Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It was with a wry smile that I greeted the Minister of State's comments on how some of our amendments would not be acceptable because there is no capacity to cope with them in the planning system. If that were a rule for not including things in the Bill, very significant sections of the Minister of State's own portions of the Bill would be ruled out, because there are currently no resources within our planning system and no multi-annual workforce plan to deal with them. I do not, therefore, accept that the requirement for additional resources is a reason not to do things that need to be done; that is an argument for additional resources. I am speaking specifically about the Minister of State's comments on amendments Nos. 683, 709, and 890, as well as his comments on the additional responsibilities we want to give to the Office of the Planning Regulator and An Bord Pleanála, whose name will be changed. I am also unclear about the Minister of State’s response to amendments Nos. 623 and 1111, which are on staffing. Could he be a little clearer about that?

With respect to amendment No. 921, I presume nothing is prohibiting Údarás na Gaeltachta from seeking to establish an approved housing body to assist us with its work. We just have to comply with the various statutory requirements that are set out in the approved housing body legislation. That would be a good signal to send to them; it would be appropriate for a body such as Údarás na Gaeltachta was interested in going down the route of getting support from the Irish Council for Social Housing and the relevant officials from the Department. Therefore, establishing an AHB and being compliant with the approved housing bodies Act is probably the more appropriate route. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State’s thoughts on that.