Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I had not intended to speak on this Bill because I like to be more prepared and to have read the documents, and that proved to be very difficult. I listened carefully to, and read, the Minister's speech and that is what motivated me to speak and say on the record that I have the most serious concerns, once again, about the way legislation is going through the Dáil. I have concerns for the staff, without identifying any staff, with regard to the pressure they are under to produce Bills and amendments in the manner they are being asked to do it. I have serious concerns about our ability as Deputies to scrutinise legislation.

When I looked at this Bill I was a little relieved by what I was told by the Minister and the Bill Digest of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. Again, I suspect the Oireachtas Library and Research Service is under the most serious pressure and I do not think it is in a position to give us comprehensive digests in respect of legislation. I say this reluctantly because I have found the Bill Digest to be my greatest source of information and education since I was elected to the House, but it is under extraordinary pressure. When I was told it is a technical Bill, I thought that was okay and that I could rely on the Minister and on the Bill Digest. We are told by the Bill Digest that the Bill is very technical and its primary purpose is to amend Part XA of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which deals with substitute consent. The existing system is a two-part system where one goes ex parteand the public have no say, and then come back to the second part. However, the ex partestage, significantly, is where exceptional circumstances are laid out. At the second stage, where the public have a right to take part, they are not entitled to comment on exceptional circumstances. I welcome that it is now being streamlined and I welcome that change.

It follows a Supreme Court judgment that put the whole thing in perspective. The Supreme Court found that the use of the substitute consent procedure needed to comply with EU law, in particular, the environmental impact assessment, EIA. It held:

When the Court of Justice refers to retrospective regularisation as having to remain the exception, [In other words, we should only regularise planning permissions retrospectively on an exceptional basis and, significantly, the public had no say in the definition of what was exceptional circumstances] its justification is that otherwise developers may be incentivised to ignore or disregard the requirements of a prior consent EIA: in other words, national measures cannot act as an inducement to avoid EIA compliance. Therefore, such regularisation must remain the exception, rather than the rule. Consequently, the relevant provisions of domestic law cannot permit, allow or facilitate a situation whereby the obtaining of, as in this jurisdiction, a retention permission becomes in any way standard, typical or routine.

The Supreme Court placed a huge emphasis on the exceptionality test. Another issue decided by the Supreme Court was whether the public should have the right to know. The public were excluded. The Supreme Court held: "The evident intention of that part of the Act is to the effect that the leave stage is intended to be carried out without a general right of public input." It went on to point out that the EU requires that the public are enabled to make submissions at the first stage and therefore the Supreme Court found that the Irish legislation was inconsistent with the EIA directive.

I will go into that because it is always important to give a little background or perspective to what is before Deputies. Once again, we are introducing emergency legislation following a Supreme Court case. As I said, I welcome the changes. What concerns me, however, is the Minister's speech.

There are six pages in it. What concerns me is not the Bill as such, even though I have concerns about the manner in which it is being pushed through, but what the Minister proposes to do when we come to the amendments. On the proposed Committee Stage amendments to the Bill, he stated in the House yesterday:

I ... wish to inform the House of my intention to introduce Government amendments as the Bill makes its way through the legislative process on Committee Stage. ... [which] amendments relate not only to planning legislation, but to other [pieces of] legislation ... [under] ... the remit of my Department.

The Bills Office is under extraordinary pressure, but Deputies will not be able to deal with this. If the Government proceeds with these amendments, we will come back with a whole new Bill. I would like the Minister of State to deal with this for me. We have what is described as a technical Bill to comply with our obligations under the Supreme Court judgment becoming an entirely different Bill, where proposed amendments are not before us and we have one week left to deal with it.

I will look at the amendments the Government is proposing. They are amendments relating to short-term letting, ministerial directions regarding statutory plans and related provisions, flexibility in planning applications, which is a very complex and very significant area we need to look at, the judicial review process, the Valuation Act - I imagine those amendments will be somewhat technical - and the Maritime Area Planning Act. I have concerns about all those amendments but what jumps off the page are the amendments relating to the judicial review process, the maritime Act, which we only passed recently and are now going to amend, and the flexibility in planning applications.

I will run out of time in a few minutes. I took this time to register my concerns. I wish I was going through the Bill in detail to say what was good and what was worrying about it. I can only do so on a sketchy basis. I am doing that because, when we discussed the maritime Act, we were lambasted by the Taoiseach. That was extremely important legislation we needed to discuss. He said he was fed up and tired - I am paraphrasing - because important and strategic projects were being inhibited by opposition. Those were his words, more or less, and that mantra continues. It continues in respect of judicial reviews. I am calling it a mantra and a myth. Yes, of course, we need to resource the courts and the judges. We need to look at that, but not with the accompanying propaganda and spin that states projects are being stopped because of public participation.

Over and over again the superior courts in this country have stated there is a trinity in the planning laws, namely, the developer, the local authority or An Bord Pleanála, and members of the public, without whom we cannot have a functioning planning system. In my experience, since I was elected in 1999, every single hurdle has been put in the way of people participating in the planning process. They are called objectors and they are demonised. I call them active citizens who are sufficiently concerned to make their concerns known. At every stage of the process, whatever the planning application is, it is extremely difficult for them. Indeed, we brought in a restrictive system, where if people did not make an application at the city or county council level, they could not do so with An Bord Pleanála. We then brought in a fee. We have this constant myth, repeated by a number of Deputies in the House, that we have to stop the various organisations on the ground that are holding up planning permissions. We completely forget about the history of planning in this country and the Mahon tribunal, which found systemic corruption at every level of the organisations involved in planning, not to mention the very vivid pictures of money passing hands. Here we are, and we will come back next week with a brand new Bill that we will not call a Bill. We continue to misuse language.

When I spoke on the maritime Act, and the Taoiseach was very critical, many Deputies highlighted that only 2.13% of Ireland's maritime area is protected. The programme for Government commits to reaching 10% as soon as practicable and 30% by 2030. We fell short of that. We are now being told that, by way of amendment, we will have a situation where a developer or company that does not have planning permission can occupy a certain part of the sea conditional on planning permission. What is happening all the time, little by little, is an encroachment on public participation and in opening up the seas for development. We have learned nothing from Covid or from climate change. The maritime area is one of our greatest assets. The area it covers is seven times that of our land mass. This belongs to all of us. It should be part of the solution in a new sustainable world.

I object to the amendments being brought in the manner they are.

See this speech in context