Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I will address amendments Nos. 47 to 50, inclusive, and 52 to 54, inclusive, outlined by Deputy Ó Broin. These amendments relate to section 4 of the Bill which is a standard technical provision enabling the Minister to make regulations for matters set out in the Bill.

Amendment No. 47 seeks to remove the reference to “expedient” in subsection (2) of section 4. Subsection (2) provides that regulations under the Act may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the regulations. Amendment No. 48 also seeks to delete the reference to "expedient", as the Deputy outlined. I will again explain why I believe “necessary or expedient” is appropriate. It is a phrase used widely across the Statute Book in regulation-making powers when referring to making regulations for incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions and it is appropriate in this regard. It could be argued many planning exemptions are not “necessary”. In other words, planning permission may be sought; instead such exemptions are “expedient” in that it allows developments which would usually get planning permission to avail of exemptions from this requirement subject to the specific conditions or limitations that restrict the exemption as well as the general restrictions on exemptions. I therefore cannot accept amendments Nos. 47 and 48.

I will now address amendments Nos. 49 and 50 which propose to add two new subsections to section 4 to provide that the Minister shall establish a list of prescribed bodies. I remember that being discussed at length in committee. Amendment No. 49 proposes that the list include organisations engaged in environmental protection, protection of built heritage, archaeological, historic or cultural heritage, etc. that will be consulted with when making regulations. The amendments also propose that there would be public consultation on regulations which have a significant impact on the environment. Where regulations are screened for strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and SEA is required, a public consultation takes place as part of that process, as the Deputy will know. For example, a public consultation ran during the summer of 2022 on draft solar exemption regulations that provided for the installation of a range of solar infrastructure on schools, community and sports facilities. The regulations were then introduced towards the end of 2022 following a review of the submissions and observations received as part of the consultation process. As with all law, the principles and policies of planning law are set out in this Bill. Regulations, as secondary legislation, are a function delegated to the Minister and merely give effect to the principles and policies contained in the Act as approved by the Oireachtas. It is at the Bill stage where the significant consultation should take place and there was also extensive engagement on this Bill through the planning advisory forum as well as, really importantly and significantly, through the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. There will be consultation on regulations where necessary and appropriate but I do not consider it appropriate that the requirement to do so be set out in the Bill. Many regulations are of a technical nature and it would not be appropriate or necessary to consult on them. Others are more substantial - I have given an example - and when they are being drafted it would be normal to have some consultation with relevant stakeholders on them and that happens all the time. For example, with the solar regulations I have just mentioned, my Department consulted extensively with the Irish Aviation Authority, the Department of Defence and the HSE in order to provide appropriate safeguards in close proximity to aviation sites such as airports. Further, there was internal engagement with the architectural heritage part of the Department to ensure adequate safeguards for the character of architectural conservation areas.

Amendment No. 52 seeks to replace section 4(4) of the Bill, which relates to regulations requiring positive approval, to provide that all regulations requiring positive approval shall have a debate of no less than one hour in each House. The timing of debates is obviously not a matter for this Bill. Scheduling of time in the Dáil and the Seanad is a matter for each House respectively and I oppose amendment No. 52. That is the positive resolution.

Amendment No. 53 seeks to replace section 4(5) of the Bill which currently provides that all regulations and orders other than those requiring positive resolution under subsection (4) and commencement orders shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and that there is a 21-day period for either House to pass an order annulling the regulations or orders. The proposed amendment seeks to provide that regulations made under most Parts of the Bill shall be subject to a positive resolution of each House. This would be highly impractical and as mentioned earlier regulations merely give effect to the principles and policies contained in Acts passed by the Oireachtas. This would drastically slow down the making of secondary legislation and the ability of any Minister to improve the practical operation of the process. I therefore oppose amendment No. 53.

Amendment No. 54 proposes to delete section 4(6) of the Bill which restates section 269 of the Act of 2000. This is a standard technical provision to enable the Minister to make regulations to remove any difficulty in the operation of any section of the Bill, within three years of the commencement of the Bill. Again, I must oppose this amendment as I have proposed my own amendment No. 51 in this regard, which we will move to next.

Amendment No. 51 specifically relates to section 4(4), which was discussed at length at committee, as Deputy Ó Broin said, and which restates section 269 of the Act of 2000.

It is a standard technical provision to enable the Minister to make regulations to remove any difficulty in the operation of any section of the Bill within three years of the commencement of the Bill. Given the scale and the complexity of the Bill I believe it is important to have this provision to ensure that any such problems can be effectively remedied to allow the provisions of the Bill to be commenced as quickly as possible. There was concern on behalf of Deputies Ó Broin and O'Callaghan that the provision was very broad and lacked safeguards. This provision is included purely as a precautionary measure and with the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. It is in the current Act but was actually never used.

On Committee Stage the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, proposed that regulations under subsection (6) of section 4 could be required to get a positive resolution of both Houses. Amendment No. 51 proposes that where regulations are to be made under subsection (6) of section 4 "a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made unless and until a resolution approving the draft is passed by each such House". I believe this change will give appropriate safeguards if such power is to be availed of in the future. It has not been availed of heretofore. I hope that covers the points the Deputies have raised.

See this speech in context