Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

To follow on from that, the development plan process at local government level is one of the most extensive parts of the democratic process. This applies in terms of the public consultation element of the development plans and, certainly, in terms of the meetings over many hours and weeks, and the multiple stages where councillors are involved, with thousands of amendments and a huge amount of scrutiny, debate and discussion, which is all voted on throughout and then voted on at the end of the process. We contrast that with the national planning framework, where there is no debate, oversight or scrutiny and no vote, yet the national planning framework, in terms of the hierarchy, is more significant because, effectively, what is in it will guide what goes into the development plans and the entire planning process. It is strange to have a lot of democratic input at the lower level but then, at the higher level, to effectively have none, despite that being the level which controls what is happening at a development plan or local authority level.

That is hugely problematic from a democratic point of view because it gives immense power to the centre. As I said earlier, we have to think not just in terms of the current Government or recent Governments. What if there is a bad actor as Minister for housing, for example, a Minister with huge influence over this process who has taken donations or raised funds from developers and is politically close to developers? How would that influence what is going on? As a country, we should not be leaving ourselves open to that.

I ask the Minister of State to outline the policy basis and rationale for excluding the Oireachtas from this. What is the justification for it? Why is this going to be better legislation without Oireachtas input and involvement? The Minister of State cannot possibly be making the case that the national planning framework is not highly significant because it is clearly highly significant. Given how significant and important it is, how could this non-democratic approach be justifiable? We also have to wonder about the constitutionality of taking this out of the democratic process. Does that not leave this part of the legislation more open to potential challenge, conflict and delay?