Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 - Report and Final Stages - 2nd July 2009

Local Government (Charges) Bill 2009 - Report and Final Stages - 2nd July 2009
Senator David Norris: Senators Coffey and Buttimer are correct that it is a question of definition. I strongly support the intention of the amendment and believe the Minister does also. I heard him on the radio deploring the fact that what he had regarded as a positive engagement with the Seanad and his preparedness to accept amendments was, to a certain extent, turned into a political football. He was accused of U-turns and so forth. This kind of commentary is unnecessary and I am glad it did not happen in Seanad Éireann. The other House conducts its business according to its own rules. The Seanad wants to be as constructive as possible.
Granny flats are a comparatively recent phenomenon. My saying "recent" is a function of my age. Granny flats have featured in the past 30 or 40 years but were never heard of when I was really young. I have seen examples all over the place, including very luxurious accommodation attaching itself to dwellings in the Ailesbury Road area, with which I am glad to say I was once familiar. The scent of mown hay or grass in a well-cultivated front garden in the suburbs on evenings such as these causes a kind of Proustian flashback. Granny flats range from those kinds of luxurious accommodations to others in more humble areas of the city or less refined suburbs, where I have also lived. They were basically converted garages.
The phenomenon of having granny flats was socially very positive because it held the generations together and meant that elderly parents, rather than going into a nursing home, could be afforded the comfort of proximity to their relatives. They had a degree of independence, which is so important psychologically in every way. At the same time, they benefited from the care of, and a relationship with, their children and, perhaps, grandchildren. This is socially very constructive.
The difficultly with the amendment is that it is not focused sufficiently. Will this Bill be returning to the Dáil?
Deputy John Gormley: Yes.
Senator David Norris: The Minister might consider this area and come up with a focused measure. According to the amendment, it seems a dwelling does not even have to be attached to the main house. It would be inappropriate if very wealthy people with very wealthy parents did not have to pay just because those parents lived in a structure that had been transferred to their children by gift of deed, for example. A sum of €200 is fairly modest. The amendment is so broad that it fails to achieve its intention, with which I hope the Minister agrees. I imagine he might do so. If I were him, I would not allow myself to be intimidated or bullied out of accepting the principle of a good amendment simply because some less enlightened people in the Lower House would make a mockery of it because of his having done the right thing. If one does the right thing, it has its own reward. The intention of the amendment is very good but its scope is just too broad.


Senator David Norris: I thank the Minister and his officials for the courteous way in which they dealt with this matter in the House. The civilised exchanges that took place in the Seanad give reasonable justification for why it is worthwhile continuing with this branch of the Oireachtas. I welcome the fact that the Minister accepted, at least in spirit, a number of the amendments that were proposed and argued strongly for in the House.