Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to amendment No. 1, Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 8 to 12, inclusive, 19, 21, 27, 33, 34, 46, 708, 822 and 827 to 831, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, are physical alternatives to No. 1. Amendment No. 9 is a logical alternative to No. 8. Amendment No. 1, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to No. 1, Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, 8 to 12, inclusive, 19, 21, 27, 33, 34, 46, 708, 822 and 827 to 831, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 27, to delete lines 5 to 9 and substitute the following: “An Act to consolidate and revise the law relating to planning and development; to provide for proper planning and sustainable development in the interests of the common good; to provide for the licensing of events and control of funfairs; for those purposes to repeal and replace the Planning and Development Act 2000 and amend certain other enactments; for purposes unrelated to the foregoing, to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019, the Land Development Agency Act 2021 and the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”.

At the outset, I thank the committee and its members for their work. We had 123 hours of debate in committee. We had pre-legislative scrutiny - nine sessions of it - before that, which produced 150 recommendations, which we gave careful consideration to, and two thirds of them are incorporated into the Bill in some form. I thank the Chair of the committee in particular.

On amendment No. 1, the amendments in this group are all linked to the proposed amendment of the Long Title of the Bill. This is an outline description for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 provides for consequential alteration to the Long Title of the Bill to allow amendments Nos. 827 to 831, inclusive. I cannot accept the two proposed amendments to this amendment. I do not believe they have been moved yet.

Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:

After “good;” to insert “to give further effect to International Conventions and Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council as listed in section 2,”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept the two proposed amendments to amendment No. 1 tabled by Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and Cian O'Callaghan with the aim of adding references in the Long Title to give effect to international conventions and directives of the European Parliament and of the Council and to a number of other enactments that are referred to in the Bill but not necessarily amended by the Bill. The Bill already includes relevant specific provisions to give effect to an EU law. This is not required to be noted in the Long Title. Likewise the Bill lists on pages 23 to 25, inclusive, Acts referred to in the Bill so it is not necessary to list them elsewhere.

Amendment No. 1 updates the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the insertion by Government of the new Parts 24 and 25 into the Bill. The new Part 24 amends both the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 and the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 in relation to rent pressure zones, RPZs. Part 24 of the Bill comprises three new sections, namely, sections 573, 574 and 575.

The new Part 25 amends the Land Development Agency Act 2021 and the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009. Amendments Nos. 827, 828 and 829 provide for the new Part 24, relating to rent controls. Amendment No. 827 inserts a new section 573 into the Bill to amend sections 19, 20, 24A, 24B and 24C of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, RTA, to provide for an extension of rent controls for a further year until 31 December 2025.

In the light of the prevailing pressures on rent levels and the impending expiry of the RPZs on 31 December 2024 and of the legal restriction to biannual rent reviews outside of RPZs, it is proposed to use this Bill to give the sector, particularly renters, foresight and certainty by giving sufficient advance notice of the extended application of existing rent controls by one year until 31 December 2025. During the one-year extension, a review of the operation of rent controls will take place - it is actually under way - in the light of market changes and experience in other jurisdictions. The early enactment of these measures should provide some measure of comfort and certainty for renters.

The new section 573(a) of the Bill technically amends section 19(6) of the RTA by inserting a necessary cross-reference to the new section 24A(6A) of the RTA, which I will speak to momentarily. The new section 573(b) amends section 20 of the RTA to provide for biannual rent reviews to continue to operate outside of RPZs for a further year until 31 December 2025. The continuation of this measure, for a further year, aims to provide rent certainty for tenants outside of RPZs for a minimum two-year period at a time of rising rents and constrained supply in the private rental accommodation sector.

The new section 573(c) inserts a new section 24A(6A) into the RTA to provide for the Housing Agency, following consultation with the relevant housing authority, to make a recommendation to me, as Minister, to order a non-RPZ area to become an RPZ upon joining an existing RPZ, post a local electoral area, LEA, boundary change. Such an order would expire on or before 31 December 2025. In future, such an order could be made to enable a small non-RPZ area, such as Clogher or part of Carrigaline - we discussed this in the House before - to become an RPZ when joining an existing RPZ area. The rent levels in a new LEA which comprises predominantly an area that already is an RPZ and a small non-RPZ area that joins are highly unlikely to meet the criteria under the Act to designate the new LEA as an RPZ. Accordingly, the new order-making power is required under section 24A(6A).

The new section 573(d) amends section 24B of the RTA, which provides for areas to be deemed as an RPZ. The operation of the deemed RPZs in Cork city and the Dublin local authorities is extended to continue for a further year until 31 December 2025. These local authorities were deemed to be RPZs from 24 December 2016 under the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016. The application of rent controls for a further year again aims to protect tenants from unaffordable rent increases during a sustained period of constrained supply.

Amendment No. 828 inserts a new section 574 into the Bill to amend section 8(2) of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 to provide for RPZs designated under section 24A(5) of the RTA to continue in operation for a further year until 31 December 2025.

Amendment No. 829 inserts a new section 575 to the Bill to provide for Part 24 of this Bill and the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2022 to be construed together as one and collectively cited as the Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2024.

Part 24, relating to rent pressure zones, shall come into operation on the day after the passing of this Bill. I understand that I am not under any time constraints.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are time constraints. The Minister has seven minutes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I have moved the amendment and I have spoken to the others in the group. I will come back in if need be.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is seven minutes for each speaker.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of clarification, the Minister's explanation was very helpful to us, but in the case of a very large grouping, is it seven minutes regardless of the number of amendments in the grouping ?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is seven minutes and two minutes and back to the Minister for the extra two minutes because he is the proposer.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be helpful, Deputy Farrell moved Deputy Ó Broin's amendment.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She did, yes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take it that the same applies. It is seven minutes and two minutes.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 is a ministerial amendment.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are two amendments to amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Ó Broin and others.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are indeed.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All those amendments are being discussed together. Amendment No. 1 to the Minister's amendment has been moved.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is what I will speak to now very briefly.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Broin has seven minutes.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that but we have quite a lot of amendments to go through so you will be happy to know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I am not going to always take the seven minutes when it is not required.

First, I thank the Minister for the explanation on the amendments he got through. We might get to some of the others. In the interests of time, because we have a lot of amendments to go through, and I am particularly keen to have as much time to scrutinise the new Government amendments, these two amendments to amendment No. 1 are pretty straightforward so I am quite happy just to hear the Minister's response to them before we proceed.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Briefly, before I speak to amendment No. 1, it is important to set out clearly how we got to this stage, because there is a narrative out there that in some way this Bill is being rushed through. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Chair of the Oireachtas housing committee, I want to state that we spent probably two and a half years working on this Bill. I think we have been through two Attorneys General. We have been through two assistant secretaries of the Department shepherding this Bill through the committee with us. I think we are through our third Minister for local government at this stage on it. We have spent many months, hours and weeks in the basement in the House here going through this Bill in very fine detail, line by line, section by section, Part by Part and Chapter by Chapter. We spent well over 100 hours in the committee dealing with many of these amendments in detail. There was no curtailment on anybody's right to speak on it and we gave it every single bit of time that was possible.

I acknowledge the work done by the Department's officials on this, and their continuous engagement with all the Members throughout this process. I also recognise that the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including the ushers and the Bills Office. Every single one of them gave every support possible to us in the committee. There are Members here today who sat through every hour of that Committee Stage with us. I thank them for a very positive engagement on it.

Amendment No. 1 relates to the Title of the Bill. I support this amendment. I note that on Committee Stage, we tabled an amendment to provide for consideration of proper planning, sustainable development and the interests of the common good. That was a very worthwhile amendment made on Committee Stage.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have outlined the rationale for amendment No. 1. It may have caught some of the Deputies by surprise that the debate on the Bill had started but I was operating to the schedule. What we are looking at here, which is very important, is the extension of the RPZs for another year while we look at what other rent controls might be introduced. We are using the Bill as a vehicle to do that. Everyone will agree this is the right thing to do. I have already flagged that we will provide legislative certainty in that regard.

On the addition of the reference to the Land Development Agency Act 2021 to the Title, this particularly deals with the LDA and owners' management companies, OMCs. It allows for an amendment to enable them to operate within multi-unit developments. The LDA now has cost-rental properties. This is a specific amendment that needs to be included. Likewise, I am sure every Deputy in the House will agree to the addition of the reference to the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 to the Title. It deals with National Asset Residential Property Service, NARPS, properties and their transfer to NAMA.

Deputy Matthews referred to the extensive work that was done by the committee. I thanked the committee members earlier, in their absence, for the work they did and their detailed engagement. I also acknowledged the work of the officials. This is significant legislation. In no way, shape or form has it been rushed. In September 2021, we started a 15-month comprehensive review of the Planning and Development Act 2000. We had nine sessions of pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft Bill was published in January 2023 and there followed detailed scrutiny of it. We have been working on it since November 2023, when the Bill was approved by the Government and commenced in the Dáil. Over the course of February, March and April, we had 22 sessions of the committee in which we considered and responded to more than 1,000 proposed amendments. As the Deputy said, this involved more than 120 hours of debate and 328 voting divisions. It is fair to say the level of scrutiny by all members of the committee has been exceptional.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the extension of the RPZs, there is not a single place in the country where they are being adhered to and observed. All the data shows they are being breached in every single location.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabh mo leithscéal, Deputy. To clarify, every Member has seven minutes to speak on each amendment or group of amendments. In addition, every Member has a further two minutes, if they so choose, and the proposer of the amendment has an extra two minutes. It is better if Members take their seven minutes before the Minister responds in order to get answers.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. As I said, the data clearly shows the RPZs are being breached all over the country. The 2% rent increase per year that is allowable by law is being breached significantly everywhere. This is putting renters under huge pressure. Is there anything in the changes being made that means the RPZs will actually be enforced? There are no changes being brought forward by the Minister in the legislation to ensure they are enforced. What is being done to ensure their enforcement? It is all very well saying we have RPZs and that they are being extended. However, the data from the Residential Residences Board shows very clearly that they are being breached everywhere in the country that they are meant to be in place. I have raised this issue previously and it has been shrugged off. In fact, the Tánaiste indicated to me in a reply that implementing them might drive out landlords. However, RPZs are the law of the land. What is being done to enforce them? What is being done in these changes to the RPZs to ensure they are enforced?

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am still a little confused about the allowed speaking times.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has had seven minutes and may have another two if he wants.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I have a couple of technical questions for the Minister. On amendment No. 827, I am seeking clarification regarding the reference to section 19 (6A) of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, as amended. We have had a lot of debate on the existing legislation and the setting of RPZs. There was a procedure relating to properties in a split local electoral area, LEA. Is there anything in amendment No. 827, in the reference to section 19 (6A), to deal with those portions of existing LEAs that are not within the RPZs and where there is a heavy concentration of private rentals? Does this provision, in effect, allow for sub-LEA designation of rent pressure zones? If the Minister has time, he might explain that.

My second question relates to amendment No. 831 and the reference in subsections (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (c) to NARPS. Obviously, NARPS still has not been transferred across from the NTMA. When will that happen and what will be the import of this particular section, as inserted by amendment No. 831?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Deputy Ó Broin's first question, the provision allows for exactly what he has outlined. Taking Carrigaline as an example that has been raised in the House, the passing of this provision would give me, as Minister, the power to add the portion in question to an RPZ even though it would not, on its own, meet the criteria for an RPZ.

On Deputy O'Callaghan's question, we will see reporting of existing rents and new rents as well. New rents being sought on new properties can skew things. We are certainly seeing an impact on rents for existing properties. I reduced the rate from 4% to 2%. We have also increased the renter's tax credit. I wanted to give certainty while we are looking at what would replace RPZs. There is a sunset clause at the end of this year. I do not think anyone wants to come up against a cliff edge. I wanted to be able to say quickly and clearly that the RPZs would extend through all of 2025. As the Deputy knows, the rental market review is under way. This Government and the next will decide what types of rent controls will replace RPZs as we increase supply.

On Deputy Ó Broin's second question, amendment No. 830 relates to NARPS. Its transfer to the LDA is an important part of NAMA's remaining commercially focused activity. It will take place as part of the wind-down and ultimate dissolution of NAMA by the end of 2025. It is an action under Housing for All that we would agree the process to allow for the transfer of NARPS from NAMA to the LDA. This allows that to happen. The acquisition of NARPS also plays a key role in the financial projections of the LDA.

Amendment No. 831 relates to granting the LDA the power to establish and join OMCs. Given that the agency now has properties, we want to bring them under the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011. This will allow Shanganagh, Glenageary and all the various sites it is delivering at the moment to join. Given we have residents in LDA properties, we want to provide an opportunity for the agency either to establish or join OMCs.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 1:

After “2000,” to insert “to amend the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011, the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act 1964, the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001, the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021,”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 27, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“Legal acts of the European Union and International Conventions given effect to by this Act

2. Effect or further effect, as the case may be, is given by this Act to—(a) an Act specified in Part 1 of the Table to this section, adopted by an institution of the European Union or, where appropriate, to part of such an Act, and

(b) an International Convention specified in Part 2 of the Table to this section, ratified by either the European Union and, or the State, or, where appropriate to part of such a Convention.

TABLE

Part 1
Abstraction of Drinking Water Directive
Birds Directive
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
Urban Waste-Water Treatment Directive
Habitats Directive
Major Accidents Directive
Water Framework Directive
Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive
Access to Environmental Information Directive
Public Participation Directive
Pollution Caused By Dangerous Substances Discharged Into The Aquatic Environment Directive
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive
Part 2
Aarhus Convention
Transboundary Convention
Landscape Convention

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 27, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“Legal acts of the European Union and International Conventions given effect to by this Act

2. Effect or further effect, as the case may be, is given by this Act to—(a) an Act specified in Part 1 of the Table to this section, adopted by an institution of the European Union or, where appropriate, to part of such an Act, and

(b) an International Convention specified in Part 2 of the Table to this section, ratified by either the European Union and, or the State, or, where appropriate to part of such a Convention.

TABLE

Part 1
Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States
Birds Directive
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning Urban Waste-Water Treatment
Habitats Directive
Major Accidents Directive
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EC
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to Justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC
Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community
Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning
Part 2
The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done in the Danish city of Aarhus on 25 June 1998
Transboundary Convention
European Landscape Convention done at Florence on 20 October 2000

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 27, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following “ “Aarhus Convention” means the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done in the Danish city of Aarhus on 25 June 1998;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 27, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “Abstraction of Drinking Water Directive” means Council Directive 75/440 EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States;”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 27, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “ “Access to Environmental Information Directive” means Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EC;”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 13, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13, 14 to 18, inclusive, 20, 22 to 26, inclusive, 28 to 30, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 30, 31, 32, 36 to 45, inclusive, 144, 233, 361, 596, 597, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 597, 598, 606, 607 and 718 are related and may be discussed together.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 29, to delete lines 11 to 16 and substitute the following: “ “approved local newspaper” means, in relation to the functional area of a planning authority—

(a) a publication (other than an online publication or online version of a publication) that—

(i) circulates in the functional area of the planning authority, and

(ii) is approved in a prescribed manner by the planning authority for the purposes of this Act,

or

(b) an online publication, or online version of a publication, approved in a prescribed manner by the planning authority for the purposes of this Act;”.

I will first address amendments Nos. 13 and 30, which relate to definitions of newspapers in the Bill. Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin and Boyd Barrett have tabled amendments to amendments Nos. 13 and 30 which, if I understand them correctly, are seeking to provide that a newspaper should only be prescribed under the Act if it is accessible, given the circulation numbers and costs. For obvious reasons, we cannot accept these proposed amendments as the wording is unclear and unnecessary, which I do not say disrespectfully, and the text already provides that an approved local newspaper must be circulating in the functional area of a planning authority and that a national newspaper must be circulating generally in the State. I do not see an issue with regard to costs, given the relatively low costs of newspapers generally.

I will speak to my amendments. Both my amendments update the definition of newspapers to include online publications, which is where most people source their news now, as Deputies will know. These amendments are necessary to meet EU requirements under the e-commerce directives to prevent technical barriers to trade in legislation and allow for the publication of notices online as well as in the traditional format.

I will now address amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive, 36, 361, 606 and 607. These are technical amendments which update all references to the major accidents directive to the Seveso III directive, which repealed and replaced the major accidents directive. This is a more up-to-date reference.

Amendments Nos. 37, 596, 597 and 598 are linked and relate to development by a statutory undertaker under Chapter 6 of Part 4 of the Bill. Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and Boyd Barrett have tabled an amendment to edit amendment No. 597. I cannot accept the proposed amendment to amendment No. 597, as it seeks to limit the inclusion of statutory undertaker in the definition of a State authority to identifying the Minister concerned in this section. It would in our view and my view render it unworkable. Amendment Nos. 37, 596, 597 and 598 provide that a section 154 emergency order can be made in respect of works by a statutory undertaker in addition to works by a State authority as is currently the case under section 154. We discussed this in some detail on Committee Stage. Section 154 provides that permission is not required for certain State authority development where such a development is required by reason of an accident or emergency and the development does not require appropriate assessment or environmental impact assessment.

Amendment No. 596 deletes the definition of "Minister concerned" in section 150 that applied to all of Chapter 6 of Part 5. Instead of having an overall definition for the chapter, "Minister concerned" is now defined in each of the relevant sections to take account of the fact that references to statutory undertakers are required.

Amendment No. 597 defines "Minister concerned" for the purposes of section 154 and includes a reference for the purposes of works on behalf of a statutory undertaker to the Minister of the Government, who is required to authorise the carrying out of the development by that statutory undertaker. The amendment also defines State authority to include State undertaker in section 154, which has the effect of allowing emergency orders to be made for works by a statutory undertaker. This was the position under section 181(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and was omitted from the Bill. Amendment No. 37 is consequential to this. Amendment No. 598 inserts the original definition of "Minister concerned" into section 156, which relates to State authority urgent development orders.

Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 to 45, inclusive, all seek to amend the text of existing definitions for clarity's sake. Amendment No. 38 clarifies that wastewater works are also works of a statutory undertaker. Amendments Nos. 40, 42 and 44 add references to strategic housing development, SHD, permissions where necessary. For example, they add developments authorised by SHD permission to the list of developments which are not unauthorised. Amendments Nos. 41, 43 and 45 clarify that where we refer to Chapter 6 State authority development in section 2, it has that defined meaning in Part 4.

I will now address amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, and 19. I do not know whether they have been moved. Maybe I will discuss them when the Deputies move them.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are in the group of amendments being discussed.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are in this group.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing them all now. That is fine. Those amendments were tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. Amendment Nos. 29 and 144 were tabled by Deputy Matthews and amendment No. 39 was tabled by Deputy Ó Cathasaigh.

Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, 18, 20 and 32 all seek to change English terms used in respect of an coimisiún pleanála to their Irish language equivalents. As Deputies will see when we get to Part 17, I have tabled amendments in this regard that I consider appropriate in terms of reflecting the use of the Irish language for certain terms and names within the Bill. Part 17, which provides for the establishment of an coimisiún pleanála, will include the Irish language translation of named roles within an coimisiún, namely the chief planning commissioner and deputy chief planning commissioner. These are also being reviewed by the Oireachtas translation services. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments under discussion.

Amendments Nos. 26, 28 and 31 seek to translate terms relating to the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, and the Planning Regulator into the Irish language. It is not possible to accept these amendments. As the Deputies will be beware, the Bill does not establish MARA. Rather, it references it. Likewise, it does not establish the Office of the Planning Regulator. Rather, it provides for its continuance. Existing laws already reflect and, in effect, provide for the body in question, which is known as tÚdarás Rialála Limistéir Mhuirí or, in the English language, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, and Oifig an Rialtóir Pleanála or, in the English language, the Office of the Planning Regulator.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members might indicate if they wish to come in. Deputy Ó Broin will be followed by Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13:

In paragraph (b), after “Act” to insert the following:

“where the prescription of either publication in paragraph (a) or (b) above, prioritises the effective accessibility of the publication given factors including its circulation figures in the functional area of the authority concerned, the overall costs associated with purchasing or accessing it, and the quality of its archive and costs associated with accessing archive editions of the publication”.

In the context of our amendment to amendment No. 13 , one of the issues of concern, particularly in more rural parts of the country where local newspapers can have higher or lower concentrations of readership in certain areas, is to try to ensure that, for example, the newspaper with the highest level of circulation is the one that would be used. We could have a situation where advertisements for certain types of license applications, say, foreshore licenses, are placed in a newspaper that could have the lowest level of circulation or that could have a higher circulation in an adjoining area. It is, therefore, really about trying to make sure that when licence applications are, for example, being advertised, they are being advertised in the most specific way. This is not an academic issue. It has arisen in real cases, for example, in Inishowen, with regard to foreshore licences.

In the context of his response to my amendment to his amendment No. 597, I invite the Minister to explain a little more about what I think is a lack of clarity in the final line of the amendment, which includes the phrase "includes a statutory undertaker.” Who will that be? Who will appoint that person? Would it not be better, as our amendment outlines, if it was clearly defined that the Minister would have responsibility? I will wait for the Minister's responses before deciding whether I will come back in.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to address some of the issues relating to the Irish language and the Official Languages Act 2003. When the latter came into being, it was agreed that the titles of new State bodies or offices should be in Irish only. I can understand the logic is that the positions held by people within those institutions would also be in Irish only. That is the effect of these amendments. Therefore, it is not the commission; it is an coimisiún. There are references to this throughout. If we look at amendment No. 15, it would involve a change from "Commission" to “Coimisiún”. Under amendment No. 16, “Commissioners” would be changed to “Coimisinéirí”. This is to try to give an effect to the intention behind the Official Languages Act. I am not going to delay the House; we had this out at the committee. I ask the Minister to confirm which section he was referring to when he said this would be addressed. He said Part 7, but I cannot find any reference in Part 7.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Part 17.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is part 17. I am sorry; I will have a look at that.

One or two of these go beyond just making sure that Irish language titles are used. Amendment No. 17 states that competency in the Irish language would mean level B2. The reason for this is that it falls into being in some of the later amendments. In particular, amendment No. 718 in my name addresses the specifics of an oral hearing in respect of a development in the Gaeltacht in that the person who is the chairperson of that hearing must be competent in the Irish language. It would be a travesty if he or she was not. Therefore, this is about setting down in law that this is the case and that the word "competent" means something. That is why, in this instance, I have suggested that it be inserted by means of amendment No. 17.

In terms of the debate on the media, our amendment to amendment No. 13 is to ensure full accessibility for the public. In the past, the national media meant The Irish Times, the Irish Press or whatever. Sometimes, local newspapers were acceptable in this regard. In this day and age, however, newspapers they are not as cheap as the Minister seems to think. That is why people do not buy many newspapers. They get their news from other media. The problem we are facing is that many alternative online media sources are not as accessible as they were in the past when they were free to air, if you like, or freely available. There are paywalls involved now, and also in terms of the archives. There is a need to look at establishing a website similar to rip.ie, which has been bought out by The Irish Times, on which planning notices could be placed and could be fully accessible for free. Those in authority are often afraid of this because it might encourage people to look at what is happening and become serial objectors or whatever. However, there are provisions within this Bill and existing legislation to prevent that. People have a right to look at planning matters and the relevant information should be as accessible as possible. Not all county council websites where planning applications or planning notices are placed are not as accessible or user-friendly as they should be. There should be some portal to allow those who have an interest in these matters to access them, especially since we are going down the route of regional and spatial planning. We should look more at that. Sin é ar na cinn sin.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On my amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 597, I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on the definition of "statutory undertaker". This is a significant section in the context of State authority development emergency orders effectively allowing for emergency works. I am not exactly clear on the significance of that wording. If the Minister could provide an explanation, it would be very useful.

On my amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13, which has been referenced, this is a key point. It is not just in rural areas; it can happen in urban areas as well where a local publication is being circulated in an area but where the level of that circulation is very low, and where the publication in question is predominantly being circulated in a neighbouring area. Some I know of in particular communities may sell three, five, ten or whatever number of copies. They have very low circulations. The wording in the legislation allows for the notice to go into those publications whereas the level of circulation and the level of accessibility to it, whether it is a print edition or online or both, is highly relevant.

I heard what the Minister said about not liking the wording in our amendment. The Minister could bring forward his own wording to correct this in the Seanad if he accepts the principle that we need some sort of definition in respect of levels of circulation or accessibility. It is not simply good enough just for this to be in a publication online or in print that has some level of circulation in the area. Again, there have been real live examples of problems on this in terms of notices in areas with regard to foreshore licences in Inishowen and elsewhere. I ask the Minister to examine and address that point.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendments Nos. 29 and 144, both of which are in my name. Amendment No. 29 proposes to include in section 2 a statement to the effect that the national biodiversity action plan has the meaning assigned to it by the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023. The Minister's amendment No. 118, in Part 3, probably covers that adequately. I am merely seeking clarification. The Minister's wording refers to section 59A of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. I wish to ensure that it is the national biodiversity action plan as set out in the Wildlife Act, as amended in 2023. I seek clarification on that to ensure that there is no confusion on it.

Amendment No. 144 relates to the national planning framework, which sets out a number of areas where there should be a strategy and furtherance of objectives. It outlines objectives in respect of the pursuit of the national climate objectives and integrated planning and development in the State.

I was seeking to insert an amendment to outline:

... how the pursuit and achievement of the national biodiversity objective, as set out in the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the National Biodiversity Plan in accordance with the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023 is to be integrated into plan-led development in the State.

It would still be a suitable amendment, but I note the result of positive engagement we had on Committee Stage when we had a wide-ranging discussion on the Act as a whole in the context of seeking to improve the integration between the planning system and climate action and protection of biodiversity. If you go back to the 2000 Act, it is not really mentioned that much in it or even in the subsequent amendments. In 2024, we realise that we are facing into very serious nature, biodiversity and climate crises at the same time. That is why I sought to introduce that.

Amendments Nos. 140, 220, 234 and 364 in the Minister's name will make very positive changes to the Bill. They are the result of the positive engagement and listening that took place on Committee Stage when we discussed this matter in great detail. I tabled 40 or 50 amendments on climate and biodiversity for Committee Stage, which have either already been included in the Bill or are contemplated by the Minister's amendments today. I appreciate that. I thank the Minister for taking those amendments on board and I thanks his officials for crafting them into the Bill before us.

Am I correct that amendment No. 39 is included in this group?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment is in the name of my party colleague Deputy Ó Cathasaigh. As a result, I am able to speak to it. I will move it if Deputy Ó Cathasaigh is not here when the time comes.

Amendment No. 39 provides a definition of "sustainable development". We have had various takes over many years on people's interpretation of what sustainable development involves. In the context of the description, Deputy Ó Cathasaigh has done a huge amount of work. I hope the Minister will consider whether it is appropriate that we include a definition of "sustainable development" in this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that an amendment to include the phrase "sustainable development in the interests of the common good" in the Title to the Bill was accepted on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will consider amendment No. 39 as we go forward with this legislation.

I take this opportunity to comment, particularly as it relates to biodiversity and to these amendments, on the fine work that Deputy Ó Cathasaigh has done in respect of community gardens and allotments. These are a small but important aspect of nature that give an opportunity for people who live in urban and other settlements to grow food. This type of work is a good form community engagement and a great social activity.

I appreciate that the Minister has included in this Bill for the first time ever a legal definition relating to community gardens. This matter was raised with us by Community Gardens Ireland. In fact, when the Bill was published in January 2023, reference to allotments was missing from it. We engaged positively with the Minister and the Department and got an assurance that such a reference would be included. The Minister has gone further than that and has taken on board the amendment tabled by Deputy Ó Cathasaigh in respect of community gardens on Committee Stage. That is a positive move.

We should acknowledge the improvements that have happened over the long two-and-a-half year process relating to the Bill. It shows that when one is willing to positively engage and really try and improve matters, one can get results.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar an bpointe deireanach, b’fhéidir nár chuala an Teachta cad a bhíomar ag plé sa choiste faoin ár dteanga. Aontaíonn gach Teachta atá mar bhall den choiste go bhfuil sí an-tábhachtach ar fad. Cuirfidh mé síos dhá leasuithe tábhachtacha ar son ceantair Gaeltachta ar fud an Stáit chun pleanáil speisialta a chur i bhfeidhm i ngach plean forbartha sa tír d’áiteanna ina bhfuil ceantair Ghaeltachta. What I am saying is that we discussed this at length previously. I respectfully disagree with what the Deputy is saying. We discussed at length, and rightly so, the role of the Irish language in our planning system. I gave a commitment that I would bring forward specific amendments with regard to how we would deal with Gaeltacht planning by bringing forward special plans in each county that has a Gaeltacht area as part of the development plan, go háirithe dár n-oileáin freisin - for our islands as well. Special development plans within a development plan must be done. That will be debated later. This is something that I and Deputies Ó Snodaigh, Cian O'Callaghan and Ó Broin, and, Matthews, discussed at length.

There were a couple of questions on the statutory undertakers and on the definition of "statutory undertaker". Deputies Cian O'Callaghan and Ó Broin asked about this. Sections 2 states:

“statutory undertaker” means a person authorised under any enactment to— (a) construct or operate a railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour or airport,

(b) carry out works for the provision of water, gas, electricity or telecommunications services, or cause such works to be carried out, or

(c) provide services connected with, or carry out works for the purposes of, the functions of any public undertaking;

It is eminently defined there.

We have discussed the issue in relation to the newspapers. I get the point that people are making.

Most people are accessing their news information online but there are still local and regional newspapers. I was not being dismissive of the amendment, but there is an issue with the definitions and details in it. For example, would circulation be in the past month or year? What would that be and what newspapers would we decide to pick? We will set out the details in the regulations. The local authority will be able to determine which newspapers will be approved based on local knowledge. I get the point that a newspaper would not exist if it only had a circulation of five. However, as Deputy O'Callaghan knows from the area where we live, the Fingal Independent, unfortunately,is no more. Regional and local newspapers are under pressure. That is something the local authorities would be able to set out themselves after we publish the regulations.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy who raised the issue of translation has managed to escape the Chamber for a few minutes. Maybe he will come back or read on the record that there is nothing in the amendments I proposed that would place an extra burden on Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht - nothing whatsoever. There is already a burden on Irish speakers because they have to do all their business through English in most of the planning systems in the State. There is nothing of an extra burden on English speakers either, especially given the easy and accessible use of Google Translate if they have a document that they cannot figure out. Most of them have and can use Google Translate. Anybody who is competent in submitting planning in a Gaeltacht area is already versed in, or aware of anyway, what they have to do as regards the Irish language. In fact, the Deputy, as far as I remember, supported the passage of the Irish language Act in the House. That gave the additional provisions. He did not raise any objections at that stage, yet he sneaks in here as a Deputy representing a Gaeltacht area to cast aspersions on the Irish language, that it is difficult and awkward or whatever, and then leaves.

I still support this. I still wish the Minister would look again at the amendments relating to the Irish language, especially amendment No. 718, which deals with the language competency of those chairing oral hearings on planning in Gaeltacht areas. Translation services can be provided for English speakers in Gaeltacht areas if they so wish. Nobody wants to exclude people from any process in the State. The State has sometimes been good but also very bad as regards access to official processes for Irish language speakers. We should not do to English speakers what was done to Irish speakers in the past.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his replies and clarification. All I ask with respect to the regulations and guidance for authorities utilising newspapers as per amendment No. 13 is to make sure that in those regulations publications that have the maximum coverage, especially in those areas where residents will have the greatest level of impact, are advised on or used as best as possible.

With respect to the definition of "statutory undertaker" on page 38, as read by the Minister, that does not just include primary contractors, for example. It could include subcontractors or a range of others. There would be no limitation on that. It would ultimately be a matter for a Minister or Commissioner of Public Works.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am also very concerned about how wide-ranging the definition of "statutory undertaker" is. It could include contractors.

On newspaper publications and circulation, our amendment states:

... where the prescription of either publication in paragraph (a) or (b) above, prioritises the effective accessibility of the publication given factors including its circulation figures in the functional area of the authority concerned, the overall costs associated with purchasing or accessing it, and the quality of its archive and costs associated with accessing archive editions of the publication.

That is not overly prescriptive but it means that when regulations on this are done or local authorities are doing this, they must prioritise the accessibility of the publication, given its circulation or accessibility. The amendment to the amendment should be accepted. If the Minister will not accept it, he could bring forward his own in the Seanad. I do not see any issues with the way it is worded. Why would the accessibility of the publication not be prioritised? Why would we not put that into the legislation? It makes eminent sense we would do that, especially given that we currently have a situation where that sometimes does not happen. Sometimes, notices are put in a publication that has minimal circulation or accessibility in a particular area where the notice might be most relevant.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One item I did not get to respond to was that raised by Deputy Matthews. He made a very important point regarding the national biodiversity action plan. Due to the engagement we had on Committee Stage, we have strengthened that. It will be seen that, in amendment No. 118, I propose a definition of the national biodiversity action plan in Part 3, which matches the terminology used in the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. That will strengthen it.

The sustainable development piece raised by Deputy Ó Cathasaigh, which was discussed, is included in the Long Title, but I cannot accept the amendment in this instance. Although a broad definition is given, it is not and cannot be drafted in a manner that would encompass all possibilities. The term "sustainable development" is not defined within the Bill and should take on its ordinary meaning in order not to inadvertently exclude something. The point made is certainly correct in that the work done on Committee Stage on the references to the climate action plan and the national biodiversity plan strengthens them greatly.

We have discussed the issue of publications. That will be set out in regulations. I expect, and we will be clear on this, that local authorities will be given the opportunity to set out which publications will be approved based on local knowledge. The amendment as tabled is not necessary and might be problematic. I take the point raised, however, and I do not think anyone of us disagrees with that.

On the use of ár dteanga tríd an dlí and tríd an Bille, I am satisfied that what we have done heretofore is appropriate. An coimisiún pleanála is established, as is the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority and all our new State bodies, using, rightly so, their Irish titles. The changes proposed by the Deputy would not actually rectify that. At a later point in the Bill, we are looking for the titles of the main officers to be reflected trí Gaeilge. Phléamar é sin ar feadh i bhfad ar Chéim an Choiste.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

D'fhan mé go dtí go raibh an díospóireacht thart ach ní ionann cearta teanga agus leibhéal maorlathais eile. In the interest of clarity, it is not correct to say that language rights are the same as an extra layer of bureaucracy. That is not correct. There are rights under the Constitution and the Official Languages Act. For the record, it is not the same as putting an extra layer of bureaucracy on people.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Aontaím leis sin. Ní dúirt mise é sin ar chor ar bith. Dúirt an Teachta Healy-Rae é sin.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tuigim. Is féidir linn bogadh ar aghaidh anois.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 29, line 35, to delete “Chief Planning Commissioner” and substitute “Príomh Choimisinéir Pleanála”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 30, line 10, to delete “ “Commission” ” and substitute “ “Coimisiún” ”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 30, line 11, to delete “ “Commissioners” ” and substitute “ “Coimisinéirí” ”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 30, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “ “competent in the Irish language” means spoken competency at level B2 or higher under the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 30, line 16, to delete “ “Deputy Chief Planning Commissioner” ” and substitute “ “Leas Phríomh Choimisinéir Pleanála” ”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 31, to delete lines 10 to 12 and substitute the following: “ “Environmental Impact Assessment Directive” means Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 32, line 32, to delete “ “Governing Board” ” and substitute “ “Bord Rialúcháin” ”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 33, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “ “Landscape Convention” means the European Landscape Convention done at Florence on 20 October 2000;”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 33, line 31, to delete “Major Accidents Directive” and substitute “Seveso III Directive”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 33, line 33, to delete “Major Accidents Directive” and substitute “Seveso III Directive”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 33, line 35, to delete “Major Accidents Directive” and substitute “Seveso III Directive”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 33, to delete lines 36 and 37.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 34, line 3, to delete “ “Maritime Area Regulatory Authority” ” and substitute “ “an tÚdarás Rialála Limistéir Mhuirí” ”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 34, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “ “Maritime Spatial Planning Directive” means Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 34, to delete line 25 and substitute the following: “ “Aire” means An tAire Tithíochta, Rialtais Áitiúil agus Oidhreachta;”.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 34, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “ “National Biodiversity Plan” has the meaning assigned to it by the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2023;”

Based on the Minister's amendment, No. 118, I will withdraw.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 34, to delete lines 34 and 35 and substitute the following: “ “national newspaper” means—

(a) a publication (other than an online publication or online version of a publication)

that—

(i) circulates generally in the State, and

(ii) is prescribed by the Minister for the purposes of this Act,

or

(b) an online publication, or online version of a publication, prescribed by the Minister for the purposes of this Act;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 30:

In paragraph (b), after “Act” to insert the following: “where the prescription of either publication in paragraph (a) or (b) above, prioritises the effective accessibility of the publication given factors including its circulation figures in the functional area of the authority concerned, the overall costs associated with purchasing or accessing it, and the quality of its archive and costs associated with accessing archive editions of the publication”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 36, line 36, to delete “ “Planning Commissioners” ” and substitute “ “Coimisinéirí Pleanála” ”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 37, line 1, to delete “ “Planning Regulator” ” and substitute “ “Rialálaí Pleanála” ”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 37, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “ “Pollution Caused By Dangerous Substances Discharged Into The Aquatic Environment Directive” means Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community;”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 37, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “ “Public Participation Directive” means Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to Justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC;”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá leasú Uimh. 35 as ord.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 38, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “ “Seveso III Directive” means Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directive 96/82/EC;”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 38, line 17, to delete “means” and substitute “means, subject to subsection (8) of section 154”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 38, line 22, to delete “or telecommunications” and substitute “, telecommunications or wastewater”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 39, to delete line 28 and substitute the following: “(iii) a permission granted under section 9 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016, or”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 39, to delete line 30 and substitute the following: “(c) Chapter 6 State authority development within the meaning of Part 4,”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 40, to delete line 11 and substitute the following: “(iii) a permission granted under section 9 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016, or”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 40, to delete line 13 and substitute the following: “(c) Chapter 6 State authority development within the meaning of Part 4,”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 40, to delete line 30 and substitute the following: “(iii) a permission granted under section 9 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016, or”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 40, to delete line 32 and substitute the following: “(c) Chapter 6 State authority development within the meaning of Part 4,”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 41, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “ “Urban Waste-Water Treatment Directive” means Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment;”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 47 to 54, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 48 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 47. Amendment No. 52 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 51.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 42, line 6, to delete “or expedient”.

I will run through these very speedily. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 obviously deal with the issue of regulations and the conditions under which the Minister can issue them. The Minister may remember we had some debate around the use of the phrase "necessary or expedient". We argued in committee that "necessary" is enough and "expedient" makes no sense. Amendment No. 47 seeks to remove "expedient", as we tried to do previously. Amendment No. 48 makes the case for the Government to adopt a conservative or cautious approach to such regulations. The Minister of State who dealt with this felt the language of the amendment was not great. I am more than happy for the Minister to correct the language on Committee Stage in the Seanad, but it is the broad approach we are promoting here.

As for amendment No. 49, the Minister may remember he was directly involved in this discussion at the early stage of the Bill around prescribed bodies. This amendment requires a Minister to establish a list of prescribed bodies. This is to deal with the confusion we had at that point of the discussion as to whether prescribed bodies are just State bodies, as they are in some sections of the Bill, or include other independent organisations.

Amendment No. 50 deals with public participation with respect to certain categories or regulations. Given many of these regulations will essentially have a similar impact to planning law we think that is necessary.

Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 deal in different ways with the role of the Oireachtas with respect to dealing with those regulations, especially concerning exempted developments.

I have a question with the Minister's amendment No. 51. Obviously with certain categories of exempted developments, currently there is a procedure in the Oireachtas whereby a motion is brought before the Houses and the exempted development regulations are brought before the committee. That is very useful in terms of scrutiny and sometimes it actually results in change or improvement as we have seen. I want to be clear about whether there is anything in amendment No. 51 that would alter or limit the scope of that exercise because that is very important.

Amendment No. 52 deals with the issue of the requirement for resolutions of the House for the passing of some kinds or regulations and amendment No. 53 is similar.

I will be interested to hear the Minister's responses to those and will respond as appropriate.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention on consultation on legislation goes way beyond land use regulations where a strategic environmental assessment is required. The Minister might address that point in the context of what he said.

On amendment No. 47 and the use of the word "expedient", will the Minister elaborate on why he feels that "necessary" is insufficient there? He is saying the use of the word "expedient" is standard in legislation. Does the dictionary definition of "expedient" apply here in the legislation? A dictionary definition of "expedient" is an action that is convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral. Does this definition apply to the use of the word "expedient" here? If it does not apply, then on what basis do the dictionary definitions not apply to the use of the language here?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have covered it in detail. I have explained that it is standard practice and a phrase that is widely used throughout the Statute Book. The impression would be given, or the interpretation could be, that if one was to just to remove "expedient" then it would just be "necessary". What would be the impact of that? It would be strange to remove it in this Bill while it applies elsewhere. I have outlined the reasons I cannot accept amendments Nos. 47 and 48.

The Deputy mentioned something else.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention around consultation.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we said right the way through pre-legislative scrutiny, Second Stage and Committee Stage, every element of this Bill that we have worked through is Aarhus-compliant, unquestionably. We sought the advice of the highest law officer in the land and worked directly with him to ensure that is the case.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but the Minister did not answer my specific point about Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention on consultation on legislation. With respect, the Minister made a general point that the Bill is all Aarhus-compliant, but I am bringing up specifics and asking the Minister to address them.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 48:

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 50:

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 42, to delete lines 10 to 13 and substitute the following: “(4) Where regulations are proposed to be made under⁠—

(a) subsection (6),

(b) subsection (1) of section 9, or

(c) subsection (2) of section 429,

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.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 53:

(h) Part 17 An Commisiún Pleanála,

(i) Part 18 Office of the Planning Regulator,

(j) Part 19 Further Provisions Relating to Planning Bodies,

(k) Part 20 Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions,

(l) Part 21 Strategic Development Zones, and

(m) Part 22 Urban Development Zones,

a draft of the regulations or the draft order shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and the regulations or order as the case may be shall not be made unless a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each such House.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54:

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá leasú Uimh. 55 as ord.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 are related and may be discussed together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 42, after line 36, to insert the following: “Report on impact on heritage

7. An Chomhairle Oidhreachta shall, following consultation with experts on heritage, produce a report and submit it before both Houses of the Oireachtas not later than six months following the enactment of this Act, examining the impact of this Act on built and cultural heritage and the consistency of this Act with the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, and proposing recommendations to address any issues identified.”.

These two amendments would try to ensure that following the passage of the Bill we would have a report or an assessment. In the first instance, under amendment No. 56 there would be an assessment of the impact of the Bill on the built and cultural heritage and the consistency of the Act with the Historical and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, and if there are issues we address them as quickly as possible so there is no lacuna where assessments are made. Bheadh the Heritage Council, an Chomhairle Oidhreachta, ag féachaint ar an gceist seo níos mine agus bheadh muid ar fad ansin gafa leis an tuairisc a bheadh ann chun a dhéanamh cinnte de nach bhfuil an reachtaíocht seo ag teacht salach ar an gcur chuige atá ag an gcomhairle, an cur chuige atá leagtha síos sa reachtaíocht atá ann cheana féin maidir le hionaid oidhreachta, seandálaíochta ná staire sa cheantar.

Amendment No. 57 seeks that An Coimisiún Tithíochta, following discussion with the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Údarás na Gaeltachta and the Gaeltacht language planning officers, produce a report looking at the impact short-term letting is having on Gaeltacht communities, the affordability of housing for Irish speakers and the knock-on effect for the sustainability of the Irish language. This is something we have discussed quite frequently and there have been a number of protests outside the gates here by BÁNÚ, which the Minister is well aware of. He has met it and consulted with it. Short-term letting is having a huge impact. There is a need for us to ensure this happens. This is why we are using this as a vehicle to try to ensure there is a report and a timeframe set out here to ensure laistigh de sé mhí go mbeidh an tuairisc seo ann agus go mbeimid dá réir ag bogadh chun déanamh cinnte de go mbeidh tacaíocht reachtúil nó maoinithe ar fáil.

Is gá le seo chomh maith le cinntiú nach bhfuil sé chun leanúint ar aghaidh go mbeidh na Airbnbs nó a leithéid ag cur as do phobail na Gaeltachta sa bhealach ina bhfuil siad. Tuigimid go bhfuil siad ag tabhairt tacaíocht turasóireachta do na ceantair, ach murar féidir le daoine maireachtáil sa Ghaeltacht, agus murar féidir leo tithe a fháil ar chíos nó a cheannach, ní bheidh pobal ann amach anseo. Tá an pobal cheana féin ag dul in aois toisc nach féidir le lánúin nó le teaghlaigh bogadh isteach sa cheantar. Sin an fáth go mbím de shíor ag cur as don Aire Gaeltachta ag lorg na treoirlínte, ionas gur féidir linn iachall a chur ar na comhairlí contae an jab a dhéanamh a bhí le bheith á dhéanamh acu ar feadh na blianta agus go mbeidh tuiscint ag pobal na Gaeltachta go bhfuil an Stát ag tabhairt cosaint dóibh is go bhfuil sé chun cuidiú leo teacht timpeall ar ceann amháin de na fadhbanna atá acu: tithíocht. Ní hí sin an t-aon fhadhb atá acu; tá fadhbanna eile acu maidir le Uisce Éireann, mar shampla. Seo ceann de na fadhbanna breise gur gá dóibh plé leis. Ní bhaineann sé le cúrsaí séarachas nó le cead pleanála. Ní hiad sin amháin na fadhbanna móra atá ós a gcomhair. Cuireadh na fadhbanna sin ós comhair an coiste agus luadh nach raibh ach ceithre arásáin ar fáil ar chíos agus go raibh 293 Airbnb ar fáil i lár mhí Feabhra, am nach mbíonn mórán turasóirí sna ceantair Gaeltachta. Bhí sé chomh lom sin.

In February of this year in one part of the Connemara Gaeltacht, only four places were available for rent while there were 293 Airbnb properties available. That is how stark the issue is. Families cannot move back into the area and new families cannot move out of their parents’ houses. Added to this are the problems we have raised on several occasions with the Minister regarding planning permission and the need for the infrastructure that Uisce Éireann is not delivering because it prioritises bigger schemes. The schemes I am referring to are often quite small. They are in environmentally sensitive areas, which we understand, but the report I am looking for needs to be produced. Regardless of whether this legislation is the most appropriate place to refer to it, having a reference in legislation means it will be produced. If we wait for the Minister present or any Minister to deliver, going by the yardstick of the treoirlínte-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No-----

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not blaming the Minister; I am outlining what will occur if we use the yardstick of what was promised two years ago, for which we are still waiting. We want to make sure that any report that is needed now will be issued. In this case, the timeframe is six months. The measure would force whatever Government that comes into being in the next while to act on the report or suffer the consequences.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar dtús báire, aontaím le go leor rudaí atá ráite ag an Teachta Ó Snodaigh. Táim ag obair ar an gceist tithíochta sa Ghaeltacht agus ba mhaith liom níos mó tithíocht a fheiceáil tríd na Gaeltachtaí, ar phraghasanna réasúnta. Táim ag obair ar an gceist sin le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta, faoi láthair, ar scéim i gContae Phort Láirge. Mar a dúirt an Teachta, bhuail mé le BÁNÚ timpeall trí mhí ó shin agus cruinniú fíor-dhearfach a bhí ann. Dúirt mé le BÁNÚ go gcuirfinn síos dhá leasú tábhachtacha ar son na daoine atá ina gcónaí sna Gaeltachtaí timpeall na tíre. Beimid ábalta leasuithe Rialtais a phlé go luath agus tá sé sin an-tábhachtach ar fad. Beidh ar gach rialtas áitiúil plean speisialta a chur le chéile le haghaidh gach ceantar Gaeltachta sa tír. B'fhéidir go mbeidh Gaeltacht amháin difriúil ó Ghaeltacht eile agus beidh ar na comhairlí contae plean ar leith a fhorbairt le haghaidh gach Gaeltacht. Beidh daoine sa Ghaeltacht ábalta tionchar a bheith acu ar na pleananna sin chomh maith. Tuigim an fhadhb tithíochta sa Ghaeltacht agus bhí plé ann faoi Airbnb agus na short-term lets. Táim cinnte go mbeidh an tAire, an Teachta Martin, ag tabhairt treoirlínte nua maidir leo sin nuair atá sí i mbun cruinnithe leis an Rialtas an tseachtain seo chugainn. Tá mo chuid oibre déanta i leith na treoirlínte. Níl a fhios agam an aontófar le gach rud atá iontu. Ba mhaith liom iad a chur os comhair an phobail ar feadh coicíse, b'fhéidir, mar a dúirt mé cheana. Tá mé in ann obair a dhéanamh, mar a iarradh orm, chun cabhrú leis na cónaitheoirí sa Ghaeltacht. Ní féidir liom glacadh leis na leasuithe seo ach aontaím le neart den mhéid atá ráite.

Maidir leis na leasuithe sonracha, I have already said I cannot accept amendments Nos. 56 and 57. First, due to the unprecedented scale of the Bill before the House, a careful and considered phased commencement of it will take place over a period of at least 18 months. This is to allow for the planning system, which is central to all types of development from commercial to educational to renewable energy, to remain in steady operation as we migrate smoothly to the new legislation. This will also include new updated regulations and a programme of training and awareness within the relevant sectors and for the wider public, where necessary. Timeframes of not longer than six months after enactment are not practicable, not to mention that the positive impact of legislation generally takes somewhat longer to manifest. The obligation that would be placed on the Heritage Council, an Chomhairle Oidhreachta, under amendment No. 56 is not considered suitable as it falls outside of the council's remit, which is provided under Part 2 of the Heritage Act 1995.

With regard to consistency with the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, consultation has taken place with the National Monuments Service on the drafting of the Bill, and I am moving a range of amendments on Report Stage to provide for the necessary interaction between the Bill with that Act, including amendments to the following: section 15, saving for national monuments; section 50, development plan strategy for natural or built heritage; and section 87, planning permission conditions relating to archaeology.

On amendment No. 57 and the proposal that the Housing Commission produce a report on short-term lettings in Gaeltacht areas, it is not correct or appropriate in the first instance that the commission be required under legislation to produce such a report as it has been dissolved. The Housing Commission was established by me with bespoke terms of reference to examine and evaluate Ireland's housing system, recommend proposals to support the long-term approach to housing and identify where we want to go between 2030 and 2050 and the housing policy we need to consider. As Members will know, the commission presented its findings and final report on 8 May and, having discharged its mandate as per its terms of reference, it was formally dissolved shortly thereafter. However, we are considering its recommendations. It will be useful when the short-term lettings legislation is available. It is proposed to submit the draft heads to the Cabinet next week. I believe the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, will then move towards the preparation and publication of the Bill itself and outline the timeframe. The issue with short-term lettings is significant, particularly in areas in our Gaeltacht regions that Deputy Ó Snodaigh has mentioned. The Bill would present an appropriate opportunity to consider that issue.

When I was discussing this issue first, I mentioned that draft guidelines will be published simultaneously. In respect of planning guidelines for the Gaeltacht, I have said that a great deal of work has been done over a long period. There has been some interaction between Departments. The guidelines are currently being finalised for review and will be published. I want to see them published and I have been a bit frustrated with the process, to be honest, but the amendments we are introducing now and will introduce later will have a significant impact in the Gaeltacht areas. We will put the onus on the local authorities to create a development plan with specific and special plans for each of our Gaeltacht areas and our islands. It is not a matter of one or the other. There was some confusion in Conradh na Gaeilge that it was just an island thing but it is not. We will provide a special plan for islands, whether they are Gaeltacht areas or not, and will provide a plan for all Gaeltacht regions. This will be the first time we have done that. In fairness, the Deputy was supportive of that. I know from the meeting with BÁNÚ I mentioned earlier that it is an-dearfach faoi freisin.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Beidh an fhadhb ann arís agus tá sé ann cheana féin ach an fhadhb atá leis na hAirbnbs agus an reachtaíocht atá chun teacht ná áit atá daoine ina gcónaí i gceantair Ghaeltachta i mbliana, go mbeidh orthu na tithe atá ar cíos acu don chuid is mó den gheimhreadh, don fhómhar agus don earrach a fhágáil mar go mbeidh na tithe sin ar cíos – cíos gairid nó short-terms lets Airbnb - le linn an tsamhraidh arís. Tá samhradh eile caillte nuair a bheidh ar dhaoine bogadh amach as na tithe. Is teaghlaigh atá i gceist don chuid is mó. Is é sin an saol atá acu ach tá geallúint tugtha thar na blianta go mbeidh cuidiú ann agus níl sé tagtha, nó ní bheidh sé tagtha faoin samhradh i bliana. Aon rud gur féidir a dhéanamh chun an reachtaíocht, na treoirlínte nó pé rud a dhéanamh, is fiú é a dhéanamh. An t-aon fáth go raibh an leasú seo ann ná chun a chinntiú go raibh muid chun bogadh ar aghaidh. Fáilteoidh mé roimh pé rud atá an tAire, an Teachta O’Brien, nó an tAire, an Teachta Martin, chun a fhoilsiú nuair a thagann sé, ach níl sé tagtha go fóill. Fáiltím roimh an méid a dúirt an tAire go mbeidh sé amuigh i gceann coicíse nó mar sin ach feicfimid.

Amendment No. 56 has been proposed because there was, and probably still is, a concern among the likes of the Dublin Civic Trust, An Taisce, the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, the International Council on Monuments and Sites in Ireland, the Irish Georgian Society and others that some parts of the Bill may have a negative impact. Those organisations are trying to ensure that a report is done and that as soon as the Bill is enacted, and the Minister has said there will be a staged enactment, we will look at the impact of the Bill. We must ensure that the Bill is in compliance with, if you like, and that there is nothing contradictory between it and the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 44, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: "(5) The Housing Commission shall, following consultation with the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Údarás na Gaeltachta, and Gaeltacht Language Planning Officers, produce a report and submit it before both Houses of the Oireachtas, not later than six months following the enactment of this Act, examining the impact of short-term lettings on Gaeltacht communities, in particular on the availability of affordable housing for Irish speakers and the knock-on effects in terms of the sustainability of the Irish language as the community language in Gaeltacht areas.".

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 58 to 67, inclusive, 67a, 68 and 69 are related and will be discussed together.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 44, line 21, after "planning," to insert "and the use of Irish within the community, in the case of a development in a Gaeltacht area,".

I will speak specifically to amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 65 to 67, inclusive and my colleague Deputy Ó Snodaigh will speak to other amendments. This is to try to save as much time as possible and to move through the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 65 relate in some shape or form to the interaction of exempted developments, unauthorised developments and exclusions from such categorisation where things have an impact on the environment or would require environmental impact assessments, EIAs, appropriate assessments, AAs, etc. I am interested to hear the Minister's response to those amendments and I may reply in turn.

Amendment No. 66 relates to our desire to ensure that prescribed bodies are consulted on the making of regulations with respect to section 9, which relates to exempted development. This is an important area of regulation. The Minister has made the point today and previously that if there had to be such consultation on all regulations, it would slow down the process. However, these regulations are of a particular kind and given there is a bespoke process for the consideration of such regulations by an Oireachtas committee, prescribed bodies should also be included.

Amendment No. 67 goes one step further. I can anticipate the Minister's response, which will be similar to his previous response. However, my view is that given the particular nature of such regulations, a level of public participation is eminently sensible, as well as being in line with the Aarhus Convention. I ask the Minister to consider the amendments.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá roinnt leasuithe anseo. Luaim leasú Uimh. 58 agus 59 agus ceann eile ar a bhfuil mé ag iarraidh aird a tharraingt, is é sin leasú Uimh. 67a.

With these amendments, we are trying to ensure that developments in Gaeltacht areas which offend against the Irish language are not exempted. This goes back to the point I made earlier about planning guidelines which would be able to point this out. We should set out specifically in the legislation that no development in a Gaeltacht region will be likely to offend against the Irish language.

Tá sé le sonrú i leasú Uimh. 58 go bhfuil cosaint ar leith sa reachtaíocht ag an staid seo i gcoinne aon tógáil nó forbairt i gceantar a chuirfeadh as don cheantar agus don teanga áitiúil atá ag na daoine ann, nó a chuirfeadh as don aitheantas atá ann cheana féin toisc gur cheantar Gaeltacht é a bhfuil stádas faoi leith aige. Chomh maith leis sin, luaitear i leasú Uimh 59, go mbeadh ar thuairisc, nó language impact assessment, a bheith déanta i gceantair Ghaeltachta.

Language impact assessments should be required in Gaeltacht areas. We and others have set out the need to protect what is valuable and that which if we allow its destruction will not come back. The authenticity of the Irish language in its setting in Gaeltacht areas cannot be replicated because there is an historical link over generations and centuries of the Irish language to the areas currently designated as Gaeltachts. We must ensure there is no negative impact and that is why there is a need for language impact assessments in these instances.

Amendment No. 61 intends to ensure that the surrounding context of protected structures is taken into account. We have had this argument over the years in the context of Moore Street. It is not just about three buildings here or two buildings there. The whole context of the area must be considered so we do not end up with a national monument that is dwarfed by the buildings around it or is taken out of the original context that led to its designation as protected because that context has disappeared. Such a circumstance would negate the very reason for protecting the structure in the first place. That is particularly true in an inner city context but is also true outside the city. We know about the planning rows that have taken place throughout the country where a national monument or protected structure has been encroached upon, which ultimately changes the context.

If the proposal before An Bord Pleanála succeeds, there will be a total change in the context of Moore Street. Similar to what I said about the Irish language when discussing earlier amendments, once we change the context, it cannot be brought back. When the context is lost it can be lost forever.

Amendment No. 67a states:

Where the Minister proposes to make regulations under this section that relate to developments in a Gaeltacht area, he or she shall, before making the regulations, consult with the Minister for the Gaeltacht and the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta in relation to the proposed regulations.

This amendment has been tabled in light of the various powers and responsibilities the Minister and Údarás na Gaeltachta have. It is to ensure that regulations affecting developments in Gaeltacht areas should be made after consulting these relevant entities. There are also amendments to later sections of the Bill before us but this amendment is to ensure it is set out at an early stage that the Minister must consult the Minister with responsibility for the Gaeltacht, currently Deputy Catherine Martin. Responsibility for the Gaeltacht seems to get moved around quite regularly between various Departments. It does not always sit in the same Department. Whatever Minister is responsible should be consulted, as should the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta and future boards when we see an election to it. This is with regard to the proposed regulations. For instance, the treoirlínte proposed by the Minister will go to public consultation and the Minister will already be in discussions with his relevant Cabinet colleague. When they are published, Údarás na Gaeltachta should also be consulted. This also has to do with other future regulations and not only the treoirlínte, which are quite specific. It has to do with regulations that may impact on Gaeltacht areas.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak briefly to amendments Nos. 60 and 61. I support the spirit of what Deputies Ó Broin and Ó Snodaigh are trying to do with these amendments. The amendments would introduce uncertainty, but I do support the Deputies because we had a discussion on Committee Stage about how we determine what is a significant impact and whether something may have a significant impact. While I support what the Deputies are trying to do, the way it is written would probably create further uncertainty.

Similarly, I appreciate the point covered in amendment No. 61 regarding the surrounding context of a structure. While we do try to protect the curtilage of a protected structure, the surrounding context is very broad in terms of what it involves. I would have difficulty with it. When we were discussing the Maritime Area Planning Act, a lesson I learnt was that when writing an amendment, it has to be very clear and not lead to uncertainty and ambiguity. I support what the Deputies are trying to do.

Amendment No. 62 is also in this grouping and is with regard to point I made on Committee Stage. It states:

Development shall not be exempted development for the purposes of this Act if it consists of any works to, or change in use of, an unauthorised development.

I thought there may have been some confusion about this. I appreciate what the Minister has introduced in amendment No. 62. I acknowledge this and thank him for taking it into consideration on Committee Stage and introducing amendment No. 62.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For clarification, is Deputy Healy-Rae speaking to amendment No. 61?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Deputy Healy-Rae-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Healy-Rae is on section 61.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not even near there.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important, but we have not got there yet.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you could hold yourself back.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hold your whisht.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure you do. Hold them in readiness. I apologise for not seeing Deputy O'Callaghan earlier.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine; I thought we were going to get a good contribution on exempted development. Perhaps I should not invite it.

I will speak to amendment No. 60, which is in my name. This amendment proposes that environmentally significant development would not be exempted. The Bill lists areas where planning permission or public participation are not required. Significantly, it states that development "shall not be exempted development for the purposes of this Act if an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment of the development is required". Article 6(1)(b) of the Aarhus Convention is very clear about requiring public participation in activities that may have a significant effect on the environment. This is broader than the much more limited criteria in the Bill of simply only referring to developments requiring an environment impact assessments or an appropriate assessment. The Minister might address specifically why he feels the wording, which we seek to amend, is compliant with Article 6(1)(b) of the Aarhus Convention. I have heard what feels like hundreds of times that the whole thing is compliant with the Aarhus Convention. I am asking about Article 6.1.(b), which relates to public participation on activities which may have a significant effect on the environment. I am asking about this specifically. In that context, I ask the Minister to refrain from the standard reply that he feels it is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and that he has been told that, in general, it is. I ask him to answer in respect of the specific issue I am raising.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Mattie McGrath.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Ceann Comhairle frightened him off.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure he will come back in to speak about the regulator.

This grouping includes Government amendments Nos. 62 and 68. They are important and have come from a very good discussion on Committee Stage. It is a good example of how we have been able to move the Bill through and take on board many of the views of Government and Opposition Members if we felt they were worthwhile. One of these amendments provides for transitional arrangements in respect of development required by reason of an accident or emergency. In order to address the matter Deputy Matthews raised on Committee Stage, it provides that development shall not be exempted development for the purposes of this Act if it consists of any works to, or changing use of, an unauthorised development. It will ensure that where somebody flouts planning laws and carries out unauthorised developments they cannot continue to carry out further development to an unauthorised structure under the guise of exempted development. This is a very worthwhile and important clarification in the Bill. I certainly commend Deputy Matthews on it.

That is why I am moving that amendment here on Report Stage. Amendments Nos. 58, 59 and 61 in this grouping have been discussed. For the information of Members who are here, exempted development regulations are being drafted right now by the Department. They will go out for public consultation later this year, and it is important they do. It is also important to note at the outset that all exemptions are disapplied where environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment are required, save in excepted cases under regulations or where protected structures are affected.

Also, exempted developments are not free of all curtailments, rather they are often subject to specific criteria that the development must meet, such as the size of the exempted structure, its location or particular use, which may be for a defined time. Therefore exemptions play a vital operational role in regulating, in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development, otherwise relatively minor, ancillary, operational or maintenance developments. If they were required to go through the consenting process this would add considerably, I think most would agree, to the operational load on the system for relatively little effect and would have considerable negative implications for the making of effective decisions in a timely and robust fashion. They are not a form of workaround of proper planning, I can assure people of that. Deputies will all see examples in their own areas. It is through this important lens that the amendments proposed have been considered.

Amendments No. 58 and 59 proposed by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh seek to accord special status to the Irish language in the overall principles set out for the making of regulations. In the case of amendment No. 58, section 9(1)(a) already places an onus upon the Minister to provide exempted development regulations in a manner that would not offend principles of proper planning and sustainable development. Just as this section does not call out those factors individually, so it is also not necessary to identify Gaeltacht communities at this section in this manner. This should apply across the board.

Similarly, the purpose of section 9(3) referenced in amendment No. 59 is to ensure exemptions do not apply where the threshold of requiring an EIA or AA is reached, thus ensuring a high bar is in place to protect any potential environmental impact. By inserting a language impact assessment at this point, it could exclude any number of everyday activities that fall within the classes of exempted development and it is unclear how some of those classes could be assessed against language assessments. Exemptions will be set out in regulations and are in any case development specific, with clear restrictions that allow, for example, members of the public to be absolutely certain as to what they can do or not, as the case may be, to ensure they are legally compliant. Operational clarity is required to allow for the effective implementation of exemptions and this is reflected in the current system.

On Committee Stage I undertook to review this Bill’s interaction with the Irish language. I have discussed that already in the context of the previous amendment. To that end, important and practicable Report Stage amendments have been tabled which assist the promotion of the Irish language, not least the very important amendment I have mentioned already providing for priority area plans for Gaeltacht and island communities which I will address when we reach discussion of Part 3. Those amendments have been welcomed. In respect of consultation with Údarás na Gaeltachta, an Coimisinéir Teanga and others, bhí sé pléite roimhe seo. My amendment No. 284 is just one example which might be of assistance to Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I have taken on board the need for that consultation. That is just one example, Members will see it throughout the Bill. I have taken on board what we debated on Committee Stage. I think it is important.

Amendment No. 60 tabled by Deputies Cian O’Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh seeks to amend section 9(3) which provides that development shall not be exempted where an EIA or AA is required. The proposed amendment seeks to create sub-tier below that of EIA or AA assessment from which exempted development is excluded. However, this is unnecessary as it is likely that any such subcategory would, by reason of having a likely negative impact on the environment, require an EIA in any case or, if it were not a type of development subject to EIA, would be captured by the fact the Minister, under section 9(1), may make regulations where he or she is of the opinion that, by reason of the size, nature or limited effect on its surroundings of the development, the carrying out of such development would not offend against principles of proper planning. These limitations are adequate and clear and therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

On amendment No. 61-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are out of time.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think I have covered the main points.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 45, line 5, after “or” to insert “a language impact assessment or”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 45, to delete line 6 and substitute the following: “required, or where the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.

(4)(a) The Minister shall prescribe via regulation the screening criteria requirements to determine if an activity may still have a significant impact on the environment where screening determinations have determined that Environmental Impact Assessment or Appropriate Assessment requirements or both are not required.

(b) Development shall not be exempted development for the purposes of this Act unless it is determined not to have a significant impact on the environment in accordance with the process and criteria prescribed under paragraph (a).

(c) Any determination made under paragraph (a) or (b) shall be publicly available and published on the website of the planning authority or the Coimisiún responsible for the determination as appropriate.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 45, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(iii) the surrounding context of the structure.”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 45, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(5) Development shall not be exempted development for the purposes of this Act if it consists of any works to, or change in use of, an unauthorised development.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 45, line 29, to delete “and”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 45, to delete line 33 and substitute “permitted, and”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 45, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(c) where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment has not been required under any such enactment, but the activity may have a significant impact on the environment, public participation has been provided for prior to the authorisation or permitting of the activity.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 45, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(7) Where the Minister proposes to make regulations under this section and considers that the proposed regulations are connected with or likely to relate to matters of interest to prescribed bodies, the Minister shall provide them with an effective opportunity to participate and comment on the proposed regulations, and the Minister shall take due account of the consultation input provided.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 45, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(7) Where the Minister proposes to make regulations the Minister shall provide the public with an effective opportunity to participate and comment on the proposed regulations, and the Minister shall take due account of the consultation input provided.”.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 67a:

In page 45, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(7) Where the Minister proposes to make regulations under this section that relate to developments in a Gaeltacht area, he or she shall, before making the regulations, consult with the Minister for the Gaeltacht and the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta in relation to the proposed regulations.”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 46, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(9) Development to which⁠—

(a) a declaration under subsection (4) or (4A) of section 181B of the Act of 2000 applies, or

(b) a declaration under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (ba) of subsection (2A) of section 181 of the Act of 2000 applies,

shall be exempted development for the purposes of this Act.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 46, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(9) Notwithstanding subsection (7) or (8), a status of exempted development howsoever it arises, shall not be viewed as to operate to exempt such development from obligations to provide for remedies required under EU environmental legislation, including under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive.”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 70 to 72, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 72, amendments Nos. 73 to 79, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 79, and amendments Nos. 80 to 98, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 71 to 96, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 70. Amendments Nos. 70 to 72, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 72, amendments Nos. 73 to 79, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 79, and amendments Nos. 80 to 98, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 46, to delete lines 4 to 40, to delete pages 47 to 54, and in page 55, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following: “Declaration on development, exempted development, etc.

10 (1) If any question arises as to what, in any particular case, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development within the meaning of this Act, any person may, on payment of the prescribed fee, request in writing from the relevant planning authority a declaration on that question, and that person shall provide to the planning authority any information necessary to enable the authority to make its decision on the matter.

(2) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a planning authority shall issue the declaration on the question that has arisen and the main reasons and considerations on which its decision is based to the person who made the request under subsection (1), and, where appropriate, the owner and occupier of the land in question, within 4 weeks of the receipt of the request.

(b) A planning authority may require any person who made a request under subsection (1) to submit further information with regard to the request in order to enable the authority to issue the declaration on the question and, where further information is received under this paragraph, the planning authority shall issue the declaration within 3 weeks of the date of the receipt of the further information.

(c) A planning authority may also request persons in addition to those referred to in paragraph (b) to submit information in order to enable the authority to issue the declaration on the question.

(3) (a) Where a declaration is issued under this section, any person issued with a declaration under subsection (2)(a) may, on payment to the Board of such fee as may be prescribed, refer a declaration for review by the Board within 4 weeks of the date of the issuing of the declaration.

(b) Without prejudice to subsection (2), in the event that no declaration is issued by the planning authority, any person who made a request under subsection (1) may, on payment to the Board of such fee as may be prescribed, refer the question for decision to the Board within 4 weeks of the date that a declaration was due to be issued under subsection (2).

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a planning authority may, on payment to the Board of such fee as may be prescribed, refer any question as to what, in any particular case, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development to be decided by the Board.

(5) The details of any declaration issued by a planning authority or of a decision by the Board on a referral under this section shall be entered in the register.

(6) (a) The Board shall keep a record of any decision made by it on a referral under this section and the main reasons and considerations on which its decision is based and shall make it available for purchase and inspection.

(b) The Board may charge a specified fee, not exceeding the cost of making the copy, for the purchase of a copy of the record referred to in paragraph (a).

(c) The Board shall, from time to time and at least once a year, forward to each planning authority a copy of the record referred to in paragraph (a).

(d) A copy of the said record shall, at the request of a member of a planning authority, be given to that member by the manager of the planning authority concerned.

(7) A planning authority, before making a declaration under this section, shall consider the record forwarded to it in accordance with subsection (6)(c).”.

We had a very extensive debate on this issue on Committee Stage and I do not intend or invite us to repeat all of that debate. These amendments are trying, in a variety of ways, to either salvage and improve the changes to the section 5 referrals, now section 10, or, if that is not possible, to revert to the current system where not just first parties but third parties can seek a declaration on exempted developments.

I do understand the rationale for the change, so I was hoping the Minister might be willing to improve what is in his Bill, because we all accepted, I think, during the Committee Stage process that there was a need for some change to the status quobecause it was not perfect. I think, though, that what we have ended up with in the Bill is even worse than the status quo, so if the Minister is not willing to allow a greater level of third-party involvement, then the status quowould be better. I will be interested to hear the Minister's formal responses to the individual amendments and then I will come in during my subsequent remarks.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the grouping starting with amendment No. 70. Amendment No. 73 is mine. I agree with Deputy Ó Broin that we had a very long discussion on what is referred to as section 5 in the current Act. We went into it in quite some detail. In fact, I think it is a part of the Act that many were not that familiar with and our discussions brought a good level of interest to bear on it. My suggestion was that rather than taking out "any person" having the right to make a request in this regard, as it is now, we would change this to "a person with sufficient interest in the matter to which the declaration relates". I note the Minister's amendment No. 72 that would allow groups such as NGOs and others as set out and defined in the proposed new section 10(1)(e), to act in this regard. Section 5 was used very successfully by an NGO, Friends of the Irish Environment, in regard to question concerning an exemption to development in respect of peat extraction. It was a very successful use of section 5 that led to this declaration being upheld and defended and the finding that the proposed extraction was development. In this regard, I think the Minister's amendment No. 72 reaches a compromise I can live with and accept. This is notwithstanding that I do feel there are occasions where any persons or an individual should be able to seek a section 5 declaration. I do accept, though, that this proposed amendment would be an improvement on what was there before and would allow these groups and NGOs, similar to what we have in Part 9, to seek section 5 declarations.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is, of course, better that one of these organisations would be able to get a declaration than not. Effectively, however, unless the party concerned is the landowner, has the consent of the landowner or is one of the organisations specified, such a party will now be shut out of the process. It may be the case that people could be in an NGO or have access or contacts that would enable them to undertake this type of action and participate in this way. If not, however, people will now completely shut out of the process. During the Second and Committee Stages of this Bill, I read out detailed examples from individuals who were able to successfully use this process to hold to account local authorities that were not doing their job in terms of enforcement. This was the only route they could go down. This is now something that this legislation will shut out.

It is already a weak and under-resourced process. In attempting to fix a problem around first-party rights here, someone in a neighbouring property, for example, could now be shut out altogether from this pursuing this route. This is the difficulty I have here. It is a rarely used route, but it can be used very effectively by people where a local authority is not doing its job. This process grants the ability to get the formal declaration and, if necessary, appeal the matter to An Bord Pleanála. It can be a useful mechanism. It can raise a certain level of standards. It is very regressive that this ability is being changed. I think our amendments in this regard should be accepted. Amendment No. 72 is better than nothing but it really does not address all the concerns here. The status quo would be better or, as we had suggested, some changes could be made to this provision that would address the concerns and the rationale put forward by the Minister.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Deputies mentioned, this was an area we discussed and debated at length on Committee Stage. It was a very useful discussion too. It is not an oft-used provision. Deputy Matthews has acknowledged that Government amendment No. 72 seeks to further clarify who can be involved in this regard. I think it is very clear and I do not intend to go back over the debate we had on Committee Stage. In fairness, colleagues opposite have not done so either. The principles in the Bill as initiated compared with the 2000 Act provide that only the owner-occupier of land or a person with their consent may apply for such a declaration. Equally, the declaration given is not binding on persons who are not involved in the application. The procedure may be used as a means of confirming whether any particular works are within the scope of a grant of planning permission.

I will be moving my own amendments in this regard and I will discuss those later. In the first instance, I will be opposing amendments Nos. 70, 73 to 78, inclusive, 81, and 92 to 94, inclusive, all of which relate to who can request a section 10 declaration on development. These amendments seek to revert the situation back to the status contained in the 2000 Act where any third party, that is, any person, could seek a declaration on any development. This matter was discussed at length during pre-legislative scrutiny and on Committee Stage of the Bill, where it was clarified that there were significant legal and policy imperatives to the changes being made in the parameters for obtaining section 10 declarations contained in this Bill.

The original intention of section 5 of the 2000 Act was to function as a relatively simple mechanism by which a question concerning whether a proposal was a development or an exempted development could be determined. The challenge that has arisen over time is that increasing numbers of third parties sought section 5 declarations from planning authorities. Several legal problems can arise from this practice, including that the owner-occupier of the land might be unaware that a section 5 declaration has been sought in respect of his or her land and the planning authority's consideration of a section 5 declaration is limited to the information put before it by the third party, which may involve incomplete information.

Therefore, two significant challenges arise from the use of "any person" as requested in the proposed amendments submitted by the Deputy. First, wider use of this section by any person would enable a form of enforcement by proxy without the necessary due process and checks and balances being considered and contained in enforcement provisions as set out in Part 11 of the Bill. We have local authorities that are the planning authorities that have the enforcement obligations in each planning authority area. Second, there is the legal effect of the third-party action on the property rights of the owner. Having considered both the proposed amendments and legal advice taken on these matters raised, I must again oppose these amendments as the Bill should retain the provision relating to a "relevant person" rather than "any person".

That said, having listened to the arguments put forward by the committee and having consulted the Attorney General, I will be moving amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 79, to which I will return shortly. Amendments Nos. 80, 82, 84 to 87, inclusive, 91 and 95, tabled by Deputies O’Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, all seek to have details of declarations submitted and published on planning registers. This is unnecessary and potentially legally problematic. For example, in the event of the declaration being sought by a third party, we return to a situation where a first party who is not actively engaging with the planning system has details of their property published through no action of their own. The changes I have already made ensure that, in such instances, the owner is notified, and I think this is right and proper, after which they may seek further engagement with the planning authority on the matter. This is sufficient to all parties, notifying the owner of that action on their property without their knowledge while the applicant for the declaration is already aware of the request. On this basis, I must reject these amendments.

Amendment No. 97, tabled by Deputy O’Callaghan, seeks to remove the word "not" from section 11(2) and, therefore, make all declarations admissible in evidence. It is for the same principal legal reasons that I cannot accept this amendment.

The Bill enables the owner to seek a declaration on development and, having been assessed and granted the same, to use this as a defence. However the Bill does not allow for third parties to use such declarations against first parties as therein lies the core legal issue. Rather, the extended relevant persons, for example, an environmental NGO, may use a declaration to seek the planning authority to pursue enforcement if relevant, which is the appropriate method for dealing with non-compliance. I therefore must oppose these amendments.

Amendment No. 83, on the appeal timeframe, seeks to change the period for appealing a declaration from four weeks to five weeks. I am not in a position to accept this amendment. The timeframes set out in the Bill are reasonable.

Amendments Nos. 88, 89, 90 and 96 tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, which, as with section 9 were already discussed, seek to insert special processes for language assessments and for Gaeltacht communities. We have covered that at length already. I am not being dismissive but we have discussed it and we will discuss it further.

I will now move to the amendments I have tabled. Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and Cian O'Callaghan have tabled amendments to amendments Nos. 72 and 79, which I cannot accept. The proposed amendment to amendment No. 72 seeks to provide an alternative description of environmental NGOs. I cannot accept this proposal as it does not include the appropriate criteria to be regarded as an e-NGO under the Bill. I imagine that environmental NGOs would not be supportive of that either.

I cannot accept the proposed amendment to amendment No. 79, which seeks to provide that where someone other than the owner seeks a declaration and they cannot identify the owner to notify them of their declaration request, they can outline the steps taken to the planning authority in lieu of notification. Although I do see some merit in this, I would need to check with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel the wording of the amendment to amendment No. 79 for any unintended consequences arising from it. I will do that and then, if appropriate, I will bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are basically definitions.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to respond briefly. What is happening in regard to declarations and exempted development is the Minister is taking the public out of the process, which is wrong, and he is substituting a very limited number of environmental NGOs under very specific criteria. Not only does it shut out other environmental NGOs and organisations but it shuts out the entire public, which puts the limited number of environmental NGOs under a significant burden because the only way members of the public can access these declarations is through trying to contact one of the environmental NGOs to ask them if they can put in a request for a declaration of exempted development. That puts those organisations under particular pressure and a burden, which means only people with the access and know-how to go to one of those organisations can then access a declaration of exempted development. Shutting the public out and putting a very limited number of environmental NGOs under a specific responsibility and burden is not a way to fix this situation at all. It could have been done by simply reforming the existing process.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is obviously not going to accept the amendments to his amendment but, as I still think there is a case to made for widening third-party access to this mechanism, I urge him to engage with his officials between now and consideration of the Bill by the Seanad, because this is an issue that is going to return to us if it is not adequately dealt with here. The Minister is trying to fix one problem, but in doing so he is creating a problem of equal weight on the other side. Without again labouring the debate we have had, I ask him to give this at least some further consideration before the final passage of the Bill through the Houses.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mar a dúirt an tAire, rinne muid déileáil leis na leasuithe seo ar Chéim an Choiste. Phléigh muid iad but there is a need to ensure the language impact assessments are embedded in the legislation. I know the Minister is quite favourable to this given that some of the later amendments he has tabled to the Bill will address the issue to some extent. The amendments seek to ensure that happens at an early stage.

The Minister stated previously that he has met BÁNÚ and other groups that are very keen to ensure we protect Gaeltacht areas in terms of planning. I know Conradh na Gaeilge has asked to meet the Minister on a similar issue. I hope he will manage to meet with it as well before the Bill gets to the Seanad so it can impress on him the need for additional changes to the amendments he has tabled to the Bill in later sections.

The Minister has indicated he is not accepting these amendments but I urge him to look again at them before the Bill goes to the Seanad and to perhaps meet with Conradh na Gaeilge, which has raised very specific points on the legislation, in particular about the language impact assessments.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious we have discussed this matter at length on Committee Stage. Everyone knows my position on it. We have, unquestionably, seen the misuse of section 5 in some instances. We discussed that at length. We do not want to continue to see an increased use of it. There are legal problems with it too in regard to fairness. There was talk about third parties but we can talk about first parties too – the people who own the properties. In fairness, we have a very good system in Ireland where we very much respect third-party rights, more than in many other jurisdictions within the European Union. This is one measure, though, that in some instances is being misused. In those instances we do not want it to become a snooper's charter where people are just using this type of process to cause annoyance or upset, especially given that the owner might not even know about it. I think that we have found a good middle ground, as Deputy Matthews said. Members might not agree, but we can vote on it. That is fair enough. That is why I have brought forward the Government amendments.

I assure Deputy Ó Broin that, following this debate, I will keep things under consideration in advance of the Bill going to the Seanad, in particular Committee Stage there. Before the Seanad Committee Stage I also assure Deputy Ó Snodaigh that buailfidh mé le Conradh na Gaeilge chun rudaí breise a phlé leis. I will do that. I do intend to meet it again but it will be after this Stage is concluded.

The amendments I have proposed genuinely stem from discussions on Committee Stage. We have covered this issue in great detail. I will move my amendments at the appropriate time, but I am not accepting the amendments that have been tabled to my amendment.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 47, line 8, to delete “or”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 47, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(e) a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 2014⁠—

(i) formed and registered not later than one year before the making of the request concerned,

(ii) whose constitution includes objects that relate to the promotion of environmental protection of relevance to the request concerned,

(iii) that has pursued those objects for a period of not less than one year before the making of the request concerned,

(iv) that has not fewer than 10 members at the time of the making of the request concerned, and

(v) that has passed a resolution⁠—

(I) in accordance with the constitution of the company, and

(II) before the making of the request concerned,

authorising the company to make the request, or”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 72:

To delete paragraph (e) and substitute the following: “(e) an organisation, group or association⁠—

(i) Whose primary purpose, or whose constitution includes objects, which relate to the promotion of environmental protection of relevance to the request concerned, and

(ii) which shall additionally provide a simple written statement when requesting the declaration, review or referral, that it is credibly and reasonably pursuing those objectives, including in the context of a voluntary organisation.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 47, line 10, after “fee,” to insert “any person,”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 47, line 19, after “fee,” to insert “any person, or”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 47, to delete lines 27 to 32 and substitute the following: “(c) In relation to development (wholly outside the outer maritime area), granted or for which permission or consent is sought under this Act or the Act of 2000, any person may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, make a request in writing to the planning authority within whose functional area the development is, or is proposed to be situated, for a declaration on any question relating to⁠—”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 77:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 78:

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 48, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

"(4)Where a relevant person requests a declaration under subsection (2) in respect of land or a maritime site and the relevant person is not the owner of that land or maritime site, that relevant person shall, when making the request, notify the owner of the land or maritime site, as the case may be, in writing of the making of the request.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 79:

To delete "request, notify the owner of the land or maritime site, as the case may be, in writing of the making of the request." and substitute the following: "request⁠—

(a) notify the owner of the land or maritime site, as the case may be, in writing of the making of the request, or

(b) in circumstances where the relevant person has been unable to identify or notify the owner of the land or maritime site to which the request relates, they shall include with the request a statement to that effect and outlining the reasonable steps taken to comply with paragraph (a) above, and requesting the Planning Authority to alert the owner of the site about the request accordingly, where possible, as soon as may be.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 80:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 81:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 82:

"

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 83:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 84:

"

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 85:

"

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 86:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 87:

"

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 50, after line 40, to insert the following:

"(iii) whether or not the development or proposed development is likely to have significant effect on the use of Irish within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area (including by virtue of its nature, size and location) and requires the carrying out of a language impact assessment.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 51, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(iii) whether or not the development or proposed development is likely to have significant effect on the use of Irish within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area (including by virtue of its nature, size and location) and requires the carrying out of a language impact assessment.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 52, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

"(v)the opinion of the Minister as to whether the development is likely to have an impact on the use of Irish within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 91:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 92:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 93:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 94:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 95:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 54, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

"(j)whether or not the development or proposed development is likely to have significant effect on the use of Irish within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area (including by virtue of its nature, size and location) and requires the carrying out of a language impact assessment;".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 97:

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 56, line 18, to delete "request" and substitute "request, application".

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 99 is in the names of Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. It arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments No. 99 to 110, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 109 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 108. Amendments Nos. 99 to 110, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 57, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

"(3) (a)An advertising structure or town or landscape map shall only be granted a licence by a planning authority under this section where advertisements on a structure and information on a map are in the Irish language or in both official languages.

(b)A planning authority may issue guidelines on how an advertisement structure may comply with paragraph (a) so as to ensure that no less than 50 per cent of the text area is in Irish, with the Irish text no less prominent than the English text, or in the case of digital or rotating ad space on an advertisement structure, that no less than 30 minutes of every hour is spent advertising in the Irish language.".

Táim chun déileáil le leasú Uimh. 99, a dhíríonn isteach ar struchtúir fhógraíochta nó struchtúir a bhaineann le stair bhaile, rudaí poiblí. Leagann sé síos go mbeadh gach rud dátheangach ar a laghad nó go mbeadh níos mó Gaeilge ann, is é sin, go mbeadh 50% den spás ar an bhfógra ar a laghad tugtha don Ghaeilge, is cuma más fógra leictreonach nó fógra seasta atá ann, agus go mbeadh comhstádas aici. Ar aon bhealach le hAcht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, cuireann sé sin ina luí ar dhaoine go bhfuil an dá theanga oifigiúil ann, go bhfuil stádas ar leith ag an nGaeilge agus nach féidir loiceadh ar an stádas sin tríd an téacs a dhéanamh níos lú, é a chur in italics nó a leithéid.

Sa chás seo, leagtar síos sa leasú cad gur chóir a dhéanamh: "An advertising structure or town or landscape map shall only be granted a licence by a planning authority under this section where advertisements on a structure and information on a map are in the Irish language or in both official languages." There is a presumption that all information is given in both languages but that is not the case. Dublin City Council, for instance, is very good in its approach, with council officials even going beyond what people expect. The council requires that when new estates are being named, they must be named in the Irish language. However, in the neighbouring council, one still sees signs only in English going up in some estates. We need to see both languages used across the board.

Where the State can influence the situation, as in this case, it should do so. This amendment deals with advertising structures. Guidelines are needed for where somebody seeks to put something on a road, which we have often seen, especially in heritage towns. Where there is a significant structure, there often will be an explanatory map. There should be a requirement that it be provided in Irish. It is a lot easier to do that now we have QR codes, which involve very little writing. People can scan the code and pick their preferred language, whether Irish, English or any other language.

This amendment sets out that in the case of advertising structures and landscape maps, the two official languages will be of equal status, with the Irish language text to be of no less prominence than the English text. It has often been the case in the past that the Irish text is given a smaller, italicised typeface. All the local authorities and planning authorities should understand that when granting licences for anything like this, they must ensure the Irish language has co-prominence or a prominence above the English language. The same is true in respect of those rotating texts we sometimes see in advertising structures. The Irish text must be displayed for the same number of minutes as the English text. If the rotation is done by the hour, for example, 30 minutes at least must be given to the Irish language.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will focus on amendments Nos. 103 to 110, inclusive. They relate to section 13 of the Bill, which deals with licences for appliances and cabling on public roads. Amendments Nos. 103 to 106, inclusive, seek to extend the timeframes within which decisions are made. Amendment No. 107 provides that a proposed grant of permission under subsection 8(b) cannot arise where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required.

The remainder of the amendments, Nos. 108, 109 and 110, relate to appeals. There is provision for appeals in the relevant section. My view is that it is a little cumbersome, so in amendments Nos. 108 and 109 we have tried to find an easier, better way to facilitate that.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This group of amendments relates to section 13 and licensing of appliances on public roads. I have three amendments in the group, which I will move in due course. I will address amendment No. 99, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, and amendments Nos. 103 to 110, inclusive, jointly tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh outlined, amendment No. 99 seeks to add specific condition requirements to licences. It provides that they may not be granted for advertisements or town or landscape maps unless they are included trí Ghaeilge agus trí Bhéarla, and it provides that a planning authority may issue guidance to provide that Irish text is no less prominent. I cannot accept this, as the attachment of conditions to licences is a matter for each individual planning authority and should be assessed case by case, having regard to matters set out in section 13(7) of this Bill. The Official Languages Act already rightly provides for certain obligations regarding the use of Irish advertising in other notices.

Amendments Nos. 103 to 106, inclusive, relate to the timeframes in section 13 and seek to amend section 13(8)(a), which provides that a planning authority has eight weeks to make a decision on a request for a licence, or four weeks after an applicant's response to an additional information request. The amendments also seek to amend the section, which provides that where a planning authority fails to make a decision on an application for a licence in respect of electronic communication infrastructure, it should be deemed granted if the later of eight weeks has passed since the application was received or four weeks after an applicant's response to an additional information request. The proposed amendments would change the period to 12 weeks from receipt of application and six weeks from receipt of response to an additional information request. Although the proposed amendments would be within the required timeframe of Directive 2014/61/EU, on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communication equipment, it is not in keeping with the decision timeframe for licences set out in section 13 and could cause confusion. Therefore, I cannot accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 107 seeks to add a provision, notwithstanding the ability for a deemed decision relating to electronic communication infrastructure, that no such decision shall be deemed to be granted where the licence involves EIA or AA. As mentioned on Committee Stage, this provision is unnecessary, as section 13(3) already provides that you cannot apply for a licence if an EIA or AA is required. In these circumstances, planning permission must be sought where the development can be appropriately assessed for EIA and AA. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 108 proposes to replace section 13(9), on appeals on licences, and has the effect of providing that there is no fee for third party appeals, appeals should be entered on the register and observations may be made in respect of appeals. The fees for making appeals are set at levels intended to prevent frivolous or vexatious appeals. They certainly do not act as a deterrent to persons with genuine concerns or interest in proposed developments from making appeals. The provisions of section 13(15) already allow the Minister to provide for databases of information in respect of licences. I am satisfied that this provision should remain as it is and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 109 also proposes to replace section 13(9) with more condensed wording to a similar effect. In this case, it is important to explain all scenarios where an appeal can be made in respect of a licence. On that basis, I oppose amendment No. 109.

Amendment No. 110 seeks to add an option for the commission to revoke the licence. The reference to the commission affirming the decision of the planning authority under this section covered this, so if a planning authority revokes a licence and the commission affirms this, the licence will stand revoked. I do not accept that amendment either.

I will speak on amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102. Amendment No. 102 relates to an amendment proposed by Deputy Matthews on Committee Stage. It seeks to add the opportunity to share existing appliances, apparatuses or structures as a matter for planning authorities to consider in assessing licence requests. At the time, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, noted that he saw the merit in the proposal but would like to consider it further. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has drafted wording which has the same effect and provides that the planning authority should consider "the possibility that the purpose for which the application concerned is made may be served by an appliance, apparatus or structure that is already subject to" a licence as a matter to be considered in assessing a licence request. Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 are consequential to that amendment. The amendments I propose in this group address a proposal from Deputy Matthews, as I said. At that stage, we saw merit in the proposals to include the opportunity to share appliances, apparatuses and structures as a matter for planning authorities to consider. I thank the Chairperson of the committee, Deputy Matthews, for raising this matter and allowing me the opportunity to discuss the proposal with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to allow appropriate wording to be prepared.

I am not in a position to accept the amendments Deputies have proposed in this group. We have reflected on them, but unfortunately they are not aligned to the policy intention of the Bill.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On amendment No. 99, the definition of advertising structure is laid out on page 28. It states:

(i) a hoarding, scaffold, framework, pole, standard, device or sign (whether illuminated or not), and

(ii) used or intended for use for exhibiting advertisements,

or (b) any attachment to a building or structure used for advertising purposes;

This is about the licensing of such advertising. It is not specific to advertising. We are not looking for licences relating to a vending machine, hoarding, fence, scaffolding or wires. It specifically relates to the advertising structure. That is why I cannot figure out why the amendment cannot be accepted to ensure that any such advertising structure that has been constructed in the public realm that requires a licence to be sought for it cannot have conditions set down for the licence, no more so than having set conditions for the height, location and duration of a temporary advertising structure. This is an attempt to ensure that it complies with the legislation that we already have in place, namely, the Official Languages Act. The intent of that law and this amendment is to ensure that people understand that both languages are of equal status, except in Gaeltacht areas, where the Irish language is the only one that is being used. In some cases, that has also been ignored by some authorities, which have put up English-only or bilingual signs in the past.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his explanations. One issue that came up when we were dealing with section 13 of the Bill on Committee Stage was whether or not mobile phone masts and so on would be able to avail of this provision to, in essence, circumvent planning permission. One legal expert who gave testimony to the committee suggested that this section of the Bill and the related definitions would allow that. I think officials were saying that is not the case. Literally as we are speaking, a story has broken in the Irish Examiner that indicates that the Minister's officials have now referred the matter to the Attorney General. It would be welcome if the Minister clarified that. It suggests that might be a matter on which Minister intends to table amendments in the Seanad. If all of that is true, it raises some questions about that exchange. It might be useful for the Minister to take the opportunity to deal with that, since it is materially relevant to the amendments.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will look at that. I have not seen it. We can come back during the course of this debate or tomorrow and we will get some clarification on it. As I said, I am sure Deputy Ó Broin does not believe everything he reads in the newspapers.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it literally just broke.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness, that certainly is helpful, and I will check it out.

Maidir leis an ábhar eile, níl aon rud eile le rá agam faoi anois. Tuigim an fhadhb faoina raibh an Teachta Ó Snodaigh ag caint. Feicim é tríd na contaetha. I gContae Fhine Gall agus i gcathair Bhaile Átha Cliath, déantar sárjab ó thaobh rudaí a bheith i mBéarla agus i nGaeilge ach níl sé cosúil leis sin tríd an tír. Beidh mé ag féachaint ar an leasú roimh na céimeanna sa Seanad.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is amendment No. 99 being pressed?

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 58, line 17, to delete “and”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 101:

In page 58, line 18, to delete “pedestrians.” and substitute “pedestrians, and”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 58, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(e)the possibility that the purpose for which the application concerned is made may be served by an appliance, apparatus or structure that is already subject to⁠—

(i)a licence under this section, or

(ii)a licence under section 254 of the Act of 2000 that is in force by virtue of section 14.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 103:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 104:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 105:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 106:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 107:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 108:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 109:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 110:

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 111 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 111 are related and will be discussed together. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has arrived just in the nick of time for this.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 62, to delete lines 13 and 14 and substitute the following: “15.(1)This Act shall not operate to restrict or otherwise affect the functions of a Minister of the Government or the Commissioners under the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014 or the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.

(2)The performance by a Minister of the Government of functions under this Act shall not operate to prejudice the performance by that Minister of the Government of functions under the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014 or the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.

(3)The performance by the Commissioners of functions under this Act shall not operate to prejudice the performance by the Commissioners of functions under the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014 or the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023.”.

Deputies Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, and Gould have proposed an amendment to amendment No. 111. This proposed amendment is not considered necessary or workable. In short, it is not clear what the intention is behind the addition of the term “or the provisions of” in subsection (3) and if accepted, that subsection of the proposed amendment becomes fragmented and unclear.

In addition, the term “or the provisions of” does not feature in any other section of the Bill and while the Deputies’ proposal is surely well-intentioned, I cannot accept it for these reasons.

Section 15 of the Bill, which mirrors section 260 of the Act of 2000, ensures that the functions of the Minister under the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2014 are not restricted or prejudiced by the enacted Bill.

Amendment No. 111 is straightforward in that it is being introduced to provide for the recent enactment of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. Given the anticipated phased commencement of that Act, it is important that section 15 of the Bill is restructured to make references to both the historic and archaeological heritage Act and the National Monuments Acts. The commissioners of public works in Ireland have a range of important functions to perform under the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act, such as having responsibility for the preservation and maintenance of monuments in the ownership or guardianship of the Minister, and it is for this reason they are specified alongside the Ministers of the Government in Amendment No. 111.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 111:

In subsection (3), after “under” to insert “, or the provisions of,”.

I listened to the Minister in terms of the amendment to the amendment. To be clear, the amendment the Minister is proposing as currently worded only ensures that this Planning and Development Act will not restrict or affect the functions of the Minister or the commissioners under the current heritage legislation. The intention of this legislation is to ensure that all provisions of the existing heritage legislation are also unaffected. I do not know whether the construct might be awkward, but the intention was not to cut across what the Minister is doing. It is to add to it rather than take away from it. It is to add to it to ensure that all the provisions in the existing legislation are also unaffected. Maybe the Minister can assure us that is in fact the case. I would be happy to withdraw the amendment, but if there is any diminution from the existing provisions then we need to make sure they are not affected in any way. Perhaps the Minister of State can answer that.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can assure the Deputy that it is a straightforward amendment being introduced to provide for the recent enactment of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. Given the anticipated phased commencement of that Act, it is important that section 15 of the Bill is restructured to make references to both the historic and archaeological heritage Act and the National Monuments Acts. That is just to give assurance to the Deputy in that regard.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 112 in the name of the Minister arises out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 112 to 124, inclusive; amendments No. 219 and 220; amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, to amendment No. 220; amendment No. 234; amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 234; and amendments No. 364, 396, 417, 435, 449 and 464 are related and will be taken together.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 112:

In page 62, line 28, to delete “identified and”.

The majority of these amendments are minor and grammatical in nature, resultant of the ongoing process of quality assurance that has been proceeding throughout the legislative process. This Bill, one of the largest in the history of the State, has over 500 sections and, therefore, it is natural to identify improvements to syntax which do not alter in any way the legal meaning of the sentences but give improved legibility for the reader.

To this end, amendments No. 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121 122, 396, 417, 435, 449 and 464 relate to commas or capital letters or improve clarity by directing more precisely to a definition or section or clarifying language. By way of example, amendments No. 112, 119, 120 delete “identified and” from definitions relating to associate planning authority, principal planning authority and regional growth centres as it is unnecessary.

Amendment Nos. 116, 396, 417, 435, 449 and 464 add capital letters to the term Local Community Development Committee, LCDC, whereas amendment No. 117 signposts that the meaning of "metropolitan area strategic plan" is further detailed in section 29(2).

Of greater significance are the amendments relating to biodiversity. A number of amendments were tabled on Committee Stage with regard to biodiversity and climate change and reference to the appropriate action plans and Acts associated with each.

This Government has a demonstrated commitment to tackling the climate emergency. In light of that, I had no hesitation in committing my officials to systematically reviewing the relevant sections in consultation with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. It is in this context that I will move this amendment and later amendments in respect of Part 3, which I will explain in due course.

Amendment No. 118 clarifies that the definition of "national biodiversity action plan" is the same as that contained in section 59A of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. As I have often noted previously, a key benefit of this Bill is the clear alignment it brings between the tiers of planning, robustly linking national policy to local implementation coupled with the requirement for each tier in the planning hierarchy to be materially consistent with the tier above. Due to this new improved structure and alignment, it is only necessary to make a number of small impactful insertions at the highest level rather than repetitively throughout the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 relate to section 26, which deals with considerations for issuance of national planning statements. Deputy Matthews and Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and O’Callaghan have tabled three amendments to change the wording of amendment No. 220 which I am not in a position to accept. The wording of this amendment was carefully agree between my Department, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and the OPC.

Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 add two new categories to the list of matters to which a national planning statement must give consideration as follows:

"(p) integration of relevant climate action related policies and measures of the Government, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans;

(q) integration of relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to biodiversity, including those in respect of the National Biodiversity Action Plan, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans.”

By making these key insertions at national planning framework and national planning statement level, these matters are given the appropriate importance to be reflected consistently through the tiers of planning that flow from it.

The Bill provides that the national planning framework, NPF, will continue to spearhead the planning agenda in Ireland and proposes a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning from regional to local align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF. Simply put, lower order plans will be required to align with higher order plans, with development plans aligned to the regional strategies and, in turn, to the NPF and national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to development plans.

Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and O’Callaghan seek to amend amendment 234 by including references to obligations to public bodies under section 59B of the Wildlife Act 2023. I do not see a need to include these references as they are already specified under section 59B of the Wildlife Act 2023 and there is no need to duplicate it here. On this basis, I cannot accept their amendment. In section 29, content of regional spatial and economic strategy, amendment No. 234 amends section 29(1)(k) to include reference to the national biodiversity action plan at RSES level. As I have already mentioned, this is one of a number of amendments to improve and enhance references to biodiversity across all tiers of planning.

Amendment No. 364 corrects the title of the national biodiversity action plan in section 50, by including the word "Action".

Amendments Nos. 113 and 123 are in the name of Deputy Matthews. I ask the Deputy to withdraw amendment No. 113, which offers a definition of "community garden". I listened to the Deputy's proposals regarding the same matter on Committee Stage and, as promised, reviewed them within my Department. As a result of this, I have brought forward a series of amendments to section 48 - amendments Nos. 353 to 355, inclusive, and 357 - including a near identical definition to that is proposed by Deputy Matthews. I will speak to those amendments once we reach the relevant sections of the Bill on development plan-making. I trust that Deputy Matthews will be satisfied with the amendments the Government has tabled on the matter on foot of his previous input.

With regard to amendment No. 123, which seeks to insert a definition of "transport infrastructure", it should be noted that such a definition already exists within Schedule 1. To insert a further definition at this point may give rise to operational confusion and be counterproductive to what the Deputy is trying to achieve by the proposed amendment. The concept is well understood and operationalised within Part 3 by planning authorities. As a result, I must oppose amendment No.123.

I will now address amendment No. 124 in the names of Deputies O’Callaghan, O’Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh which seeks to insert a form of definition of "reasonable period" into section 18, which sets out the procedures required for public inspection. Section 18 currently provides that where something is required to be made available for public inspection under Part 3, it should be made available for as long as provided for in the relevant section or where no such timeframes are set out for as long as the OPR, regional assembly or planning authority, as appropriate, considers reasonable. Amendment No. 124 seeks to provide that in considering what constitutes a reasonable period. It proposes that the period should be consistent with affording the public an opportunity to effectively participate, bearing in mind the volume and technical complexity of the materials involved, and that traditional holiday periods are not conducive to public participation and, therefore, the periods need to be extended accordingly. The majority of time periods are already set out in the Bill, so this is just a catch-all provision for anything which may have been omitted. This is not appropriate language or instruction for primary legislation and would be more appropriate to address via circular letter or guidance. As such, I cannot accept amendment No. 124.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendment No. 113, 123 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 220. Amendment No. 113 is the definition based on work that my colleague Deputy Ó Cathasaigh had done in respect of community gardens and allotments. I welcome the Minister's introduction of that definition in amendment No. 357. Amendments Nos. 354 to 357, inclusive, cover the matter quite well. The purpose of our amendment was to insert something similar into the definition section in Part 3, but I think we can accept the Minister's amendment on that. I acknowledge that the Minister of State took on board our consideration on Committee Stage and I thank him for that. I shall leave that to Deputy Ó Cathasaigh to cover because he has done a great deal of work in that area.

On amendment No. 123, we are trying to define transport infrastructure. I hear what the Minister of State says, namely that a definition already exists in Schedule 1. However, the latter refers to strategic infrastructure development which tends to deal with large-scale ports, railways, etc. We see the words "transport infrastructure" used in one of strategies that are required under the preparation of a development plan, in section 46(3)(b) and section 47(3)(f). It was for the avoidance of doubt that we inserted this definition in order that transport infrastructure would not be just roads; it would be infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians, public transport and motorised vehicles and road traffic. I would ask the Minister of State if he would consider whether the confusion there now might be that as transport infrastructure is defined in Schedule 1 but relates to strategic infrastructure development, that would impact on the use of the words "transport infrastructure" in those strategies.

We had this discussion on Committee Stage about the fact that when the Act of 2000 was put in place, ours was a society dominated by cars. We are making a strategic move now to give people choices to move away from the car. We are investing in public transport at a scale we have never seen in this country previously and to invest in active travel as well across local authorities. It is just to be sure that in those strategies, transport infrastructure is not confined to road-based motorised vehicle usage. I would ask the Minister of State to consider that.

In that context, the strategies that are set out in the context of the putting together of a development plan are a very welcome addition to the Bill. They read very clearly - strategies for sustainable development and regeneration, strategies relating to economic developments, housing development strategies and strategies for sustainable development and preservation of places and communities. It would leave no confusion on the part of local authorities crafting development plans as to what their obligations are to meet some of the challenges we have in terms of climate, transport and biodiversity crises, as well as creating better places where people want to live and visit.

Amendment No. 220 is very important. I will speak to the amendment before I speak to amendment No. 1 to it. Amendment No. 220 arises from very lengthy discussions we had on Committee Stage, when we felt that climate action and biodiversity action was not as prevalent throughout the Bill as we thought it should be. It should be borne in mind that the biodiversity action plan was not a statutory document at the stage when the first iteration of the Bill, as originally crafted, was published in October 2023. We now see that the national biodiversity action plan has been very clearly brought into the Bill. That is a win for nature and biodiversity. I do not think any of us would have any objection to that at all.

On the proposed paragraph (p) to be inserted into section 26, which amendment No. 220 relates to, my amendment seeks to add to the end of that amendment, without prejudice to the obligations imposed by section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, and notwithstanding section 86 of the Bill. Section 86 is problematic and may cause some confusion. Under section 86(1), there is an obligation on the planning authorities and the commission regarding matters to which they shall have regard. It states that such bodies shall, "where the performance of the function is in respect of land-based development or proposed land-based development, have regard to principles of proper planning and sustainable development, and in particular ...". Section 86(1)(a)(x) refers to "the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and the duties and obligations imposed by that Act". My amendment seeks to insert a reference to a planning authority or commission. It is not acceptable and it does not go far enough to just include the words "have regard" in the obligations in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, but that is what it currently reads. Will the Minister consider, which is the purpose of the amendment, that section 86 not introduce any ambiguity with regard to our obligation, and that of the planning authorities, all the Departments, and the sectoral areas, to be consistent with the climate Act? That is the purpose of the amendment to the amendment. Will the Minister consider whether section 86(1)(a)(x) creates difficulties and ambiguity? I ask him to address that in the context of the further deliberations on the Bill.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I speak to amendments Nos. 113 and 357, I will lend a word of support to some of the arguments made by Deputy Matthews, especially in respect of transport infrastructure. If we are moving to a model of transport-oriented development, we need to understand that transport in a way that is much more flexible and sustainable than just car-orientated development, which is how many of our suburbs and one-off housing across the countryside developed. People in rural Ireland will often be heard saying, quite truthfully, that they cannot live without a car. That is to do with the legacy of bad planning over many decades. It means that in places such as the one where I grew up, which is a one-off house in rural Ireland, it simply would not be feasible for somebody to live there without the use of a car. That poses all sorts of challenges, not just in terms of climate, which is something we are facing up to, but also rural isolation, how we build our communities, and how we support local economies, including local shops, etc. We are seeing a fall-off in the number of pubs in rural Ireland because the drink-driving laws are much stricter than they used to be. It is no longer acceptable to go to the local pub, have three pints and drive home, if it ever was in fact acceptable at all. I agree with Deputy Matthews on the issue of transport infrastructure needing to be understood as something other than just relating to our ports, railways, etc.

I will make a point around the issue of sustainable development. I heard the Minister speak about this. We have to be careful not to confuse sustainable development as we understand it within this Bill and the principle of sustainable development, which is something quite different. It concerns the ability to meet the needs of current generations without undermining the ability of future generations to be able to provide for their own needs. We need to delineate between those two things.

I will return to amendments Nos. 113 and 357 and build on the definition of community gardens in my Bill on same. I have to give great thanks to the staff of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on this. They drafted it to such a high and exacting standard that it obviously passed muster with the Department and will return here practically verbatim. I have no great issue with the Minister deciding to insert the definition within the Bill in a different place from where Deputy Matthews suggested. It is important and consequential, however, that for the first time in Irish law and statute, there will be a definition of community gardens. That is something that has not existed previously. Community gardens are difficult to define. We had an over and back on this with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and in consultation with the likes of Donal McCormack of Community Gardens Ireland and Blessington community gardens, and Justyna Traore, who is one of the main figureheads of Top of the City Community Garden right in the heart of Waterford city. Very often, the line is quite blurry between what a community garden is and what an allotment is, and what it is they do. They are community and communal growing spaces. In a sense, it is not too important whether it is an allotment maintained by one person or a raised bed that five or six people manage to tend to and get a few crops out of.

I will make an argument, not that an argument is needed because amendment No. 220 is a ministerial amendment, for why we should be looking at this. Much of the discussion around the nature restoration law is focused on the issue of rewetting, but there are other provisions and articles within that law that are just as challenging if not more so. I will speak about the article on urban ecosystems. There are ambitions within that to have a net percentage increase in urban green spaces by 2050. In the context of increased urbanisation and the need to develop more housing, that will be difficult and tricky to do. Having something like a community garden space answers that need. It also answers the need to build communities within our urban systems. It now has to be about more than just the GAA hall, the parish hall and the church. We also need places where people can get outside and reconnect in a positive way with nature.

I will also reference some of the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. Recommendation 58 states, "Local authorities should play a central role in informing people of the importance of biodiversity in their areas." I taught for many years and one of the tools in my toolbag was the school garden. There is no better place to teach kids, adults or whoever, about the importance of biodiversity and the joy of being in nature than a garden. People can get down into it and have their hands in the soil. Recommendation 64 states, "School grounds and local public amenities need to be developed as a support to a diverse and meaningful nature education." As I said, there is no better way to teach any person, be it a child, adult or whoever else, about nature, the importance of nature and the importance of our connection with nature, than a garden. It is the absolute best place for that. Recommendation 57 references local and seasonal produce. That argument makes itself. There is no better place to educate people on the seasonality of produce and there is no more local produce than what is grown in a community garden.

I thank the Minister for taking on board the argument that Deputy Matthews and I made on Committee Stage. It may not be the most consequential amendment in what is very much generational legislation, but it is significant that for the first time we will have a working legal definition of a community garden. There is further to go. There are other provisions in the community gardens Bill that reference placing an obligation on local authorities to maintain waiting lists or help communities develop these amenities, but that is for another day.

I am very pleased that the Minister has decided to include this definition in the Bill, albeit in a different place from where we suggested. I thank him for taking it on board.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome these amendments, particularly that relating to community gardens. Many moons ago, when I was only a youngster, there were allotments in Sandymount opposite the Protestant church on St. John's Road. Bit by bit, the older men were leaving the allotments. This was not popular. There was a danger that the allotments would be taken over if they were let go to rack and ruin, which was happening at the time, so my mother persuaded me to take the allotment next to hers. She grew crops in Dublin all her life, right up to her passing.

The key issue here was that there was no protection in the end. People believed there was protection because the allotments were within the site of the church and that there was a legacy but nobody could find the deeds or whatever was intended. It is therefore important that, where there are allotments or community gardens, they are given some kind of protection. They are sometimes only a temporary visitation on an area. We have seen derelict sites being brilliantly populated by communities but then the owner or developer comes along and decides to develop, as is his or her right. If there are proper definitions of "community garden" and "allotment", we can then move towards making sure they will have those protections in the future and will not always be incidental to the wishes of the developer or, for that matter, the city council. The city council has, on occasion, allowed spare land to be used for allotments and then, five or six years later when the community is only getting used to the space, lo and behold, the council needs it for some different purpose and they are shifted. Sometimes they are not even shifted and are not replaced.

For instance, there is a very good allotment, community space, community garden and space where the community can enjoy themselves in Bluebell. A holistic approach is taken. If anybody would like to visit, there is a bungalow there that the council gave to the community and next to it are allotments and other spaces. Older people from the senior citizens' development come and plant flowers and everything else. It is a place to gather. Anyone who has worked on an allotment or in a community garden will know that a community spirit arises. People work together and appreciate nature, which is often forgotten about in the hustle and bustle. It is both a different approach and an oasis.

This is a good amendment. I see that the Minister has taken it on board further on but this is an appropriate place to position it because putting the definition here will mean that, when national and regional spatial plans and priority area plans are being considered, this will also have to be considered because it is within the definitions. I thank Deputies Ó Cathasaigh and Matthews for reminding us of this in the middle of the rest of the planning process because it is important. If you are leaving Dublin, when you get to the top of the canal, the canal goes on and you are onto the Naas Road from there all the way up to the Red Cow roundabout. That area is supposed to have 70,000 people living in it within the space of 15 or 20 years. We have not seen the plans. We get plans that refer to open spaces. Open space means open space; it does not necessarily mean that a section is committed to people growing anything. There is nothing to stop us planning and being innovative and using the space that is there, for example, on the roofs in the city, which still do not have solar panels on them. When planning buildings, there is nothing stopping people from using spaces on roofs to grow or to have a community garden. I hope that any plans in the future, such as the city-edge plan I am talking about, will include, along with the crèche facilities, playing fields and so on that are needed, community space in the form of allotments or community gardens.

There is an absolutely brilliant facility up in Cherry Orchard where there are community gardens. There are also community gardens on council land in Crumlin. What the community has managed to do there as regards solar-powered water pumps and the like is absolutely fabulous. They work hand in glove with others. Everyone in the association learns from each other. There are absolutely fabulous facilities popping up but I fear for some of them.

On the other amendment, while I do not know what the Minister will say when he speaks in a second, I would agree if he said that transport infrastructure should not be defined. I had a quick look at the amendment and there are large gaps in it. It does not mention canals, ports or rail. The intention behind putting reference to our path network and all of that in here, where we are talking about a national plan, is great. A bit of work could be done on that for the Seanad debates on the Bill. However, we should pass the amendment with the intention to add the parts that are missing because transport infrastructure is very important and we should ensure the inclusion of the key elements recognised here. They are not the only ones but they are key ones because they are often forgotten about. People think of the roads more quickly than they think of the paths, the cycle tracks and the likes.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Matthews agus an Teachta Ó Cathasaigh. I know how hard they and other committee members worked on Committee Stage of this Bill. I tried to assist a few different times, voting as a substitute and so on. They did a lot of hard work. It is very long legislation and, as the Minister will know, this stage in the Dáil is being quite rushed.

Community gardens and community facilities are very important. I listened to the múinteoir, an Teachta Ó Cathasaigh, and what he said was very interesting. He is right; in any school I have visited where there is a little school garden, that garden is of enormous value to the holistic education of the children. There are some great community allotments in Clonmel, Tipperary town and many other areas in Tiobraid Árann theas. They are very well used and very well supported but there is uncertainty around them. They are normally on a bit of waste land or a bit of council land that is not being used at the moment but then, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others have said, they can be lost. The council can decide the land is needed and the people using the facilities have to move away. Sometimes, those facilities are not replaced. There is much work involved. The people, the families and the community members involved take great pride in these open spaces they have nurtured so lovingly and from which they have reaped some fresh vegetables, potatoes and God knows what else. The early spuds are not going to be that early this year but, nonetheless, these people work hard at them. I support and would welcome this amendment to the legislation.

On the issue of sharing space as regards once-off rural housing, roads and facilities, Deputy Ó Cathasaigh admitted that you cannot live in these places without a car. Most of us come from such areas. I have eight children, five daughters and three sons. They all have to drive cars and that is a problem. There is no public transport. We have to look at that. The Office of the Planning Regulator forced the local authority to dezone an awful lot of land in towns in Tipperary this year. That was a retrograde step. That land needs to be zoned because people cannot build in the country and not enough space is being zoned in towns. I know there was a scourge of too much zoned land for years but that was then and this is now.

These are different times. Regarding the cycle lanes-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabh mo leithscéal. The Deputy has plenty of time, but the clock display has stopped. He has about three minutes left.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá an clog stoptha. Cad a tharla don chlog?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá sé ar stailc. It is on strike.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on strike. It got a shock when the election was up.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have stopped the clocks, Mattie.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Stop the clocks. I succeed in a lot of things, but anyway.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe the Minister is doing it. I will continue. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Bhí mé ag féachaint ar an gclog so gabhaim buíochas léi. I was speaking of the whole issue of traffic calming and cycle lanes. I have it in Tipperary now. It has become ridiculous. We had a lovely road going from Cashel to Cathair Dúin Iascaigh. My goodness, €1.5 million was spent on it. It is not about it being a carriageway so much as being for trucks or any agricultural vehicles. We live in a primarily agricultural country and there are agricultural vehicles that have to go through some towns and indeed a lot of towns. What has been done in Cashel is two cycle lanes and then the cyclists can be seen going down the middle of the road. They are on the roadway, not on the cycle lane. A whole education is needed for the cyclists as well, and I say that having taken up cycling. I am going to have a challenge with Deputy Ó Cathasaigh and his cargo bike up in Monaincha Bog very soon.

It is the same story in the village of Ardfinnan. I had a man with a silage mower trying to save a crop this year, Edmund Shine. He rang me the other night. He is a contractor employing people. He was going up the road the other night, where these works are being done, and a lorry driver came down, or a person in a car, with their fist up to him, as much as to say to him that he should not be on the road because it has been narrowed so much. It is pure, utter madness. It is unfair to agricultural vehicles, lorries or bigger people so we must have common sense here. Going into Cashel it looks lovely, but the road is so narrow now, two big trucks can hardly pass. It is as simple as that. It is a wide road with two big cycle lanes on each side, two wide footpaths and acres of green area on each side, if we take the length of it.

There is no engaging with the engineers; none whatsoever. They will not even answer the telephones. I have tried to contact the people involved with that road but they will not even answer the phone to us. This was decided by someone. It is done. It is all part of active travel and road safety. These traffic calming measures in villages are crude and I would say rude because they are never in bright colours or with luminous paint on them. In dark and wet weather you would not even see them. If you hit them, you will know all about hitting them. Traffic calming is needed and goodness knows speed is a problem, but then we have the RSA looking for extra funds. The RSA is not fit for purpose in many areas. I am straying from the Bill, but that agency is not fit for purpose regarding being involved in traffic calming-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might direct the Deputy back to the amendment.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is like a free-for-all here.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just saying the RSA should be involved in these issues as well. A holistic approach is needed, not big, crude plans. Concrete aprons and high kerbs are being put in. If people hit them, they are in fierce trouble. They are crude. There is talk about aesthetics. Masses of concrete laid out as a ready-mix with a machine is no more aesthetically sensible or pleasing than anything. Some safety areas are needed but these are too crude. There are too many of them and it is total overkill. As I said, people are not able to traverse them, especially with agricultural vehicles.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will finish. Mar fhocal scoir, I am thankful we are an agricultural country, unless the Deputies in the Green Party want to quench the farming and we will all be reading I do not know what.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy sure he does not want the gardens?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Táimid thar am agus-----

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are looking for the gardens.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----imithe ón ábhar. An Teachta Healy-Rae is next.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which amendment is this? I am sorry, I am trying to follow.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Deputy was delighted.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Deputy say the Minister left on his bike?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister gave Kerry a load of buses as well, did he not?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not going there now. We are sticking with-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are going to stick with the amendments as best we can.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was going well.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An tAire.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I indicated.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I beg your pardon.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the second time the Deputy has been ignored by different Chairs. He must not be indicating properly.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabh mo leithscéal. I had your name here and I forgot. It is my fault.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that. It is no problem.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The bikes took me on a new route, I am sorry.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is no problem at all. I was beginning to wonder whether some of the Deputies were proposing the community gardens should be placed on roadways, based on the way the conversation was going. I thought that was a very radical suggestion. Some radical environmentalists subscribe to that idea of guerilla gardening, so perhaps that is where that discussion was going.

Returning to the amendments, amendment No. 112 on community gardens is very welcome. I very much agree with this. As others have said, there are huge benefits in terms of amenity, health, mental health and well-being, but the real value I see in community gardens is not just in making use of often-disused bits of land, bringing them to life, making the area safer and making the surrounding area more inviting for people. It is in seeing the community-building that goes on through them. Especially in areas where there are perhaps newer developments and new residents, community gardens often integrate newer residents in an area with the existing community, young and old, and with everybody from all different backgrounds. The spin-off from that is of massive value, so it is very welcome to have this in legislation.

I have just one question on the definitions around it in the amendment. Much work has gone into it and I appreciate that. This is talking about a community garden being basically defined as land that is owned or leased by a local authority. I can understand the rationale for that in the sense of it being a public amenity or public good. A public park would be owned or leased by a local authority. The idea of community gardens is that they are meant to be a public good. It is not just allotments. Allotments can be in private use, rented out, leased out and so forth. I get that aspect of it. I am just asking whether that is somewhat limiting when we consider co-operatives. Are they by their nature under this? Would it not be a community garden if it was set up by a community co-operative? Over time, it would be good if we went down the route that has been done in some other countries of having community land trusts. These would not just be for community gardens but for other amenities as well.

It can also involve housing. Would this definition then exclude us going down the route of having community land trusts providing some housing, some community gardens and other facilities and amenities? I would like to hear if the Minister has any contribution on those particular aspects of it. I very much welcome all the work that is being put into this.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will touch on this briefly as there has been a good discussion on the community gardens today and some good points made.

I do not want to disappoint Deputy Healy-Rae but there is no conspiracy theory. If he looks at how the amendment is worded, it is not in priority terms, it is actually listed alphabetically with cyclists, pedestrians-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You could, but I know the way you would spin it. To be honest-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----cyclists is "C", pedestrians, public transport and road traffic, so they are in alphabetical order, not in order of priority. I know Deputy Healy-Rae will be down in Kerry and will be spinning this yarn that this is what it is trying to do-----

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know what he will do but the fact is, and just for the record of the House, it is listed in alphabetical order. Let us not try to spin it in any other way. I am just saying that that is what it is. I am sure Deputy Matthews will absolutely confirm that, generally speaking, this is how they are listed.

I would not underestimate the significance of the inclusion of community gardens in this very significant legislation, which is once-in-a-generation legislation we can build on. I commend Deputy Ó Cathasaigh on this and on the engagement he has had with me and my officials. All of us have seen across the country, in urban and rural areas, the benefits of community gardens. Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke of his mom tending allotments, as did my folks in Crumlin, and everyone had a patch out their back garden and they grew all their own vegetables. They did all that and it was a part of housing developments such as those in Iveagh Gardens. My dad now at 88 years of age has an allotment in the community garden between Malahide and Swords. The point being made by Deputy O'Callaghan and others is that these are a lot more than just gardens. They really do knit communities together because they are of all ages. It is a superb allotment and community garden on the Swords Road between Malahide and Swords. I believe it is the largest one in Fingal. This speaks to one point made by Deputy O'Callaghan. This is not Fingal County Council-owned land. I get it with regard to the definition and that we must get that further. In this instance Fingal County Council are actually involved in that but they do not own the land. It is being leased at a small amount and there is charitable status within it.

I would turn now to the transport piece but I thought I had more than two minutes. I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to indulge me on an important point around the transport infrastructure piece on Schedule 1. We will look at that but we have to make sure it is consistent and that Schedule 1 is not contrary to any other transport Acts. Right now cyclists are classed as road traffic. I do take the points.

I commend Deputy Ó Cathasaigh in particular on the issue of community gardens. This is very important because these are important parts of community infrastructure. We can build on that.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the interests of clarity everybody has two minutes.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had not realised that earlier.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You will have another two minutes afterwards as the proposer.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's response on the transport infrastructure. It was merely put in just to address any confusion that might arise and maybe to make that a simpler definition. With regard to the way it was set out, alphabetically or otherwise, it looks at road use in a very sensible way and if investment is required for other road users we will look at it that way. If it is investment for cyclists, children or elderly people trying to walk around the town, then of course we will look at that in a sensible way. I wonder if Deputy Healy-Rae noticed all the buses that the Minister, Eamon Ryan, left behind him in Kerry when the Deputy was giving out about his absence or leaving-----