Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move:

That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 626 to 647, inclusive, 713, 716 to 719, inclusive, 760, 761, 765, 766, 769 and 771 to 775, inclusive.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is different from the grouping list that was circulated. Am I correct?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is not a grouping. This is for recommital.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, perfect.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the information of Members, please note that the House, by agreeing to the motion to recommit, allows a Committee Stage-style of discussion on amendments Nos. 626 to 647, inclusive, 713, 716 to 719, inclusive, 760, 761, 765, 766, 769 and 771 to 775, inclusive, only. That means Members may speak more than once on each amendment.

In respect of other amendments, I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage except the proposer of the amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage each non-Government amendment must be seconded.

We will move to the first grouping of amendments that arise out of committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 1 to 19 , inclusive, and 22 to 25, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1.

In page 27, to delete lines 5 to 12 and substitute the following:“An Act to consolidate and revise the law relating to planning and development; to provide for proper planning and sustainable development in the interests of the common good including recognition and empowerment of the constitutional role of elected members of local authorities as provided for in Article 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann; to provide for the licensing of events and control of funfairs; for those purposes to repeal and replace the Planning and Development Act 2000 and amend certain other enactments; for purposes unrelated to the foregoing, to amend the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019, the Land Development Agency Act 2021 and the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In this group of amendments Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, I propose to speak on amendments Nos. 1, 6 and 16, which are in my name and that of Senator McDowell.

Amendment No. 1 relates to the Title section of the Bill. I raised this previously. At the outset, I will say that I want to work as efficiently as I possibly can with all of our colleagues in the House and with the Minister and his staff. It is not my intention to go over at great length any of the amendments we have dealt with. We are conscious that we have of 775 amendments before us and very limited time. We simply will not get through 775 amendments. Let us be realistic here. That is where we are.

Amendment No. 1 is simply about the Bill and suggests that we would include the following words in the Title: "including recognition and empowerment of the constitutional role of elected members of local authorities as provided for in Article 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann". The Minister of State with responsibility for local government, Deputy Dillon, will be aware that Bunreacht na hÉireann gives special mention in Article 28A to local government. It is very important but more important is that we acknowledge the significance, as our Constitution provides for, of the article. Article 28A states: "The State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, in exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law and in promoting by its initiatives the interests of such communities."That is a very noble and reasonable aspiration and objective. It is important for a number of reasons, and it should be at the very beginning of this Bill because we know, without pointing them out in great detail, of the executive and reserved functions. The reserved functions are those of elected members, our city and county councillors, who are the guardians of their city and county development plans, who clearly are defenders of those plans and who are instrumental in their formation of them, although this Bill proposes to push that out to a ten-year period. Ultimately, councillors are at the very heart of local planning, be it area planning or designation of protected structures and the gamut of issues concerning sustainable and proper planning and development and, indeed, the economic development of their cities, towns, village and counties. I therefore believe this amendment is right and proper. I spoke to LAMA and the AILG, the representative bodies, and they are committed to and wish to see the strengthening of local government and its councillors in this process. I do not think it is a big or unreasonable ask but I believe it is an important one. For that reason, I am making this proposal. I have made enough of a case. It is clear, it is in our Constitution, and we want it transposed into this legislation. If the Minister is against it, I would like him to clearly state the reasons for that, because people need to know and understand those reasons.

Regarding amendment No. 6, which refers to the chief planning officer, again I have gone to great lengths in discussing this and have been contacted by a number of heads of Departments and local authorities. First and foremost, I have spoken to members of the Irish Planning Institute who have said I have a very valid concern. Under Better Local Government and reform of local government, we brought in parallel strands of the professionals, be they engineers, planners or architects, and the administrative side. I do not want to denigrate either side in any way and it is right that there should be reasonable career prospects for everyone who works in local government. You do not, however, appoint a non-financial person to head up the financial services of a local authority. It is important we would have the expertise of disciplines such as civil engineering, quantity surveying, architecture or planning heading up planning departments, but that is not the case now. I do not want to name anyone because it would not be right or proper to do so, but there are issues of concern about that. We are where we are, but going forward, given this is a new and consolidated planning and development Bill, it is only right and proper we should aspire to have professional people with the necessary skill sets heading up these departments.

I am aware, and it was previously set out to me, that the Government, the Department or the legislation cannot interfere with the functions of local government. The Minister has oversight of many functions. That is very interesting because I had a look at a document dated April 2024, which was a briefing note to the Minister of State when he had taken up his position. It is the best document about local government I have read in eight or nine years as a Member of the House, and what is extraordinary is that as well as setting out the parameters of the Minister of State's responsibilities as well as issues and areas of competence, it also proposes possible legislative changes and flags a number of concerns. It is a very constructive document. I am amazed such a thing exists. I never had it until yesterday or the day before. It has opened my eyes to the great possibilities the Minister of State has in this great Ministry.

I do not see any reason the Minister of State, within the scope and gambit of all of that, could not issue some direction of support for this. The problem, as the Minister of State and everyone present will know, is that the planner operates under the hierarchy of the chief executive of the local authority, which is the planning authority, the housing authority and the authority for a number of issues. Planning is so important, as we have learned from the tribunals, from the investigations and from issues concerning other bodies relating to planning. The chief planner for the county, who has the functions, training and qualifications, should therefore be parallel to the chief executive instead of being under that role. This is how it is in Scotland, which is where I came across this - it is not my idea. We met with Scottish planners as part of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am a member, and they set out how well this system is working.A county chief planner has the functions, training and qualifications. Instead of running under the chief executive, it would run parallel to that role. For too often and too long we have chief executives directing our planners to make decisions which our chief planner or head of planning has not been comfortable with. That is an unsatisfactory situation and, as the Minister of State and the Department say, we want things to be planning led. The top of the hierarchy has to be focused and planning led, has got to make planning sense and be sustainable. There is a role here for a planner to the Department.

The Minister of State may say to me that it is not possible here but I would be happy if he even told me that he was committed to the idea and that he would bring the necessary regulations or proposals or that he would get into negotiations with the relevant city and county managers about it. I would like to hear from the Minister of State today, if possible, the acknowledgement that it makes sense. The vehicle by which that happens may not present itself today and we may not have a pathway for that but it makes sense and should happen. I ask that the Minister of State be supportive of that because it is worthy of being pursued and it has been successful in other jurisdictions.

Finally, amendment No. 16 - these are the three amendments I have chosen to speak about out of this group of amendments - relates to the amendment in the name of Senator McDowell where he again talks about the Planning Regulator and issues around that which are important. I would be interested in hearing the Minister of State's response and I do not want to comment on that until I hear his response other than to say that in the briefing he received that was drawn up in April 2024, there is mention of the Office of the Planning Regulator and mention of a review. Many people talk about the governance. I wish to make clear that I have no personal axe to grind about this with the Office of the Planning Regulator. He does a very good job in his brief, particularly around education and training. I do not always like the decisions he makes but they are not for me to like or dislike. One has to be above board and it all must be transparent and I believe it is but there needs to be a governance review of the office itself. I am glad to see mention of scope for a peer review in this document, as there is for other bodies, but that office is one of them. That may very well address it if, and that is the caveat, there are shortcomings.

Let us never be afraid to improve the governance, accountability and transparency of organisations like the OPR. Clearly, the OPR is here to stay but let us look at the issues. There are also suggestions that perhaps the OPR should have a board. Who is ultimately responsible for the OPR, the office and not the personality, because the personality will change? That is important. I will leave it at that and am interested to hear the responses of the Minister of State. As I am the proposer of the first amendment here, I, of course, have the opportunity to come back and comment.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Higgins and to clarify, this grouping covers amendments Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairperson. I may have to change around the order of the amendments as I address them, so I will effectively begin from the end.

On amendment No. 17, I am concerned about the provision as it is worded at the moment. I hope that concern is inadvertent but it could have an unforeseen consequence. The provision as it is currently worded would mean that within the scope of this Bill, the definition of State authorities would be subject to subsection (8) of section 156, in that the definition of State authorities would include subcontractors. I am therefore concerned about subcontractors as State authorities. It seems unusual to be stretching the definition where it creates a kind of muddying of the waters with regard to responsibility and what is and what is not a State authority. It is different to be doing work on behalf of a State authority and being an actual State authority under definition within a Bill. I am hoping that that is an inadvertent mistake that can, perhaps even at this late stage, be addressed.

On amendments Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive, these are very much about increasing the accountability and the participation which are core.Amendment No. 23 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 4 to specify a number of areas where regulations arise. It specifies that resolutions would be required of both Houses of the Oireachtas in order to approve the making of regulations. The Bill requires a vast number of regulations, which contain extraordinary powers that are of significance, given there are so many areas where the processes that now stand are being changed. New regulations are being created in multiple areas and previous regulations will be expiring. New regulations will apply to local developments and to the manner in which the planning authorities will operate at all levels. The Bill currently requires a rewriting of most of the planning regulations that apply in the State. Those rewritten regulations will simply be made and laid unless they are annulled. There will be no opportunity for the Oireachtas to offer input or insight. What tends to happen in such situations is that we get a poorer quality of regulation as we saw, for example, in respect of past regulation of Airbnb. In that case, a statutory instrument had to deactivate its own provisions after they had been commenced. If that statutory instrument had benefited from Oireachtas scrutiny and engagement, it may well have been a better piece of law.

Amendment No. 24 seeks the deletion of section 4(6), which currently provides, "If, in any respect, any difficulty arises in bringing any provision of this Act into operation ... the Minister may, by regulations, do anything which appears to him or her to be necessary or expedient for removing that difficulty". That is an extraordinarily wide power. The Minister can act if any aspect of this Bill is not going according to plan. Because there are enormous flaws throughout this Bill, I suspect many areas of it will not go according to plan. In such a situation, the Minister is simply allowed to create regulations as he or she wishes. The section refers to anything that appears "necessary or expedient". It is not even restricted to regulations that may be necessary where an urgent issue arises. The section would apply wherever it might be quicker to act through regulations. Much of this Bill is characterised by the myth that it will create faster planning when, in fact, it will create a longer, more expensive and more contentious planning process. When we fail to do things right and take poor shortcuts, as has happened in the past, it leads to judicial review. That happens when there is poor decision-making and too little time is taken to consider the relevant factors in the first place. The power for the Minister in the provision and the impetus of expediency that is driving everything are too wide.

Amendment No. 25 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 4 to require the Minister to establish a list of prescribed bodies with which he or she would consult about the making of regulations under the Act that are relevant to his or her remit, function and jurisdiction. The amendment suggests that there are bodies which can bring a useful expertise to the Minister when he or she is making regulations. Such regulations have significant consequences. Each line in each regulation can make something happen or not. Regulations affect how something happens. They have incredible impact on the shared spaces of our communities, on how we live and on what it feels like to live in Ireland's cities, towns and rural areas. These are significant regulations and it would be appropriate for the Minister to engage with relevant expert bodies when making them. My amendment suggests that those expert bodies should include organisations involved in environmental protection and independent organisations to ensure the Minister is not being advised solely by State bodies or agencies that are ultimately answering to him or her and, therefore, may at times lack the freedom and independence to offer a fully critical perspective.

Turning to the rest of the group of amendments, I greatly regret the decision made in the Seanad, and not by the Minister of State, to rule out of order, on the basis of cost, an amendment providing for a report. We must examine this idea. Officials must examine an important issue which they should be examining anyway, namely, compliance with the Aarhus Convention.Is it the case that having officials examine the question of whether this Bill is actually legal and the paper involved in printing a report on the matter create too much of a cost for the State? This is a serious question because we are seeing it contributes to what has been a massive curtailment of democratic engagement and rights under the Aarhus Convention, both within the Bill and in the manner in which it has been put forward and moved through the Oireachtas. It is essential that there be a re-examination of compliance with the Aarhus Convention because all of the signs clearly point to the Bill being non-compliant. Our recommendation to have a report was useful in that regard. The very fact of not even allowing a report on compliance looks very poor for Ireland.

Amendment No. 22 proposes to insert a new subsection into section 4 requiring that the Minister "shall facilitate effective public participation at an appropriate stage, and while options are still open, during the preparation of regulations which may have a significant effect on the environment". Again, this was reflecting the obligations under Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, namely, the idea that when there is decision-making with significant environmental impact, the public should have a say and be heard on those matters. Amendment No. 22 suggests that but unfortunately many of the other provisions throughout the Bill not only fail to robustly seek to strengthen Ireland's performance under the Aarhus Convention but, in fact, are directly at odds with Ireland's compliance. I will address a number of those areas over the course of the debate. It is important to begin with the Minister's amendment No. 3, which is in this grouping.

Amendment No. 3, regarding commencement dates, seems to be consequent from the serious concerns that arose on 10 June when Ireland was sent a report from the Aarhus Convention compliance committee. It addressed - among many other matters - and explicitly reviewed, at the request of the Government, Chapter 5, Part 4 of this Bill because Ireland had put that in front of the committee. The Government asked the committee to look at it, indicating that it intended to rely on Chapter 5, Part 4 to resolve the outstanding issues where Ireland had been found - not "considered" but "found" - to be non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention committee under section 42 of the 2000 Act on the extension of duration of planning permissions. The Aarhus Convention compliance committee looked at that question. It previously found that the test the Government uses to decide whether public participation was required was inadequate. It found that section 42 of the 2000 Act had problems in that regard.

The Government then wrote this new Chapter 5, Part 4. I will read a direct quote from the compliance committee from June. It is important to emphasise this. I am sorry to put so much on the record but it is important to do so because we have had told multiple times, including by the Minister of State in previous debates in the Seanad, that the Bill was unquestionably Aarhus-compliant. That was the phrase used by the senior Minister and a similar statement was made by the Minister of State in this Chamber. However, as we highlighted in June, the Aarhus Convention compliance committee stated, in paragraph 47 of its progress review, that "the Committee does not consider that, if enacted in their current form, proposed sections 133 and 135 (2) (b) and (d) of the Planning and Development Bill 2023 would fulfil the requirements of paragraph 4 (a) (i) of decision VII/8i."They have said they will not fulfil the requirements for compliance with the principles of public participation under the Aarhus Convention. They have been explicitly clear on it. The Aarhus committee has not examined the rest of the Bill. It is not that it has said the rest of the Bill is compliant. It has not been examined. The Government thought this part was so good that it put it out front and centre. It was examined and failed a compliance test. That should be a signal that there are problems with Aarhus throughout the Bill. That is why this should be addressed and engaged with. We have had no satisfactory response. The Bill has come back to this House without clarification as to whether the Minister misled the House or was simply mistaken, whether he was unaware of the report. The Minister of State said he was satisfied the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention. He changed that position later to say he would be addressing the issues, but the issues have not been addressed. We have it back here before us again.

I will highlight one of the issues specifically raised by Government amendment No. 3. It addresses commencement dates for certain sections of the Bill. This relates to judicial review, another significant problem area in this Bill. The Bill creates problems in terms of standing, grounds, who can take the cases, how much it is going to cost them, and the constraints on time that are placed on them. It breaches all of those principles of access to justice which are core to the Aarhus Convention. There is a suggestion that sections 50A and 50B from the 2000 Act may remain in place until new regulations under Chapter 1 are commenced. There are problems of compliance with Aarhus associated with 50A and 50B but there are greater problems with the new chapter 1 that is being proposed. As the Bill is set out at the moment, as soon as Chapter 1 commences, 50A and 50B will cease to operate. This is in respect of the commencement clause so it really does relate to the Minister's proposal on commencements. The new rules on some areas are in Chapter 1 of Part 9, when that is commenced. However, the new rules on cost are in Chapter 2 of Part 9. There is a potential lacuna whereby, if Chapter 1 is commenced, the existing rules on costs will cease to operate but if Chapter 2 has not been commenced at the same time, there will be no rules on cost. Inadvertent or intentional, either way this is creating a potential lacuna where there will be no rules in place in respect of cost. There is a danger that this could create an environment in which nobody can confidently take cases because they have no idea whether they will have their costs returned to them if they are successful. We will come to it later in detail. There are serious problems with the proposed new Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 in terms of access to justice, standing, cost, and the breadth of remit.There is also a major problem in that a lacuna could be created. Regarding Government amendment No. 3 in regard to commencement, how can we be assured that the kind of situation I have just outlined, whereby provisions of the old Bill will stop while new provisions have not been commenced, will not arise and will not create difficulties, whether inadvertent or intentional, regarding the taking of a judicial review and clarity in regard to costs?

All of this points to the fact that the failure to properly address the Aarhus Convention, and the failure to address the issues I had proposed to be addressed in the report that I requested under my amendment to amendment No. 3, are not going to make things simpler but are going to make things far more problematic. We are effectively going to have a situation where the Bill is not consistent with international law or the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and we are also going to create confusion in many areas, particularly around judicial review. Has there been an estimate of the cost to the State in this regard? It seems to me that there will potentially be huge costs if people find they effectively have to take cases to the higher courts, potentially including the European Court of Justice, because the decision-making process has not been got right in the first place.

People do not go to court for fun. Nobody wants to spend their time, money or energy taking cases. We need to make good decisions that reflect the wisdom, insight and input of local government and local government representatives, as Senator Boyhan outlined, and reflect proper public participation where the public have had a say, as well as reflecting international law and our obligations under it. If those factors are taken into account at the beginning, we will make better decisions that do not end up in the courts. However, what we have here is a recipe for decisions ending up in the courts and in long and elaborate processes. That will not be about individuals taking cases. It will be entirely about the Government making poor decisions and declining to address the well-signalled, notified and undeniable issues of non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention. As I said, there is a direct statement of non-compliance in regard to some sections of the Bill and the very clear flags that have been raised concerning other areas, like judicial review.

I ask the Minister of State to address the question of how the Government proposes to address the Aarhus Convention compliance issue and also, specifically, the gaps and problems that arise on the question of commencement. Right now, whether it is intentional or inadvertent, it is wrong that we would dissolve provisions in respect of cost prior to an obligation to have introduced this. Of course, the fact that we will introduce it is not the same. We make a point in the Bill of saying that Chapter 1, Part 9, must have been introduced before the other parts dissolve. Why are we not doing the same for Chapter 2?

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

It is great to be back in the Seanad. I hope everyone had a lovely recess.

I will address amendments Nos. 1, 6 and 16, as tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell, and amendments Nos. 17 and 22 to 25, inclusive, as tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. These amendments all relate to Part 1, which contains the general provisions, including the Long Title, commencement and definitions.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend the Long Title of the Bill. At present, the Long Title includes, among other matters, that the Act is to provide for proper planning and sustainable development in the interests of the common good. The amendment seeks to expand this to include the “recognition and empowerment of the constitutional role of elected members of local authorities as provided for in Article 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann”. I cannot accept this amendment.The position of local government has been specifically recognised in the Constitution under Article 28A since 1999, whereby the State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law, and in promoting, by its initiatives, the interests of local communities. The Local Government Act 2001 is the core legislative code supporting the structures, powers, functions and duties of local government. As local government and the role of elected members of local authorities has constitutional recognition, it is not appropriate or necessary to repeat it in the Long Title.

Amendment No. 6 and 17 relate to the definitions in section 2. Amendment No.6 seeks to insert a new definition of “Chief Planning Officer”. This term does not feature elsewhere in the Bill and there are no corresponding amendments being moved in respect of this definition. The purposes, scope and functions of roles relating to planning should be set out clearly in legislation and not in guidance documents as proposed. It would appear that this matter primarily relates to the recruitment of staff within a local authority and should be progressed by way of an amendment to the Local Government Act 2001. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 16 seeks to delete the definition of “planning regulator”. The amendment along with others proposed later seek to delete the role of the Office of the Planning Regulator from the Bill. The OPR was established in April 2019 on foot of recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal, which made 64 recommendations aimed at significantly enhancing the transparency of planning in Ireland against a backdrop of significant historical deficiencies in decision-making on local authority development plans and other planning functions. I oppose this amendment as I believe that if it were accepted, it would have a negative impact on the planning system in its entirety. The OPR carries out significant functions that assist with the effective operation of the planning system as a whole.

Amendment No. 17 calls to remove a reference to “subsection (8) of section 156” from the definition of a “State authority”. This reference is necessary for the purposes of State authority developments carried out under section 156 by reason of an accident or emergency. Such developments can only be permitted where an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is not required.

Notably, a Minister proposing to make a State authority development emergency order must inform a State authority where the making of the order may affect the exercise of a function carried out by that State authority. Therefore, it is sensible to ensure that the definition of a "State authority" should include a statutory undertaker for the purposes of section 156. As this reference needs to be retained, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No 22 to 25, inclusive, relate to section 4.

Amendment No. 22 seeks to provide for public consultation on regulations which may have an impact on the environment.

Amendment No. 25 seeks to provide that the Minister shall prescribe bodies for consultation on regulations specifically including bodies involved in environmental protection. I cannot accept these amendments as sufficient provisions have already been made throughout the Bill providing for public participation in matters that may have an effect on the environment. There will also be consultation on regulations where necessary and appropriate, but I do not consider that it to be appropriate that the requirement to do so is set out in the Bill. Many regulations are of a technical nature and it would not be appropriate or necessary to consult on them. Others are more substantial in nature and when they are being drafted it would be normal to have increased consultation with relevant stakeholders on them.

Where regulations are screened for strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and an SEA is required, a public consultation takes place as part of that process.I believe the Bill strikes a suitable balance between fulfilling the State’s obligations in respect of public participation on matters concerning the environment while not overburdening administrative processes or procedures. I thank the Senators for their proposal but, unfortunately, I cannot accept this amendment for the reasons I have outlined.

Amendment No. 23 would require practically all regulations made under the enacted Bill to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in draft form before being approved by resolution. As I have stated previously in Dáil Éireann, this proposed approach is highly impractical, and it has to be noted that the regulations in question can only be introduced to give effect to the principles and policies contained in the enacted Bill, and it is these principles and policies that are currently before the Houses. The proposed approach would radically slow down the making of secondary legislation and this could dramatically inhibit the Minister’s ability to provide for the matters to be prescribed under the enacted Bill. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 24 proposes to delete section 4(6), which restates section 269 of the Act of 2000 and is a standard technical provision to enable the Minister to make regulations to remove any difficulty in the operation of any section of the Bill within three years of its commencement. I must oppose this amendment. Section 4(6) was added to the list of regulations in section 4(4) on Report Stage in the Dáil, whereby a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made unless and until a resolution approving the draft is passed by each such House. I believe this change gives appropriate safeguards if such power is to be availed of in the future.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, 7 to 15, inclusive, 18 and 19 are Government amendments. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to section 1, which sets out the Short Title and a standard technical provision providing for the commencement of the Bill. Amendment No. 2 moves the collective citation relating to the Residential Tenancies Act from Part 24 to Part 1 so that all collective citations are contained together in section 1. This increases clarity for the reader.

Senators Warfield, Gavan, Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn have proposed three amendments to amendment No. 3, which relate to proposed new reporting requirements and propose that the Minister should report on the Bill’s compliance with the Aarhus Convention before commencing provisions, and should submit a report to the Oireachtas joint committee explaining the consequential amendments in Schedule 7. I am satisfied that the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and, therefore, I cannot see the need to report on these matters in the manner suggested. With regard to the consequential amendments, these are standard amendments that have been brought at this Stage to other legislation on the Statute Book that make reference to the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins will have a chance to respond at the end.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not the speaker at the end but I think it is important that we have accuracy.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Higgins will be allowed to speak at the end and can come in again.

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

These references must be updated and the Department has undertaken significant work in recent months, in consultation with other Departments with responsibility-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the point of order?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My point of order is that I do not want the House to be misled on the compliance. It has been established that it is not compliant with the Aarhus Convention. The Minister of State has just said again-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have already had a statement-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has advice on it.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have read the legal notification.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State to continue.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important. We simply cannot have inaccuracies-----

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State to continue without interruption.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Differences in opinion are fine-----

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

I will address the Aarhus Convention again later.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the meantime do not say that it is compliant if it is not compliant.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State without interruption.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, it is important.

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

These references must be updated and the Department has undertaken significant work in recent months, in consultation with other Departments with responsibility for each enactment identified, to finalise the required amendments.

These consequential amendments are to maintain the status quo by the insertion or substitution of references to the relevant provisions of the Bill and do not intend to make new policy changes. Where provisions in the Act of 2000 have changed significantly in comparison to those corresponding provisions of the Bill, the consequential amendments have been carefully reviewed to ensure the new references do not result in any unintended consequence.I cannot accept the proposed amendments to amendment No. 3 for these reasons.

Amendment No. 3 rewords the commencement provision, which is currently section 1(2) of the Bill and splits it into two new subsections to provide further clarity around the commencement of the Act. It adds a new paragraph (c) which allows for the consequential provisions to be commenced at different stages. This is important as an Act of this scale must be capable of being commenced in stages.

The remainder of my amendments in this group relate to the definitions in section 2. Amendment No. 4 inserts a definition for “acquisition of a maritime site”. It relates to further amendments which provide for the application of Part 14 relating to compulsory acquisition to the maritime area. This amendment further replaces the existing definition of “acquisition of land” to include references to “acquisition of a maritime site” where relevant in specific sections. For the purpose of compulsory acquisitions, maritime sites are limited to any part of the maritime area that does not vest in a Minister of the Government.

Amendment No. 5 amends the definition of chief executive in section 2 to provide that the definition is subject to the newly proposed section 589. Section 589 sets out how the chief executive shall be construed for Limerick City and County Council and the instances where it should be taken to mean the director general or the Mayor.

Amendment No. 7 inserts a reference to a person who continues in office as deputy chief planning commissioner of the commission under section 456 into the definition of “Deputy Chief Planning Commissioner”. This was inadvertently omitted from the original definition and is in addition to a person newly being appointed under this Bill.

Amendment No. 8 amends the definition of land to include reclaimed land. Reclaimed land may often still fall within the definition of maritime area and it is important that such land should be treated like other land in the planning process. There may be scenarios where buildings are built on reclaimed land and such developments should be assessed in accordance with the requirements for land rather than the maritime area.

Amendment No. 9 updates the definition of “National Planning Policies and Measures” to include a transitional provision relating to specific planning policy requirements in guidelines which continue in force under section 27 until they are revoked or replaced. Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 are related and update the definition of “occupier” in relation to maritime sites. It includes a reference to a person who is a holder of “a licence under Part 5 of the Act of 2021 granted for a Schedule 7 usage within the meaning of that Part” in addition to the existing references to the holder of a maritime area consent or a lease or licence under the Foreshore Act 1933.

Amendment No. 13 inserts a reference to a person who continues in office as an ordinary planning commissioner of the commission under section 456 into the definition of “ordinary planning commissioner”. This was inadvertently omitted from the original definition and is in addition to a person newly being appointed under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 update references from “foreshore” to the “maritime area” in the definition of "owner". The “maritime area” is a defined term and the more appropriate reference. Amendment No. 18 moves the definition of “strategic development zone” from section 546 in Part 21 to section 2 as the term is used outside of Part 21 and therefore needs to be defined in section 2 for the purpose of the Act generally. A further amendment in Part 21 will delete the definition from that part. Amendment No. 19 updates the definition of "Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations" to include a reference to any existing regulations in addition to any regulations that may be made under the Act.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. In the interests of clarity, I reiterate that we are dealing with amendments Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, as well as Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am always conscious that people may be looking in at the debate.Sometimes, we need to set out the context of what we are doing and what we are about. I will take the amendments in the order the Minister of State has addressed them. On amendment No. 1, he feels it is not appropriate or not required to enshrine the provisions of Article 28A of the Constitution in this Bill. He has made his position clear on that. That is somewhat disappointing. It is true to form that he is not going to accept any amendments to this section because he has not accepted any amendments to this whole Bill. This is a democratic Chamber. The fact that the Government has a majority does not mean it should not accept amendments. However, it is true to form as that seems to have been the message for the past four and a half years. No amendments have been accepted. That is not a personal gripe with the Minister of State. I respect that he is the Minister of State, that he has taken advice and that he has decided that it is not appropriate. I take a different view, hence I believe the amendment is important and that we should vote on it in this House. That is a matter we can deal with later on, however.

On amendment No. 6, in which I talk about a planner, one of the other Ministers previously gave the exact same response, or a variation of it. If the Minister of State recalls, I today asked him whether he believes it is a good idea. That is a very simple question. He does not read the answer off a typed sheet of paper before coming in. I am asking whether he believes in the concept of having a chief planner. I believe that warrants a response. I also said that I did not expect it to be included in this legislation but that I wanted an indication of whether the Minister charged with responsibility in this area believes it is right. Let us be simple and think of a headline. Is it right that a non-planner with no qualifications in planning should be a director of planning in any one of our 31 local authorities? I simply say "No". It is simply not correct. Do I ask a non-doctor to be head of a health clinic? No, I do not. It is as simple as that. I am asking the Minister of State whether he believes that is necessary. I am not too sure whether he does or does not. He does not believe this is the appropriate place for it and I accept that. However, is he supportive of the concept of putting such a position in place and addressing that matter?

There are a number of such positions vacant at the moment. There are vacancies for a director of planning. Are we saying that someone who has no qualifications in planning, architecture, quantity surveying or engineering should be a director of planning and lead a planning department? Are we just going to leave it to the city and county managers who have been running all of our local authorities for years and then, when it is going well, we will say, "~Great", and, when it is going wrong, we will blame them or the elected members of the council? There are councillors who know more about planning than the directors of planning. I will leave that with the Minister of State. I respect and accept his decision not to accept the amendment but it is not a good enough argument. It is a weak argument. He would it find it very hard to defend it in the appointment of planners. I therefore believe it warrants discussion. It is absolutely crazy. I will undertake to this week identify the heads of all 31 of our city and county authorities' planning departments and their qualifications or lack thereof. I will have that information to the Minister of State by Friday. I ask him to commit to looking at the issue because it is simply not good enough for him, as Minister of State, to stand over that. We cannot retrospectively move people on but we should stop filling positions in this way. The Minister of State has the power to direct chief executives in a number of other areas. We need a conversation with the Planning Regulator and with other people because it is important. However, the Minister of State has reflected on the issue and has made a decision.

On my colleague Senator McDowell's amendment in respect of the OPR, I mentioned to the Minister of State the briefing document that was prepared for him in April 2024. I now have the section I was looking for in front of me. It states the "Periodic Critical Review (PCR) of the ... [Office of the Planning Regulator] is due to be undertaken in latter half of this year." Will the Minister of State confirm if that is factually correct? It further states:

The objective of the review process is primarily to secure improvements in accountability [which is what we have been talking about in respect of the OPR], efficiency and effectiveness but also to scrutinise objectively the case for rationalisation and consolidation of public bodies in light of changing requirements, demands and priorities. The review process should also assess the extent to which the governance structure [which we have been talking about over the last few weeks] of each public body and the Department’s oversight of that body (if appropriate) is consistent with its legislative underpinning [which is what we are doing here; this is legislative underpinning as we are dealing with legislation] and is strongly aligned to the business needs of the body.

That is an objective as long as we are here, and I do not know how long more we will be here, but can the Minister of State confirm that is on track? Can he confirm that he will go ahead and there will be a periodic critical review? That will be important before we make a decision on that amendment.

To turn to a number of excellent amendments proposed by Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, from what I have heard from her today - she is consistently talking about this - the kernel of this concerns serious issues about compliance with the Aarhus Convention. Is the Minister of State telling us on the record of this House, the Parliament, that it is fully in compliance? It is the Minister of State's view that the whole of this Bill is fully in compliance? I presume he will stick to that. The compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention has a different view. That is interesting for the record of the House and for when we go back to look at this issue.

The issues Senator Higgins has talked about here today such as access to judicial review have been key points of contention throughout the passage of this Bill. There has been contention throughout the entire passage of this Bill about the Aarhus Convention, judicial review and the right of engagement by the citizens and, indeed, by some of our elected councillors. On should recall that Senators, TDs, Government Ministers and councillors have raised serious concerns, have legitimately objected to and have made appeals to An Bord Pleanála about development they have considered to be unsustainable or incompatible with their city or county development plans. If the Minister of State wants a list of them, I can give him a list I have on my desk downstairs. Of all parties and none, there is a consensus that they want a voice. They should have a voice, and rightly so, but I want that opportunity also to be there for the citizens. It should be there for everyone who has a concern and a view regarding the proper planning and sustainable development of their area. Senator Higgins has stated the judicial review process's restrictions go to the very heart of democracy and will make it more difficult and potentially costly for our citizens, residents' associations, community groups and councillors and politicians who seek to challenge planning decisions that will affect their community and environment. I have three other points on this particular overview of amendments she has tabled.

Senator Higgins raised the rights of access to judicial review in the context of planning and environmental protection. They are rights that should be and are protected, but there is a dispute about that here in respect of the Aarhus Convention of which we are signatories and to which we have signed up. Judicial review is a way for our citizens or groups of citizens to challenge decisions that are made by Government or State agencies to ensure they are lawful, which is important. That is what they are challenging. It is important to remember that a judicial review application is not a big deal. Somehow, there is a witch-hunt about people who want to put their money where their mouth is and take a judicial review. A judicial review application will only be successful if there has been a breach of the process in law. Those are the facts. Let us not frustrate people doing that. That is a reasonable proposition for any citizen, politician or member of this State to make.

I do not necessarily concur with all of this but some citizens would state this proposed Bill is designed to scare citizens and local groups away from potential challenges. The Minister of State and I know that applications for thousands upon thousands of residential units are sitting on the desks of An Bord Pleanála within the defunct SHD process to which the Minister of State's predecessors in government signed up. No witch-hunt happened here. No one paid the price. Some people went on to get better jobs, other people were forced out of their jobs or felt they were forced out of their work but the great architects of the SHD got out and moved on but no one was held accountable. Many of us here cautioned at the time that there were flaws and are saying the same things today that were said then.Our amendments were rubbished and we were not listened to, but nobody is back in here saying we got it wrong. We did not get it wrong and the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of houses are still sitting in these SHDs - I am involved in one as a member of the board - during a housing crisis.

These are very valid amendments but, ultimately, Deputy Dillon is the Minister of State. I am always respectful of the process. He has to take bigger, collective advice from his officials and he has to take the line of the Government to progress the Bill through the House. Nevertheless, as I said, the amendments are reasonable and fair. We will be here today and tomorrow, and I really do not want to have to stand up tomorrow night and say the Minister of State did what I had predicted and did not accept any of our amendments. He has his responses typed up and ready, with nice folders and stickers, but we have to speak about this because we believe it. We have experienced it and we represent people, as the Minister of State does too. The difference is that we do not have to peddle a particular line all the time. We are here, as politicians on the Opposition benches, to scrutinise legislation, hold people to account and make a case. We do not convince people, however; that is ultimately a matter for the House and for the people to vote on. I thank the Minister of State.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, to amendment No. 3 have been ruled out of order due to a potential charge on the Revenue.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 30, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “ “Chief Planning Officer”, who may also be referred to as Chief City Planning Officer or Chief County Planning Officer, means the person appointed to each planning authority and for the Minister to issue guidance. This guidance shall define the role of the officer;”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Members take their seats?

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State back to the Chamber. Will Senator Higgins resume her seat, please?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 37, to delete lines 12 to 16.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 38, line 32, to delete “, subject to subsection (8) of section 156—”

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 in the name of Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn are ruled out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 42, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “(4) The Minister shall facilitate effective public participation at an appropriate stage, and while options are still open, during the preparation of regulations which may have a significant effect on the environment, and shall take the following steps:

(a) set time-frames sufficient for effective participation;

(b) publish or otherwise make publicly available the draft regulation;

(c) provide the public the opportunity to comment, directly or through representative consultative bodies;

(d) take the input from the public participation into account.”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 42, after line 38, to insert the following: “(5) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere provided in this Act, including under subsection (1) of section 285, where regulations or an order are proposed to be made by a Minister under—

(a) Part 3 Plans, Policies and related Matters,

(b) Part 4 Development Consents,

(c) Part 6 Environmental Assessment,

(d) Part 9 Judicial Review and Decision-Making,

(e) Part 10 Architectural Heritage,

(f) Part 17 An Comisiún Pleanála,

(g) Part 18 Office of the Planning Regulator,

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

(i) Part 21 Strategic Development Zones, and

(j) Part 22 Urban Development Zones,

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

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 43, to delete lines 8 to 16.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 43, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(7) (a) The relevant Minister shall establish a list of prescribed bodies for the purposes of consultation on regulations and other matters under this Act under their jurisdiction, and before making

regulations under this Act, consult with the existing set of prescribed bodies that are connected with or relate to the matters to which any proposed regulations the relevant Minister is preparing, and provide them with an effective opportunity to participate and comment on the proposed regulations, and take due account of the consultation input.

(b) The list prescribed under paragraph (a), shall include organisations engaged in environmental protection and shall include independent organisations.”.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Gerry Horkan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 26 to 40, inclusive, and 42 to 52, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 44, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(e) a change in use of an artistic or cultural premises to a primarily retail or commercial purpose,”.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 26 seeks to include a change in use of an artistic or cultural premises to a primarily retail or commercial purpose, among the listed items. On page 44, there is a list of the kinds of development that are exempted. I have spoken in general about my very serious concerns regarding these exempted developments because it is not clear how wide or extensive this may be in terms of forms of development that are going to be bypassing what we would normally regard as the proper planning process.

In terms of the amendment and its insertion between lines 8 and 9, the Bill at line 9 refers to "premises used for retail purposes, a change in use from a prescribed retail purpose to another prescribed retail purpose". I wanted to include an amendment dealing with situations where an artistic or cultural premises is changed to a primarily retail or commercial purpose. Actually, I am going to bracket that and set it aside because I am not happy with it as it is currently worded.

Amendment No. 27 speaks to one of the core issues that the Aarhus Convention compliance committee has raised with Ireland. It provides that "where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment has not been required under any such enactment, but the activity may have a significant impact on the environment, public participation has been provided for prior to the authorisation or permitting of the activity." This refers back to the same issue that came up relating to the section that the Aarhus committee recognised as being non-compliant. Again, it is really important to say for the record that this is not a matter of opinions. It is not a matter of some people thinking it is compliant and others thinking it is not. To be explicitly clear, the Aarhus compliance committee, who are the people who decide if it is compliant, have found that Ireland is non-compliant with Aarhus. Specifically, in its progress report, which was not considering whether Ireland was compliant but was examining whether Ireland had done anything to address the fact that it was non-compliant with Aarhus, the committee was very clear that the provisions in this Bill in the chapter it was asked to examine do not make Ireland compliant. It is very important when we are speaking about this that we are really accurate because this is not a matter of opinion or a question of legal advice. The deciding body has decided and the question now is whether Ireland is doing anything to become compliant.

It is very disturbing that in his responses the Minister of State has consistently not spoken at all about any changes that the Government plans to make in order to make Ireland compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Earlier I brought up the really specific issue of commencement and the potential lacuna in the commencement of Chapter 1 under Part 9, the non-commencement of Chapter 2 and the fact that there could be a lacuna vis-à-vis provisions that currently stand in law whereby there were no rules in place regarding the costs for judicial review but the Minister of State did not address that at all in his response. There seems to be this idea that we will just keep not talking about things and keep making factually inaccurate statements about the Bill being compliant with the convention and then the problem will go away but it will not because it is a legal problem. It is a question of legal compatibility.

One of the core reasons that Ireland was found to be non-compliant with the convention was it has been applying the wrong test in respect of whether something is a matter that requires public participation, in terms of that something being environmentally significant. The test under the convention is whether a decision has the potential to have a significant impact on the environment.That is the question to be examined in considering whether public participation is required with regard to a decision, including planning decisions such as the one the Aarhus compliance committee examined, namely, the extension of permissions, or this section which deals with the kinds of developments that should be exempted from the normal planning process.

In the area of planning retention, where non-compliance was found, and in this section, the Government is applying the wrong test. It is simply asking whether it requires an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment and using that as a proxy to say that if such assessments are not required, we assume that it does not have a significant environmental impact. However, an appropriate assessment is only related to special areas of conservation which may or may not be near the site. Similarly, an environmental impact assessment assesses very narrow factors. However, something can have a very significant environmental impact without having the signals that require an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment. The Aarhus compliance committee has already found that the need for an appropriate assessment or environmental impact assessment is not a sufficient test of whether something is a matter with significant environmental impact. We need to be able to consider other forms of significant environmental impact and other things that may happen, such as the environmental impact something may have on rivers, species and surrounding nature, and which may or may not come under an environmental impact assessment but are nonetheless factors that are significant enough that members of the public should have a say. Again, members of the public do not get a veto but they would be participants in the decision-making. This is clear under the Aarhus Convention, and the Government has again done it wrong with regard to extensions of permission. It has been found to have done it wrong by the Aarhus compliance committee and it has suggested a way to fix it that the compliance committee said does not fix it. I do not want to keep reading into the record paragraph 47 of the Aarhus compliance committee's report, but it is clear that it does not fix it.

The same kinds of mistakes are being made with regard to exempted developments whereby the Government is simply saying if it is not required to have an EIA or an appropriate assessment, the assumption will be that there is no significant impact on the environment. That is not adequate. It is not an adequate test. It does not meet the standard of the Aarhus Convention or what the Aarhus compliance committee told Ireland in relation to other provisions. It is actually worse here because with regard to the extension of permission, at least one could assume or hope that an initial planning process may have been applied and is being extended. However, in this section on exempted development much of the planning process will be skipped and the developments will be exempted from having to go through the normal process, the normal scrutiny and the appropriate and correct checks to see if they should or should not be built. Those are being short-circuited, so it is actually worse than simply retention. It is a matter of actual pure exemption and, again, the same wrong test is being applied. As a result, it is clear that the Bill allows for developments to be exempted even though they have a significant impact on the environment and that the public is to be denied the right to have proper participation in the authorisation or permitting of that activity. Amendment No. 27 is, therefore, extremely significant. It is an attempt to help the Government to avoid definite non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention in section 9. I recommend strongly that it accept the amendment, which widens the test in an appropriate way.

The Government has tabled a number of amendments on this section. I will come back to those in a moment. We have seen a move from the word "may" to "shall". At least here, where regulations will affect a State authority, it "shall" consult that State authority. They are fairly minimal.

Amendment No. 31 is crucial because it is about who can engage in terms of finding out about a declaration as to whether a development is an exempted development. There is a strange phenomenon whereby an exempted development can be built and people try to find out whether it is an illegal, horrible thing that is being built or whether it is an exempted development and someone is entitled to do so under some legislation. However, there are huge limits on who can find out whether the thing that is being built is an exempted development and who can say it is an exempted development that is circumventing the planning process or just somebody building something and not bothering with the planning process. I refer to having a proper declaration that it is an exempted development and why and on which grounds it is being exempted and allowed to be built without the normal process and without members of the public having a say in it. It is constrained as regards who gets to find out whether something is an exempted development. The person who is building it can find out. The relevant person who can find out what is happening is the "owner of the land" or the occupier of the land, that is, the person who is carrying out things on the land. It is a certain kind of company but a very constrained one "formed ... not later than one year before the making of the request concerned". The company has to have formed prior to this new development having appeared and, again, there are a number of constraints. It must have pursued objects previously, must have no fewer than ten members and must have passed various resolutions. My amendment simply provides that:

“(f) an organisation, group or association— (i) whose primary purpose, or whose constitution includes objects, which relate to the promotion of environmental protection of relevance to the request concerned, and

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

That is the constrained version of my amendment. In amendments Nos. 32 and 33, I insert "any person" because any person should be able to find out of something is being built under the very wide exemption space that is created in this legislation or if it is simply being built in an arrogant way without any appropriate provision. I do not see the benefit of constraining who can get that declaration. It should be "any person", as provided for in amendments Nos. 32 and 33. If it is to be limited, however, the idea of limiting it only to companies that have already been established and that existed beforehand seems explicitly designed to disenfranchise and disempower residents' associations, local groups that may have formed because something with a significant environmental impact is going to happen in their immediate area or groups of children. We know as regards schools that children have taken actions that have been key in challenging developments that affect their lives and quality of life.There is no scope for the people who live in the places where these developments are happening to get together and be told about the structure that is being built, what they are looking at or listening to every day, what is taking all of their light away, what is polluting their immediate environment and the basis on which it is being built. At a minimum, any voluntary group, organisation or association should be able to get a declaration. It is shameful that such bodies cannot. Amendment No. 31 suggests a wider definition of “company”. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 suggest that any person should be able to get information. This section potentially falls foul not only of the Aarhus Convention, but also of the directive on the right of access to environmental information by excluding persons from accessing such information.

Regarding amendment No. 34, in requesting a declaration setting out what is happening on land or a maritime site, the Bill is not only limited in terms of who can seek a declaration and information, but the person making the request is also required to notify the owner of the site in writing of the making of that request. Persons should only have to make reasonable attempts to notify the owners. It should not be the case that, where something is being constructed or developed on a site, the owner making himself or herself unavailable for receiving notices of declarations can be grounds for the public not getting the relevant information immediately.

In amendment No. 35, I suggest the period be three working days. There could be a crucial matter of time, so the earlier people get the information they are seeking, the better.

Amendment No. 36 is on ensuring that, when the commission gives a declaration, it should be free of charge. This is about costs not being an obstacle to access to justice or the receipt of environmental information.

There are also Government amendments in this grouping.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would provide that any person could seek a declaration and ensure consistency with the acceptance of amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

Are amendments Nos. 42 to 52, inclusive, in this grouping?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I regret that amendment No. 41 has been ruled out of order, having been voted down on Committee Stage. It is extraordinary and one of the strangest elements of this problematic Bill that section 11(2) effectively says that, if someone makes a declaration on whether a project is an exempted development, such a declaration is not admissible in court. There is a weird, almost secret planning process that no one can know about and of which not even the courts can have oversight. This seems extraordinary and I regret that the Government has not seen fit to address the issue, which affects people’s right to proper recourse to the courts and is questionable from the perspective of the balance of power. Obviously, relevant declarations should be admissible as evidence in proceedings. These declarations are the basis on which developments that affect people’s lives will be built, yet there is a declaration behind the scenes that allows developers to do whatever they like and for which they will never have to answer in court. For example, where an appropriate exemption has been granted but the developer has not stuck to the terms of that development and has instead developed something completely different, if the declaration is not admissible in court, then there is no way to prove that the developer has not stuck to the terms of the exemption.

Amendment No. 42 would expand the saver for declarations under section 5 of the 2000 Act, including a "request for a declaration, request for information, further information, notice, request for a review or a referral under that section and made before that repeal". As drafted, the saver is inadequate, so this amendment would ensure there was no lacuna.

Similarly, the Minister of State did not address the question on a gap being created in the regulations covering costs if Chapter 1 of Part 9 is commenced but Chapter 2 is not. If Chapter 1 is commenced, then sections 50, 50A and 50B will automatically be pushed out of place and the current regulations on costs will discontinue. However, Chapter 2 refers to costs, so there is potentially an unfortunate lacuna. We need to be clear that this must not happen, yet I have made the Minister of State aware of it and he is choosing not to address it.

Under certain aspects of the Bill, the 2000 Act will continue to apply, but pending the application of new regulations, the list of matters to which the current regulations will apply in respect of processes that are already under way is not complete. There are gaps, which is why I have set out this comprehensive list: “request for a declaration, request for information, further information, notice, request for a review or a referral". Any processes that are under way should still happen under section 5 of the 2000 Act, but the Bill does not make that clear.

Amendment No. 43 expands the saver for declarations under section 5 of the 2000 Act to include any matter that might be concluded in accordance with that section’s provisions. If a matter awaiting a decision is concluded, then that matter is concluded under the existing rules. This should be made clear. This has to do with the processes that are already in play and being clear about the provisions under which they will be decided.

Amendment No. 50 seeks to amend section 13(8)(b) so that, where a planning authority fails to make a decision on overground communication infrastructure or any associated physical infrastructure within the period referred to, a decision to refuse the licence shall be deemed to have been made rather than automatically granted. There are many instances where it is appropriate that communications infrastructure be in place but if the local authority does not decide, then paragraph (b) means that permission is automatically granted. One cannot automatically grant permission having skipped the process. That is not fair to the public who may have given their input or to people’s right to be a part of decision-making. I am also concerned that this clause will allow a little deniability.We know that individual members stand up and say they are against this or that but we could be left in a position where people can stand up and say they are against something but then, by virtue of inaction, the decision can be taken out of their hands and deniability brought in. There should be no deniability. Obviously, local authorities should have to make decisions in a timely manner but members should not have the option to wash their hands of the decision altogether by not making a decision at all and having it be automatically granted. That is not acceptable and that is what is proposed under the legislation. Again, if a decision is not made, the application should unfortunately be seen to have fallen. A new application can then, of course, be made but the granting of an application cannot be reversed. If in doubt, the precautionary principle suggests erring towards automatic refusal rather than automatic granting.

Amendment No. 51 seeks to insert a caveat into section 13(8) providing that:

Notwithstanding paragraph (b), where the licence involves an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment, no deemed grant of permission shall arise where a planning authority fails to make the decision

I have suggested automatic refusal rather than automatic granting but we should be really clear that if an application for planning permission requires an EIA or AA, which means there is a potential impact on our special areas of conservation, there absolutely cannot be an automatic or algorithmic decision to grant without those factors having been considered and given proper weight, because those factors literally must be weighed and considered, or without any planning authority having decided on the content of the EIA or AA. It cannot be a case of "Who cares what was said in the environmental report or appropriate assessment?" because that would clearly be in breach of proper law and proper process. As I have said, that is completely out of tune with the Aarhus Convention on any basis. In that context, it cannot be said that there has been any kind of appropriate process. Permissions cannot be automatically granted when environmental factors have been signalled to such a degree. I believe that concludes this grouping.

Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is very welcome. I am only going to speak to one amendment, Government amendment No. 46. I am looking for clarity about the implications of this amendment and I feel optimistic. It states:

In page 58, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(b) Applicants for licences under this section for appliances, apparatuses or structures of such class or classes as may be prescribed shall give notice of such applications to the public in such manner and form as may be prescribed.”.

The Minister of State may not recall, although I hope he does, the point I made to the effect that there was no mechanism for public notification or consultation when it comes to telecommunications masts and that this is an anomaly. You need to apply for full planning permission for a mast over 12 m on private land but, under section 254 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, you just need to go through the licence application process with the result that masts of 15 m, 18 m and higher are appearing all across the country, sometimes right outside people's homes, without any notification or opportunity to have a say. I am reading this amendment and wondering whether it means that the Minister of State's Department would be able, through regulations, to impose a necessity for public notification and consultation. Does it leave it open to that? I would be very happy if that were the case but some clarity is required. It is left open-ended. I hope the Minister of State will be able to provide that clarity and to reassure people. When I spoke in the Seanad, I certainly accepted that this is essential infrastructure and my colleagues seemed to agree but, essential or not, we still have a responsibility to ensure that local communities have sufficient access to information and the ability to partake in some sort of consultation about changes in their environment.

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

I thank the Senators for their input. I will first address amendments Nos. 26, 27, 31 to 38, inclusive, 42, 43, 50 and 51, tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, which all relate to Part 2.

Amendment No. 26 seeks to amend section 7, which relates to change of use. The amendment seeks to provide that a change in use of an artistic or cultural premises to a primarily retail or commercial purpose is a material change in use. I cannot accept this as it is imperative that we respect the expertise and decision-making capabilities of professional local authority planners when it comes to making decisions and recommendations with respect to planning applications, especially as this work must be carried out while taking into account all relevant considerations, including relevant development plans. While I appreciate the intent behind Senator Higgins's proposal, I am not in agreement with the approach proposed and, having full confidence in our planning authorities and their ability to correctly consider material change in use applications, I am unfortunately not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 27 seeks to add a new paragraph 9(6)(c) to provide for additional requirements in respect of developments that do not require an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment. The proposed new paragraph will not work for the purposes of this subsection. This is because, as per paragraph 9(6)(b), the subsection can only come into effect where an EIA or AA is required to be carried out. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 31 to 38, inclusive, all relate to exempted development declarations in sections 10 and 11. Amendments Nos. 31 to 33, inclusive, 37 and 38 seek to broaden the scope of section 10 to include environmental NGOs and to allow third parties to seek a declaration. I am not in a position to accept these amendments but I will point out that I did bring forward amendments on Report Stage in the Dáil to extend the definition of relevant person in this section to include environmental NGOs holding the relevant bona fides. This means that such organisations will be able to seek a declaration.

Amendment No. 34 seeks to amend section 10(4) to provide that a person who is not the owner of the land shall, when requesting a declaration, make reasonable attempts to notify the owner of his or her request for a declaration. We discussed this matter with the OPC and this is unnecessary as section 391 deals with service of notice requirements and section 391(4) deals with instances where the owner cannot be ascertained.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 propose a number of changes to section 10(c).I do not agree with the need to reduce the number of days within which a planning authority or the commission must publish their decision from five days to three days. Section 10(10)(c)(ii) is clearly drafted so that members of the public can inspect the relevant documentation at a physical location if unable to avail of the option to view such documentation online. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 seek to amend section 12, which is a transitional provision for declarations and requests for declarations made under section 5 of the Act of 2000. Having reviewed amendments Nos. 42 and 43I have determined that they are not necessary. The saving of any request, application or appeal is already provided for under section 12(2), and the Act of 2000 will continue to apply and have effect in relation to those requests, applications or appeals. Therefore, I see no reason for amendment No. 42as it is a duplication of what has already been provided for. Similarly, amendment No. 43 is not required since section 12, as currently drafted, already provides that the Act of 2000 continues to apply and to have effect. For these reasons I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 relate to section 13 of the Bill and the licensing of appliances on public roads. Amendment No. 50seeks to amend section 13(8)(b) to provide that instead of a deemed grant of a telecommunication licence on the failure of the planning authority to make a decision within the timeframe, such licences should be deemed refused. The provisions relating to a deemed decision to grant a licence have been carried over from the Act of 2000 for the purposes of the Bill. This provision is fair and reasonable and should be retained in the new legislative framework. For that reason, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 51 seeks to insert a provision that notwithstanding the ability for a deemed decision in relation to electronic communications infrastructure, no such decision shall be deemed to be granted where the licence involves an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment. As mentioned previously in Dáil Éireann, this provision is not considered necessary as section 13(3) already provides that you cannot apply for a licence where an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment is required. In such circumstances, planning permission must be sought where the development can be appropriately assessed and for this reason I cannot accept this amendment.

I intend to move amendments Nos. 28 to 30, inclusive, amendments Nos. 39 and 40, amendments Nos. 44 to 49, inclusive, and amendment No. 52. Amendment No. 28 amends section 9 to provide that where the Minister proposes exempted development regulations that are likely to affect the performance of a State authority, the Minister shall consult with that State authority before making the regulations. The text as currently written has this as a discretionary consultation. However, it is appropriate that such consultation shall be mandatory.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 amends the definition of “relevant act or operation” and “relevant change in use” in section 10(1) to include a reference to environmental non-governmental organisations, ENGOs. These amendments are consequential to an amendment on Report Stage in the Dáil that extended the definition of relevant person in this section to include environmental NGOs holding the relevant bona fides, which allowed such organisations will to seek a declaration.

Amendment No. 39 is also consequential to an amendment made on Dáil Report Stage that inserted a new subsection (4) into section 10, which compels the owner of the land or maritime site to be notified in writing of the making of such a request by a third party. This amendment inserts a new paragraph into subsection (16) which sets out how section 10 shall be read for the purposes of request to the commission in relation to the maritime area. It construes subsection (4) for that purpose.

Amendment No. 40 allows the commission five working days instead of three workings days to publish a decision under section 10. This is consistent with the timeframe given to local authorities.

Amendment No. 44 removes a reference to section 13 not applying to exempted development. In order to undertake development on a public road, either planning permission or a licence is required. This mirrors the position in the Act of 2000.

Amendment No. 45 replaces section 13(4) and has the effect of adding a reference to a person being able to apply for a continuation of a licence granted under the Act of 2000, as well as a licence granted under the Bill.

Amendment No. 46 adds a regulation-making power for the Minister to prescribe certain classes of licence requests as requiring public notification. Senator Currie has spoken to this previously. This amendment is being made on foot of concerns raised in the Seanad on Committee Stage regarding licences for telecommunication. We will certainly specify the detail in the relevant regulations in this regard taking the Senator's feedback on board.

Amendment No. 47 rewords section 13(4)(b) without changing its context.

Amendments Nos. 48 and 49inserts a reference to a person being able to apply for a continuation of a licence granted under the Act of 2000, as well as a licence granted under this Bill.

Amendment No. 52 amends the transitional arrangement in section 14 to deem a licence granted under section 254 of the Act of 2000 to be a licence granted under section 13 of the Bill. This is appropriate as it will allow people to apply for the continuation of a licence granted under the Act of 2000 under the Bill.

I will address Senator Higgins's concerns about the commencement of the Bill regarding Chapters 1 and 2. The Bill will be commenced on a phased basis, as she is aware. The Department is putting arrangements in place with regard to the commencements to allow for the transition of the updated legislation across the planning system. That will also take into account the need to liaise with local authorities and An Bord Pleanála and to ensure that we, as well as the wider stakeholders, are prepared for the commencements. It should be noted that the existing provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2000 will remain in place until the relevant provisions of this Bill are commenced. There is certainly a large number of transitional provisions to facilitate a smooth operational transition from the arrangements under the current Act to those under the Bill. We will certainly provide clarity to those who engage with the planning system in that regard.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that last point, it is not the case that provisions will remain in place because the Bill explicitly provides for the replacement of sections 50A and 50B within the current piece. Those sections will end in their functionality when Chapter 1 of Part 9 commences. However, there are matters explicitly relating to costs that are not to do with Chapter 1 of Part 9 but are to do with Chapter 2 of Part 9. Those factors will be impacted if sections 50, 50A and 50B are replaced. The fact is the Bill explicitly spells out the order in which it will happen under Chapter of Part 9 but does not in respect of Chapter 2 of Part 9. We will have a situation where if Chapter 1 of Part 9 were commenced first, we could have a lacuna. There is a real danger of a lacuna regarding the effect of costs.Perhaps when we come back tomorrow, the Minister of State will clarify but it is not enough to say the provisions will be in place "until". The Bill sets out in some cases exactly when things will come into effect and when their effect will stop. At present there is a trigger to stop the effective function of sections 50, 50A and 50B without a guarantee that the relevant new regulations or new provisions in respect of court costs will be put in place. This is leaving aside the fundamental problems with both of these.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, just-----

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just addressing the Minister of State's question.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is because it is 6 p.m.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair enough.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By order of the House today, we will now suspend until 6.45 p.m.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was responding to the Minister of State's responses on these matters. It is also important that I note the concerns raised by Senators on the Government side that were overlapping. The responses of the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, were not adequate in respect of the question of how the Aarhus Convention requirement of a significant impact on the environment would be assessed. We did not really get an answer about the inappropriate use of a proxy for deciding if there is a significant environmental impact by way of an EIA or AA. There are cases where even they may not be required because appropriate assessment, for example, is extraordinarily narrow and only deals with special areas of conservation and other such Natura sites but where, nonetheless, there is a significant environmental impact. There is a real concern in respect of a number of areas.

Again, I noticed that relates to my amendment No. 27, which seeks to suggest that it is very important that we do not have an exemption where there is a risk that there may be a significant impact on the environment. There is no assessment mechanism within the Bill or within the planning process to say how to assess whether it has a significant environmental impact. It is not adequate to have the proxy of simply the requirement for an EIA or an AA. The Aarhus committee was very clear about that on the issue of retention of permission. That is exactly why Ireland fell short. It was using the wrong tool to decide whether there was a significant environmental impact.

I will not come back to each of the Minister of State's responses because I am conscious of moving to the next section but it is very important to note those concerns because we have heard similar concerns from members on the Government side.They spoke about their concern that the public participation language the Government is bringing in relation to electricity pylons and infrastructure is weak and vague. The legislation simply suggests that there will be regulations around public participation but it is not clear what form that public participation will take. It is not clear whether there will be appropriate tests around environmental impact. Again, I had asked that there would not be any automatic granting where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment was involved. When there is a risk of a significant environmental impact, there should not be any automated granting of planning permission.

I come now to an extremely important point. I refer to those same concerns we have heard about. I have been in the Seanad now for almost ten years and I have heard people talking about inappropriate developments, issues that have arisen, local concerns and the importance of local voices. We heard this again in relation to those who have expressed specific concerns in relation to, for example, questions regarding electricity infrastructure. These are not issues that I have campaigned or been active on, but I know they are ones that were being spoken about by members on the Government side. We cannot have a kind of deniability where we are talking about people's voices and the importance of the public being heard in relation to one specific thing, namely, electricity infrastructure, while ignoring the fact that the Bill railroads over public participation and the public say in loads of other areas.

The example was given that people do not like to see a 70 ft pylon or whatever suddenly appearing in front of their doors. They are also not going to love seeing a mysterious development concerning which they are not even allowed to inquire as to whether it is an exempted development because they cannot get the declaration due to the limitations in place as regards who can get the information on how a development was allowed to be built. If people do not like electricity pylons, they are really not going to love when liquefied natural gas, LNG, infrastructure appears in their areas. This is one of the filthiest and most dangerous forms of fossil fuel infrastructure, not solely for the environment, given that it involves, promotes and supports fracking, something this Government is theoretically against, as was the previous Government, but also because it destroys the local environment for communities. People are going to be blindsided when their local authority will not even have an opportunity to question liquefied natural gas infrastructure under this Bill because it explicitly excludes, in section 82 on strategic gas infrastructure and in the second Schedule, developments consisting of "a terminal, building or installation ancillary to a terminal that is used for the liquefaction of natural gas or the importation, offloading and re-gasification of liquefied natural gas, and ancillary services".

We can think about what those processes - the regasification and liquefaction of gas - look like. This is something that the Government has been telling us again and again, in theory, not to worry about. We had an energy review that stated LNG was not the solution, yet this Bill is going to insert it in as strategic, priority infrastructure that will go straight to An Bord Pleanála, or an coimisiún pleanála in its new name, and not even get examined by local authorities. The public's right to have a say and an input will be curtailed. This is what is being proposed under the legislation.

I suggest, and I mean this with absolute respect, to those expressing concerns about the need to ensure we have proper oversight in relation to electricity infrastructure that this is nothing compared with what we will see if we leave an absolute hostage to fortune in this Bill the mainlining of liquefied natural gas. The debate has always been about whether we should ban LNG. I believe we should and I have amendments that suggest we do so. Let us be clear, however. We are not simply adopting a neutral position. This legislation is prioritising and fast-tracking it. This is why people are right to express concerns about the short-circuiting of public participation.

It also gives a little bit of a lie to some of the language we are hearing about this idea. It is almost a narrative that feels like it is election-ready and that the Government will go out and say the reason it did not solve the housing crisis was planning and the reason it did not deliver on its climate targets was planning. This is the Government's planning Bill and it is seeking to take a massive backwards step in terms of climate action. This is the kind of proposal being presented to us and we need to be really clear about this point. We will have a chance to debate that section more fully when we come to it, but in the context of the debate we are having about other energy infrastructure, it is important to be clear about that. I would certainly prefer to see renewable electricity infrastructure going in rather than filthy LNG fossil-fuel infrastructure that destroys the planet and damages communities.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister of State wish to respond?

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

No.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 46, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “(c) where an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment has not been required under any such enactment, but the activity may have a significant impact on the environment, public participation has been provided for prior to the authorisation or permitting of the activity.”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome my nieces Caoímhe and Lucy, and their friend Ella Guerin to the Distinguished Visitors Gallery. The reason I acknowledge my two nieces is that they are picking my nursing home and I want to be nice to them in the meantime.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 48, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(f) an organisation, group or association—

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

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

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 48, line 18, after “fee,” to insert “any person,”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 48, line 27, after “fee,” to insert “any person,”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 51, line 26, to delete “5 working days” and substitute “3 working days”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 51, line 28, after “inspection” to insert “free of charge”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 53, line 35, after “section 376,” to insert “any person,”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 54, line 3, after “section 376,” to insert “any person or”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 41 is out of order.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 57, line 29, after “application” to insert the following: “, request for a declaration, request for information, further information, notice, request for a review or a referral under that section and made before that repeal or”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 57, line 29, after “appeal” to insert the following: “and any such matter may be concluded in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act accordingly”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 60, line 12, to delete “grant” and substitute “refuse”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 60, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: "(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), where the licence involves an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment, no deemed grant of permission shall arise where a planning authority fails to make the decision within the periods referred to in paragraph (b).".

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos 53 to 76, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

Amendment No. 53 introduces a definition for "transport infrastructure" to section 17 and broadens the term "public transport" to include a reference to infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians.

Amendments Nos. 54 to 56, inclusive, amend section 18. The section currently provides that where Part 3 requires publication of a notice stating that a matter will be made available for public inspection, it shall be made available for inspection for the stated period or where no period is stated a reasonable period. Section 18 currently applies to the OPR, regional assemblies and planning authorities. These amendments also apply section 18 to the Minister.

Amendment No. 73 seeks to add the term "or body" for consistency to subsection 2 (i) of section 23, as the paragraph initially refers to a department or body in Northern Ireland.

Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 seek to add clarity to subsections (6) and (7) of section 23 by specifying the appropriate paragraph reference.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to our amendments in this section. Amendment No. 57 seeks to place Ireland's obligation as a UN member state committed to the progressive realisation of the UN sustainable development goals within the national planning framework. It is particularly important given that Ireland played such a key role in the negotiation of the sustainable development goals and indeed in the review last year in terms of the need for a reconfirmed ambition for their delivery.

The sustainable development goals do not exist as a kind of Instagram or Pinterest motivation on the side with nice colours. They actually are development plans; they are about development. We need to have development frameworks and planning frameworks that fit with and match the provisions in the sustainable development goals. They are not to be treated as an accessory and rather they require a fundamental rethink of development. The NPF will be one of the core documents in respect of planning in the State, shaping the kind of future development we have and, therefore, the SDGs should be very firmly and clearly there. Given the social and environmental significance of this legislation and the central role of the planning framework, it will be obvious that they should be referred to explicitly.

Amendment No. 58 seeks to assert appropriate regard for marine protected areas into the NPF. We have a legally binding target of 30% of designation by 2030 and we are way behind. We now have additional legal obligations under the recently agreed Nature Restoration Law, which will require restoration measures on at least 30% of the areas that are not in good condition by 2030, increasing to at least 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050 in six of the key ecological groups. Member states also have just two years to draft their national restoration plans and within this they must qualify what percentage of soft sediments above 1,000 m are not in good condition.

We have had an endless parade of legislation on marine planning coming through these Houses in recent years. However, the fundamental one, the horse that should be before the cart, is the marine protection legislation, which would set out the areas where we do not want to be having certain kinds of planning and development. That is the one that has always been left lagging. We are potentially coming to the end of this Oireachtas term having failed to publish and pass marine protected area legislation. Meanwhile DMAPs providing for special areas for development within our marine environment are going ahead. So we are going ahead with all of the development, all of the planning and the whole new elaborate planning infrastructure. I was told at one point that 20 officials were working on the DMAPs. I have to wonder who has been working on the marine planning area because it seems to be absolutely last in the considerations of what we do with the marine.

That is particularly important in the context of the issue I mentioned earlier of some of the kinds of developments we may see happening. On Committee Stage, the Minister tabled explicit amendments to specify that the gas infrastructure that might be inserted as priority strategic development gets fast-tracked planning permission. As I have outlined, that includes liquefied natural gas and all the processes around it, including the liquefying the de-liquefying and everything else that goes into that, such as the importation and the storage. An explicit amendment was tabled on Committee Stage to provide that this gas infrastructure may be onshore or offshore.

Will this mean we will have LNG terminals effectively offshore in areas where instead we should be seeing marine planning? This is a serious concern. The thing about putting the development ahead of the protection is that once the marine environment is damaged or destroyed, there is no longer a problem because we can point to the fact that it has been destroyed and is no longer relevant. This is why we need to start with the protection. That is the precautionary principle, which is also meant to underpin legislation in the EU.

Amendment No. 59 importantly clarifies that data centres are not included and would not be included in national infrastructure priorities as they relate to strategic development of communications networks. Along with LNG, one of the other areas identified as an area for strategic development priority is communications networks. It is really important to clarify that data centres, which are on track to consume one third of all electricity in the State and are already consuming more electricity than an entire city, are not to be considered as national infrastructure priorities. A number of years ago when CRU had its initial review, the choice should have been made to exercise the moratorium at that time. At this point, we now have huge hostages to fortune in the wildly excessive data centres.

Ireland is an outlier in that we have had a 200% increase in electricity usage when other countries have experienced a decrease. We have had a 9% increase in electricity usage, but we have had a 280% increase in electricity usage by large energy users, including data centres.We are absolute outliers in this area and we know that many of those data centres are now looking for back-up connections, gas processing plants of their own, back-up gas generators or connection to the gas grid. Gas Networks Ireland has made clear it cannot refuse such connections as the legislation does not allow it. The opportunity to ban it here has not been taken.

This is all part of bad planning. Bad planning means developing hostages to fortune that will use up our energy. When we have green energy they may also use that up. We could use that green energy for more important areas. There are questions of ethics. There are questions to be answered as artificial intelligence intensifies data usage. We must ask ourselves if, on this shared planet, this is the appropriate use of the limited energy we have to share? The challenges we are facing are linked. One of the key drivers for the demand we are told we need to meet, the kind of demand that is used to justify liquefied natural gas, is data centres and other large energy users. One of the key functions of planning is to take the elephants out of the room rather than prioritising them. We have an opportunity to do that by removing LNG and data centres and ensuring they are explicitly excluded from prioritisation.

Amendment No. 60 seeks to ensure that national infrastructural priorities related to education, healthcare, retail, culture and recreational facilities are approached with an intergenerational lens. One of the phases that have fallen out of use, one that is very important, is ensuring that these spaces are for children and older people. The intergenerational piece is an important and useful lens to apply to planning. Different decisions are taken when we are thinking about spaces that are going to work for everyone. If there are spaces that work for children and older people, they are also more likely to work for people with disabilities. We have a more inclusive vision of society when an intergenerational lens is applied. That is much easier to do than addressing exclusions that arise from a lack of intergenerational thought after the fact. An example of this is kissing gates and the campaigns people organise about their blocking access for children and people with wheelchairs to public amenities.

Amendment No. 61 suggests the inclusion of provision for infrastructure for night-life among the national infrastructural priorities. Night-time cultural and social spaces have been remarkably eroded in the past couple of decades. We discussed this at great length on Committee Stage, so I will not go into detail on it again. People continue to exist at night. We discuss loneliness and disconnection. For many people, night-time is the time they have to socialise and connect with others.

Having a variety of cultural and social spaces where people can connect is very important for social cohesion, the mental health of individuals, the nurturing of creativity and the right to cultural participation for our population. That should be considered when we plan. We should be planning for all hours of the day rather than for commercial activity on an assumed nine-to-five basis.

Amendment No. 62 highlights the promotion of accessibility and inclusion as priorities in the strategic development of national infrastructure. Ireland's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was a huge step forward. Our ratification of this convention means we have an obligation to ensure that in all elements of our society people with disabilities are fully empowered and supported to participate. This is a significant task which requires a rethink. There are areas where there has been progress and areas where there has not. It is important that we raise this issue with respect to every Bill that comes through the House. When signing up to something that highlights a deeply neglected cohort of the population who have only experienced exclusion rather than active inclusion and are not specified in planning and development decisions, as they should be, those decisions require a rethink. We need to name and recognise that, rather than addressing it after the fact and putting a burden on individuals to specify that they cannot access this or participate in that or that particular steps are exclusionary. It is one thing to have to do that for Georgian or Victorian buildings, which is a circumstance I am sure the Minister of State is familiar with as the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage, but with new planning, we should be getting this right from the beginning. That is why this issue needs to be named and delivered on.

I commend the advocacy groups that have worked on the issues of accessibility and inclusion for decades and continue to do so. This is aimed at them not having to do that work all the time. It is important that the work those groups do is recognised. They have been very clear that this is the bare minimum that should be put in place. They would like to see stronger legislation and for recognition for people with disabilities to be throughout the Bill. They note the Bill only mentions disabilities four times. Between 14% and 18% of the population have disabilities. For a large cohort of the population to be mentioned four times in 750 pages is minimal. The advocacy groups are concerned that the needs of disabled people have been forgotten in the drafting of the legislation. The DPO Network has written a letter in support of these amendments. Nonetheless, these amendments are the bare minimum.

Proper planning legislation would reflect how disability had been thought about at every level. It is a basic point that the national planning framework should think about and address issues of disability and inclusion and the full participation of all in society.

Amendment No. 62 explicitly mentions the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which should be explicitly referenced. This is a keynote document. However, we are sometimes told we should not mention conventions in Bills. I disagree with that position.

Amendment No. 63 is an alternative amendment which has the same effect as amendment No. 62 in that it recognises disability and inclusion as core issues, but does not rely on the hook of mentioning the convention. We have addressed this in two ways in order to be constructive. It is very important that people with disabilities across Ireland see some signal that the Government is listening and taking on amendments in respect of this issue.

Amendment No. 64 includes the provision of suitable Traveller accommodation and community facilities among the national infrastructure projects. Despite ring-fenced funding for Traveller accommodation, local authorities have consistently failed to make use of those funds and deliver for the Travelling community. It is an incredibly sad situation. My colleague, Senator Flynn, will speak about the UNCRPD and Traveller accommodation. We have to plan for appropriate accommodation. It must be part of how we think about planning for our communities and society on a national basis. What we do not want to see is this being treated as a tag-on after the fact. Now that we have our big plans - the national development plan and national planning framework - we cannot decide as an afterthought to look for leftover sites and have a battle about whether we allow them to become Traveller accommodation. That is not proper planning. That is not an adequate response. We know that the impacts of negative conditions are immense, especially for young Travellers in respect of their ability to complete school work and access the basics of life such as health. There are serious negative impacts to failure to properly deliver in this area. All the local authorities have failed to deliver adequate amenities. The national planning framework should not also fail to deliver.

Amendment No. 65 includes the promotion of emissions reduction strategies alongside the promotion of sustainable settlement patterns in transportation strategies, in urban and rural areas.

Amendment No. 66 includes development strategies on this list.As I have mentioned, I am worried that there is something of a narrowing down. It states earlier on that we have to think about contributing towards the achievement of climate goals but then, later on, sustainable settlement patterns and transportation strategies are almost pulled out as the two areas where we will think about emissions. However, we need to think about emissions in every area, including commercial development and industrial development. It is not a matter that one can cherry-pick two small aspects of planning and say those are the ones on which we will do the climate stuff. We need to be much more robust. I acknowledge it says that it has to contribute to the national objective but I am concerned that this narrow point that is there could be seen as how we are contributing, versus an actual test. That is why I say emission reduction strategies and development strategies in the general sense should be reflecting emission reduction.

Amendment No. 67 seeks to insert the need to protect and enhance biodiversity. Amendment No. 68 removes the non-committal language around "the need to adapt to and mitigate climate change". It is to have stronger language.

I have made this point - it is a hard point to make - that it is frustrating we are being told that this Bill will somehow help us on the journey to addressing climate change and taking climate action. That is disingenuous. It is not true. I am looking particularly to the bit, which we will come to, about the decision to explicitly remove reference to the climate Act from the factors that planning authorities or the commission will consider when they are making individual decisions. Basically, we have the slightly diluted language that is ambiguous in the planning framework - these planning authorities will presumably consider the planning framework but it is at quite a distance - rather than having the climate lens applied when they are making the individual decisions about the individual things that actually get permission. It is an extraordinarily questionable decision to remove that as one of the factors that must be considered when making planning decisions. That fits alongside that questionable decision to propose liquified natural gas as a priority infrastructure. The Minister's new amendment in that regard also includes a wide range of other fossil-fuel measures including coal storage, liquified natural gas, the storage of natural gas and the storage of combustible gases, oil and coal. These are all now priority infrastructure. Not necessarily, it is important to say, State infrastructure as in these cases, these can be private sector infrastructure.

Amendment No. 68 strengthens the language in relation to adapting to and mitigating climate change. The amendment is particularly important, as I said, when the framework will be the only thing getting referenced because the actual obligation to consider the climate Act has been removed.

Amendment No. 69 seeks to include the marine environment, alongside landscape, ecology, biodiversity and archaeological, architectural and natural heritage as something that the planning framework must make provisions for the conservation of. It is strange that the marine environment is absent from the list of natural amenities within the Bill.

Amendment No. 71 seeks to include the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission among the list of organisations that the Minister should make arrangements to consult when reviewing the national planning framework. The national planning framework will have an extremely relevant impact on many of the issues that are at the core of IHREC's responsibilities. The economic, cultural, environmental, education and healthcare infrastructure have to be adequate and have to be addressed if we are to address issues of inequality, issues that damage social cohesion and socioeconomic ethnic regional disparities. Tackling racial socioeconomic inequality is a core function of IHREC. It has the expertise. This is the work it has done and it can bring that expertise and experience to the review of the national planning framework and help us to plan better for everyone in society and for a more equal and inclusive society, as well as, in some cases, for a healthier one. Amendment No. 72 seeks to include the Heritage Council among the organisations the Minister should consult. It is clear and should be obvious that the Heritage Council can offer perspectives that are relevant when it comes to planning for the future to ensure that we have appropriate understanding of the heritage context in which that planning for the future takes place. The inclusion of these two bodies as bodies that should be consulted with is, to my mind, obvious. I would hope that it would be accepted.

Lastly, amendment No. 74, the final one of mine in this grouping, seeks to amend section 23(3) to ensure that the national planning framework would be subject to environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment. The Bill states that we have to screen the national planning framework to see if it needs an EIA or an appropriate assessment. It covers the whole country, including all the special areas of conservation. Of course, it will need an appropriate assessment. Because it is national, it includes our entire environment and all of our Natura sites. It is redundant to say that it would be screened to see if it needs these. It clearly will need them.

All of these are amendments to try to strengthen and improve the national planning framework. This section could be stronger. I support the idea of a national planning framework but it is regrettable that whatever is in the national planning framework may be undermined by what comes in in the national planning statement, which does not have the same oversight, which does not have the same processes of consultation, and which effectively allows a Minister to create a pile of laws and regulations that get given the same weighting as the national planning framework and may at times be at odds with it. I would point out that it will be important that it be addressed. Whether it clashes with the national planning framework and what gets called national planning and policy but is effectively the ministerial planning statement, the national planning framework should be given priority because at least it has some level of check and balance in relation to it. There are important factors, in section 22(2), that the national planning framework must consider that are not applied in the same way to the national planning statement and I am worried that we may end up with a lovely national planning framework which effectively is bypassed and overridden by short-term thinking, not on the part of the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, but on the part of any Minister who may have the role at the time.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I intend moving amendment No. 70 in my name which is to remove a reference.

I want to say a few words about this Bill. I fully recognise that the former Attorney General, Mr. Paul Gallagher SC, embarked on a massive task in seeking to consolidate planning law and to update it in the manner that this Bill provides. It was a project which he took personal interest in. It is impressive in its size but I have to say that I have come to the conclusion in looking at the Bill itself that this is not a step in the right direction. It is a step in the wrong direction. For many reasons, I believe that to be the case. Senator Higgins referred to the national planning strategy and the national planning statement and I look at these provisions of this Bill and the central function that is given to the Office of the Planning Regulator in relation to the enforcement of those instruments of national planning policy with some degree of scepticism and, I have to say, a growing sense of horror.We are now ignoring our solemn international obligations under the Council of Europe's treaty to do with local government. Ireland amended its Constitution by putting in Article 28A to recognise at a constitutional level the whole principle of local government, and it did so on foot of an international treaty obligation that this State voluntarily undertook, to accord constitutional, real and substantial status to local democracy. I judge this Bill, and in particular the position of the Office of the Planning Regulator, by reference to whether the spirit of that European charter on local government – to which we have re-signed up - is being met or not being met. I remind the House of the concept of local government. First of all, each adherent said that "The principle of local self-government shall be recognised in domestic legislation, and where practical in the constitution." We did it. We put it into the Constitution that there would be constitutional recognition. The concept of local government was then stated to be the following:

Local self-government denotes the right and the ability of local authorities, within the limits of the law, to regulate and manage a substantial share of public affairs under their own responsibility and in the interests of the local population.

The charter also states:

This right shall be exercised by councils or assemblies composed of members freely elected by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal, universal suffrage, and which may possess executive organs responsible to them. This provision shall in no way affect recourse to assemblies of citizens, referendums or any other form of direct citizen participation where it is permitted by statute.

The charter then speaks of the scope of local self-government:

The basic powers and responsibilities of local authorities shall be prescribed by the constitution or by statute. However, this provision shall not prevent the attribution to local authorities of powers and responsibilities for specific purposes in accordance with the law. [...] Local authorities shall, within the limits of the law, have full discretion to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not excluded from their competence nor assigned to any other authority.

That is the point. We have internationally said that we are giving local authorities full discretion. At the same time, you look at this Bill and you say that nearly every bit of it is a detraction from local discretion. Nearly every single bit of it is a step back towards centralised oversight and administration of local government.

Senator Higgins referred to the provision of section 25 on national planning statements. As I understand it, national planning statements are intended to replace what used to be ministerial guidelines. There was a considerable volume of High Court decisions, interestingly enough, relating to ministerial guidelines, which were expressed at the time they were originally introduced as being matters to which local authorities should have regard when they were making decisions. That was the principle of it but it has slowly transformed into directives, effectively, dressed up as national planning statements. The Minister is being given a power under section 25 of this Bill when it is made into law, to lay down national policies on planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development and guidance as to the implementation of them, and to publish these on a website. That is fine if you want guidelines, and you really are leaving discretion under them with local authorities. However, this is where I really have to express fear, we then go on to establish the consequences of, for instance, national planning statements, what happens and what their effect actually is. If you look at section 36 you find that the Office of the Planning Regulator has extraordinary powers to effectively inquire as to whether decisions being made in the planning realm by local authorities comply with ministerial planning statements, and to require the effective cancellation, by direction, of aberrant local authority planning decisions and practices on the basis that they are not consistent with ministerial statements. We have a national spatial strategy adopted by the Government in its entirety, but we have what used to be planning guidelines now rechristened as national planning statements, which are policed by the Office of the Planning Regulator, and which in effect are made mandatory for local authorities. I saw a number of planning decisions where the court said the old guidelines were things to which planning authorities had to have regard, but they were not bound by them. However, the Department twisted the screw by successive legislative measures to make sure that "having regard to", actually now meant obeying ministerial guidelines and not contravening them. What we are doing here is putting into law this provision for the Office of the Planning Regulator to effectively police the activities of local authorities and throughout this Bill to assess virtually everything that is done, like regional planning and local authority development plans. Everything is assessable by reference to national planning statements, which are emanations of the Minister for the time being, published on websites. The worry I have, is that through the Office of the Planning Regulator, we are dragging back from local authorities the tiny areas of discretion enjoyed by them at the moment.

The European charter says that the executive in local authorities is answerable and responsible to the elected members. Well, that is true up to a point, but is untrue in substance. In many respects the local authorities are not really in command of their executive. They can get answers from it and it that sense you can say it is responsible. However, in so many areas they cannot direct anything in particular to be done by the planning executive. I draw the House's attention to what we are doing with the Office of the Planning Regulator. In section 499, we say that, "The Planning Regulator shall, subject to this Part, be independent in the performance of his or her functions." That sounds good. Here is a person who is supposed to be independent. A lot of this flows from the decisions of the tribunals, which were concerned about corruption in local government and the potential for corruption of elected members in relation to zoning matters and the like.The outcome of the various tribunals suggested that there had to be some kind of policing of the manner in which planning decisions were made by members of local authorities. I have no problem about accountability or ferreting out corruption but it does not seem this should mean an independent officer effectively taking over the role of micromanaging and supervising the manner in which local authorities carry out their functions. Having stated the Office of the Planning Regulator is to be independent, Members should note thatsection 504(3) provides "The Office shall, in performing its functions, have regard to - (a) the policies and objectives for the time being of the Government (including National Planning Statements)". Consequently, it is not simply that national planning statements are the only thing the Office of the Planning Regulator is supposed to have regard to in carrying out its functions, as day-to-day policy statements by the Government are to be matters to which the Planning Regulator has to pay attention. Then you ask yourself, what is left of this charter of local government? What is left of the principle we all apparently signed up to in the 1980s, and amended our Constitution to recognise, whereby we would give the maximum devolution of self-determination to elected bodies as provided for in the manner that I mentioned if in the end, the Government's policy can trump virtually anything? Why are we doing that?

My rooted objection to what we are doing with the Office of the Planning Regulator is that it is effectively the enforcement agency for a one-size-fits-all policy across this island. I am aware in the planning statements and planning guidelines this Bill envisages being brought about that there will be differentiation between urban areas and rural areas but I do not believe the planning requirements of Galway County Council, for example, or the planning issues faced there are the same as those in Kildare. Kildare now has a huge population. It is a massive population and it is part of the greater Dublin conurbation for many purposes though not for all. Across rural Ireland, depopulation is gathering pace. Local GAA clubs are losing members and they cannot field teams. Local institutions, shops, banks, facilities and Garda stations are melting away like snow on a ditch. It strikes me that were I a Galway county councillor, I would not want to be bound by ministerial planning statements on housing densities and issues of that kind, which may well be suitable for some parts of the country and may well not be suitable for others. I am aware there is a provision for regional diversity but even within the regions there is such a massive diversity, for instance between rural Wicklow and Bray there is such a huge divergence, in what local planning requires.

I have tabled a whole pile of amendments - and I do not apologise for doing so - objecting to the references in this legislation to the Office of the Planning Regulator because I believe we are strategically making a significant blunder in this legislation. With regard to the office, once one is appointed to it, and it has to be on foot of a competition run by the Public Appointments Service, one cannot be removed from the office except for stated misbehaviour. Subject to these very strange provisions whereby one is obliged to have regard to Government policy, the Planning Regulator is effectively being put in the place almost of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In case people think I am exaggerating, there is provision in section 508 and remaining sections for the OPR to send reports to An Garda Síochána and to the Standards in Public Office Commission and the like to supervise the actual complaints in relation to the day-to-day activities of local authorities.

I ask myself whether we are enacting a law that is increasing the power of the Department, coupled with this office of planning regulation, and decreasing the discretions and the devolved freedom to determine what local government requires, which is implicit in the Council of Europe charter that we signed up to and to which we gave nominal obeisance by including Article 28A of our Constitution.

I admire the determination of the former Attorney General and of those people who think the time has come for a major change in planning law to stop some of the nonsense that has the protection of bats put so high when compared with the housing of people. I can tell Members that people have found bats in parts of Dublin that they never knew there were bats in before.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a few bats here.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are experts running around Dún Laoghaire trying to find bats and putting up microphones to see if they can hear bats in any part of Dún Laoghaire in order to object to planning applications and to foot-trip the planning process. There are people who have made money out of objections to planning developments in which they have no real legitimate interest. I accept that all of this needs to be addressed but I will finish on this point. I put down all these amendments and I will not keep speaking on them. They are there and once is enough to move them in principle. I believe the Office of the Planning Regulator is an overly powerful and overly prescriptive agency, as are the powers we are giving to Ministers through their statements.

The particular provision I find most offensive is that this person is supposed to be independent in his or her discharge of the office's functions but that he or she is obliged by statute under section 504 to have regard to the policies and objectives for the time being of the Government, including, but not limited to, national planning statements. Any policy is something which the Office of the Planning Regulator is required to have regard to. It goes on to mention the policies of local authorities but why are we elevating the Government's policy to such a height that the agency that decides whether particular provisions are or are not consistent with national planning strategies or regional planning strategies or whether county development plans are or are not in conformity with them or whether individual planning decisions are in conformity with them is to decide by reference to something as loose as Government policy? That in my view is radically opposed to the principle of the Council of Europe's guarantees for the autonomy of local government.I did not have an opportunity on Second Stage to speak on the matter and I tabled all these amendments as an opportunity on which I could make that point. The time has come to loosen controls in Ireland and to say to Galway County Council it should allow more one-off housing if that is what it thinks is necessary. It does not really matter if the OPR in Dublin thinks that one-off housing in Galway and Wicklow are two very different things and could have diametrically differing effects. One might be a good thing and one might be a bad thing. The time has come for us to respect local democracy more and give local authority members real control over what they are doing and the right to determine the shape of the communities they want to create, without this massive supervision and set of constraints. It is a serious overreaction to what the Flood tribunal uncovered in respect of planning issues, particularly in the Dublin area. Some day somebody will ask how we got here. Unfortunately, this massive Bill which we have to consider in fairly tight parliamentary time constraints represents a decisive step in the wrong direction.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to acknowledge that Deputy Cormac Devlin was present in the Gallery with his guests, Bernice, Lauren and David Godfrey. I hope they enjoyed their visit to Leinster House.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the recess, we were discussing this very important legislation. It feels a bit like déja vu. Some of the issues have come up in amendment after amendment. To be fair to the Civil Engagement Group, Senators Higgins, Ruane and Black have reached out to community organisations and DPOs. For us, the sustainable development goals are a no-brainer to support. Every child should have a right to running water, education and so on. Those are only two of the goals I am speaking to.

This impacts on Traveller accommodation more than on any other form of accommodation in this country. Some like to think we are all gloom and that there is good quality accommodation. As a member of the Traveller community who lived the majority of her life in a run-down old hut in Ballyfermot, that is not the case. Senator Higgins spoke to amendment No. 64. We could be writing up amendments to this section and speaking on them until we are blue in the face. The Government needs to support Traveller accommodation. Now is the time to do so.

On amendment No. 62, we have to name disabled people in planning and in every Bill that goes through the Houses. Especially in development plans, it should be a case of nothing about us without us. I am so tired of using that phrase. It never seems to be listened to by any Ministers. They talk about representation and speaking up. Along with my three colleagues, I am absolutely exhausted putting amendments forward. We worked with the Joint Committee on Key Issues affecting the Traveller Community. I sit on both the disability matters committee and the Traveller committee. People with disabilities are only referred to four times in this Bill of more than 700 pages. Travellers are mentioned twice, I think. Honestly, the Minister of State can be the Minister for change. I know we are coming up to an election but time after time, it is okay to sit and reject amendments that are so important in respect of the sustainable development goals, Traveller accommodation, people with disabilities, accommodation for disabled people. Even in the next term, the Dáil will still be playing the one old tune. This legislation gives us the opportunity to change that tune and to give people meaningful support when it comes to accommodation. When you go on to a halting site, you very rarely see a ramp at a house door, as if disabled people did not exist within the Traveller community. We are not future-proofing or providing sustainable accommodation when we exclude people with disabilities and Traveller accommodation.

In the past four and a half years, I have dealt with three Ministers with responsibility for Traveller accommodation. What has been done for Traveller accommodation, even with the Traveller committee? Very little. The money is there but the land is still too valuable for the Travellers, too valuable to live next door to Traveller people. That is an absolute shame on this State. Before the recess, I had the height of respect for the Minister of State. I have good relationships in this House and in the Dáil but it is so disheartening. How do I tell the people in my community who are living in boxes and have absolutely appalling accommodation that I was in here advocating on their behalf and have tried my absolute hardest but have got little or no support from the Government around Traveller accommodation? Next week, when we meet the commissioner for human rights and equality, it is all going to come up about accommodation, yet not one of our amendments around disability, Travellers or even the strategic goals has been supported. I encourage the Minister of State, if he has any leeway to support any of our amendments, to do what is right.

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

I will address amendments Nos. 57 to 69, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 71, 72 and 74, as tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn; and amendment No. 70, tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. This group of amendments relate to Chapter 2 of Part 3 and the national planning framework. As the Senators will be aware, the Bill provides that the NPF will continue to spearhead the planning agenda in Ireland and sets out a plan-led system where all tiers of planning from a regional level to a local level align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF.

Amendment No. 57 relates to the United Nations sustainable development goals. Senators Flynn and Higgins both spoke to this. I do not favour the insertion of an explicit reference to the SDGs in the NPF as suggested. Importantly, a national implementation plan for the sustainable development goals is already in effect and a corresponding policy map is available to track Ireland’s implementation of each specific goal. It is a whole-of-government approach to the SDGs and all Departments report back on their relevant areas of implementation. A secondary factor to consider is that not every matter covered by the sustainable development goals may be entirely proper to the NPF, for example, matters such as a reduction of inequality or the achievement of gender equality. To create a legislative basis for the implementation of the sustainable development goals under the NPF could give rise to unforeseen legal challenges and would expand the scope of the NPF beyond the areas for which it is intended to apply.

For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 58 seeks to insert a specific reference to marine protected areas. The NPF is to align with the national marine planning framework, in which marine protected areas are referenced. Appropriate regard must be given to national marine planning framework and there is no need for an additional reference to individual aspects of that framework. In addition, in respect of marine protected areas, this Government has moved from 2.4% to 9.6% of strict protection in a marine area, which is close to the 10% objective we set out for 2030. That is special protected areas for birds, marine birds, the east coast and the seas off Wexford, which is the biggest SPA in the history of the Irish State. A significant amount of sea sensitivity analysis work is already under way. On the point raised by Senator Higgins that it is planning before marine protection and marine biodiversity, that is not the case. The two go hand in hand and it is important to state that. I am conscious that absolutely we need a marine protected area Bill. It ran into difficulties but we hope to progress it. It is not either-or with marine planning and offshore renewables and marine protected areas. I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 58.

Amendment No. 59 seeks to exclude “data centres” from the provision of communication networks under the NPF. With respect to data centres, the 2022 Government Statement on the Role of Data Centres in Ireland’s Enterprise Strategy recognises that data centres are central to Ireland’s economic and digital future and is supportive of sustainable data centre development. The statement outlines principles for sustainable data centre development, which includes economic impact, renewables additionality, collocation or proximity with future-proof energy supply, and SME access and community benefits. These established principles provide clear guidance to decision-makers in the planning process, encouraging the data centre sector to implement decarbonised and efficient energy solutions. The exclusion of data centres, as proposed, therefore cannot be accepted.

Amendments Nos. 60 to 69 all propose some form of additional content to the NPF. Amendment No. 60 proposes that educational, healthcare, retail, cultural and recreational facilities should be intergenerational. I do not believe there is a need to make specific reference to such facilities being intergenerational. Amendment No. 61 seeks to add nightlife to the list of facilities and amendments Nos. 62 and 63 relate to accessible and inclusive urban design, again, all well catered for in planning guidelines and so on for local authorities. While I recognise the importance of the night-time economy and the promotion of accessibility and inclusion for persons with a disability, I do not consider the NPF to be the correct vehicle for the progression of such matters that predominantly fall under the remit of another Department and within other legislative codes. The establishment of a night-time economy task force was undertaken by the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and a number of initiatives have been announced recently in respect of supports for the night-time economy. Some really good work has been done across this Government. I attended some of the early meetings of it.

The Irish Human Rights Equality Commission has statutory responsibility to promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Minister of State with special responsibility for disability has already submitted reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Ireland’s efforts to protect and enhance the rights of people with disabilities. Again, I note the points that Senator Flynn made. As well as that, there are access groups at local level that have input into local planning, strategic policy committees, LCDCs and the development plan process. They are hugely important. As Senator McDowell has been speaking about local autonomy and local democracy, it is very important that, at local level, access groups where there is representation from disability advocates have a say in a bottom-up approach.

Amendment No. 64 seeks to provide that the NPF shall make provision for suitable Traveller accommodation and community facilities. Again, this matter is captured under the development plan process and it is more appropriate to be dealt with at local authority level. We discussed this before the recess. It goes back to the Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, and the local Traveller accommodation consultative committees, LTACCs, where there is representation from elected members, Traveller representative groups and council officials. That is the appropriate place. The Government provides the funding and, in fact, has provided record funding for the Traveller accommodation programme at €80 million over the four-year period to 2023. I refer to an expenditure of more than €36 million by local authorities for Traveller-specific accommodation, which was achieved in 2023. I am conscious that the needs of Traveller families are changing dramatically, and not all families seek to have Traveller-specific accommodation. I absolutely agree that there are still significant challenges. It is critically important in the housing strategy and Traveller accommodation programme that local authorities work to address those issues and are proactive. The Government is providing the funding that underpins good policies at a local level. I return to the point that it is at the local level. Local authorities are best placed to deliver Traveller accommodation.

I will just finish speaking, if that is okay.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 seek to provide that the NPF shall promote emissions reduction strategies and development strategies. These matters are already covered by the climate action plan and the existing text relating to sustainable development patterns.

With respect to the inclusion of biodiversity as proposed under amendment No. 67, this is a matter already provided for under subparagraph (d)(iii) of subsection (3) and I believe this is the correct location for this provision given that paragraph (d) relates to the conservation of the environment and its amenities. I reiterate that we have local biodiversity plans; we have put in biodiversity officers across all of our local authorities; and the national biodiversity action plan is now on a statutory footing. Therefore, it has really been strengthened in recent years. What we have included in this Bill has come out of recommendations on biodiversity that have come from committee as well. We believe that it is sufficient.

I am also of the view that the removal of the wording “take account of the need to” from subsection (3)(c)(ii), as proposed by amendment No. 68, is incorrect as it would confuse the purpose and aim of the NPF with the national climate action plan.

For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 69 relates to the addition of marine environment. Land-sea interactions and the promotion of co-ordination of development between the terrestrial and marine sectors is already provided for under section 21(3)(e) and regard must be had to the national marine planning framework, which has brought together marine-based human activities and marine spatial planning for the first time.

Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 relate to consultation on the NPF. Amendment No. 70, as proposed by Senators McDowell and Boyhan, seeks to delete the requirement to consult with the OPR, again removing the OPR’s role from the Bill. I cannot accept this amendment. I will spend a bit of time on this. I reiterate the role of the OPR. It is not a policy-making body. It is there to ensure the implementation of planning policy and legislation by local authorities and An Bord Pleanála supports Government policy and statutory requirements. The effective programme of research, training and public awareness in planning are in place to strengthen the planning process and the wider public is effectively engaged in the planning process through, again, local public consultation, through development plans and so on. Furthermore, the OPR will provide a fair and independent mechanism for the public in which to raise concerns about the system and procedures used by planning authorities in the delivery of planning services to them on their behalf. Through these processes of evaluation, review, examination, research and dissemination, the OPR will assist the planning process as a whole and develop and strengthen over time. The Senator referenced the planning corruption in the 1990s and early-2000s. One of the lessons we learned is that we need robust policies in place. The OPR is there to support and guide. I think the Senator mentioned the issue of one-off housing, for instance, in County Galway. We need that guidance and effective policies in place. We cannot allow rampant one-off housing to take place all over the country. We would have a problem with contamination of wells and issues around transport and isolation, for example. It is a much broader issue. Going to section 25 on the national planning statement and then the considerations for issuance on a planning statement, it is around the integration of appropriate architectural urban design and quality standards in development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans, co-ordinated area plans, the preparation of development schemes and the assessment of application for development consent.There is also the integration of relevant climate action-related policies, integration of relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to biodiversity, including the biodiversity action plan. All such plans are subject to local public participation. It is far from removing this element from local authorities and local government; it is actually quite the opposite. It is ensuring the OPR's role is important in the overall planning ecosystem. It is important to say this.

Amendment Nos. 71 and 72 seek to add consultation with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the Heritage Council. The list under section 23(2) will provide for extensive public consultation on the NPF, which attracts a very high volume of submissions from members of the public, special interest groups and a wide range of State bodies. For these reasons I see no reason to alter the list further.

I cannot accept amendment No. 74. Most certainly, the NPF should be subject to a strategic environmental assessment or an appropriate assessment, or both, where such an assessment is required. Section 23(3) states that a new or revised NPF shall be subject to a screening assessment, and, if necessary, an SEA or AA or both, in accordance with the SEA directive, the habitats directive and Part 6 of the Bill. It is not appropriate to delete "if necessary", as the first step in any environmental assessment is to undertake a screening assessment and then, if it is determined that a SEA or AA is required, that is also undertaken.

I do not believe it is appropriate to carry out an assessment where no such assessment is required, and to underpin this in legislation is certainly not something I can agree with. However, the recently published draft revised NPF has undergone environmental assessment relating to SEA, AA and strategic flood risk assessment. These assessments were placed on display accompanying the draft revised NPF for public consultation.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 67, line 12, after "areas" to insert "including implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals;".

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 67, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: "(f) supporting the designation of marine protected areas;".

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 67, line 31, after "communications networks" to insert ", which shall not include data centres".

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 67, line 32, after "provision of" to insert "intergenerational".

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 67, line 32, after "retail," to insert "nightlife,".

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 67, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: "(vi) the promotion of accessible and inclusive urban design supporting the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons;".

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is now 9 p.m. Does Senator Flynn wish to make a comment before we adjourn?

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is regrettable that I cannot call a vote on amendment No. 64, which relates to Traveller accommodation.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Flynn can do so on the next day the Bill is debated.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Bill be debated tomorrow?

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As it is now past 9 p.m. the debate must be adjourned in accordance with an order of the Seanad today.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow morning at 10.30 a.m.