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

Seanad amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

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

Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relate to section 1, which sets out the Short Title and a standard technical provision providing for the commencement of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 moves the collective citation relating to the Residential Tenancies Act from Part 24 to Part 1 in order that all collective citations are contained together in section 1. This increases clarity for the reader.

There are five proposed amendments to amendment No. 2. Should I speak on all the amendments in the grouping, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

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

Yes, amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive.

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

That is fine.

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

On a point of order, to be helpful, when speaking on the Government amendments, the Minister might address our amendments to the amendments. That will allow us to get through the work a bit more quickly.

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

I will do that. As I said, there are five proposed amendments to amendment No. 2. Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 to amendment No. 2, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin and Gould, seek to insert new subsections into section 1 of the Bill relating to proposed new reporting requirements. They propose that the Minister should report on the Bill's compliance with the Aarhus Convention before commencing provisions. They further propose, as does amendment No. 8 to amendment No. 2, tabled by Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, that no Part shall commence without a resolution of both Houses following a minimum six-hour debate. I am more than satisfied that the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Therefore, I cannot see the need to report on these matters in the manner suggested.

Amendment No. 2 rewords the commencement provision, which is currently contained in section 1(2) of the Bill, and splits it into two new subsections to provide further clarity around the commencement of the Act. It adds a new paragraph (c), which allows for the consequential provisions to be commenced at different stages. This is important as an Act of this scale must be capable of being commenced in stages.

The remainder of my amendments in this group relate to definitions in section 2. Amendment No. 3 inserts a definition for "acquisition of a maritime site". It relates to further amendments that provide for the application of Part 14 relating to compulsory acquisition to a maritime area. This amendment further replaces the existing definition of "acquisition of land" to include references to "acquisition of a maritime site" where relevant in specific sections. For the purpose of compulsory acquisitions, maritime sites are limited to any part of the maritime area that does not vest in a Minister of the Government.

Amendment No. 4 amends the definition of chief executive in section 2 to provide that the definition is subject to the newly proposed section 588. Section 588 sets out how a chief executive shall be construed for Limerick City and County Council and the instances where it should be taken to mean the director general or the mayor.

Amendment No. 5 inserts a reference to a person who continues in office as deputy chief planning commissioner of the commission under section 455 into the definition of "Deputy Chief Planning Commissioner". This was inadvertently omitted from the original definition and is in addition to a person being newly appointed under the Bill.

Amendment No. 6 amends the definition of land to include reclaimed land. Reclaimed land may often fall within the definition of a maritime area and it is important that such land should be treated like any other land in the planning process. There may be scenarios were buildings are built on reclaimed land and such developments should be assessed in accordance with the requirements for the land rather than the maritime area.

Amendment No. 7 updates the definition of "National Planning Policies and Measures" to include a transitional provision relating to specific planning policy requirements in guidelines that continue in force under section 25 until they are revoked or replaced.

Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, are related and update the definition of "occupier" in respect of maritime sites. It includes a reference to a person who is a holder of "a licence under Part 5 of the Act of 2021 granted for a Schedule 7 usage within the meaning of that Part" in addition to the existing references to the holder of a maritime area consent or a lease or licence under the Foreshore Act 1933.

Amendment No. 11 inserts a reference to a person who continues in office as an ordinary planning commissioner of the commission under section 455 into the definition of "Ordinary Planning Commissioner". This was omitted from the original definition and is in addition to a person who is newly being appointed under the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 update references from "foreshore" to "maritime area" in the definition of owner. The "maritime area" is a defined term and the more appropriate reference.

Amendment No. 14 moves the definition of "strategic development zone" from Part 21 to section 2 as the term is used outside of Part 21 and, therefore, needs to be defined in section 2 for the purpose of the Act generally. A further amendment in Part 21 will delete the definition from that Part.

Amendment No. 15 updates the definition of "Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations" to include a reference to any existing regulations in addition to any regulations that may be made under the Act.

Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, relate to the definitions of "unauthorised structure", "unauthorised use" and "unauthorised works". They clarify that a structure, use or works is not unauthorised where a corresponding licence is in place under the Bill or under the 2000 Act. The current wording of these provisions was considered to be slightly misleading as it may have implied that a development was not unauthorised where a licence is required. The wording has been updated to clarify that a development is not unauthorised where it is carried out in accordance with a licence.

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

I have submitted a number of amendments to Seanad amendment No. 2. We have three hours to go through 175 pages of amendments. Some of the amendments are relatively straightforward and technical in nature but many of them are not. Many substantively change key aspects of the legislation. Late last night, we received another eight pages of substitute amendments, one of which is the second amendment in this group, which I will come to in a moment. While the Seanad dealt with some of the amendments, it did not manage to scrutinise all of those that were subsequently agreed because the debate was guillotined after the allotted time.

This has been a feature of the debate on planning legislation, although not of the Committee Stage debate on this Bill. In fairness, thanks to the Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas committee, Committee Stage was conducted in an entirely appropriate manner. The Minister's officials were exhausted after the very length sessions but given the length, complexity and significance of the Bill, it was the right way to do it. That process is in stark contrast to the procedure for the passage of these amendments, which, unfortunately, is not in the control of the committee but of the Government. Here is the problem. We have had ample examples, including recently, of last-minute, inadequately scrutinised and rushed amendments to planning legislation. In fact, we previously had two rounds of legislation amending the substitute consent procedures.

Because very complex, technical amendments to planning legislation did not get adequate scrutiny or time in the House, it did not work in real time. Our opportunity, as available to us on Committee Stage, to highlight errors of drafting, gaps between intention and actual impact, is lost. I cannot for the life of me understand why, given the damage that has been done to our planning system from rushed legislation previously, including some legislation the Minister has brought into this House, he would risk making the same mistake again.

The problem is that the concern I am articulating is not just the view of those of us in opposition; the Irish Planning Institute, the body that represents professional planners, who make and decide on applications, over and over again has warned of this. Therefore, I just want to put on the record that this is an entirely inappropriate way to progress legislation. I would go so far as to suggest that it shows a level of contempt for the Opposition and the important role we play. We have just had before the House legislation that shows we are willing to work and be co-operative with the Government when given the time to do so. Also, however, I think this shows a contempt for the procedures of the Oireachtas itself. This is not a good way to proceed.

I know what I am saying is falling on deaf ears, like the thousands of amendments many of us have submitted to try to improve this Bill. I know the Minister has made a political decision that he just wants this Bill published, concluded, come hell or high water. For the record, however, and for people who will look back on this three-hour debate when what is in this Bill goes terribly wrong, I want them to know there were people in here who stood up and said this would not work and would create enormous confusion in our planning system that would lead to a very dramatically increased level of conflict. Those conflicts will increase third-party appeals and third-party litigation, and all of that will delay the delivery of much-needed housing, critical infrastructure, public transport and renewable energy projects. The crazy thing is that we in here are all agreed that we need more of those things and need to reform the planning process. That is not what we have here, and I object to that in the strongest possible terms.

With respect to the amendments the Minister has presented and our amendments, I will speak to amendment No. 2, in the Minister's name, and then I have a query about amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive. The Minister says he believes the Bill is fully compliant with Aarhus, yet no actual Aarhus compliance assessment has been undertaken. A general view of the Attorney General on these things, as the Bill has progressed, has been referred to, but no specific Aarhus compliance assessment has been undertaken. We know that because Deputy Cian O'Callaghan pressed the Government on this at an earlier stage and it was confirmed that that had not taken place. What we do know, however, is that the Aarhus compliance committee, in respect of one section of the legislation it has had cause to assess, is of the view that it is not in compliance. I refer to Chapter 5 of Part 4, which relates to public participation. That speaks directly to the reasons we are looking for additional reporting requirements and consideration of the Oireachtas to ensure full compliance with Aarhus. If the Minister gets the public participation elements of this wrong - in my view as well as that of many of us on this side of the Chamber, the Irish Planning Institute and many of the legal professionals in the Bar association and the Law Society, who specialise in planning and environmental law, he has got them wrong - this will be the cause of so much difficulty in our planning system. Again, therefore, I ask why no specific Aarhus compliance assessment was undertaken. What will the Minister do if, at a future stage, the Aarhus compliance committee raises other problems with this Bill? The Minister may not be in his current position at that point in time. He might have another ministerial position or, God forbid, be in opposition. We will be here to remind him that we told him so, that we warned him, that we said, "You do not have to do it this way."

It is important to understand what Aarhus is for. Aarhus is not some abstract, technical thing; it is an international, legally binding treaty that this State has signed to underpin the rights of citizens to access information about the environment and public health and to access justice where they believe they are being denied access to that information or where public health, the environment and the well-being of themselves and their communities are being put in jeopardy. It is a fundamental underpinning of a good, proper, functioning planning system. In fact, if you get the Aarhus stuff right, you do not have to worry about the judicial reviews because they dramatically fall in number. We are agreed we would like to see fewer judicial reviews but where we fundamentally disagree is on what we believe is the best and most appropriate and human rights-compliant way of doing that.

I am not clear on the following. The Minister's amendment No. 2 is the first of the substitute amendments on the list we were given yesterday. I cannot see any actual textual changes so I am wondering if there is just a layout or a grammatical change. Will the Minister explain that one? Also, if possible, where he is speaking to an amendment in respect of which we have been given a substitute amendment, of which there are a small number, he might speak to why the substitute amendment is before us and explain the difference.

As regards amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, this was the subject of very significant discussion. It was one of those areas where, I think after about 40 minutes of a dialogue with the Minister on this section of the Bill, we realised, or he realised, that there was a problem. With respect to unauthorised development, will it still be considered unauthorised if it has not been carried out in accordance with the grant of planning permission? I am still unclear because the Minister said it would be unauthorised if it was not carried out in compliance with the licence, but the licence is for the activities, not the structure. I ask him to clarify that because that was the issue of concern in committee.

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

I have amendments to move here as well. I will be very clear about this. To have three hours for 175 pages of amendments is absolutely no way to do legislation. These are new amendments that have not been discussed in this Chamber before, have not been scrutinised here, so this is our only attempt to scrutinise them. Most of them will not be reached at all today. That is very worrying, given the track record in respect of planning legislation, where we have repeatedly had mistakes made that the Department and the Minister have then had to come back trying to fix with subsequent legislation. This has been an ongoing issue, so this is not the way to do legislation. It shows a complete lack of respect for the democratic process and for the whole process of legislative scrutiny.

As regards these amendments, the points have been made about Aarhus compliance. We had the progress report from the Aarhus compliance committee on 10 June and it was damning. The issue here is that if you get Aarhus compliance wrong, it effectively contaminates the entire Bill and the processes around it, and that will then lead to delays and additional costs. Therefore, when it comes to housing that we need, public transport, renewable energy and infrastructure, where we have critical needs as a country, not getting this Bill right in terms of compliance with a treaty we have signed up to and European Union law will create delays, litigation, additional costs and satellite litigation. That creates a huge cost for the people of this country. There is already huge dissatisfaction with delays in delivery of critical infrastructure that we need, so getting legislation wrong in this area and having it non-compliant with Aarhus is like shooting ourselves in the foot. It is a terrible approach to take.

I reiterate the questions being put. Why has there been no specific Aarhus compliance assessment of the Bill? When I pressed the various Ministers who came into committee meetings on this and I asked specific questions about areas of the Bill and Aarhus compliance, I was given very general replies that "we have got advice that it is Aarhus-compliant". However, when I gave specific examples with reference to sections of the Bill, I could not get specific answers back apart from that general statement of "we think it is Aarhus-compliant because we have been told it is." I have pointed out examples that are in breach of Aarhus; I could not get a detailed response on them. It does not bode well for this legislation that that has been the approach to date. I am therefore hugely concerned that this approach being taken will backfire and lead to more delays and additional costs we really cannot afford in terms of delivery of housing and critical infrastructure.

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

Is anyone else indicating?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On this-----

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

Just on this group of amendments.

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

Amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Look-----

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

Deputy Boyd Barrett does not have to speak to this grouping.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know. Unfortunately, the discussion on the Bill commenced early and therefore, I have not heard the earlier contributions. I will to briefly restate my concerns about the ramming through of this Bill. On Report Stage, we had many amendments which did not get dealt with because the Bill was guillotined. I know the Government will say there were many hours afforded to this Bill on Committee Stage. A lot of concerns and issues, however, have been raised by us in the Opposition. It is undoubtedly similarly the case with the Seanad, although I have not had the opportunity to study all of the amendments, given the timeframe. I do not see the rationale for doing this. It seems to me the Government is leaning on something of a myth about planning bottlenecks to justify a particular view of what we should do in the development area to resolve the housing crisis. This really serves the interests of the developers, however, rather than actually assisting us in dealing with the crisis we face.

A lot of the Government’s narrative and the underpinning rationale behind this Bill is the notion that it is the planning system that is responsible, or significantly contributing to, the housing crisis we face. I fundamentally reject that view. To solve the housing crisis, we do not have to do away with proper public consultation or proper environmental impact assessments. They are not the obstacles to resolving the housing crisis. Indeed, I told Gabriel Makhlouf this at the finance committee today when he referred to and repeated this mantra, as people often do, about planning bottlenecks. The evidence does not actually suggest that. There is a massive excess of planning permissions which are way in excess of the actual commencements of development. The majority of planning applications get approved, but many of them are never acted upon. Speculation in the area of planning permissions is a much bigger problem. The Government always states, and this reflects the mantras of the developers and the people who essentially make money out of development, that the problem is our so-called planning bottleneck, judicial reviews or people objecting and all the rest of it. I just do not accept there is any evidence to back up that assertion, but it is a mantra that reflects the viewpoint of developers.

The danger with all of this is that we are going to undermine the vital importance of having genuine, proper public consultation and environmental impact assessments. As has been alluded to, the consequence of all this, when the Government would say or might hope or assert that it will lessen the likelihood of things ending up in courts, is that it will make it more likely because we will now be dealing with a whole new regime which will be legally challenged and more things, rather than fewer things, will end up in the courts. That is very likely, and certainly people with more expertise in this area than me are asserting precisely that.

We will probably address the amendments about LNG later. It is just really bad practice to bring in these amendments on LNG at the last minute in the Seanad. They should have been introduced earlier. We will discuss this, I presume, in more detail when we get to those particular amendments. We will be voting against this.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to get the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. If I was to really speak about everything, it would take a whole week. I know we do not have that kind of time, however. I am worried about this Bill because I am wondering, first of all, who this planning commissioner is going to be? I am worried about the erosion of the role of county councillors, who are elected by the people. Who is this individual? Where does he come from? Who is he elected by? Who will be controlling him? We have seen different chief executives of Kerry County Council over time being-----

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

Chair? Deputy Healy-Rae deserves to be heard.

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

I apologise.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----asked, on behalf of the councillors, to put forward amendments to, we will say, the county development plan. The regulator then comes along, whom I do not know and no one in Kerry knows nor does he understand their problems. When we look to get a bit of serviced land zoned, what happens? The regulator sends an addendum to the chief executive telling the councillors to withdraw whatever they had proposed and that the regulator will only consider whatever his views are.

One of the things the regulator has done is to have ruled out zoned land that is serviced. That is wrong. Many of us, including Councillor Johnny Healy-Rae, believe that the more land that is zoned, the higher the chance of cost-effective sites because if we give a monopoly of zoned land to one person, it means they can charge what they like to the builders. That is very serious when you consider that fact that the policy seems to be to drive young people into towns and villages that are not even serviced. We have 38 inadequate treatment plants. More settlements have no treatment plant. That is a fact. At the same time, because the regulator has done this and these areas are provided, district urban generated areas have been moved out further from towns like Killarney, Killorglin and Kenmare. That means people have no choice but to go into the towns to try to acquire a site or buy an expensive house in a town like Killarney. The cheapest new-build house in Killarney is €550,000. At the same time, people are prohibited from building behind or alongside their father’s property on a one-acre site five miles out from Killorglin, seven miles out from Killarney or two miles out from Kenmare. They have the sites and they are being disallowed. Planning is being curbed and all the power is being given to the regulator, taking it away from the elected members, who I count to be most vital. They go through the election process. They did so last June. We now find out there is some new body with a new name on it that I never heard before, namely, a planning commissioner. Who will he elected by?

Another worry I have is that, after all the talk and debates, this Bill is going to be guillotined after three hours. In all fairness, is the Minister trying to say to me this is fair on all the people who have so many concerns with this Bill? We cannot get through it all in such a short space of time like three hours. It would take three weeks to go through these amendments thoroughly to ensure fairness is applied to our people because they are being wronged and cannot get planning permission. Towns and villages have no treatment plants. How can the Minister say this is fair?

As for the residential zoned land tax, I know of sites in Killarney that are zoned but will not be accepted, and they want to sell them.

At the same time, there are lands that are known only as strategically zoned reserves. The services are not even going to them. Those affected have received letters and we do not know when the tax will be activated. We are told it will be in February. There is some kind of wrangle going on between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. To be fair, Fianna Fáil is not for the residential zoned land tax, but Fine Gael is. We are waiting for the details. We were waiting all along for the details concerning working farmers, and now we are being told the option they have to exempt themselves from the tax is to go through the planning process. That means that to get their land rezoned, they have to get permission from the chief executive of Kerry County Council. How can that happen when the regulator is telling him not to give it? That is the trouble I have with these kinds of things.

Much of what is in this planning Bill favours Dublin. Kerry is so different from Dublin and has so many different problems. I have enough to do to follow Kerry. I know that much of what the Government is doing in this Bill is for people in Dublin and not helping residents in Kerry.

I have a question on reclaimed land in a maritime area. Who will decide on the compulsory acquisition of land? If the land is reclaimed by a farmer for farming purposes, will it be purchased compulsorily? Where is the line drawn in this regard?

The provisions on strict urban-generated pressure are absolutely ridiculous. We actually believed they meant people would be able to come out of towns and build in the country. This is not so. It actually means that someone five or six miles out of town and who has never lived with anyone but his or her father or mother is to be denied permission to build on their land if not a farmer. There are others affected besides. We welcome the fact that farmers are exempt from the rule. It would be a pity if they were not. The Government talks about the carbon footprint. Imagine if it insisted that the farmers lived in town and came out to their farms to work three or four times a day. That is how ridiculous things are becoming. Someone who has lived for 40 years or more with his father, on whose land he or she has been born and reared, will not get planning permission because of the strict urban-generated pressure provision. The radius extends ten miles from Killarney, six from Killorglin and I do not know how far from Kenmare. It is three or four miles anyway. It is absolutely ridiculous trying to shove people into the towns which have no services. For the past five years, you could not build a second house in Kenmare town because it would be classed as a development. You only get permission for one, and that is why we are short of housing in Kenmare. We are also short in places like Moyvane and various other places where there is pressure. You can get permission for only one house in Moyvane. It is the same story in Brosna. I know a fellow who applied for permission for two houses but who was shot down because the treatment plant was not adequate.

The Government should get its troops out and see what is happening on the ground. It is very clear that this is mostly a Green Party policy. We can blame the Green Party for a lot of it but it was Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael that took that party on board. It was those parties that joined the Green Party and made men and women out of them although they only represented parts of Dublin. Basically, they had nothing in common. Regardless of the votes they got in the past, in Kerry or the other seaboard counties, they will not get them next time. I am glad of this. People see the harm they have done. Fianna Fáil is letting it happen under its nose just to stay in power. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister that. I have a lot of respect for him and he does a lot of good work, but this is the truth of what has happened. The Greens have ruined rural Ireland. If there were time, I could stay talking about this for two or three weeks, not hours. I am aware there are others who wish to speak but we cannot support this planning Bill because it is diluting the role of county councils. County councillors are elected by the people they represent. They know the areas they represent and the needs of the people trying to live there, but the Government is not listening to them or taking on board the problems.

I raised the issue of strict urban-generated pressure with the Minister here in the Chamber but that is as far as it went. We see nothing to change the zoning provisions or help the local authorities to change them. Now we are telling farmers with land zoned as residential that they will have to seek an amendment to the county development plan if they want an exemption. That is under the remit of the chief executive but the chief executive will not accede to a farmer’s request because the regulator will not allow it. This is why I will be voting against the Bill. I am very worried about it. It is the most serious Bill that has come before us in the past three or four years. I am very sorry but we are voting against the Bill because we have been given no time to go through each amendment properly. Three hours will not do. Three weeks would not do me, and there are 160 Members. I appreciate the latitude the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has allowed me this time.

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

I gently remind everyone that we are discussing amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to have been here earlier but I could not because I cannot manage bilocation. I was talking about this mighty 726-page document to Matt Cooper on the radio and could not say to Matt that I had to go to the Minister. However, I am here now. I have my own views on the document, with its 136 pages of amendments. How could any Government seriously think condensing this debate into three hours tonight is fair, right or proper, or does justice to the people? It is not right and I do not agree with it.

Let me address what I do not even want to call a positive side but what is a reality because the Government did not have any choice regarding the LNG facility and its inclusion in the Bill. The Bill is very serious but the LNG aspect is one aspect that is welcome. However, like everything, it does not go far enough. The Green Party made all the members of the Government drop the ball and take the matter out of the programme for Government in 2016, take it away in 2020 and, not only that, vote against it and put in informal objections. A senior Minister put in an objection, which I thought was an outrageous act against the people of north Kerry considering the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, had gone up to places like Tarbert and Moyvane and made promises to the people that if they voted for him and his candidate, he would deliver an LNG facility. What did he do? He ripped it out of the programme for Government, backed the Green Party, including Eamon Ryan, and let the people of all the region go to blazes. He did not consider the issue of energy security, and that is why we finished up where we were last year, when levels were dangerously low. Motor cars were going to run out and we barely survived. We are in a position that is a little better this year, although only a little.

What is being proposed now is a storage facility to give us a supply for a number of days. Anything like that is welcome, of course. I say to the people of Tarbert and the surrounding region that this is positive but that it is the only positive in this 736-page Bill. It is on green paper and is green in more than one sense of the word.

The people I have great admiration and respect for are the local democrats, the men and women who put their names on the ballot paper for local election and get elected to their local authorities. Their value in Irish politics is completely underestimated.

It is more than a full-time job to any one of them. The role they perform is important. I know the Minister respects that. I presume the vast majority of us served our time on our local authorities. I did not just like my local authority, I adored it. I cherished every day I was there. I really valued the role of a local politician in formulating local area plans and the county development plan.

If you study this Bill, you will see that what it is doing, in a way, is giving the real power to the Minister of the day, whoever that Minister is. You can imagine the situation that leads to when a person such as the present Minister, who is completely anti-rural and negative in his outlook on everything, is in charge. He proved that when he objected to the LNG facility in the Shannon Estuary. We need to tackle the problems that are there at present. Probably the most serious problem we have - many urban-based politicians do not understand it - arises when a young man, lady or couple come together and want to build a house in the countryside. From what I have seen in the last 25 or 30 years from politics in Kerry, it has gotten harder and harder. The bar has been raised continuously when it comes to getting planning permission, whether it is the percolation criteria or the views and prospects.

A very intelligent professor who came to Kerry County Council once made a statement that has stuck with me to this day. He said he had worked in the Céide Fields and all that. One of the things he said at the end of the meeting was that he respects all species, including the human species. However, there are politicians and people in government who seem to think that everything is important except the human beings who keep them in a job, keep the Government going and pay taxes. We treat those people with disrespect. I do not see any hope, relaxation or glimmer of light for the people on the Ring of Kerry road, the N69 and other roads who have been told by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, that they cannot have an entrance onto the road. They are being told they cannot have an entrance even though they are going out onto these roads anyway. People in Killarney might want to build in Aghadoe or move out of the town. Members of the young generation who might want to move to the countryside and rear their families cannot do so because they cannot prove a tie or a need to live in the countryside. How criminal an offence is it to want to live in the countryside? It is not. We have to allow people to live in places where they want to, within reason. We know we cannot have a free-for-all, but we are not looking for that. We are looking for common sense and we want common sense to prevail. We want farmers' sons and daughters to have planning. Even if you can be given consideration under the current county development plans, the criteria that are still there are so stringent and so strict that they are beyond belief. Rather than people looking at how they can help and assist, we are trying to come up with what obstacles can be put in a person's way.

I have not even started to talk about the issue we spoke about this morning, which of course is the serial objectors. We made the tie very clearly this morning between serial objectors and members of An Taisce. That is a fact. It is a proven fact in places such as County Kerry. It is abnormal behaviour to have one individual - I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle took exception to me this morning, but I do not mind that because that is politics-----

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

Deputy, please.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Well, you did.

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

I did not take exception and it is not politics. I am in the Chair, and the conversation and debate should be relevant to what is going on. That is what I am doing now as well. I remind the Deputy that we are discussing amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is right.

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

This morning I reminded the Deputy that we-----

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You did, but you had-----

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

No, no.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You said it when you were sitting on the Opposition benches. You took exception to what I had said.

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

Deputy, please. In my role as Chair, I asked you to be relevant to the topic, as I ask everybody. I asked you not to make it personal. I am asking you again to direct your comments towards the amendments. I am giving great latitude.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Thank you. I am making it clear that when you left the Chair and went to the Opposition benches, you told me what you thought about what I had said, which is fine because you are elected here the same as me. You are perfectly entitled to do that - absolutely, no problem - and you were right to say what you said. I am also right to say it is not normal behaviour. The funny thing about it is that I know the Minister agrees with me. It is not normal for one individual at any one time to have 20 or 25 objections rolling in a local authority. That is not normal.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there interference?

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

A little bit.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Maybe it is the Russians. I will continue.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Or the Americans.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Or the Israelis.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to make that point very clearly. Nobody in Ireland would say that it is normal for a person to object continuously. Any one individual, of course, could have an issue with a person developing something-----

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

Deputy, we are discussing amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----that would affect themselves. My God, how could 20 or 25 people affect you, wherever you are living? That type of nonsense will have to stop. Serial objectors will have to be called out in this House and in the local authorities for what they are. Rightfully, in my opinion, I called them "cranks" and "crackpots" this morning because that is exactly who they are. Whether you are a member of An Taisce or whoever you are, if you object to 20 or 25 applications, in my opinion you are a crackpot.

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

I am not giving any more leniency. We are discussing amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am coming back to that. I mentioned "cranks" and "crackpots" because it is a fact and I want to call them out.

Coming back to the Bill before us tonight, the one worry I have is when it comes to the zoning of lands. When we see what has happened to the farmers recently - I was glad at the very beginning and in the first instance on behalf of people in Killorglin, outside of Killarney town and in other areas outside of Kenmare where they were going to be affected by taxation that was being unfairly put on them - it was right to call that out at that time. However, what is being put in place at present still does not go far enough because it is putting the onus of responsibility on farmers to dezone their lands at a cost to themselves. All they want to do is continue their farming practices and get on with their lives, but all of a sudden they are being painted with the brush as if they are developers, which they are not. The only thing they are looking to do is to make a living out of the farm that was passed on to them.

I will conclude with my major point in this regard. Where is the good news in this legislation for the people in Kerry and the people all along the western seaboard? It is not there, because it was not put in there. The Minister did not want it to be there because it is a green paper, driven by a green agenda. The green tail has been wagging this dog since 2020. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for her indulgence.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to comment on what has been said.

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

We are discussing amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not repeat the adjectives used by the Deputy, but I think he will find, in his objections to this Bill, that An Taisce is probably one of his best friends. An Taisce has warned that the Bill is part of a growing European and British trend that is intentionally rolling back on democratic legal norms. Did the Attorney General, Rossa Fanning, privately tell the Government that this Bill gave the appearance of being led by developers? If he did, the Minister should say that to the House in his response because for many of us it looks like a developer-led Bill. It is the third largest Bill in the history of the State, and it is being rushed through tonight. It is extraordinary and it is disgraceful. Centralised powers are being given to the Government and to Ministers to make variations to development plans that, as has been said, are put together by democratically elected councillors in local authorities.

Progressive moves in those local development plans can be blocked. Initiatives in each local government plan can be blocked by Government and-or a Minister.

Some of this Bill's harshest critics are not exactly eco-warriors or tree huggers, as they are often denigrated and called. They include the Law Society of Ireland, the Bar Association, the United Nations Aarhus compliance committee and the Irish Planning Institute.

This Bill now includes last-minute amendments that we probably will not get to because of the guillotine. These amendments are disgraceful and, if passed this evening, will mean that LNG planning applications will be fast-tracked through the planning process. It says everything about the Green Party in government with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael over the past four years that it ends with it trying to ram through laws to enable new fossil fuel infrastructure, which flows from the Government's energy review last November. That review made clear that the Government's main concern is to ensure an even greater energy supply for continued unlimited growth of energy-hungry data centres and that essentially their needs are being prioritised over the more important goals we should have of decarbonisation and reducing our energy usage.

In 2021, I introduced the Planning and Development (Climate Emergency Measures) Bill as well as an amendment to that Bill and all the Green Deputies voted against it. All of them said that it was a distraction and that LNG would never be introduced. Even at this late stage, we would call on the Green Party to change its course and vote against this entire Bill. Even if it comes to triggering a general election, which everybody knows is around the corner any way, they should let the people decide on something that is crucial for our future and make it an election issue. The years of greenwashing, ramming through fancy ads and trying to convince us that LNG would not be brought in are now coming to an end. Research published last week in a science and energy journal shows us that LNG is much more worse than coal because it traps heat in the atmosphere 80 times more than carbon dioxide. If it does that, it is no wonder we are witnessing the worst hurricanes on record in the US, the worst floods on record across Europe and indeed the hottest days ever.

I will finish my meagre contribution by quoting from an article published on the Ditch website, which I know the Minister's party loves. It was written by a very eminent environmentalist named Sinéad Mercier. She says that "despite all the climate policy pronouncements, expensive ad campaigns and new climate legislation, government is setting in train the largest amount of high carbon infrastructure ever built in the history of the state." She writes that:

The bill exposes an unpleasant state philosophy. As Ireland can no longer fully rely on its low tax rate to attract international finance, it has intensified an existing parallel strategy: offering up the country’s infrastructure and landscape for global value extraction.

She goes on to write that:

If disagreement over a bank bailout is worth collapsing a government over, surely the same standards apply to bailing out the fossil fuel industry. This government is in its final stages with an election announcement due any day. There is little to be lost and all to be gained from blocking this intolerable legislation.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know others have already spoken in general about the process. Indeed I spoke about it this morning. It is really concerning to see that we have only three hours to debate 177 pages. I am just looking at the groupings we have been given. Even if we just look at the groupings, we can see 31 groupings of amendments and we are still only on the first grouping 45 minutes into what is only a three-hour guillotined debate. It is really unfortunate because these are new amendments that the Dáil has not had a chance to debate before. I know the Minister will say some are technical but many are not. There is real concern not only among those of us in opposition. Concern has also been expressed by groups like An Taisce and Friends of the Earth about particular aspects of the amendments before us. Regarding the amendments that relate to the Aarhus Convention, we know An Taisce says the Bill is out of compliance under the Aarhus Convention. An Taisce and others have set out concerns about rights to public participation and access to justice within the sections of the Bill.

I will focus on the amendments relating to LNG infrastructure because that is where real concern has to focus. These are amendments that look to open a door to fast tracking the construction of LNG terminals at a time when we have just had a High Court decision that really places Government's stated policy on LNG into uncertainty. It casts doubt on it. We saw the decision of Mr. Justice Richard Humphreys on 30 September. At this time, we see the Government bringing in this amendment without adequate time for debate. We like other parties have amendments down seeking that the Government would withdraw the specific reference to the terminals from its amendment. I see our amendments are in group seven so we may not get to those. That would be of real concern because while the Minister for the Environment, Climate Action and Communications has said he does not think commercial LNG terminals would be developed during the lifetime of this Government, this Government has a very short period of time left to go and if this amendment from Government is passed, we cannot be sure that it will not open a door to the development of commercial LNG terminals in the future. This is a real concern. Polls conducted by Friends of the Earth show that significant public opposition to the construction of such terminals.

The bottom line is this. Why are we, through this amendment, embedding our reliance on a dirty fuel - a fossil fuel - into the future long term? If this is about energy security, surely the Government must accept that it would take so long to construct such a terminal that it is simply not practical to say this is in keeping with any urgent requirement of energy security. We should and will have developed greatly enhanced renewable energy capacity in the time it would take to construct the LNG facility. I have real concerns about this amendment. All of us are receiving significant levels of correspondence from individuals and organisations that are concerned about Government amendments on LNG. I ask the Minister to withdraw his amendments and take on board the Opposition amendments that have been put forward in good faith seeking to remove that designation as strategic infrastructure from LNG terminals.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is often said that rushed legislation, or rushed amendments to legislation, leads to bad legislation. We have seen this time and again. Regarding the amendments included here, which have not gone through the fairly rigorous process we had at the Oireachtas Select on Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where are we going? We spent hours, days and weeks going through this Bill. To be fair to Deputies Ó Broin and Cian O'Callaghan and others, they tried to bring forward solutions because we know this Bill is a vital piece of legislation. It seems as if the Government is getting it wrong. Even though I might not agree with Deputies Danny and Michael Healy-Rae, we are disagreeing with the Government. There are concerns right across the Opposition. I encourage the Minister to take some of this on board.

The key to planning is public participation. A new estate was built in Kerry Pike in my constituency. Kerry Pike is a village that has doubled in size so they built a new estate and put the footpath on the wrong side of the road. Can you believe that? You would not see it in "Father Ted". You look up the road by the Ballycannon monument right by the primary school in Kerry Pike. The housing estate is behind the primary school and the footpath is on the other side of the road.

Hundreds of houses were built in Ballinglanna in Glanmire. You would want to see this estate. Hundreds of houses have been built but the parks, playgrounds and green spaces that were supposed to be there were never delivered. The developer put them in the planning application. Someone mentioned earlier that this Bill was developer-led. If it is going to be any more developer-led than what we already have, we are in big big trouble.

We have a situation now in Blackpool in Cork. There are planning permissions left, right and centre for apartments but what is not going in? There is not one green space. The next time the Minister is in Cork, if he can give me one hour, I will walk him through Blackpool, if he wants to know about planning and not involving people. They are lashing up apartments and bedsits everywhere but here is the thing. Blackpool is probably a working class area. They would not get away with this anywhere else because in more affluent areas there would be professional people who would be able to take legal cases against what is happening in Blackpool. Hundreds of apartments are going in there. There are no playgrounds, crèches or public spaces. A vulture fund came in and bought up a block of apartments. There was supposed to be a shop there along with a pharmacy and a doctor. The doctor had to move out because the vulture fund would not renew their lease after ten years. That meant the GP went, along with the physiotherapist and the mental health specialist. Why? It is because it is a working class area. Planning does not work in this country for ordinary working class areas.

As a last example, they built a brand new prison in The Glen a number of years ago. Cork City Council brought out a very detailed document on why this planning permission should not go ahead. The people of The Glen did not have €120,000 to get an injunction or a judicial review so what happened? The prison was built. There is one law in this country for developers and speculators but for working class people there are no protections. That is why we need strong public participation. It is so that everyone has a voice.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to agree with the comments made by Deputy Gould in his contribution. There is no doubt the planning system benefits and is geared towards people who can afford to go to court and who can afford to challenge decisions and that is wrong. It impacts on what a planning system should be which is for the value and good of every citizen in our State. Unfortunately, our courts and system is only available to the wealthy and the people who can produce money to challenge cases. What the Minister proposes in his Bill will make this worse. It will make it more the exclusive right of the wealthy and the courts will make decisions to set the limits on what they will pay out for those who win cases and get their costs awarded. That will mean people will face even bigger costs after court cases. That is wrong.

The reason planning applications end up in court is that there is a legal problem with the implementation by An Bord Pleanála, the council and so on because the judicial review is actually a review of the legality of the case and the procedures used and not on the decision itself. Therefore, if the planning Act was sufficiently robust and An Bord Pleanála and the county councils applied the law as it stands, then there would be no need for judicial reviews. That is the problem we see across the board.

I have some amendments on LNG, and I will say something about it now. Hopefully, we will get as far as the amendments and I can speak to them when they come up. What the Minister is including in the Bill on LNG flies in the face of all Government policy of the last few years. The High Court dismissed a Government moratorium on LNG. Government policy has moved on from that. In last November’s energy security package, the Government went further than the 2021 moratorium and decided that it saw no role for commercial LNG terminals in Ireland at any time in the future. While that decision opened the door for State-controlled LNG as an option for temporary emergency measures, it did so subject to further research. However, the Government is pushing through these amendments at the last minute and without proper debate. It is coming from the Seanad and being brought in here where we are to have a truncated debate. That is why people are jumping in at the early stages. It is because we know that we probably will not get through all the amendments and actually debate them.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a failure on the Minister’s part and on that of his Department that this is being rushed through on this Stage without any proper debate. For something that will have such a large impact on people and society across the board, it is wrong that this is happening.

LNG is hugely polluting. We all know that. It does not even address the potential challenges given this will take years to build even before the LNG storage can go ahead. Gas demand is declining but we will be sitting with this infrastructure in the Shannon Estuary, which could be on the seabed or under it. This is infrastructure that will end up high and dry. It will not be necessary because, hopefully, if things continue, we will have moved on from this and have wind power and so on, which will do away with the need for LNG to go ahead.

Then there is the issue of breaching EU and international law and the Aarhus Convention and the right of people to participate in the process. The Minister has completely ignored that, as I outlined earlier. That is the problem. I wanted to make that contribution now. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for her indulgence. I know it might not be particularly relevant to amendments Nos, 1 to 18, inclusive-----

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

A precedent has been set here.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just wanted to head off the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I think she was gathering her breath there to get on to me, so I just wanted to head her off at the pass to get to speak on it any way. Hopefully, we will get to amendments Nos. 78 to 90, inclusive. I doubt it very much. If we do, then we can have a further debate on the merits of the LNG amendment itself.

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

I thank the Deputies. I will endeavour to answer as many of the questions as were put forward on this grouping - amendments Nos. 1 to 18, inclusive - as I possibly can.

At the outset, and for the record of the House, this charge that this legislation is in any way, shape or form rushed is completely and utterly incorrect.

Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the amendments.

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

I will give the timeline. In September 2021-----

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is about the amendments.

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

It is the amendments.

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

I did not interrupt the Deputies once. They will get their time and come back. In September 2021, there was a 15-month comprehensive review of the Planning and Development Act. This was asked for by the Government of the Office of the Attorney General. We are talking nearly three years on that. In December 2021, the planning advisory forum was established. It was made up of over 30 key stakeholders in the Irish planning sector. It met on seven occasions to consider proposed reforms emanating from the review carried out by the Office of the Attorney General. In January 2023, the draft Bill was published allowing detailed scrutiny of the proposed legislation. This was much greater than was typically available through the publication of a general scheme. Then we moved on. In February and March 2023, there were nine sessions of pre-legislative scrutiny by the joint committee, and some of the Members here participated in that and I credit them for doing that. After that, it submitted a report of around 150 recommendations. They were all carefully considered and two thirds of them were incorporated into the Bill in some format. Then we moved on. We are going back to September 2021, December 2021 and then January 2023. There was widespread public consultation even in preparation of a draft Bill.

In November 2023, the Bill was published and initiated in the Dáil. That is where its gets very interesting for those who are giving out about a lack of time on Report and Final Stages. I refer to Dáil Committee Stage. I credit members of the select committee - Government and opposition members - and others who came in, including Deputies Bacik and Boyd Barrett who spent a lot of time in there despite not members of the committee. We had 115 hours of debate on 1,200 amendments. A substantial number of those were in duplicate or triplicate. They were repetitious but we debated them. Remember that on Committee Stage, on which we spent 115 hours, 320 divisions were called. It is the right of members to call divisions but strategic votes were called too where members of the committee withdrew, so that the full amount of time between each vote had to be allowed.

That wasted time on Committee Stage. Those votes took about 30 hours. Deputy Ó Broin knows this; he formally withdrew Deputy Gould from the committee for a period of time in protest. That is the first time I have ever seen that, having been in this House since 2007. It meant when we voted there was a gap of at least eight minutes between each vote. We lost a lot of time there. That was not down to me or the Government; it was a decision taken by Sinn Féin to delay the process of bringing forward this Bill. We got through Committee Stage. A lot of it was constructive, to be fair, once we got over that issue.

Report Stage in the Dáil took place on 11 and 12 June. Second Stage in the Seanad was later in June. From 15 to 17 July was Seanad Committee Stage, which involved 25 hours of debate. Seanad Report Stage involved a further ten hours of debate. Now there is three hours for debate here.

Why are we bringing forward this legislation? Everyone here claims to want an efficient and effective planning system that supports the homes and strategic infrastructure we need. When we get an opportunity to vote on it, we will see who really wants it. Statutory timeframes, clarity, consistency and certainty within our planning system, the reform of An Bord Pleanála, the creation of an coimisiún pleanála and all the difficulties we have seen within our planning system show the legislation requires significant reform, updating and review. This Bill is the most significant reform of our planning legislation in a quarter of a century. It is urgent and needed.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why?

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

For reasons stated right through every hour of the debate and in every section of the Bill and every amendment we tabled. Fundamentally, we need a planning system and planning legislation that support the needs of our people. If you go outside this House and say to any normal person on the street the word "planning", the first word most will come back with is "delays". What do delays do? They cost people homes, schools and strategic infrastructure. This is more than an earnest effort; this is actually doing something about it and not just talking about it. We are bringing forward the most significant planning legislation we have seen since the year 2000. It is needed.

There will be stakeholders who will disagree with parts of it. People are fully entitled to do so and I respect those opinions but there are also those with a vested interest in the planning system not being as effective as it should be.

I do not want to see planning decisions taken in courts. I have said that, but we have ensured access to justice is paramount within this. I was the planning Minister who abolished SHDs, brought back the two-stage planning process and brought the planning process back to our local authorities where people can have their say. The rights of third parties are enshrined in and run right through this legislation . After the hundreds of hours of debate we have had and the thousands of hours of preparation and work that have gone into this, it is time to pass and enact the legislation and provide for the transitionary measures so we have a new legislative basis to support the needs of our people. That is why this is being done.

I will answer some of the specific questions raised. Deputy Ó Broin raised the substitute amendment. That will have been circulated. That was a very slight error. It referred to section 586 in the original list. It is in section 1(2). The reference is being replaced by section 588, which is asterisked in the substitute amendments paper. To answer the Deputy's question, an unauthorised development remains unauthorised if it has not been carried out in accordance with planning conditions.

There has been some discussion of the role of local authorities. There is no diminution of local authority member powers or of local democracy within this. We are providing for an extended period for development plans with a proper review - a ten-year development plan and a proper review. If anything, the legislation allows more power for our councillors to bring forward, should they wish, amendments to a plan outside the development plan cycle.

Members mentioned the LNG amendments. The Seanad amendments clarify the definition of "strategic gas infrastructure development" in Part 4 to reflect the types of gas infrastructure already listed in Schedule 2. The amendments merely align the definition of "strategic gas infrastructure development" with the types of strategic infrastructure development already listed in the schedule, as included in the Schedule to the original Act, the 2000 Act. That is all that does. It does not change any policy position whatsoever from Government. We have been abundantly clear on that.

Other matters were raised which are outside the scope of sections 1 to 18 and I understand why that is the case. I have already gone through the timeline. It does not stand up to scrutiny for anyone to say the legislation has been rushed. If we were to go on the basis of the proposed timelines some Members opposite or some stakeholders with interest in the Bill wanted, we would not have this legislation ever passed. Can anyone honestly say our planning legislation does not require updating, reform and change? I do not think so. That is what this significant legislation endeavours to do.

We will ensure in the passing of it there are transitionary measures from the old Act into the new Act. We will provide the three things sorely lacking: certainty, consistency and clarity. There will be certainty on timeframes and decisions, in relation to how observations are made and around Aarhus. It is important to note this legislation is Aarhus-compliant. People know what the convention is about. It relates to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice on environmental matters. If you compare our planning system with others in the western world, the third party has a much greater say in Ireland - and I respect that - than in most others. Third-party obligations are central to it and protected within it.

I and my Department are absolutely satisfied the Bill is in compliance with all international obligations, including those of the Aarhus Convention. The Bill, as I have outlined, is the culmination of a three-year process which included a most comprehensive legal review led by the Office of the Attorney General - the principal law agent in the country. There was extensive stakeholder engagement and extensive legislative scrutiny. As part of the drafting of the Bill, it has been extensively reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General and my team to ensure full compliance and alignment with Aarhus and all other international obligations. Deputies can be assured of that.

People mentioned that the Aarhus compliance committee raised a number of issues recently. It did, but most were not related to the Bill and were being considered by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, which is the lead Department. A response was prepared and issued by that Department in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and my Department. It was issued on 1 October, as requested. People have thrown it out that the Aarhus Convention compliance committee said the Bill is not compliant with Aarhus; however, it is compliant with Aarhus. Some matters the compliance committee raised, which it was perfectly entitled to do, did not relate to the legislation at all. A response has been issued by the lead Department, which is the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, on the matters raised. I think I have covered all the items raised.

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

I will deal directly with the Minister's response to my queries, specifically in respect of amendment No. 2, but it is important to correct the record of the Dáil on the Minister's timeline. He gave the impression some of us on this side of the House said the legislation had been rushed.

In fact, in my remarks I made it very clear Committee Stage was done entirely appropriately thanks to the leadership of the Chair of the committee, Deputy Matthews, as well as the decisions of the committee. The charge is that the treatment of the 175 pages of amendments, including the amendment before us, is being rushed. I do not think anybody objectively looking at this would say 175 pages of amendments in multiple groupings to be done in three hours is anything but rushed. That is important because these amendments, including amendment No. 2, are very significant and therefore deserve to be properly scrutinised.

On the Minister’s timeline, he is right there was a review of the legislation led by the Attorney General, but when we undertook pre-legislative scrutiny of the legislation almost all the stakeholders who are going to have to professionally operate this Bill said the Bill as published bore no relationship to the discussions and contributions they were making in that forum. I was not at that forum so I do not know whether that is true or not, but it is not people on this side criticising that process. The Irish Planning Institute criticised it, the legal professionals from the Bar Council and the Law Society all criticised it. The Irish Planning Institute is one of the most cautious organisations that ever comes before our committee and it was damning in its criticism of that process.

The Minister is right that a draft Bill was published in January, but it was not a completed Bill. What was quite unique about it was there were sections of it written in Bill text and sections in general scheme text, so it is not that a Bill was published. It was an incomplete Bill with many questions, some of which are pertinent to these amendments and still have not been answered because related legislation has not been published. It is also simply not true to say two thirds of the 148 recommendations of our committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report have been incorporated into this Bill. I know the Minister has to say that, but it stretches what is left of his credibility beyond all reasonable doubt. The overwhelming majority of those recommendations were ignored, as were our amendments.

With respect to Committee Stage, there was a row then because for the first time in my decade in this House as an adviser and a TD, the Government side of a committee imposed a committee schedule that not only made it exceptionally difficult to scrutinise the Bill, but also meant the Ministers of State did not have time to be briefed before they came in front of our committee. At times it was embarrassing because they simply were not equipped and did not have the time to absorb the complexity of the legislation in order to answer very basic questions. Again, that is not just my view; it was widely commented on at the time. All we wanted was a reasonable committee schedule. We even offered a compromise and the Minister would not accept that because he really did not care what the views of committee members were and wanted to get it through as speedily as he could. Fortunately, we did good work in committee. The only reason we protested and rightly withdrew my colleague was to make the point it is not reasonable to do 20 hours of Committee Stage in three days with no time in between to prepare and absorb the information. The Minister’s officials probably worked harder during that period than at any other stage with this Bill. They had to work late into the night, do very detailed notes at our request and come in very early in the morning to provide those. It was neither appropriate nor fair to behave in that way.

The Seanad also had its consideration of the Bill, but we are still in the dilemma as we are now an hour and 20 minutes into the debate and we are still on the first grouping of amendments. We will not get to scrutinise further amendments and some of them are very significant.

I will speak specifically to amendment No. 2. This relates to the Minister’s remarks on LNG pertinent to the grouping consisting of amendments Nos. 78 to 90, inclusive. This Bill was meant to put in place a plan-led approach to our planning system. Fundamental to that is the participation of the public, as required under the Aarhus Convention, to shape those decisions. It does not matter what the application is for. It could be a gas terminal, a residential development or a communal facility, but in every case the public needs to be consulted. One of the consequences of the Minister’s LNG amendments is that, by explicitly including floating offshore LNG terminals as strategic infrastructure, he is further reducing the rights of people to be participants in that planning process. That is why the content of amendment No. 2 is so important, or our amendments to amendment No. 2. It makes no difference whether the Minister thinks the Bill is compliant or not as he has admitted there has been no independent assessment of the level of Aarhus compliance. If not just those of us on this side of the House, but also the legal experts who gave testimony to our committee and the Irish Planning Institute, are correct, then it is not Aarhus compliant. They are the ones telling us. What will be the consequences of that? It means people’s rights under the Aarhus Convention to be active participants in shaping the planning decisions around them will be undermined. It means those decisions will be challenged and end up in courts and as a result of significant litigation we will have even greater levels of delay. Ironically for those who think an LNG terminal off the south west of Ireland is a good idea, this could actually delay the thing. It ultimately makes it more likely to happen and I agree with all the colleagues here as to why that is a bad thing, but I suspect this Bill will increase the likelihood of long and expensive litigation.

There is another consequence of failure to accept our amendments to amendment No. 2 to ensure full Aarhus compliance in reporting. The Minister is replacing the only recently settled cost protection regime arising from Heather Hill with a far more complex cost regime that includes setting of fees for solicitors by the State at one side and putting in place an as yet undefined and unelaborated legal aid system. As a consequence, we have no idea what that is going to cost the State. There is a level of cost to the taxpayer and the Minister simply does not know what it will be. We are being asked to accept these amendments, along with the Bill, for regimes we do not understand, so I am going to press those amendments.

The planning system needs reform. The single biggest cause of delay in our planning system is chronic underresourcing by this Government and its predecessors of the men and women who make planning decisions in our local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. That is the single biggest issue and we have yet to see the Minister’s long-promised work plan to accompany this. He has provided a fraction of the sanction our local authorities have told us they need to implement existing planning legislation, let alone the additional tasks of this. Likewise, the Minister mentioned it was he who abolished strategic housing developments. That was after he, when Opposition spokesperson, sat on his hands and abstained on the legislation in order to facilitate the introduction of the thing in the first place. Those of who were really the Opposition back then warned SHDs would lead to increased delays, increased appeals and increased litigation and we were correct. If the Minister had listened to us back in 2016 and voted with us, SHDs would never had been introduced. That is on the Minister as well.

The types of changes required to make our planning system more efficient and effective are not contained in this Bill. I have said before and say again that I have never seen a Bill as universally criticised across all spectrums, including planners, architects, legal professionals, environmental groups, residents’ associations and the local government sector. I cannot think of anybody who has advocated this Bill or supported the Minister on it. When there is such unanimity of concern about a piece of legislation that will profoundly impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people for decades, the Minister really has to ask himself what the point was of this three-year process when he ignores people time and time again. The Minister’s responses to our amendments are not satisfactory and I will certainly be pressing ours. I make no apology for voting against the amendments and the Bill because it is without doubt the single worst piece of planning legislation in the history of the State and the most controversial and damaging legislation I have seen in my time in the Oireachtas.

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

I thank the Deputy. The debate sounds a little like a Second Stage debate - broad, rambling and what have you. All very valid, maybe, in some respects but there are a number of amendments before us and I would have thought people would want to get into the substance of the particular amendments. If we are going to have long, rambling speeches, we are not going to get there with very many of them, if any.

I call Deputy O'Callaghan.

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

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Ceann Comhairle. I will be relatively brief, but I need to respond to what the Minister has said. I congratulate him on answering a question we did not ask. We did not say the legislation was rushed.