Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are resuming on amendment No. 63.

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

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 67, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(vi) the promotion of accessible and inclusive urban design;”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
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. 64:

In page 67, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(vi) the provision of suitable Traveller accommodation and community facilities;”.

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

I second the amendment.

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

I welcome to the Gallery the wonderful people from the northside of Cork city, from Sunday's Well, Knocknaheeny, Hollyhill, Farranree and Blarney Street. They are guests of Deputy Thomas Gould. They are very welcome to Leinster House and I hope they have a pleasant visit today.

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

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 67, line 34, after “of” to insert “emission reduction strategies,”.

Frances Black (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. 66:

In page 67, line 34, after “patterns” to insert “, development strategies”.

Frances Black (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. 67:

In page 67, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:“(ii) protect and enhance biodiversity,”

Frances Black (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. 68:

In page 67, line 37, to delete “take account of the need to”.

Frances Black (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. 69:

In page 68, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:“(iv) the marine environment,”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Acting Chairperson (Senator Pauline O’Reilly):

Amendment No. 70 is in the names of Senators Boyhan and McDowell but they are not here.

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

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 69, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(i) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission;”.

Frances Black (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. 72:

In page 69, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(i) the Heritage Council;”.

Frances Black (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. 74:

In page 69, line 35, to delete “if necessary”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 77 to 91, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 71, line 4, after “Government” to insert “and both Houses of the Oireachtas”.

Frances Black (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

Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to address the fact that the Bill currently allows for the Minister to release or amend a national planning statement in a way that does not have proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate, much like the planning Bill itself. A Government with a parliamentary majority may well have a democratic mandate to make changes to public policy but it is important that there is proper scrutiny and oversight of these changes. The fact that these national planning statements will effectively be given the same status as the national planning framework, but without any of the same constraints that are placed on the national planning framework in terms a proper public consultation, is a concern. That the Minister may amend them without proper parliamentary oversight is also a concern.

Amendment No. 78 proposes to delete subsection (5) and require the Minister, where he or she has an amendment or revocation, to engage with the Oireachtas on it.

Amendment No. 80 proposes to ensure that the Minister lays a copy of the national planning statement before each House of the Oireachtas and gives copies to relevant planning authorities, regional assemblies and other relevant bodies, including the Office of the Planning Regulator, the commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, within ten days of its publication. Surely the bodies that are largely responsible for our planning system should have timely access to this information.

Amendment No. 81 is important. It seeks to ensure that the national planning statement is consistent with what is set out in the Government's national plan on strategic planning, the national planning framework, particularly the factors in section 21(2). Again, it is important to put that on the record. I have been consistent in there being a case for a national planning framework. The national planning framework clearly sets out matters that need to be addressed, including those relating to the national climate objective, national biodiversity action plan, marine planning frameworks, the circular economy and co-ordination of a number of national and regional development strategies. Those matters should also be reflected in the national planning statement. We have a situation where we need to be really clear. The national planning framework has a process and proper constraints on it. The national planning statement, which is effectively ministerial edict, does not have the same constraints. Yet when it comes to making decisions, including crucial decisions on local development plans and engagement at that level, the Planning Regulator is being asked to give the same weighting to the national planning framework as to this national planning statement. These are huge issues in respect of proper accountability. It is a power grab, which is inappropriate.

Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 refer to the mechanism that is used for increasing the quantity and quality of Traveller accommodation by local authorities. This would be set out in the national planning statement. Despite the ring-fenced funding, many local authorities have failed to make plans to utilise these funds. This is despite the very significant needs and rights of Travellers who are resident in their areas. The political will is not there. This is an issue we have already indicated should be addressed by the national planning framework but it should also be addressed in the national planning statement.

Amendment No. 84 seeks to amend section 26(1)(m) by expanding the areas to which the Minister would have regard when setting out the national planning statement, from just "transportation strategies" to "development and transportation strategies". When it comes to the environmental issues and climate, these issues are being narrowed into discussions on settlement patterns and transportation strategies only, rather than all the issues relating to planning and development. These have a very significant impact on emissions, commercial development and industrial planning.

Amendment No. 85 seeks to include the integration of accessible and inclusive urban design as part of the considerations in the planning statement. Again, these amendments are the bare minimum. As I have said before, the disability organisations and disabled persons organisations, in particular, who have advocated on these issues for decades, have noted that disability is only mentioned four times in the Bill. It is an absolute bare minimum that there would be reference to the UNCRPD or to the principles of inclusion, accessibility and participation for all citizens. The current vague language does not go far enough and we should not have a situation where we are trying to fix things after the fact, as has been the case with disability for years.

Amendment No. 86 seeks to include the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective as part of the considerations. Again, the national climate objective is properly named within the national planning framework but it is not given the same space in the national planning statement, which can effectively override the national planning framework. Again, when there is a contradiction later on between the national planning statement and the national planning framework, we will ask which takes precedence. There is no guarantee of consistency within the Bill between those pieces. The fact that climate is not given the same weighting in the national planning statement is another sign, as well as the absolutely inexcusable and still unexplained decision to remove our climate legislation as something planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála, newly named An Coimisiún Pleanála, should have regard to when they are making planning decisions. This, along with the appalling provisions in respect of liquified natural gas, LNG, in this Bill, continually gives the absolute lie to any suggestion that this Bill is going to help us address our climate issues or indeed address our housing issues. It is actually going to make things more confused, more expensive, more contested and less democratic.

Amendment No. 87 seeks to ensure consistency between the national planning statement, the national planning framework and the national marine planning framework. As I have said, this is a really important amendment and I would appreciate clarity on this. The Minister should accept it because it would go a long way towards addressing the issues if we could be assured that there would be consistency between the national planning statement and the frameworks. At least the frameworks have some semblance of proper public consultation and process in relation to them. If the Minister is not accepting this amendment, I ask that he be very clear as to why he does not think the Minister's statement on planning must be consistent with the national planning framework and the national marine planning framework.

Amendment No. 88 seeks to include both Houses of the Oireachtas among bodies that the Minister may consult with when issuing the national planning statement. It is particularly concerning that this legislation is filled with many examples of overreach, the erosion of local democracy, public participation and accountability to the public's representatives and planning statements, which give the Minister a carte blanchein terms of shaping the direction and parameters of our planning system. Engagement with the Oireachtas would provide a sense of proper scrutiny, accountability and engagement. We must bear in mind that decisions will affect everybody's daily lives and shape every square foot of this island. We are being really clear here. We have talked again and again about the disrespect for democracy through the guillotine of this Bill. It is an appalling disrespect for not just the Seanad as a House but for the democratic process, and crucially, the public. This is also true within the Bill and the fact that there is such an erosion of the public's rights, the rights and responsibilities of local authorities and, indeed, erosion of democracy. Making decisions about how we live together in the spaces we share is a fundamental part of democracy and it is being made much more difficult for people. There are also the crucial issues which I will not address again but will come to subsequently. The Bill is not even compliant with the Aarhus Convention, an EU convention that is not like an abstract EU law, and is crucial. This important convention refers to the rights of people to participate in decision-making and to have access to justice on decision-making. Those are core issues that are being trampled by this Bill. Amendment No. 88 would at least ensure that we have Oireachtas oversight.

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

I will not go over what Senator Higgins has said. I first welcome the Minister here today. It is good to see him. The Minister will be aware that on this Stage, we have 775 amendments, so we are not going get through them. I am sure he has also heard the discourse, upset and anxiety of some Members of the House on that but we are where we are. This is part of form for Government. It is one of the downsides of having a mass majority in politics, in the Dáil and in the Seanad Chamber, and you can call that democracy. People will have their say. We will have other days.

I want to stay focused on this group of amendments because I am conscious that we need to get through as many of them as possible. It is interesting to look at the different parties' views on planning policy. I have it in front of me here. I did not know the Greens would be in the Chair. The planning policy of December 2023 from the Green Party talks about enhancing the role of citizens and councillors in plan-making through models of public engagement, as well as protecting and enhancing public participation and access to the justice of planning matters and to reducing the fees and the costs.None of these matters is dealt with in this Bill, which is quite interesting. The document also raises the issue of functions across planning-making decisions and talks about repealing some provisions of planning legislation to allow for central government to mandate detailed planning rules. It then, of course, refers to removing hedges as a planning requirement. Some of that did not get through the Bill and thanks be to goodness it did not. There are, though, inconsistencies across parties and clearly they were weeded out and the strongest got more of their way. The Minister is smiling, which is his style. I have no difficulty with it, so he should rest assured I am not arguing with him.

Turning to amendment No. 79, tabled by my colleague Senator McDowell and I, this relates to deleting line 30 on page 71. The amendment proposes that the Minister would not have to present a copy of the national planning statements to the Office of the Planning Regulator. While we have vented about and had some concerns about the Planning Regulator, I note that the Minister has proposals in the pipeline in terms of governance for the OPR. The Minister should focus on this because I think it has been lost a bit in the debate. I told the Minister of State yesterday that I looked at a document he was given as a briefing document when he took the post in April. In it, one of these aspects was identified as an issue of concern and somehow I think we may have got lost in this regard. In fairness to the Minister, he is on record as saying that we need to improve governance, accountability and transparency in respect of this issue. This is important.

Additionally, on the issue of the Planning Regulator, I acknowledge something contained in the Green Party's document. It refers to the Planning Regulator and makes the good suggestion that a national planning information agency be established. I think it is a good proposal. The new agency would fall within the remit of the Office of the Planning Regulator. The document continues by stating:

the Office of the Planning Regulator should be mandated to respond to requests from the public to provide information in relation to national and local planning. This would improve the standard of public observations on developments and engagement with the planning process.

This is a policy proposal from the Green Party that might be considered under the control of the OPR.

Regarding the suggestion we would delete line 30, I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say and then we will vote accordingly.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there are no more contributions, I call the Minister.

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

I thank the Senators. It is good to be back with them again today. A comment was made concerning rushing this legislation or there having been no consultation on it and this being an attack on democracy. I again put on the record of the House that this Bill was approved by the Government in December 2022, published in January 2023 and underwent widespread consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the Oireachtas joint committee-----

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

It is being guillotined in the Seanad.

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

I am sorry. I listened to-----

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

If the Minister could address the Seanad.

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

I actually did listen to the Senator. I respect the points she has raised and I will endeavour to address them.

I cannot, however, leave a charge she has made unanswered. I think it is appropriate that I give my opinion whether the Senator agrees with it or not. It is not just my opinion; there are the facts here too. We have had nearly 200 hours of debate in the Oireachtas on this legislation. We did extensive pre-legislative scrutiny before that in the Oireachtas joint committee. Many Members here participated in that committee. It was open to every Member of the Oireachtas to participate in that pre-legislative scrutiny. We engaged through the planning forum as well, where we engaged with stakeholders from all across the board, from environmental groups to planning consultants to local authorities to disability groups and right the way through. This has certainly been the most extensive reform of planning legislation since 1999 and 2000 and since the enactment of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Some would argue it goes further.

Why are we doing this? It is because we need to bring about clarity, consistency and certainty in our planning system. Many Senators here will rightly from time to time raise matters on the floor of the House relating to delays in strategic infrastructure, schools, roads and houses. I have listened here during debates on housing too and heard the Senators opposite criticising the Government, which is their right to do, with regard to housing delivery and that we need to do more. One of the main barriers to housing delivery can be inefficiencies in our planning system. Let us be straight about it as well, though, there are spurious objections in some instances. These need to be dealt with. Strategic objections must also be dealt with. I respect the rights of third parties and I always have. It is central to our planning system for people to have their say. This is central to this legislation. The Bill is absolutely compliant with the Aarhus Convention. Access to justice is unquestionable within this legislation too. There is no rush whatsoever with this legislation and I think most Members will know it. We have had detailed debates on the Bill and I appreciate the amendments that have been tabled.

To deal with these amendments, I will address the group but leave out the Government amendments, which I will address afterwards. I will address the amendments that were tabled by the Senators, namely, amendments Nos. 77 to 81, inclusive, and 83 to 88, inclusive. Amendment no. 79 that was just spoken about was tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell and I will address it in relation to OPR reform. This group of amendments relates to Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill.

I will now address Amendment No. 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 and 88 and amendment No. 79 as tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. This group of amendments relates to Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill. Under this Chapter, the Minister will issue, with the approval of the Government, a national planning statement for the purpose of setting out policy and providing guidance in relation to planning matters and to support proper planning and sustainable development. National planning statements will eventually replace section 28 guidelines and section 29 ministerial policy directives made under the Act of 2000.

The national planning statements will contain two separate parts. The first part will be a high-level statement of national planning policies and measures to be integrated into regional and local plan making, and the second part will consist of practical guidance that will afford flexibility to planning authorities as to how to implement the principles of the national planning policy. It is right and proper and appropriate that a Government would set national planning policy and the national planning statements would flow out from the Government to ensure those very policies are implemented on the ground. One would think that is something no one could object to or have a difficulty with if we are talking about consistency of approach, clarity and certainty of delivery.

Amendment Nos. 77, 78 and 88 seek to replace references to “the Government” in section 25 by replacing it with a reference to "the Oireachtas", or to insert additional approval requirements with respect to approving, amending or revoking national planning statements. This matter was debated at length during pre-legislative scrutiny and in Dáil Éireann. These amendments all deal with the same substantive issue, namely, whether policies of the planning system should be agreed by Government, which is elected by its people, or passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is appropriate and right that the Government has responsibility for setting and agreeing Government policy, whether it relates to planning or to other matters.

It is widely acknowledged that planning is a discipline that affects almost every facet of daily life. I agree with the Senator on this point unquestionably. Planning is critical to the well-being of our citizens, to the success of our wider economy and specifically regarding our response to the climate challenge. National planning statements will be a key mechanism introduced under the Bill to improve the consistency I spoke about within the tiers of our planning system. National planning statements will be subject to comprehensive consultation processes and once issued, the Bill provides that other tiers of the planning system, at regional or local level, will be obliged to review their own plans to ensure alignment with national policy.

The process as currently set out in the Bill improves this alignment throughout the planning system while also allowing the inherent flexibility for regional and local plan-led approaches to continue. It in no way impinges on this ability. The proposed amendments wish to add a further level of Oireachtas approval but are unclear as to how this can be reconciled with the extensive assessments and consultations already provided for within the Bill or the wider programme for Government. It is for these reasons that I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Moving to amendment No. 79 dealing with the issue of governance, this involves the deletion of the requirement to give a copy of an NPS to the OPR, again removing the OPR’s role from the Bill. I cannot accept this amendment but I use this opportunity to flag with the Senator where the governance amendments I did say I would bring forward in relation to the OPR stand. It is in amendment No. 716.The governance structure of the OPR has been under consideration as part of the overall update of the planning Act. I discussed this at some length during the session in the summer, prior to the recess. Due to the important work of the OPR, which it has been successfully carrying out since its creation in 2019 on foot of a recommendation from the Mahon tribunal, it is now considered appropriate for a new advisory board to be appointed to oversee strategy of the office and to provide guidance and advices to the planning regulator as requested. The advisory board will be a non-executive board of the Office of the Planning Regulator, consisting of between five and seven members, including a chairperson, all of whom will be appointed by the Minister following a standard State boards recruitment process facilitated by the Public Appointments Service. The advisory board will not have any decision-making functions, rather it will act in an advisory capacity to the Planning Regulator and will provide guidance or advice where the Planning Regulator so requests. The Planning Regulator will also be required to request such advice in the course of the preparation of a strategy statement. In the case of other functions of the office, the Planning Regulator can choose to consult as he or she sees fit.

The regulator shall have regard to any advices or guidance applied by the advisory board where so requested. The advisory board will also monitor the implementation of the strategy statements and advise or make recommendations to the Minister in relation to policies of Government or a Minister of Government affecting the functions of the office. To that end, the advisory board is a very welcome move and one which will enhance and complement the existing and future functions and governance of the structure of the OPR. These changes evolved from the debates we had in both Houses and from listening to Members, both Government and Opposition, in respect of the operations and governance structure of the OPR. That will be amendment No. 716 and will be an important part of the Bill.

In respect of amendment No. 80 seeks to remove a provision stating that a failure to comply with post publication requirements within a specified time period shall not invalidate a planning statement. Given the extensive work, resources and consultation required to produce a national planning statement, I consider the existing provision to be reasonable, practical and in any event included as a precaution only. I, therefore, cannot accept amendment No. 80.

Amendments Nos. 81 and 87 are not required as not only must the NPF and the national planning statements relate to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development, the items listed in section 21(2) are provided for, albeit at a more granular level under section 26(1) with the exception of guidance regarding the national marine planning framework. For this reason, I am again not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 83 seeks to provide that a national planning statement shall make provision for suitable Traveller accommodation and community facilities. This matter is captured under the development plan process. Amendment No. 84 seeks to provide that the NPS shall promote development strategies. These matters are already covered by the existing text of sustainable settlement patterns.

Amendment No. 85 relates to accessible and inclusive urban design and while I absolutely recognise and support the importance of the promotion of accessibility and inclusion for persons with a disability, I do not consider the NPS to be the correct vehicle for the progression of such matters. That will predominantly fall under the remit of another Department within other legislative codes.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has a statutory responsibility to promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and the 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 respect of Ireland's efforts to protect and enhance the rights of people with disabilities.

Amendment No. 86 would confuse the purposes and names of the NPS with the national climate action plan. I have Government amendments to this section that have to be moved but I can speak to them now if that suits. There are four amendments.

Amendment No. 82 restates the existing section 25(8) to make it clear that guidance issued under section 52 of the 2000 Act, which relates to protected structures and structures with special interests such as architectural, historic, scientific or cultural interest, will remain in effect following the repeal of the Act until they are either revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement relating to the same matter.

Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are wording amendments relating to section 26 of the Bill. These amendments insert the word "received" for clarity. This does not change the context of the provision. Amendment No. 91 clarifies the wording in section 27 and is a transitional provision relating to the current section 28 ministerial guidelines contained in the 2000 Act. It restates the existing section 27(1) to make it clear the guidelines issued under section 28 of the 2000 Act that relate to the functions of planning authorities will remain in effect following the repeal of that Act until they are either revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement relating to the same subject.

In respect of this section, the Bill empowers the Minister, with the approval of Government, to issue a national planning statement for the purpose of setting out policy and providing related guidance regarding planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development. I outlined the purpose of this in my opening remarks before I addressed the amendments put forward. I am very satisfied that the procedure for the NPS and the matters in respect of which the Minister may issue national planning statements set out in the Bill are sufficient. Not only are they sufficient, they are absolutely necessary to ensure that Government policy on planning and sustainable development is implemented on the ground. It must be very clear that is done. The national planning statements will give greater strength to that than the current guideline approach that operates under the existing Act.

Garret Ahearn (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Higgins wish to reply?

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

I do.

I agree it is important to be accurate on the record that this Bill is being pushed through in an undemocratic manner because the Seanad is half of the legislative process. With respect, discussing pre-legislative scrutiny is by the by when we talk about the legislative process. There are ten Stages to any Bill, five of which take place in the Seanad. They have been extraordinarily curtailed. We had less than 20 hours for Committee Stage. To be very clear, the Government will apply a guillotine which will mean that we will have had less than 11 hours to discuss almost 800 amendments. To be clear, the plan of the Government is that on Report Stage in the Seanad, there will be less than a minute for every amendment in the discussion of these crucial issues. This includes the 167 pages of Government amendments, many of which include lengthy provisions which have not had pre-legislative scrutiny, which have not been debated or discussed in the Dáil and which have not been addressed on Committee Stage in the Seanad. These are provisions which are going to be pushed through and guillotined without any scrutiny by the Oireachtas. To be very frank, it is a disrespect to the democratic process. That is a fact.

The Minister simply talking about how long he spent on it, how long he thought about it and where else he discussed it is by the by. To be very clear, this is disrespectful not only to the Seanad but to the work of the legislative process that happens in the Seanad and indeed to the public who are entitled to legislative scrutiny of legislation which will affect their lives in immense ways.

We have been provided with 167 pages of amendments and allowed less than one minute to discuss each of them. Some of these amendments are pages long.

Let us also be very accurate in respect of the Aarhus Convention. I hate to have to restate it but it is important to say that we have had an inaccuracy stated on the record again, namely, that this Bill is Aarhus-compliant.

Be clear. Who determines whether it is compliant? The Aarhus compliance committee. To be very frank, and let us have it exactly, it has already been found previously that section 42 of the 2000 Act was non-compliant with the Aarhus Convention. This is not one person's opinion versus another. This is the body that is charged with determining compliance. In the progress report produced in June on the fact of Ireland's non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention - and it must be borne in mind that this was not the first report that referred to non-compliance, it has been well signalled - they are really clear in paragraphs 28 to 50, which I will not read but paragraph No. 47 of the progress report merits repetition. It states: "In the light of the above considerations, 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.". The proposed sections 133, 135 (2)(b) and (d) are the new chapter that the Government sent to the Aarhus committee to say that we believe this will make us compliant. The Aarhus committee came back in June and said "No it will not", and they are explicitly clear. The committee does not consider that if enacted in their current form these proposed sections would fulfil the requirements of that decision on non-compliance. It is not compliant and the proposed changes in this Bill do not make it compliant.

Those are all issues around the really important question about public participation and decision making. The wrong test has been applied by the Government whereby it is saying that we do not need public participation in matters where an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is not required. The Aarhus committee, however, has been clear that if there is potential significant environmental impact then one needs to have a mechanism for public participation. That was the problem in terms of extension of planning permissions. There was no mechanism to check if a permission extension would have an environmental impact and whether the public should have a say. The Government did not have an adequate mechanism but it is actually making the same mistake again on loads of other areas including around exempted development, which is copperfastening the thing the Aarhus committee previously told us did not work.

The Minister is saying that it is unquestionable in terms of access to justice but it is extremely questionable. There are questionable provisions around who can take cases and who has standing, excluding huge numbers of members of the public, including many local groups and residents groups and others, from being able to take action. There are questions around the costs and around the fact that it should not be a prohibitive cost to take action. There are questions around the scope within which action can be taken. There are questions around the time allowed for these actions. There are many questions but perhaps when the Minister says that they are unquestionable what he means is he will be guillotining the debate before we get a chance to question them and that the Government will be making sure that we, on behalf of the public, do not get a chance to question these issues and that they are rammed through and pushed through in a way that we can deal with after the fact. To be very clear, we have talked about people standing up and talking about issues but we also have people standing up and talking about bad decisions. We had people today on Government and Opposition sides talking about the badly built apartment buildings during the Celtic tiger, the problems with concrete blocks and the fact of those failures. We have many people talking about the outcome of insufficiently scrutinised, insufficiently consulted-on and insufficient democratic decision-making in respect of planning. That is what we are signing up to. It will not make delivery of housing quicker. It will lead to hugely expensive delays. It will create more confusion and probably more litigation and more ambiguity. I put it to the Minister that these are serious issues.

I note and regret that when the Minister talks about the planning statement he has been clear that he will require everything downstream, including the local development plans and everything else, to have to be compliant with the Minister's planning statement yet the Government does not want to put a little line in the Bill saying that the Minister's planning statement has to be compliant with the national planning framework and the marine planning framework. The Minister is declining to accept that amendment. Whoever the Minister may be, he or she is not required to check in on compliance with the national planning framework but all of those downstream plans and local development plans must get into step with the Minister otherwise the Office of the Planning Regulator, overseen by a board appointed by the Minister, will require them to do so. This is a massive step backwards for democracy and I cannot allow the Minister to pretend or paint it as anything different. If it is a power grab let us be clear that it is a power grab and not try to paint it as something different.