have achieved particular standing in society to be eligible for the grant of arms. This concept has no place whatsoever in our constitutional framework. It is contrary to our concept of equality of citizenship and totally incompatible with the equal status legislation. The retention of this 1685 proclamation on our Statute Book would clearly be incompatible with a status of a Republic based on equal citizenship alone. My proposal is that we would remove it. I now go to the two amendments. Amendment No. 1 to Schedule 1 is, "In page 9 to delete lines 11 to 16." The rationale is that Schedule 1 of the Bill lists instruments to be retained in force.”
“Before I do, I want to make a few points. The claim that the chief herald is the lawful successor to the Ulster King of Arms was totally debunked during the drafting, in 1996, of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997. The then Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht was Michael D. Higgins. One can see from the record of the library the extensive debates that went on about these matters. There is a strong history in the Oireachtas of debates in both Houses about these matters. This is not something that some yahoo or I, as Senator, fell in here with as some great idea. There is a history and logic to this. There have been protracted discussions and debate about these issues. Section 13(1) of the 1997 Act reflects the position, as it does not link the genealogical office with the crown office known as the Ulster King of Arms.”
“This Bill will also repeal those instruments enacted before 1 January 1821 that are still in force and were not repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 2015. The process leading to the Bill involved a review, carried out by the Law Reform Commission. I understand one of the Minister of State's team today is from the Law Reform Commission. The review scrutinised more than 40,000 secondary instruments to ascertain if they were obsolete or were to be repealed or retained. Of those, 3,367 will be repealed by the Bill and are listed in Schedule 2. It is proposed that five instruments will be retained, which are listed in Schedule 1. There is a subtle difference between Schedule 1 and Schedule 2. I am proposing to reduce that to four instruments as opposed to five. This will require the deletion of the 1685 proclamation. I will explain why.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 9, to delete lines 11 to 16. I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate her on her appointment. I welcome her staff who are here and have much experience in these matters. These three amendments are grouped. I have tabled amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and will speak collectively to those two amendments. We are debating Committee Stage of the Statute Law Revision Bill 2024. I want to make a number of points on the record about the background of these two amendments. I will be brief and concise. The principal purpose of this Bill is to repeal spent and obsolete secondary instruments enacted on or after 1 January 1821 and before 1 January 1861. It is a hell of a long time ago.”
“There are key goals and key objectives and I ask the Minister to prioritise them. The Minister might come back to the House, and indeed, I might bring a Commencement matter for his attention, so we could set out the key goals and key objectives and let us move on. The Minister talks about an agenda for change for the next five years. Let us start that agenda for change this year in the first 12 months.”
“It is a matter for the Government, ultimately, but there is a big difference between authorised officers under the NTA as opposed to a dedicated Garda transport policing division. I share the views of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and he will have another opportunity to outline his view but I share his view. I share the view of the general secretary of the transport workers' union and I also share and support the view of the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, in relation to these matters. That is an important issue to deal with. The all-island strategic rail review is an important issue. There is vision and there are goals and objections. Clearly, we want better transport as the Minister says. Transport is a game changer. That is important. I had a look at this today in terms of the strategy of the all-island strategic transport review.”
“As the Minister indicated, we can change the powers in respect of the NTA but I also wanted to share with him that during the election campaign, An Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, was reported as stating "Garda management can no longer stand in the way of a dedicated transport police." I share his concerns and have spoken to him about it. I believe, today, that he believes there should be an extension of An Garda Síochána, not an extension of the NTA or new powers for the NTA that give full powers of arrest. If you go to the UK, just one country, they have a dedicated transport police, which is part of the metropolitan police force. That is the model we should look at. We should not close any option off. That is what I am saying. Please keep that open - that is all I ask.”
“I have spoken to the general secretary of the National Bus and Rail Union, Dermot O'Leary, on numerous occasions and he has said enough is enough for his staff. He has been a strong advocate for safer travel for his staff and for the public. We want zero tolerance for crime on our transport systems and that is important. I reiterate, as I did then, a call for a dedicated, fully resourced public transport police. I note that in the Minister's contribution today, he talked about the NTA and how that would require legislation. I also note our able and capable Minister for Justice last week talked about a policing service and stated "unless they have the powers to arrest, it's not really a functioning or effective transport police".”
“Absolutely. I have no difficulty with that and I said that. The Minister is one to engage and I am always happy to engage with him. I acknowledge his co-operation and engagement, which has never been a problem. I am deeply concerned that the front-line staff and the passengers on all our public transport modes are exposed to the threats of sexual assault and aggressive drunken behaviour on the public transport network. Open drug taking, dealing and fighting should not have to be encountered by anyone. Our public transport should be safe to go on for anybody at any age at any time. There are reports of blocked toilets and people shooting up drugs in our trains. Going west the other day, someone experienced an issue and told me about it.”
“Times move on and times change so I want to accept there is a big change of heart. I welcome that. It is with some regret that I note the Minister has used his ten minutes so he will not even have an opportunity in this Private Members' motion to come back and share some thoughts but we can communicate outside of here. The Minister has spent his time on it. Senator O'Loughlin will have an opportunity but the dedicated ten minutes has now been used.”
“One is the introduction of transport policing, the next is the full implementation of the recommendations of the all-island strategic rail review, which is very important and the third is to reinstate the western rail corridor. I will start with policing because that is a really important issue. I remind Members on the opposite side of the House in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and then the Green Party that there was a motion before them in the names of Senators Victor Boyhan, that is, myself, Michael McDowell and Sharon Keogan on 28 October 2021. It simply asked to insert the following and call on the Government to collaborate with an Garda Síochána, the NTA and public transport stakeholders to establish a dedicated transport police unit on the public transport network. That was simple. There was a roll-call vote and it was opposed.”
“First, I welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on his appointment as Minister for Transport. Those who are new here may not be familiar with Private Members' business. This is a Fianna Fáil item and I congratulate their Senators for putting it forward. None of this is new. This has been rehearsed two or three times in the Seanad and I will share some of that with Members in a moment. Let us forget about all the points where they set out phrases like "agrees to do" and "notes that"; let us get to the real detail. The real detail is in 11 key points the Senators have identified in their asks where they call on the Minister on a number of issues. While there are 11 key asks, I will only talk about three of them.”
“The next thing we need is to see a schedule of the plans for its implementation. Peppered through the commitments in the programme for Government are references to the detail of the Planning and Development Act. We talk about a town-centred approach and slicker and more embraced planning issues. We need to fast-track planning. We need to take away the obstacles to housing and commercial development. We also need to examine the IT systems of An Bord Pleanála and the millions of euro that have been spent by that body. We still do not have the full roll-out of a functional IT setup for An Bord Pleanála. That is ongoing and I have been pursuing the issue in recent days. I intend to revisit the issue in the House next week. I ask the Leader if we can see the full publication of the hard copy version of the legislation.”
“I wish to raise the Planning and Development Act. It is a substantial document and runs to 870 pages. It was signed by Uachtarán na hÉireann on 17 September 2024. It is now almost March. I understand that people have even had a difficulty getting a hard copy of the Act. It is still in the preparation stage. I need to clarify that and the Leader might check it out because it is important that we have the document. It also needs to be translated into Irish, which is standard and right, and should happen. This is one of the biggest pieces of legislation that ever went through the Houses of the Oireachtas. A sizeable amount of time was spent discussing the legislation in this House, the Dáil and at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government.”
“I will today draft a number of parliamentary questions to submit to my colleagues in Dáil Éireann and I am going to keep on this case because Tailte Éireann is not doing what it should be doing.”
“Every week for the next five weeks there are going to be parliamentary questions put through Dáíl Éireann to draw out what the issues of concern are within this organisation. I will finish by returning to the article, which stated "[Tailte Éireann] has told the solicitors' committee [of the Law Society] it is not an 'advisory body', cannot devote resources to checking every application for errors and intends to devote available staff to processing applications that are in order, according to the committee update". Quite frankly, Tailte Éireann has a responsibility to do more than that. If there are failings in the legislation we put through these Houses we need to look at that again. I am sending out a clear message it is not fit for purpose.”
“I thank the Minister of State for the overview he gave. In summary, it is not working. Tailte Éireann is not delivering. People who want to do property transactions, whether for agricultural land, farms, pubs and commercial buildings, are having difficulties with Tailte Éirean and so are local authorities. It is simply not fit for purpose at this time. There is talk of a recruitment drive but this is after the body has been established. It acknowledges it needs a recruitment drive and training. We need to look at its IT systems. I am putting down a marker that this very day I am going to draft a number of parliamentary questions and submit them to colleagues in the Dáil I work closely with.”
“Has the board the confidence in Tailte Éireann to do its job? There are the issues around local government and the Town Centre First approach. In essence, I have no confidence in Tailte Éireann and many people do not either. Many solicitors are telling me clients are coming in and threatening to complain about them because of things clients feel they are not doing for them when in effect the buck stops with Tailte Éireann because of the way it is not dealing with issues in a timely manner. There are farm sales falling because of inefficiencies in Tailte Éireann. There are pubs and commercial buildings in Ireland falling because of Tailte Éireann. It is about the timely delivery of its mandate. This needs to change. I am asking for a review and am interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say.”
“We need an immediate root and branch review of Tailte Éireann. That is my ask today. What is the issue? Does the body have sufficient resources? Has it the capability and skills with respect to IT resources and training? Has it initiated, engaged or spent great amounts on an IT system that is not fully operational? These are very pertinent questions in these days when we are talking about accountability, transparency and value for money. We need confidence in Tailte Éireann's capacity to provide an authoritative land and property database in a timely manner. It is not happening. Has it developed the appropriate and enhanced database systems required for this task? We want efficiency in relation to digital first and we want to look at the Tailte Éireann board's statement of strategy. Is it being implemented?”
“An article published in Saturday's The Irish Times raised a number of concerns about the body. I will reference some of them. The article states: ... Tailte Éireann, [has] been the source of "growing frustration" for solicitors involved in conveyancing and their clients, a Law Society committee has said. Despite meetings between the registry and the conveyancing committee of the solicitors’ representative body, there "has only been limited progress" in having criticisms addressed, the committee has said. The committee has been "forthright" in bringing to the attention of the land registration body the difficulties the changes are creating, but there is still a wide gulf between the two parties ... That needs to be addressed. There are critical changes required and I will touch on some of them.”
“It was established on 1 March 2023 and I was centrally involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny of all those matters as part of the Oireachtas joint committee on housing and local government. We dealt with this, which is a critical issue. Tailte Éireann was formed from the merger of the Property Registration Authority, the Valuation Office and the Ordnance Survey of Ireland. It is critical in the context of the registration of farmland and commercial properties. We can speak of government policy and the Town Centre First approach. I was in Waterford yesterday and heard stories about how nobody could find out who owned properties the local authority was involved with. It affects farmland, farm buildings and commercial properties and we must have a co-ordinated response with respect to the work of Tailte Éireann.”
“If the Department is listening in, I ask it to make some effort to have a Minister from the Department come in. I am going to set out a few concerns about Tailte Éireann and I do not really expect the Minister of State to know the finer detail of what I might say. Indeed, I did not know yesterday what I was going to say and hence an hour ago I changed my contribution. For any Minister or Minister of State to come here and be expected to read some sort of anticipated response is irrelevant and a disservice to the Department, the Minister or Minister of State and the elected Member. I hope that point will be taken on board. The Minister of State will be very familiar with Tailte Éireann. It is the State agency responsible for property registration, property valuation and the national mapping service.”
“I thank the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment. We are familiar with each other. We worked well in agriculture for a number of years. I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. At 4 p.m. yesterday evening, I received a letter from the Department stating that, unfortunately, none of the Ministers from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage were available to take my Commencement matter today but the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue, had kindly agreed to take a response. The Minister of State is welcome and I thank him, but I want to put a marker down here as we start in the Seanad again. As we rarely get an opportunity to engage with a Minister, these Commencement matters are critically important to our constructive parliamentary dialogue.”
“EU solidarity, equal treatment and the equal opportunities of all member states are key to cohesion and something that we must fight hard for in any negotiations. EU member states need to maintain a united front in all talks with the British Government. The British Government might not be interested in an equal deal with each member state, hence its argument on the option of bilateral deals and bilateral options. We need to firmly rule them out. I support the motion and I support the work of the Minister. As he said clearly, this is just to enter into negotiations. I thank him for coming to the House and for recognising the importance of both the Dáil and Seanad in these matters. I ask that he would keep us informed on a regular basis as this matter progresses.”