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

I thank the Chair. Mr. Hogan and I have had a relationship for almost a decade, both in our time in South Dublin County Council and since he has moved into the Department. He knows that I am very loath and reluctant to criticise officials. I want to say that at the outset before I make my remarks. I also want to acknowledge the enormous amount of work that he and his team have put into this piece of legislation and the work before it.

Having listened very carefully, particularly to the last five sessions we have had from a very broad cross-spectrum of professionals and interested parties on all sides of our planning system, which I am sure Mr. Hogan and his officials have listened to very carefully too, I have come to the conclusion that the Bill as it stands does not do what it is intended to do. There is universal support for the intentions behind the Bill but unless there is substantial amendment, I believe we are going to end up with a much worse situation than we are in at present.

It is also very frustrating for a number of us here today because this is a very important session and it clashes with ministerial questions, which a number of us have to attend. That gives us less time to interrogate the Bill and our witnesses. I ask them not to worry as I will be back because I have more questions but that is genuinely very frustrating.

What is most disappointing this morning is that Mr. Hogan’s opening statement does not address the core concerns raised across the sector. I will put those on the record and will then open with my initial question and I will return then with further questions.

There is a clear view from many of the people who have come to us in the past number of weeks that this Bill is being rushed. That is a very dangerous proposition. There has been heavy criticism of the mismatch between the forum and its high-level discussions and the very technical and, in many cases, very surprising detail that was in the Bill when published. That view was widely expressed by many witnesses.

There is a concern about omissions, the most significant of which is the development contributions. There are other omissions in there which we have written as a committee to the Department about, such as community gardens and other matters. There is a whole set of unintended consequences that other folks have raised which are very concerning. The fact that there was not an explanatory memorandum with the Bill has caused enormous confusion. I actually believe that having the Bill rather than a general scheme is helpful because we see the detail of it, as we should have had an explanatory memorandum. There is great concern about the policy statements both in further centralisation, diminution of local authorities’ policy-making roles and the potential for conflicts and satellite litigation when there are disagreements between different levels of plan making and policy-making. Exempted development has come up over and over again and there is almost a universal concern about what the Department has in this Bill with respect to the removal of the right of third parties to inquire in that regard. There is great concern about the timelines. I am a strong advocate of timelines and I want to see them in the Bill but there is a complete absence of clarity with timelines matching the complexity of the decisions, and other matters. On the issue of resources, if one cannot add additional resources, above and beyond what has already been requested, much of what is to happen in this Bill will never happen, even if it is commenced.

On Part 9, I do not believe that the comments of Mr. Hogan on page 5 of the opening statement are factually correct. We do not know what that administrative scheme will be like. If he had been at the meeting which the two Departments attended with the environmental non-governmental organizations, ENGOs, he would know that nobody knows what the scheme will be like. If it is anything like legal aid, it will not have the same universal applicability which a statutory scheme, on foot of the Heather Hill Management Company CLG and Gabriel McGoldrick case, has had. There is a real concern that between the policy statements and the changes to judicial review, JR, we will see an increase in litigation and satellite litigation creating even further delays in planning decisions which none of us wants to see. That is before we even talk about whether these are compliant.

Can Mr. Hogan give us any information in respect of the transitional arrangements which are intended to be inserted into the Bill, particularly with respect to section 28 guidelines and strategic development zones, and what does he intend to change in this Bill on foot of what he has heard? What does he intend to add to this Bill in respect of things we have not heard of as yet? What is the expected timeline for the publication of the Bill and the full explanatory memorandum?