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

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I start this debate by thanking Brian Ó Domhnaill and Mairead Moloney-McGrath in Deputy Mattie McGrath's office for the excellent work and research that went into helping all of us in the Rural Independent Group to bring this Bill before the House.

The purpose of this Bill is to reform the planning rules to make it easier for people to build homes on their own land. It aims to address the significant influence An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, has as a prescribed authority under the planning and development Acts. An Taisce has been using its privileged position to object to numerous planning applications, which has been seen as a hindrance to local development and employment projects. The Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 is based on widespread concerns about the objections and legal challenges raised by An Taisce to various planning applications across the country. These objections cover a broad spectrum across our society, including rural housing, agricultural improvements, infrastructural projects and initiatives aimed at creating regional jobs. There is a belief An Taisce is exploiting its status under the planning Acts to obstruct regional and rural economic development. The organisation is also accused of taking an overly rigid approach to environmental and emission targets, which is seen as harmful to the Irish agricultural sector. A notable example is the Supreme Court case of An Taisce — National Trust for Ireland v. an Bord Pleanála and others. In this case, An Taisce's repeated objections to the construction of a cheese plant in County Kilkenny were ultimately dismissed, thanks be to God, but not before delaying job creation by several years. This case has heightened the concerns about An Taisce's motives.

While this Bill aims to remove An Taisce's privileged status as a prescribed body, it would still allow the organisation to make planning objections, as is its right. However, it would strip away the privileged status it currently enjoys and, in our view, has abused. This change is crucial to ensure a fairer and more balanced planning process, free from the disproportionate influence of a single organisation. It is time to level the playing field and ensure local development is not unduly hindered by a Dublin-based entity wielding excessive powers.

There is one group of people I want to talk about today when it comes to planning. They are terribly important people to me and to the other people in the Rural Independent Group. I will tell you who they are. They are county councillors. They are men and women who go out in their localities and regions and get elected to the local authority. They work very diligently, they are from all parties and none, and they formulate a thing called their county development plan. It is theirs. They work hard to produce that document. They work with the senior personnel in the planning department and bring together a document.

Unfortunately, we have seen over the years people become members of An Taisce for an ulterior motive. I am not going to dismiss the good work An Taisce does. We must remember An Taisce was founded in the first instance for very good reasons: to protect national monuments and our heritage and to do sensible things. To this day it does great work and projects in our schools. Nobody can condemn that. However, whatever is in the organisation, it is inclined to attract cranks, crackpots and serial objectors. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you will know that I am very kind in everything I say in this House because I know that one of the privileges we have is privilege. There are people who are serial objectors, and I will give an example of what not normal behaviour is in the county I represent. I could name them this morning, but I will not. They know who they are. They know I know who they are, and they know I know what they have been doing for many years. The majority of normal people go through life without putting in one objection to one person about any project, but I know people who at any given time could have between ten and 25 rolling objections. They could be living in one part of Kerry but objecting to different housing projects, and whatever type of a kink or perverseness is in their personalities, it seems to be young boys and girls setting out in life who want to build a family home on a family farm that they have gone after.

I am sorry to say this, but some of them who were doing it are not able to do it anymore, and for that fact I am not sorry, and I mean I am not sorry, because they hurt young couples I knew personally who only wanted to build a family home. However, these cranks and crackpots objected to them for no reason in the world. In many instances they were between 50 and 100 miles away from where these boys or girls wanted to build on land owned by their fathers, mothers and grandparents. Then you had some person coming along to object to that and using the umbrella of An Taisce and the fact that it was a prescribed body as their cover to say they were doing so on environmental grounds. They were not; they were doing it because there was something wrong with their own personalities. Some of them are still there, but, thankfully, different issues are getting the better of them at this stage and they are not as active as they were. Especially when I was starting off as a young county councillor in the Killorglin electoral area, my God, you would see one individual with more than 20 objections rolling at any given time. That is not normal behaviour. That is not what An Taisce was supposed to be about.

Of course, you can combine that with what was happening with An Bord Pleanála. We could have a diligent planner in County Kerry who would give planning permission to the young couple to build their house. The person in An Taisce would come along, appeal that and take it to An Bord Pleanála. We then had situations where an inspector might come down from An Bord Pleanála and agree that the young person should have their house, but lo and behold it would come back up. We would have a couple of ex-members of An Taisce getting €75,000 per year for a part-time job with An Bord Pleanála where they would come in in the evening to look at a few reports. That is what it is. If anybody thinks it is a person in An Bord Pleanála who is diligent and goes to work at eight o'clock in the morning and stays there until five o'clock or six o'clock in the evening - rubbish. They come in in the evening, look at a couple of files and call it a meeting. A meeting is two or three people. You could have an inspector's report saying this planning should be granted. That inspector could have gone to look at the proposed development. The other two people might be former card-carrying members of An Taisce. Here is one bit of information for you. You can be a member of An Bord Pleanála, but you have to resign your membership of An Taisce before you do. I would like to see the statistics of how many people left An Taisce and went to work for An Bord Pleanála with their part-time job and their €70,000 or €75,000 per year plus expenses. An Bord Pleanála and a lot of its activities has, thankfully, been exposed. It has been exposed in the media reports and in the courts.

People have seen that An Bord Pleanála and An Taisce are not God-given things that are so ethically correct, because they are not ethically correct. They have been proven not to be ethically correct. One can never paint everybody with the same brush. Yes, there are people in An Taisce for the right reasons but, my God, a lot of them were there for the wrong reasons. They were there on a power trip for the cosy little meetings they had at night around County Kerry and rest of the country wondering who to hurt next, who to go after, what factory to stop, what shed to stop, what farmer to obstruct and, as in the case of the cheese factory, what development to stop. My goodness, all everybody is trying to do in life is live and get on. For far too long, these people have had far too much power. It is about time we considered a proposal of this nature. I thank my colleagues and Deputy Mattie McGrath for bringing this Bill here today because all we are trying to do is put a wrong right.

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

I have given great leeway during this debate so far, but I am a little worried about what is happening in terms of identifying people and making allegations, albeit about an organisation. Clearly the words are getting closer and closer to identifying people and making allegations that they are not ethically correct.

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

It is true.

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

I have stopped the clock for a moment.

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

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I have to answer that.

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

No, it is not a debate.

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

No, no, no. You are accusing me of something. I purposely said------

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

Please resume your seat.

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

No, I will not. I purposely said-----

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

Please resume your seat. If you do not-----

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

No, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. You are not going to do this to me now.

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

-----I am going to-----

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

You are not going to do it to me. You are not.

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

Respect the Chair, please.

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

Did I answer you? A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I said I was not going to name anybody.

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

Deputy, I am asking you to resume your seat until I finish what I have to say.

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

Did I name anybody?

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

Can you sit down, please? Thank you. I have given great leniency so far. It is important that there is robust discussion. I am simply cautioning you. That is what I am doing. I am cautioning all Members, including myself, in this debate in relation to this matter.

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

Well said, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

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

On a point of order-----

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

No, no. There is no-----

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

On a point of clarification, I appreciate these co-ordinated attacks but we are entitled to put down our motion.

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

I am going to start the clock.

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

I know some Members opposite are probably members of An Taisce and might declare if they are, but we are going to have our debate as best we can, within the confines of the rules.

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

Will the Deputy resume his seat? This is not an interchange.

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

That is an unfair allegation, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

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

This is not an interchange.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Respect the Chair now, please.

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

Who is that aimed at?

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

It is now 10.10 a.m. I will absolutely suspend the Dáil if there is no respect shown to the Chair. I have asked for caution. I did not ask for an interplay. I have asked for caution out of respect to Members.

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

I exercised caution.

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

Out of respect, I have stopped the clock, which is a rare thing.

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

I exercised caution.

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

I am now letting the clock run and we are going on to the next speaker. I call Deputy Michael Collins.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposed legislation aims to limit An Taisce's influence in Ireland's planning and development process, especially in rural areas. It seeks to remove An Taisce as a prescribed authority under the Planning and Development Acts to address delays caused by its objections which have impacted housing and economic growth. The goal is to streamline the planning process, reduce bureaucratic delays and ensure taxpayer funding is not used for legal challenges that delay projects. The legislation encourages the public to support and promote rural development and address the housing crisis. Every day of the week people come to me and to my colleagues, especially in our clinics at the weekend. They are fighting people who are objecting to their planning applications in respect of their farm premises or houses they want to build. It causes serious upsets to many young people who are trying to start off in life. I believe that if An Taisce is to be allowed to survive, it should survive on its own membership. However, the State funds it. It says here that core funding is a grant from the Government. The Government is funding a body to object to people's planning, causing serious misery. Obviously, big companies are out there trying to make progress and An Taisce basically has the power to stop their planning. We have to look at this to see why the Government finds itself having to grant-aid a body such as that. If it cannot stand on its own two feet, that says it all. There are people who are serial objectors and they want to end up in a group like this. It has a very strong function in ways, but unfortunately the wrong people end up in the wrong place.

People are trying to get off the ground and get going, but it is becoming an impossible situation. It does not matter whether it is An Taisce, Uisce Éireann, the EPA or the OPW - they are all unquestionable bodies that literally have very strong control. The State continues to pour massive amounts of money into Uisce Éireann and there is no accountability. I look at a sewerage system that is leaking in Shannonvale near Clonakilty. For 29 years, it has been leaking into a local green area that was meant to be for children. It is leaking into the open river where people are drinking water. In 29 years, there has been no accountability. When I asked Uisce Éireann about the matter, it told me it might do something in the next five years. It kicked the can down the road. I asked the EPA to give me the report for the past 29 years. It cannot furnish me with a report, presumably because it does not have a report. Otherwise it surely would have furnished it. In Dunmanway, raw sewage is seeping into the river and not even one house can be built. Not one house can be built in Dunmanway because of this. People in Rosscarbery tell me that young people who are swimming there are drinking raw sewage. All I hear is that we need further scientific evidence. That is the kind of system we have, where there is no accountability. Whether it is An Taisce or Uisce Éireann, there is little difference. They get money from the State and they can do what they like. They get away with it. In Goleen, for 25 years raw sewage has been pumping into the tide. There are no answers. I asked the same question and was told that it might be done in the next five or ten years, but they do not know. In Ballydehob, raw sewage has been pumping into the water for ten years. In each and every one of those bodies, there is no accountability. The Government hands out money without even batting an eyelid. It does not seem to understand.

We need to make sure An Taisce is not funded by the State. That is the number one priority. It is hugely important. If it is continuously funded by the State, we need absolute and utter governance over how that money is being given, who is giving it out, who is approving it and whether they are members of An Taisce. If they are approving it and they are in government, there is a serious issue. In terms of all of the organisations that come before me, I am a member of farm organisations like the ICSA and the IFA, which get no money from the Government. They stand up and fight for the people. This is where we need to go with this motion. There are many other issues, such as accountability with the OPW. A lot of money is being pumped around the country, with little or no accountability.

Carol Nolan (Laois-Offaly, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Tá áthas orm labhairt ar an rún seo inniu. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta McGrath agus a fhoireann a rinne sárobair ar an mBille seo. Members may recall that the famous UK Labour Party parliamentarian, Tony Benn, developed five questions which he proposed should be at the heart of any democratic process when it comes to holding the powerful to account. These questions apply equally to institutions that wield power over the public, such as An Taisce. I will remind the House of those five questions. What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you? These questions point to issues that are at the heart of our Private Members' Bill here today. Whatever our individual views on An Taisce, we should all ask in whose interests does it use its power.

The perception is that in much of rural Ireland, especially within rural industry and housing, An Taisce does not appear to wield its power for the benefit of the people in rural communities. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The sense is that there is another agenda at play because it prioritises environmental ambition over the economic and social needs of our constituents. We saw that most recently in the case of the Glanbia cheese plant, which my colleagues have referenced. All of us spoke against what was happening, which was to stop economic progress and to cause farming families more distress if An Taisce had got its way there.

Far too much power is being wielded by what are essentially untouchable organisations, NGO after NGO. Indeed, An Taisce is a notable NGO with far too much power. It stands in the way of progress. These NGOs are lavishly funded by the taxpayer to the tune of €6 billion per year. Does the Minister of State believe it is right that the Government left businesses high and dry and could not reduce the VAT rate to allow cafés and restaurants to keep their doors open and people employed when it was able to find €6 billion of taxpayers' money to throw at NGOs like An Taisce, which stands in the way of economic progress and progress being made in rural Ireland? How is that right? It is disgraceful. It is more wastage of taxpayers' money. Hopefully, the taxpayers will give the Government their answer come the general election. I believe they will give it a resounding answer. We see NGOs being lavishly funded against the wishes of the people. I know many businesses that, unfortunately, will be closing their doors after the Government prioritised NGOs over them. During recent referendums, we saw €23 million of taxpayers' money squandered because the NGOs had too much influence.

There is not enough regulation. We see the likes of An Taisce constantly doing harm and causing people, businesses and communities distress. I call this out as being wrong. I have addressed this issue often. There needs to be far more regulation of NGOs. There is an assumption that bodies like An Taisce and other excessively interventionist organisations do not really have the common interest at heart because they are detached to a large degree from the real world in which building centres of employment and rural housing is seen for what it is, namely, a great social good. They view it differently.

Tony Benn also asked, "How do we get rid of you?". This Bill is the answer to that question. We want the path cleared for rural development, both social and economic. We want the likes of An Taisce out of the way. We are sick of their constant obstruction. We do not want agencies using or abusing their considerable legal clout to hamper or obstruct housing or economic development. We are presenting a reasonable case with a reasonable solution to what we feel has become a culture of regulatory over-reach. Objecting to developments in rural areas has almost become a reflex for some organisations. It has become a hobby. It is a dangerous reflex, but they are funded to do this. It needs to be reined in. As an Independent TD in Offaly, I will continue calling for these organisations to be reined in.

There is a serious imbalance in the power relationship between those who want to progress development and those who see every rural factory as a threat to the planet, almost as if the world will stop if a factory gets built. This is crazy stuff. It is nonsense and it needs to stop. We need a clear dose of common sense to return. We need to move away from the fearful and ultracautious mindset that would have you believe the world will burn if we build a Glanbia co-op cheese plant in rural Kilkenny. I have seen too much of this nonsense in my constituency with Banagher Chilling. What is happening is standing in the way of progress and needs to be resisted. If rural TDs in government are serious about economic development, they should put their money where their mouths are and take money from NGOs and give it to businesses.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Acting Chair for affording me the opportunity to contribute on this Private Members' Bill on behalf of the Government. It is important to reiterate that the Government recognises the importance of having an open and transparent planning system. The inclusion of prescribed bodies in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, is a key part of the planning process and provides planning authorities the opportunity to request submissions from such bodies on particular issues, for example, our national heritage, which has been a prescribed matter for An Taisce since 1964. The Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 proposes to amend the planning and development regulations by way of primary legislation. This is not the appropriate mechanism to amend any regulations. Furthermore, An Taisce plays an important role in our planning system. Therefore, while the Bill may be well intentioned, the Government must oppose it.

To provide some background, An Taisce has been a prescribed body since 1964 after the enactment of the 1963 planning Act. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, (Permission) Regulations, 1964 included An Taisce as a prescribed body under Article 12 of those regulations in respect of areas of special amenity or of areas and structures that may be of archaeological, geological, historical or architectural interest. This was maintained in the 2001 regulations. There are other important bodies that have also been prescribed bodies since 1964, including Bord Fáilte and the Arts Council.

First, I will set out the reasons we cannot support this Bill. Its aim is to amend the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The power to make regulations under the 2000 Act is provided to the Minister with responsibility for planning. For example, section 33(2)(f) of the 2000 Act provides the regulation-making power to list prescribed bodies in respect of planning applications. Therefore, the use of primary legislation to amend secondary legislation such as the 2001 regulations cannot be supported.

Second, the Bill proposes to remove a prescribed body that has been included within planning legislation for 60 years. I do not consider it appropriate to remove any body that is still in existence from the prescribed bodies lists contained within the 2001 regulations. The removal of An Taisce would be a retrograde step and cannot be supported.

An Taisce and the other bodies prescribed under planning regulations play an important role in supporting planning authorities in their decision-making processes. Planning authorities are required to make decisions on a range of planning matters, including applications for planning permission. Where an application may have an effect on an area of particular importance, including built or natural heritage, the planning authority shall notify the relevant prescribed bodies. This provides an opportunity for the relevant body to make a submission regarding the specific application and has been a part of the planning system for 60 years. It is for each individual prescribed body to decide whether to make a submission to the planning authority. If a submission is lodged, this will help to inform the planning authority's decision-making process, as the authority shall have regard to any submissions lodged when making its final decision.

It is important to note that Ireland has an open planning system. Any person or body may make a submission to a planning authority within the prescribed period. For example, Article 29 of the 2001 regulations provides a period of five weeks for public participation where a planning authority receives a planning application under section 34 of the 2000 Act. Any person or body who engages with the planning system by making a submission on a planning application to a planning authority may, if unhappy with the decision of the planning authority, lodge an appeal to An Bord Pleanála in accordance with section 37 of the Act. Following an appeal, any person who was a party to the appeal or made a submission on the appeal may seek an application for leave for judicial review of the decision of An Bord Pleanála within eight weeks of such a decision. The power to make submissions, lodge appeals and apply for judicial review is open to any member of the public engaging with the planning process and is not a privilege solely restricted to prescribed bodies.

Third, as the Deputies are aware, the Planning and Development Bill 2023 is before the Houses of the Oireachtas and its final Stage will be debated in the Dáil this evening. The Bill seeks to ensure that our planning system functions to support and regulate the development of land and infrastructure, enhance assets and amenities, and preserve, protect and improve the quality of the environment; integrate the pursuit of the national climate objective with the plan-led development of the State; ensure that there is transparent and timely decision-making within the framework of policy, strategies, plans and consents; facilitate consistency and quality in decision-making that is proportionate and sound; and, in the making of statutory plans and consent decisions, decision-makers have due regard to the appropriate balance between the social, economic and environmental considerations in the interests of proper planning and sustainable development and the common good.

In particular, the Bill aims to ensure that transparency and timely decisions will enhance the quality of decision-making that is proportionate and sound, while, importantly, encouraging public participation in the plan-making and decision-making process. This includes the introduction of mandatory timelines for decision-making, which will increase confidence and consistency among the parties in the planning system as a whole and will provide clarity and certainty as to when decisions are made. It also maintains the power of the Minister to prescribe bodies for planning purposes.

Alongside the work that my Department has undertaken over the past three years in the Planning and Development Bill, it is also reviewing the planning and development regulations of 2001, which the Deputy is seeking to amend. These will be replaced by new regulations as the Act is commenced and the provisions in the 2000 Act and associated regulations are repealed. These new regulations shall retain the role of prescribed bodies under the planning system. Once the Planning and Development Bill is enacted, it will be commenced on a phased basis to allow for a smooth operational transition of the updated legislation across the planning system and the 2000 Act and the 2001 regulations will be repealed as the corresponding sections of the new Act are commenced. Therefore, with the knowledge that the Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 proposes to amend legislation that will be repealed in the near future, it cannot be supported. Accordingly, the Government is opposed to the Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 and the proposal to use primary legislation to amend regulations to remove An Taisce as a prescribed body for the processes under the 2000 Act and the 2001 regulations. That legislation will be repealed in the coming months following the enactment of the new planning Bill.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The whole purpose of this Bill is to pull parameters from An Taisce. We look at our local authorities and the development plans in our areas. Those plans are debated and agreed among our county councillors, who are elected in every district to represent their areas. They sort out their development plans for the growth of housing and businesses across our counties. When they go for planning applications, An Taisce puts in objections. Many development projects have been objected to by An Taisce, which is funded by the Government. We are trying to build our rural economies, towns and cities but An Taisce is objecting at every turn.

I will give the House an example from my area. Two families were living in the area and settling down. They made planning applications at a cost of €10,000, including the cost of archaeologists and everything else. They went through the preplanning process with their architects. They went through every part of the planning process before they made an application to ensure they would be okay. When they applied for planning permission, there were objections from An Taisce. The case went to An Bord Pleanála, which upheld the objections. The two families are no longer coming to our community. Each person spent €10,000. They followed the protocol of preplanning meetings, met the planners, went through the whole process and were turned down because of objections from An Taisce. The local authority and the planners passed the application but An Taisce brought an objection. That is not right. The local authorities and planners in our areas are the ones who make the decisions. Everyone has a right to object but the local community, the people who live in the area, had no objection. Nobody in the area had an objection but An Taisce had. Is that right? It is not.

This Bill is intended to protect the people and planning authorities in our areas, going forward. They are trying to develop our areas and allow for growth. How many of the Government's development plans have An Taisce held up for six months, a year or two years? How often has that happened? These were projects that the Government wanted to go ahead. The Government is funding An Taisce while it is objecting to projects the Government wants done.

I said yesterday and I say again today that unless we get this right and unless the Cabinet reflects the country, we will never make any change. At the moment, An Taisce is in a niche of its own and is objecting to everything across the board except where it may be beneficial to whichever members are on different things. We must stop that. We must ensure that the planning laws for our country are reflected. The county councils and planning authorities in our areas, working under our county development plans, want things to happen but An Taisce objects.

Let us consider Dublin. We in this country always talk about capacity. We are short of capacity for sewerage and water. We are now seeking to bring an extra 9 million people through Dublin Airport even tough there is capacity in Shannon and Cork airports. The Dublin Airport Authority is pushing hard to get planning permission to extend the airport to allow 9 million more people to come into Dublin. The people living in the area around the airport do not want it. The people in Dublin do not want it because they cannot get to their own houses at the moment. They cannot get their children to training because of the gridlock. Dublin Airport is being pushed even though we have capacity in the rest of the country. Under any planning law, capacity at any other airport in this country should be fulfilled before there is any extension of any airport. That is common sense. People in Dublin do not want the expansion of the airport but the Government spokespeople go on the airwaves to say it will be great. The proper thing to do is to remove some of the air traffic from Dublin and introduce new flights for destinations other than Dublin. That would mean progression for everyone and would reflect the whole country.

Let us consider sewerage infrastructure across the country and the governance of funding. Askeaton has been promised funding for infrastructure for 40 years. The councillor who was promised the funding retired this year. Oola has been promised sewerage. Abbeyfeale and Dromcollogher have been promised upgrades. The reason I am bringing that to the attention of the Minister of State is that the lack of funding from the Government to improve infrastructure stops all applications for development in areas. It makes us easy pickings for An Taisce, which objects to any rural developments. Those developments could be businesses or housing. If we had businesses and housing, we could then look for transport infrastructure. What An Taisce is doing, with the help of the Government, is discriminating against people who do not have infrastructure because of a lack of funding from the Government. There are businesspeople who want to invest in our areas and are willing to put in the infrastructure that the Government has not delivered for 40 years but An Taisce objects to their plans even though they are putting in the infrastructure and paying for it themselves. Those businesspeople are willing to pay but An Taisce objects. How are we going to get a balanced Ireland with equality of opportunity if we allow An Taisce to get involved in everything? In some areas, An Taisce submits a one-line objection that can cost an applicant €3,000 or €4,000 to get different studies done.

Recently, a farmer wanted to put in an extra shed for his cattle, with a tank for storage to make sure that everything would be correct. An Taisce put in a line stating it wanted a survey done. Two people who applied on either side of this person had already done the same thing, as the same survey had been sought by An Taisce. The farmer in question could not use their surveys, he had to have a site-specific one, even though the two areas were adjoining and the reports were already in the local authority. The farmer had to spend €3,000 and the report delayed the project by six months all because of one line. What we are trying to do is put in parameters so that in certain cases, when local authorities have said what they want in their development plans, An Taisce must step aside. That is what we seek. An Taisce has a role in the various protections that are part of its remit, but when it comes to local authorities and planning, the qualified planners and environmentalists in an area know what they are looking for. Why then do we have An Taisce coming in and creating objections? That is the problem we are trying to correct.

In Foynes at the moment we are looking for designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, to make sure the west coast can produce wind energy, but the Government is stopping it. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, is stopping it, even though an investment of half the cost of the provision of the phone pouches could result in a €700 million return for west Limerick and the surrounding areas, which would help Kerry, Clare and Tipperary. All that side of the country would get investment, but the Government is stopping it. It says it will not produce DMAPs because it has already looked at other areas of the country. It is not even a question of requiring the Government's money: they are only looking for an initial start-up fund and then private investors will take on the rest of the cost.

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

I wish to share time with some colleagues.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I thank the Rural Independents for tabling this Bill and giving us an opportunity to have an important debate about housing and planning in rural Ireland. The housing crisis is as deep in rural Ireland as it is in urban Ireland. Deputy O'Donoghue and I often speak about this in committee. There is a real challenge in islands, rural Gaeltachtaí, and in those rural areas experiencing population stagnation and decline. Small and medium size builders are not building. They cannot get finance or serviced land and it takes too long to get through planning. Self-builders find it very challenging to understand the planning rules in the system. Local authorities are not providing sufficient funding either to build social or, crucially, affordable, homes in villages, towns and rural countryside areas.

Planning is at the heart of a lot of these issues. All of the previous speakers have spoken about the challenges in the planning system. At the core of this problem is a Government which for years has refused to publish the revised and updated planning guidelines that would provide the much needed certainty Deputy O'Donoghue rightly highlights is frustrating so many people.

The Government is not assisting small and medium sized builders. It is not investing in local authorities and it is not being straight with people about planning rules. When Sinn Féin launched its alternative housing plan only five weeks ago, we set out what we would do in government to address these issues. We would publish the rural, Gaeltacht and island planning guidelines as a matter of priority. We would engage in consultation with communities and we would put the guidelines on statutory footing. At the core of our approach to planning in rural Ireland would be to give people a real opportunity to live in their own communities in a way that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.

We would also use the significant resources of the State through active land management and investment in social and affordable housing to give people in rural Ireland real options on whether to build their own homes, buy private homes, or to access affordable homes in a manner that is good for them, the wider community and the environment. We also made very clear that we would be far more ambitious in terms of tackling vacancy and dereliction which, again in many of the counties that the Deputies to my left represent, is a scourge that is killing the heart not just of towns and villages but rural areas. In any debate that we have about the rural housing crisis, blame for responsibility for the challenges of young people has to be laid at the door of the Government and nowhere else.

I wish to make a number of very respectful comments about the Bill. I have a different view to those expressed by some of my colleagues, but I accept they raise them because they are real live issues in their communities. The Bill before us will not achieve any of the things the Members said. I say that respectfully. The reason is that all it does is remove the prescribed status from An Taisce. It does not stop An Taisce from making observations or objections.

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

We do not want it to.

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

I am genuinely making these comments respectfully, as I accept the Deputies are raising these issues because they passionately believe in fixing planning and housing in rural Ireland, as I do. In fact, the Bill will not affect An Taisce's funding, because the funding it gets from the Government is not for its planning work. It gets no direct funding from the State for any of its planning work or advocacy, it gets it for very specific programmes. For example, it runs the annual national spring clean programme, which is funded by the State. The programme involves 500,000 people, and many of us in this room participate in it. Therefore, if the intention behind this Bill is to fix a broken planning system, all I am respectfully saying is that my read of the Bill is it does not do that. For that reason, our focus is elsewhere.

If the Bill were to become law, it would not result in any change in the planning system, because An Taisce does not make decisions. I accept that it divides opinion. In particular in rural Ireland people have very strong views about it. They are entitled to those. Ultimately, decisions are made by our planning authorities. I am particularly taken by Deputy O'Donoghue's remarks because they get to the nub of the problem: we have two sets of planning rules. We have mandatory ministerial guidelines in the national planning framework and we have the development plans. So much of the difficulty and confusion in our planning process is caused by those. Unfortunately, the solution to that is not in this Bill. It is about ensuring we have absolute alignment in our planning rules, so that they are fair and consistent and they give people a real opportunity to be able to live and contribute to their communities, whether rural countryside, villages, towns or cities in a way that is sustainable for everyone.

Sinn Féin's focus is on trying to fix the problems. The Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, has direct responsibility for this area. I am sure he has seen the draft rural planning guidelines, as the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, did before him, and the previous Minister of State, Deputy English, did before him. We very clearly call on the Government to publish the draft guidelines and let us see them, consult on them and put them in place.

We must fund local authorities to deliver social and affordable homes on a large scale in rural areas. Not a single affordable home has been delivered in the Minister of State's own county under the Government's affordable housing scheme. I suggest it is the same in rural Tipperary, rural Limerick and rural Kerry. I urge him to work with Deputies who have a passion for ensuring that rural communities can thrive and survive.

I say, respectfully, that in addition to this Bill not addressing the challenges, it takes the heat off where it needs to be - the failure of successive governments to give young people in rural communities in particular a chance to live and contribute to the place where they are from. Until the Government changes its planning laws and funding priorities, these problems will continue.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Rural planning issues have been around for quite a long time. I was first elected to Leitrim County Council in 2004 and An Taisce was something people talked about a lot at meetings in regard to objecting to planning and so on. However, in recent years we have not heard as much about it.

The problems we have in many of these situations is the guidelines that are in place are too stringent to allow people to build houses in rural areas. I come from the rural parish of Aughavas. There is no town in the parish. It is just dispersed rural dwellings. The next door parish, Drumreilly, is the same. The one next to that, Gortletteragh, is the same. There is no town, so people do not have a town to live in and therefore they are going to look for planning permission to live in their own community. The problem we have got, in particular in Leitrim and other counties with heavier soil, is with the percolation area. There is a guideline from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, that if you fail the percolation test, you cannot put in a house. There are already systems in place that are used in many parts of the country that clean the sewage to a stage that is cleaner than bathing water. The water is going to be cleaner than the water it is meeting in the ditch, yet people are banned from building a house.

It is not An Taisce that does that. It is coming from the EPA and the guidelines that are set by Government. I have asked for years for something to be done to resolve that situation. We have whole rural parishes where we see decline, where people are not living in them because they cannot get planning permission. New families are not moving in. What were three- or four-teacher schools are going down to two teachers and will close in a few years' time. Football clubs are amalgamating because we do not have new families coming into the area. It is all because of some daft rule that somebody put in place which can be overcome by technology. The technology is there and the people who want to build the houses have no issue whatsoever, even if it is expensive, to put in a system which will work so they can live in their own rural community, send their children to the school they went to themselves and see their children play for the football club they played for. All of us here understand that, yet because of a rule put in by Government they are denied this in certain areas. That is the kind of issue the Government needs to focus on.

In the last couple of days when I saw this Bill coming up, I remembered An Taisce being an issue back in 2004 or 2005, certainly when I was on the council. However, in the past number of years I have not heard much about An Taisce causing objections. I contacted the enforcement officer in planning in County Leitrim and he said I was the first person to talk about An Taisce to him in years. He said that at the moment, An Taisce puts in observations to about 5% of planning applications. In the ten years he has been there, it has not had an objection or sent anything to An Bord Pleanála. I think this is probably an issue from the past and it is certainly taking attention away from the real problem, which is the Government's problem in not delivering proper planning for people in rural areas.

Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The heart of this issue is the question of building and sustaining rural communities. Successive Governments, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in particular, have failed abysmally in that. In my own County Meath, people cannot afford houses. The only way many of them can deliver them is if they build for themselves. I appreciate the policy in terms of transport-led development, building on nodes and urban centres, but the rural planning criteria in County Meath are having a devastating effect. My colleague on Meath County Council, Councillor Micheal Gallagher, has been very persistent and active on this. We are disappointed by the response of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael parties locally. There need to be policies in place that ensure our rural communities are maintained and sustained. That goes for housing but also services and infrastructure, roads maintenance and repair, water infrastructure, broadband, general practitioners, gardaí and school transport. I am still dealing with a huge number of cases in respect of the lack of adequate school transport. There is such potential in our rural communities but it has been missed by a complete lack of vision from successive Governments, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in particular, and the regulatory and planning framework to go with that. This is the nub of the issue that needs to be addressed. It looks like Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are intent on continuing along the same failed path, going by the ongoing review of the national planning framework. Those are the fundamental issues that need to be addressed. We need to invest in our rural communities, not just in terms of housing but also in terms of services and infrastructure.

Johnny Mythen (Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Rural Independent Group for bringing this important topic to the floor of the House. Over the past few years, we have seen vast changes in rural Ireland, including the closing of small post offices and rural Garda stations. An array of bureaucratic rules and regulations foisted on our farming communities are taking their toll. There is not a parish in my constituency that has not seen at least a third of its young folk leaving for foreign shores, some unfortunately never to return. Planning laws must be reviewed. They must be fair and a more sympathetic view must be taken, to allow our young rural generation to live and work in their natural surroundings and environment. It is astonishing that young farmers who want to carry on working on the family farm are refused planning permission to build on their own land. This is obviously a major threat to the sustainability and preservation of rural communities and is a major factor in discouraging young people to settle down and rear a family as was the tradition through many generations.

We believe rural Ireland is under enormous economic and social pressure. Our rural fishing communities are being neglected. Infrastructure on piers and harbours has been neglected for years. This year the market for shellfish and lobster fell through the floor, while at the same time quotas for mackerel and herring were diminished, yet there was no help from the Government. Rural Ireland's transport system needs a complete overhaul. Public transport and connectivity are vital to rural communities. This is very important for small villages and towns but it is non-existent in most rural areas. In my own county of Wexford our rural roads are in poor condition. We have the highest number of secondary roads in Ireland yet, year after year, there has been no additional funding. In fact, officials state that this crisis in our public roads has existed for over 30 years yet it has never been addressed or acknowledged. We are calling on the Minister of State once and for all to publish the guidelines for rural and local development, which are long overdue.

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

D’fhreastail mé ar chruinniú de chuid BÁNÚ aréir i Ros Muc agus bhí breis agus 100 duine ann. Bhí daoine ag plé cúrsaí pleanála agus bhí fearg le braith sa seomra sin. Tuigim dóibh cén fáth mar gheall nach bhfuil aon duine i gConamara in ann teach a thógáil, a cheannach nó a fháil ar cíos. Tá ceithre éileamh ag BÁNÚ. Is iad na héilimh atá aige ná go mbeadh cumhacht reachtúil ag Údarás na Gaeltachta chun déileáil le cúrsaí tithíochta. Chuir Sinn Féin €10 milliún sa bhuiséad malartach a bhí againn mar airgead caipitil d’Údarás na Gaeltachta. Chomh maith leis sin, tá BÁNÚ ag éileamh go mbeadh tacaíocht deontais á tabhairt do chainteoirí Gaeilge. Bhí na deontais seo ann ó 1929 agus cuireadh stop leo in 2009 mar gheall ar an ngéarchéim airgeadais. Ní féidir a rá go bhfuil géarchéim airgeadais ann faoi láthair áfach. Chomh maith leis sin, tá BÁNÚ ag rá go gcaithfear na dréacht-threoirlínte pleanála a fhoilsiú láithreach. Tá an tAire Stáit sa ról seo le ós cionn ceithre bliana anuas anois. Tá sé ráite linn go fíormhinic go bhfoilseofar na treoirlínte seo. Níl siad foilsithe, tá siad ag teastáil agus tá siad ag teastáil láithreach.

Chomh maith leis sin, tá BÁNÚ ag rá go gcaithfear srian a chur le líon na dtithe saoire atá sa cheantar mar gheall nach bhfuil daoine óga in ann teacht a cheannach nó a fháil ar cíos. Tá a fhios againn, agus chuala muid oíche aréir é i Ros Muc, go bhfuil daoine ag teacht isteach. Tá go leor airgid acu agus is féidir leo tithe a cheannach gan morgáiste. Ní féidir le gnáthmhuintir Chonamara dul i comórtas leis sin. Ní féidir mar nach bhfuil an t-airgead ann.

Chomh maith leis sin, sheol BÁNÚ feachtas nua oíche aréir agus tá sé á sheoladh arís inniu i Ráth Chairn. Tá BÁNÚ agus Conradh na Gaeilge ag teacht le chéile ar an bhfeachtas seo, Tinteán. An fáth go bhfuil sé sin ann ná go bhfuil bánú á dhéanamh ar na ceantracha Gaeltachta mar gheall nach bhfuil daoine in ann fanacht sna ceantracha sin agus a gcuid clainne a thógáil mar gheall nach bhfuil tithíocht ann.

Tá an locht anseo ar an Rialtas. Tá sé tar éis a rá go bhfuil sé chun na treoirlínte pleanála sin a fhoilsiú. Níl siad ann. Níl siad feicthe againn. Mothaím anois nach bhfuil an Rialtas chun é sin a dhéanamh go dtí go bhfuil an toghchán ar siúl nó ina dhiaidh mar gheall nach bhfuiltear ag iarraidh é a phlé. Tá Sinn Féin ag rá go soiléir go gcaithfear na treoirlínte a fhoilsiú láithreach; go dteastaíonn comhairliúchán poiblí maith le muintir na Gaeltachta; agus ansin i dtréimhse bliana go gcaithfear na treoirlínte ina iomláine a fhoilsiú.

Tá mé buartha faoin mBille pleanála atáimid ag vótáil air anocht. Ní mhothaím go bhfuil sé sách láidir do na ceantracha Gaeltachta. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil géarchéim ann. Caithfimid dul i ngleic léi. Impím ar an Aire éisteacht le muintir BÁNÚ, leis an bhfeachtas Tinteán, le muintir na Gaeltachta agus muintir Chonamara agus leis an méid a bhí le rá acu oíche aréir. Impím air éisteacht leo agus rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As many of my colleagues have said, we are dealing with an absolute lack in respect of planning in rural Ireland, and services that are not up to scratch at all levels of infrastructure. We know all the issues regarding water, GPs and school transport, and deal with them from year to year. We are even seeing issues in places across urban and rural Ireland that never had problems with roads.

We have been listening for a long time and, at times, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies, depending on what is happening at a local level, are in the Chamber speaking out of both sides of their mouths in respect of rural planning. We are still waiting on the rural housing guidelines. Over the summer, the draft guidelines were with the Attorney General. I assume he has done whatever due diligence he needed to do, so we need to see them. I have my doubts, although I hope I am wrong, that we will see them before an election is called. I would like that election to be called as quickly as possible, for the record, in order that we can stop the farce that obtains in this House and everywhere else at this point. Let us just get on with it.

Deputy Kenny spoke about the fact there are technological solutions for rural housing. At times, people get planning on the basis of anomalies, where a structure might be accepted as being an outhouse and is not considered to be an old building in any way, shape or form, and someone might get infill. That is no way to do business. People have to be able to live in the place they come from. We have to be able to sustain rural communities.

We could talk forever about this. We need to see the guidelines and make sure they work. I could talk about the Cooley greenway, from Dundalk to Carlingford, and the huge number of submissions on it that have been made, but a huge issue that people have relates not just to the lack of consultation from TII and Louth County Council. I really hope they will take heed of the very high number of submissions. The other issue is that people in that part of the world cannot get planning permission. They want to see sustainable guidelines and consistency because there is none across the board.

Dundalk, along with the wider County Louth, has had its issues relating to sport. Dundalk Football Club has its issues at the moment and fans are attempting to find a solution to it. We also want to see movement on Louth GAA and the stadium. One issue I must raise relates to Dundalk Grammar School and the ban on GAA. On Friday, 11 October, from 2 p.m. to 3.10 p.m., senior students from that school will protest outside the front gates of the school, in front of the old Louth hospital. It will be the second protest since May. It is teacher supported and the majority of the students support it, as do Louth GAA and Jarlath Burns himself. We need the board to reconsider because at this stage it is an outright ban and that is not good enough. I think everyone in this Chamber would be in support of the students, the teachers and everyone else who wants to support Gaelic games. It is disgraceful.

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

It was impressive what Deputy Ó Murchú was able to fit in to the debate on this Bill. I thank the Deputies for bringing forward the Bill, which the Social Democrats will not support. We agree there is absolutely a problem with regard to planning infrastructure and the affordability of housing in Ireland, in both rural and urban areas, but we do not agree the Bill will fix it. An Taisce is not the problem and, as has been pointed out, nothing in the Bill would prevent An Taisce from putting in submissions or observations on planning or, indeed, taking any legal cases. It would simply abolish its status as a prescribed body, which is all it seeks to do. I do not believe scapegoating An Taisce provides a useful way forward for this and, in fact, it provides a degree of cover for the Government in respect of its lack of action on housing, infrastructure and affordability.

I commend the invaluable work done over the years by An Taisce, including its volunteers, in protecting our heritage. For example, when I was working on amendments to the monuments Bill a few years ago, I got some invaluable input from An Taisce, which it also gave us in our pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill.

I join the calls from other Deputies for the rural housing guidelines to be published. They have been promised for years and need to be published as quickly as possible. On a related note, we were promised that the guidelines for Gaeltacht planning authorities with regard to their statutory obligations to protect the Irish language and the Gaeltacht would be issued almost three years ago and we are still waiting on them. There is no excuse for the Government to promise to publish guidelines in these important areas and not do it. As I have said previously, in our rural and Gaeltacht communities, there is an issue with access to affordable housing, which needs to be addressed. There have been promises from the Government on that but we have yet to see even those guidelines published or any action in that regard.

An Taisce, like all prescribed bodies, has a role in the planning system to provide advice and analysis and this is to support the decision-making process in local authorities and An Bord Pleanála. It is not, of course, a decision-maker, so seeking to remove it as a prescribed body or to lay some blame at its door is not helpful. Its work is about ensuring that planning applications are made in line with national and European law and that policy is informed by the most up-to-date environmental science. This is not something we should be afraid of. Scrutiny from external bodies, including An Taisce and people in the local community, enriches our planning process. We need input from a diverse range of people with expertise to make sure the best planning decisions are made in the interests of local communities.

In respect of affordable housing and sustainability, this is something I have raised, for example, during debates on the planning Bill, where I have put forward amendments to say that in our national planning framework and our national planning policy, affordability should be at the heart of it and should be one of the objectives. For reasons I cannot understand, the Government voted down these amendments. While there is a broad range of criteria in our national planning policy with which I agree, the fact affordability is not one of the criteria makes no sense to me. If we go back to the first principles of our planning system, it was never intended that an outcome of our planning system could be to make housing less accessible or affordable to people, and if affordability is not one of the objectives in a planning system, that is what happens. We are protecting other objectives that are worthwhile, but affordability should be part of that.

Indeed, if we think about sustainable communities, especially in rural areas, of course there is the environmental aspect to that, which is important, but affordability is very important as well. How can there be sustainable communities, in urban or rural areas, if people cannot afford housing in them? That should be absolutely fundamental to our planning system. I appeal to the Government and other Members of the House that, when there are amendments to put affordability at the heart of our planning system, they should not be shot down. That makes eminent sense and is part of the solution on this.

We probably would not be having this debate if people in rural areas were able to access affordable housing. This narrative pitching rural versus urban, or environmental and sustainable communities versus people's access to housing, is not where should be, because we can do both. We can have affordable housing that people in rural communities can access, and we can have good environmental standards and design. We have talked previously about how that can be done. Obviously, there are issues with ribbon developments and so forth, but there can be clusters and things can be designed in more sustainable ways. In fact, pre-car development, people did live in clusters in rural communities and there was not that kind of rural isolation. There are environmental issues with that, but there are also social-sustainability issues whereby when people get older and may not have neighbours near them, they may not have those kinds of supports. There are ways to have good, sustainable development in rural areas and good communities.

On the planning process and what needs to be done to improve it, we need much more active land management, not just in urban areas, in order that land will be available for sustainable, affordable housing in rural communities. As others have said, the Land Development Agency's remit has been concentrated in more urban areas but we need active land management throughout the country to ensure a continuous supply of land that is available at affordable prices. Implementing something along the lines of the Kenny report, which is more than 50 years old, would, of course, be a way to do that. We also need to ensure there is accountability in the planning system, which has been lacking. The measures for accountability currently under planning legislation, where developers are in flagrant breach of planning permission, have not been exercised or utilised over the years.

Attempts I made to strengthen those provisions in the planning Bill were shot down by the Government. We could have a much better planning system that provides good, well-designed, sustainable and more affordable housing for communities in rural areas. I would and do support measures to achieve that. I put forward amendments to that end to the planning Bill. However, I do not support this Bill.

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

People Before Profit does not support this Bill. We have every sympathy with small rural family farmers and fishers in communities that have been decimated in rural Ireland. I was listening to the debate before I came to the Chamber. The expression "that beats Banagher" occurred to me as I listened to Deputy Nolan quoting the late, great Tony Benn, a pro-choice socialist who absolutely stood on the side of the people. Looking up the phrase "that beats Banagher", I found it means "wonderfully inconsistent and absurd". That really fits the Deputy's contribution. Perhaps we should change the expression such that instead of referencing a town in her constituency, it becomes "that beats Deputy Carol Nolan". She was wonderfully inconsistent and absurd in the way she used the socialist Tony Benn to make an argument he did not make. He would never have thought about how to take down NGOs and people who advocate for the environment. The argument he made was about how we can take down elected politicians who break promises on the basis of which they got elected by the people.

It is not a coincidence that this Bill is being discussed on the same day the debate on the Planning and Development Bill 2023 is to be guillotined by the Government. Once again, the Rural Independent Group Members are acting as sheep in wolves' clothing. They are doing the work of the Government by seeking to undermine environmental protections and promote the interests not of ordinary rural people but of big business, big farmers and the agrifood industry. The Government will do the same tonight, via its planning Bill, by stripping what limited democratic rights exist out of the planning process. It does not want ordinary people and working-class communities to be able to object to big business- and developer-led planning, no matter how destructive those plans are for our environment and our communities.

The Government, including its Green Party members, will seek tonight to designate liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals as strategic infrastructure in order to stop people and environmental activists from objecting to them. The Rural Independent Group Members, no doubt, will support the Government on that. They have been the loudest voices in the Chamber in advocating for the Shannon LNG project to go ahead. Undoubtedly, there are many others in the Chamber who would like to do the same in respect of data centres. If the Government succeeds in ramming through its Bill tonight, which looks likely, then An Taisce, ironically, will be one of the few organisations left that will legally be able to object to anti-environmental and pro-big business development. The Government's planning Bill makes it much harder for NGOs and communities to object to such development by forcing them to jump through bureaucratic hoops and requiring them to be legally registered organisations with a constitution and so on. The new law will be a barrier to activist groups and less organised grassroots residents' groups.

Mattie McGrath and the rest of the Rural Independent Group want to get rid of An Taisce's role because they want an untrammelled right to profit for big farmers and big business in this country, and to hell with everyone else. Over the years, An Taisce has played an important role in protecting Irish heritage and the environment. It has often been the one to speak truth to power and to hold the Government and big business to their environmental commitments. An Taisce held the Government to its commitment regarding the Climate Change Advisory Council. The Government failed to follow the science, resulting in weak recommendations on reducing agricultural commitments. An Taisce insisted on domestic action regarding the nitrates derogation and to reduce methane emissions, both of which would reduce the size of the national herd through a reduction by way of an exit scheme and a capping of herd sizes at 200 cows. By God, something like that is needed. Anybody with a heart would have been affected by watching the "Prime Time" programme last night on the treatment of calves for live export. The attitude to An Taisce is because of challenges like these to the huge power of big farmers and the agrifood industry in this country. I do not believe it is out of concern for small farmers and rural communities, the interest groups An Taisce protects, that the Rural Independent Group is putting forward this Bill.

A major investigation recently by an organisation called DeSmog found that intensive farm lobbying is "preventing Ireland from addressing its poor air and water quality and meeting its climate targets". DeSmog reports:

The intensive farming lobby appears to be in the driving seat. Major dairy processors in particular have been ramping up lobbying efforts around Ireland's derogation from the EU Nitrates Directive, designed to tackle farming pollution.

Meanwhile, the article notes, many small farmers feel "locked in an unsustainable food system they do not profit from". Dr. Elaine McGoff, head of advocacy at An Taisce, told the DeSmog investigation:

The intensive agriculture sector in Ireland is incredibly effective at lobbying, and at using their platform to push a false message of sustainability from a number of different angles... This is clearly a very well oiled machine, one whose primary purpose is to sell a false narrative that we can continue business as usual and not pay the environmental price.

This is why the Rural Independent Group and the far-right anti-environment, anti-immigrant and anti-women forces that are amplified by the group's Members hate An Taisce so much and want to sabotage it. I have no doubt they will support the move tonight to bring LNG into the country. I want everyone in the House to know that climate movement members will be at the gates of Leinster House at midnight to demand that all of us in the House, and Green Party Members in particular, do the right thing by voting against the planning Bill tonight, the debate on which is being guillotined.

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

With the greatest respect to the Rural Independent Group Members, with whom I agree on many issues, particularly their concerns regarding rural Ireland, to introduce a debate in a manner that reduces people involved in An Taisce to cranks, crackpots and serial objectors working against normal people is not acceptable to me as someone who spent 17 years working at local level and knows exactly what goes on with planning matters, and is also unacceptable because it is disingenuous and dangerous and it deflects the debate from where it should be at, which is talking about what it is we want from our planning laws. As Deputy Bríd Smith said, this debate is happening on the same day the debate on the Government's planning Bill will be guillotined and the legislation pushed through. That is totally unacceptable. Acknowledging that every group in the House uses its own time as it chooses, I wish these two hours were being used to debate the Government Bill. What is ahead of us tonight is catastrophic. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, is always here when I am speaking in debates. I know his heart is in the right place but, unfortunately, he is now part of a system and a Government that are putting through a planning Bill that absolutely reduces people's participation in the planing process at a time when we need that participation more than ever. We need it more than ever because we are facing a climate catastrophe and a biodiversity catastrophe. We should have learned from the Covid period that we need transformative action in every sense of the word.

I absolutely support the Rural Independent Group Members in their concerns regarding the depopulation of rural areas. We have no planning guidelines. Níl treoracha don Ghaeltacht ann. Táimid fós ag fanacht ar na treoracha sin agus ar na treoracha pleanála do na ceantair thuaithe uile. Bhí cruinniú i Ros Muc aréir. Tháinig dhá dhream, BÁNÚ agus Conradh na Gaeilge, le chéile agus d'eagraigh siad an cruinniú chun deis a thabhairt do chosmhuintir na háite na rudaí a chuireann imní uirthi ó thaobh chúrsaí tithíochta agus bánú na Gaeltachta a chur in iúl. Maidir leis an bhfocal "bánú", tá an leid sa teideal. Ciallaíonn bánú "depopulation". Is é sin an focal. Tá Conradh na Gaeilge ar an talamh le fada an lá ag cur in iúl go bhfuil athrú suntasach ag teastáil agus tá BÁNÚ ann le bliain nó dhó anuas chun an spotsolas a dhíriú ar na fadhbanna ó thaobh chúrsaí tithíochta, cead pleanála, tithe inacmhainne agus sóisialta ina measc. Níl siad ag fáil aon áit i gCois Fharraige.

I go back to this Bill. A thank-you was given for the research. I see no example of research here, I am afraid to say, except the citing of one Supreme Court case. Research would dictate that we would look at all the applications made by An Taisce if we were seriously interested in looking at its record. I am not here in a sense to defend An Taisce.

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

The Deputy is doing a very good job of it.

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

She is making a good job of it.

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

I am here to say that it is deeply worrying that this type of discussion would proceed in this way on a date when we are actually reducing the participation of ordinary people in making submissions. I absolutely object to the word "objection", if that is not a funny way of putting it. Objections do not carry anything. They are submissions by concerned residents and citizens relating to the planning law. Over a long time now, we have proceeded to reduce the ability of concerned people to make submissions. We started that at local authority level where we stopped them appealing to An Bord Pleanála if they had not made a submission at local level, and we introduced charges. This Bill would make it even worse in terms of onerous obligations on, for example, a residents' committee in that it has to be in place for a year or more and so on, when quite the opposite is needed. It is not only me saying that. The various judges have said there is a trinity when it comes to the planning laws that are all equally important: the person who makes the submission, the authority that gives the permission, and the developer. We will see a Bill go through tonight and it will be guillotined.

It is hard even at this stage to think we are doing that when we look at what this country has been through. We had the McCracken tribunal. That was set up to inquire into payments to politicians. It did very well. It reported in six months and in 100 pages. It was excellent and quick and told us exactly what was happening with payments to politicians. Then we had the Moriarty tribunal, established in 1997. The final report was published in 2011. The cost was €65.5 million. What was the title of that tribunal? It was the Tribunal of Inquiry into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters - payments to politicians. Then we had the Flood-Mahon tribunal, the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, established in 1997, the same year as the Moriarty tribunal. The final report was published in 2012. It cost €159 million. On corruption and public life, Judge Mahon stated in the report:

...it continued because nobody was prepared to do enough to stop it. This is perhaps inevitable when corruption ceases to become an isolated event and becomes so entrenched that it is transformed into an acknowledged way of doing business. Specifically, because corruption affected every level of Irish political life, those with the power to stop it were frequently implicated in it.

I will give the House another quote as I have two minutes left. It is also from the Mahon tribunal report.

It is clear from ... [these] inquiries that these concerns [of corruption - payments to politicians and so on] were well-founded. Throughout that period, corruption in Irish political life was both endemic and systemic. It affected every level of Government from some holders of top ministerial ... [positions] to some local councillors ... [and so on.]

Time prevents me from quoting further. I have mentioned only three tribunals. Arising from that, one would think we might use our time in this Dáil to see how many of the recommendations, if any, have been implemented to ensure that will not happen again. We might use our time in the Dáil to look at SIPO and its annual reports that continually highlight the difficulties it has in enforcing the legislation because of a lack of sufficient power. We are talking about conflicts of interest and ethics in public life. Corruption does not go away. Bad behaviour does not go away. We know that from the Dáil and we do not seem to learn. A motion such as this does not help in any way at all. It deflects from what we should be talking about, which is making planning efficient, open and accountable and resourcing it. I think the figures I saw when this Bill was put before us - I ask the Minister of State to correct me if I am wrong - were somewhere between 400 and 600 vacancies in the planning system - more than 400. How could a planner do his or her job properly? Then we go to An Bord Pleanála and we will have legislation going through tonight which would change the name of An Bord Pleanála. There is no need to change its name. There is a need to ask how people were appointed who had serious conflicts of interest, failed to recognise they had conflicts of interest, failed to resource An Bord Pleanála and failed to make it more efficient and effective in order that we can trust it. It is our planning system.

Sinéad Mercier has done tremendous work in educating us TDs. She has said that not the usual - will we say "cranks"? We will use the Rural Independent Group Members' terminology - not the usual cranks and crackpots but the legal and planning and professions have criticised the planning Bill for breaching EU and international law and for its potential to clog the planning system. The Attorney General has told the Government in private correspondence that parts of the Bill give the appearance that the Government is being led by developers. Then we have the strategic infrastructure-----

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta.

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

I will finish. I rarely go over my time. We have liquid gas being put under strategic infrastructure, with no accountability.

On every level, I deplore this motion, while I share Members' concerns about bánú na tuaithe. Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thank you for your patience.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta. Leanfaimid ar aghaidh. An chéad duine eile ná an tAire Stáit, Malcolm Noonan. Tá deich nóiméad le roinnt. You are sharing with-----

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

Yes, leis an Teachta Steven Matthews. Tógfaidh mé seacht nóiméad. Go raibh maith agat.

I will respond briefly to some of the points raised by Deputies. I thank them for all the contributions. A lot of points were raised about depopulation, bánú, including by Deputy Connolly. As regards the whole issue of our towns and villages being hollowed out and the notion of clustering houses where they should be, where there are schools, water and wastewater facilities and post offices, there are contradictions in Deputy Mythen speaking about the closure of rural post offices yet also the dispersal of rural housing. Yes, absolutely, the rural housing guidelines are important. There are existing guidelines in place, and that is vital. Bhí an Teachta Mairéad Ní Fhearghail ag caint faoi phleanáil agus faoi chúrsaí tithíochta in áiteanna Ghaeltachta freisin. I agree with the points raised by Deputy Cian O'Callaghan about An Taisce.

As my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, set out in his opening statement, prescribed bodies play an important role in the planning system, and this must be maintained for those that are already prescribed bodies. An Taisce, a body established prior to the original planning legislation in 1963 and included as a prescribed body since 1964, has the mission "To protect and celebrate Ireland's natural and built environment for present and future generations, and to ensure Ireland leads the way in defending a liveable planet". In this time of concern and focus with regard to climate change and biodiversity loss, it is the responsibility of every person and organisation to protect our environment for future generations. Therefore, the openness of the planning system must be maintained - I know all Deputies agree with this - to allow prescribed bodies such as An Taisce or any person to engage with the planning system as prescribed in planning legislation. This engagement helps to inform better decision-making by both planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála, soon to be an coimisiún pleanála. I avail of that myself as both an activist and a councillor in making submissions. While it is understood that not everyone may agree with every decision made by planning authorities or An Bord Pleanála, the opportunities for public participation, the taking of appeals and, yes, the taking of judicial reviews hold the decision-making process under planning to account and help maintain the integrity of the system. It is critical that public participation at the outset is the most fundamental part and tenet of our planning system.

One of the key principles of planning that must be upheld by both planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála is that there must be proper planning and sustainable development. This is of vital importance when it comes to protecting our natural and built environment. Contributions by prescribed bodies such as An Taisce assist in this process by requiring planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála to consider any submissions they receive prior to making decisions. The legislation proposed by Deputy Mattie McGrath in the Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 aims to remove An Taisce as a prescribed body for the following purposes: first, in the preparation of development plans; second, in the processing of planning applications; third, where local authorities propose to undertake their own development, commonly referred to as a Part 8 development; and, finally, local authority own development where an environmental impact assessment is required. The removal of a prescribed body, which is set out in regulations, must be undertaken by way of secondary legislation. The use of primary legislation such as proposed in this Bill is not the appropriate mechanism. The power to make regulations rests with the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

Additionally, I concur with my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, that the removal of An Taisce from the prescribed bodies lists would be a retrograde step. An Taisce has been a prescribed body for 60-plus years. To remove it from legislation at this time, when it is simply undertaking actions which are also open to any member of the public in making submissions, appeals and judicial reviews, cannot be supported. For example, the input of An Taisce or any person into the planning application process through the making of submissions may provide additional information that the planning authority was previously unaware of and highlight the need for developers to provide further information and ensure better decisions are made on a proposed development.

I reiterate that the ambition of An Taisce is to protect and celebrate Ireland’s natural and built environment for present and future generations.

I commend An Taisce on its contribution to our environmental protection and heritage in Ireland. Deputy O’Callaghan recalled the important work it did on the Bill I brought forward, the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. While some Deputies in this House may have concerns that individuals or organisations can lead to delays in the planning system and subsequent delays in development, the Planning and Development Bill 2023, which is currently passing through the Houses of the Oireachtas, aims to assist in this regard. The 2023 Bill aims to ensure there is transparent and timely decision-making which will enhance the quality of decision-making that is proportionate and, importantly, encourage public participation in plan-making and decision-making principles. A key principle that will also be maintained when the 2023 Bill is enacted is that the system will be independent and enable any person or body to engage within the planning system. Therefore, when new regulations are prepared, a role for prescribed bodies will be retained.

The 2023 Bill, once enacted, will be commenced on a phased basis, with the corresponding sections and Parts of the 2000 Act and associated regulations being repealed as the various Parts of the new Bill are commenced. Therefore, as previously stated, as the Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 proposes to amend legislation that will be repealed in the future, it cannot be supported. Accordingly, the Government opposes the Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 for the following reasons: the use of primary legislation is not the appropriate mechanism for amending regulation; the openness of the planning system must be maintained for all persons, including prescribed bodies; and the 2023 Bill is passing through the Houses of the Oireachtas and the legislation the Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024 proposes to amend will be repealed once the 2023 Bill is enacted and commenced.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which I do not support in any way at all. Amending primary legislation to amend regulations is the wrong legislative process. The substance of this Bill is incorrect in attacking an organisation like An Taisce, which has an exemplary record in this country since 1948. It supports communities widely throughout this country and uses its considerable experience and qualifications to protect the country. I have heard allegations of significant influence, motivations of negative influences or disproportionate influences and allegations of doing harm being made against An Taisce. Nothing could be further from the truth. People must understand that An Taisce is not a decision-making body, but rather it comments on and submits observations to planning applications. It shares the considerable experience it has with local authorities throughout this country and it helps us achieve better planning decisions. It is not a decision-making body. To frame it as such is completely wrong and shows a lack of understanding of the work An Taisce does.

This Bill is not only an attack on an organisation, but an attack on all the communities which benefit from the work An Taisce does widely across the country. This Bill is anti-climate action because An Taisce has done so much excellent work on climate action. The Bill is anti-environment and anti-nature, which are issues that affect every person in this country, no matter what age or what part of the country a person comes from. Children who have not been born yet will benefit from the work we are doing on climate action and in protecting nature, supported by An Taisce. The Bill is anti-community groups because of the excellent work An Taisce does with its National Spring Clean scheme. Think of all those Tidy Towns and community groups throughout the country which benefit from working with An Taisce.

This is also an attack on children and students across this country who are so proud and work so hard to get their green flags in their schools, which teaches them about safe routes to schools and how to reduce transport and the effect that has on communities, congestion, air quality and emissions. The Bill is against waste reduction because those children work so hard to earn their green flag on waste reduction within their school. It is also against water quality and water conservation as children get their green flags and work really hard to try to conserve water and learn about the finite resource we have which is being damaged throughout this country. An Taisce draws attention to that issue and help us put in policies and legislation to protect our water quality. In fact, An Taisce helped us greatly when we were discussing the marine protected areas and the Maritime Area Planning Bill.

The Bill is also against energy conservation. We need to conserve our energy. We are aware of the difficulty in this regard and the emissions that come from fossil fuel dependency. An Taisce helps children to realise how important energy efficiency and conservation measures are in their schools. The Bill is against coastal communities. This is an attack on coastal communities. Coastal communities are proud of the blue flags they earn. Towns, coastal communities and lake communities benefit from the blue flag scheme through visitors and tourism. It is an attack on those coastal communities.

Attacking An Taisce is nothing less than attacking everyone in this country. It is an attack on our built heritage as well. An Taisce has done excellent work in protecting architectural heritage through every town and village in this country, no matter where they are. That includes those towns and villages represented by the group which has put forward this Bill. This Bill is an attack on the work An Taisce does and on the considerable expertise and experience it has in addressing illegal quarrying in this country. Illegal quarrying has an impact on water quality. Communities suffer from the fumes and emissions from the associated transport as well as from the damage done by illegal quarrying in this country. If you are against all those groups, that is, communities, children, coastal communities and architectural heritage in the country, the question has to be asked, who are you loyal to?

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

I have to laugh at the last speaker, Deputy Matthews, because it was so nonsensical and farcical. I will put a question to him and his family members. How many objections have they submitted in Bray and Wicklow?

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

Should I address the question?

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

You stopped the air show.

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

Can I address the question put to me, a Chathaoirligh Gníomhaigh?

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

You stopped the air show going ahead in a lovely seaside resort.

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

A question was put to me. Will I be given the opportunity to answer that question?

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We did not interfere when you were speaking.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask Deputy McGrath to continue, please.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sit down and have manners.

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

One person at a time. Deputy Matthews might tell us something else.

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

I expect an opportunity to answer that question.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Speak to the Bill, please, Deputy McGrath.

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

The Planning and Development (An Taisce) Bill 2024-----

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

Allegations have been made against me in this House and I expect to be able to respond to them.

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

I asked a question. I did not make an allegation. It is well known in Bray what you are up to.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy McGrath must speak to the Bill.

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

I will speak to the Bill. I thank Brian Ó Domhnaill, our research and policy assistant, and Mairead in our office for their work on this Bill in an effort to help the people of rural Ireland, who the last Deputy dismissed as if we do not know anything about anyone, as if we are Neanderthals or gombeens. Our country is in such a state with the Green Party’s influence over this Government. It is interesting nach bhfuil aon Teachta amháin ó Fhianna Fáil, excluding Deputy Moynihan who is in the Chair, from Fine Gael or from the Regional Group present. Look at the Chamber. Tá sé folamh. We have a housing crisis here-----

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

The Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, was here earlier.

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

Sorry. I will not be non-factual. He had to be here. That tells you what way Ireland is when we talk about housing, the crisis and everything else.

I am very surprised with Deputy Connolly conflating our Bill. It is accidental it has come the same day as the Government has decided to guillotine the planning Bill. We had nothing whatsoever to do with it. We and rural Ireland have huge issues with the planning Bill.

The Green Party has been part of the Government for the past five years, a Government which is now in its final days. The Government has driven us all demented by denying people their democratic rights. Planning guidelines were not published, despite Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael promising to do so in each of their manifestos before the previous two elections. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Moyinhan, is a Fianna Fáil TD too, although he is independent in the Chair. They said they would publish the planning guidelines, but they did not. Why did they not publish them? It is because the Green Party did not allow them to publish the guidelines. It is the Green Party tail wagging the dog. The tail has been wagging the dog for too long. Look at the damage the Green Party and its friends in An Taisce have done. None of the Green Party TDs declared whether they are members, or former members, of An Taisce. That is the kernel of the problem. Who are the members of An Taisce?

An Taisce does excellent work. I compliment it on its schools programme, the BIDs and its spring clean programme. It does huge work with the green flag scheme, of course. Of course, it does. Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí. Praise the bridge as you go over it. We have to praise the good work of An Taisce. It was not established in 1963; it was set up in 1964, which is approximately 60 years ago.

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

An Taisce was established in 1948.

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

It is such a sacred cow now that we cannot even ask to amend it. The Rural Independent Group previously wrote to An Taisce seeking a meeting. It dictated the terms of the meeting. It wanted to chair the meeting and control us. It is unaccountable and not answerable to anyone. Some of the members of An Taisce are then moved on to An Bord Pleanála. As has been said already, are members of An Bord Pleanála also members, or former members, of An Taisce? That all has to be clarified. An Taisce is 60 years a-growing and it can do what it likes. Is that what the Green Party wants? No wonder the country is in the mess it is, especially with Green Party TDs inside the Chamber, although they will not be here much longer, except for maybe two or three of them who might be back. The people of Bray know what Deputy Matthews did to the air show-----

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

The people of Bray know full well what I do. That is why I will be back.

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

-----and everything else in business. The people will have the final say in that regard, and congratulations to anyone who comes back. The damage the Green Party did between 2007 to 2011 is still being rigged in rural Ireland. Is uafásach an rud é an damáiste a rinne An Páirtí Glas sa tréimhse sin. It did serious damage and did not allow the planning guidelines to be published.

What else will Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael say when they go to the doors of the people of rural Ireland, who cannot build a henhouse, a house for their children or a farm development? Fianna Fáil will blame the Greens and Fine Gael will blame Fianna Fáil for the damage they have done, but the people are sick and tired of this. For 60 years, An Taisce has been in place without any amendment, rain check or anything else. What happens operations like that, which of course are set up for good reasons, is that they get hijacked by cranks, as my colleague said, and by serial objectors with serious issues.

We had a meeting with An Taisce officials about the proposed Glanbia plant in County Kilkenny. It was passed by the EPA and there were impeccable records. It was also passed by An Bord Pleanála. An Taisce told us, and in fact told the public, that it had no issues with the planning of the plant itself but had an issue with the cow herd numbers in the country. Just imagine the warped thinking such that it would object to a plant that would offer 250 top-quality jobs. While the objections were being lodged, and over the period of several court cases, milk was being transported up to Strathroy in Derry and back into Cork and other areas. There was no talk of the footprint of the trucks. The nonsense and abuse of power by An Taisce in that case alone were reprehensible, despicable and disgraceful. Even the then Taoiseach, who was sitting in the chair where the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, is now sitting, called on An Taisce to stop its behaviour because he had no issue with the plant. Despite this, it was possible to hold it up. Is that a proper use of power? Of course, An Taisce has good uses but it needs be straight and tell us who is on it. It is a secret society. It is like the Ku Klux Klan, like the Freemasons. We do not know who they are.

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

A Chathaoirligh Ghníomhigh, this is not right.

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

Is that what they are? We do not know anything about them. Is that it, so? Is there to be a secret society? The Green Party is always on about the developers having too much power. Consider the power An Taisce has as a prescribed organisation that has to be notified of every planning application. Of course, where there are listed buildings and protected structures, An Taisce is entitled to act. We are for the entitlement of any citizen to object if a proposed development would impede upon him or her.

There was a determination a couple of years ago such that people could object to An Bord Pleanála if they had objected earlier, provided the proposal objected to impacted upon them. I have no problem with anybody objecting if there is an impact on them, but well-heeled people sitting behind computers are lodging objections to developments all over the country. Tá fear i gContae Chorcaí who has lodged hundreds of objections from a desktop. This is where we need things tidied up. We need to have An Taisce accountable to the people, not a sacred cow like the Rock of Cashel, which cannot be moved or questioned.

I saw what happened in Tipperary, my own county, where houses were built hanging out into the lake. Who owns them? If anybody else, such as locals, wants to get a house, there are objections left, right and centre. It is disgraceful. This is far removed from what An Taisce was set up for. I am sure there were good reasons for setting it up in 1963 and 1964 but not for the way it is behaving now.

Tá an Teachta Bríd Smith imithe anois. How dare she insult and contradict a wonderful, impeccable, hard-working Deputy from Offaly? Does she know where Banagher is? Was she ever in it? Did she Google it this morning on her way here in her diesel-guzzling van with Barney in the back? That is what she drives. She texted us all about it. Deputy Carol Nolan is entitled to quote a former MP or anybody else. She does her research impeccably with her assistant, David. We are here now and we are being called the far right and everything else, but we are representing the people. We are Teachtaí Dála na hÉireann, as Tiobraid Árann, Ciarraí, Luimneach, iarthar Chorcaí agus Uíbh Fhailí, and are entitled to represent the people. The problem here is that the Green Party is not representing the people; it is representing an elite group of its supporters. They will find out where they are when they go knocking on doors next week or in the couple of weeks to come. They are an elite group and they object to meaningful projects to allow social promotion and allow people to live and have families in rural Ireland. They are against everything in rural Ireland.

The capital is choked up. Deputy Healy-Rae or somebody else mentioned the airports. Why do we have to have all the planes entering Dublin, a choked city? Why is Deputy Ó Cathasaigh not supporting Waterford Airport? Of course, Shannon and Cork airports are totally underutilised. The tail is wagging the dog. An Taisce comprises a group of well-heeled individuals who have a position of power. As I have said, they have important roles and they are very good at them, but they have widely abused their power and it is time they were reined in.

The backbenchers of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, indeed, other parties, including the Labour Party – Members from the Regional Group did not come in at all – do not have the power to tackle a pernicious problem that is stopping people from getting houses for themselves. When we heard from Sinn Féin, it did not know whether it was for or against this legislation, but that is not unusual for it anymore. It does not know where it is; it is on a spinning top. Those opposite want to stop people from building houses on their own land in their own communities.

I met a farmer in Dundrum two weeks ago. He has three sons and a daughter and a grand-sized farm but none of the four could get planning permission to build on their own land. In the name of God, this is happening in a housing crisis with 15,000-plus homeless. Then the Government wants to bring everyone in from Timbuktu and all over the world and flood them into Ireland - bring them all in - with no healthcare, school places or anything for them. What has gone wrong with those opposite?

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

Shame on you.

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

Shame on you. It is not shame on me. That is what the Deputies are doing through a reckless policy, overseen by their Minister in Cabinet now leading the Green Party. What is being done to rural communities in Dundrum, Roscrea, Clonmel and all over the country is shocking. The Green Party protects the members of An Taisce at all costs today because they are Green Party supporters. My God, what about nepotism? The Deputies opposite lecture us all. It is such nepotism. It is actually bordering on corrupt but we do not know who is in An Taisce and cannot question them. It is a sacred cow.

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

Allegations of corruption now.

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

It is a sacred cow. All we ever strive to do – it is in the Bible and the gospel – is do good. If you cannot do good, do not do anything bad. People here say we are trying to do damage or attack. The Deputy mentioned the word "attack" ten times or more in his three-minute speech but we are attacking nobody. We are trying to preserve a decent standard of living for people in Ireland, town and country, and to allow them to build their own houses. The Government cannot provide a house and creates blockages in every way to stop people doing so. It is a failed entity with a failed policy, and the sooner the demented Taoiseach calls the election, the better. It has ruined this country.

Aindrias Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until division time this evening.