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

I will not overburden the Chair. These are statutory policies. What does the word “statutory” mean? The dictionary definition of statutory is “required, permitted, or enacted by statute”. That is what statutory means. I ask the Minister of State what the dictionary definition of a statute is. These things are important because they become points and arguments of law. A statute is, according to the dictionary, “a formal written enactment of a legislative body [or] a stage in the process of legislation”. Therefore, it is simply not correct from a legal point of view or a basic English language definitional point of view to say these are policies and not laws. They are laws. The very fact the Minister of State is calling them statutory policies means they have the effect of laws by virtue of statute. The only thing that is missing is that, contrary to the standard dictionary definition, the Government is making statutes without an enactment of a legislative body. That is the big difference. Governments do not make laws; governments propose laws. Parliaments – legislative bodies elected by the people – make laws. It is a fundamental point; it is not some issue of semantics. It is a fundamental principle for this particular area of the legislation.

Will the Minister of State clarify three things? First, will he give us a rationale as to why the Government made its decision not to allow a vote in the Oireachtas on the national planning policy statements? Second, will he respond to my view that, in fact, a vote of the Oireachtas would make these policy statements more legally sound if and when they become subject to judicial review, as the mandatory ministerial guidelines did so? Third, how can he say they are not laws but they have a statutory impact? Will he explain the difference? For me, it is a simple, straightforward dictionary definition. However, the Minister of State seems to think a statute is here, a law is there and never the twain shall meet. The reason I labour this point so much is that the State lost €10 million in legal fees.

That will go up again when we see the final bill for last year and the final bill for this year. This is because the State instituted a process of trying get the consistency the Minister of State outlined through the section 28 guidelines. It did it in a way that was not legally robust, which was challenged in the court and lost over and over again at great cost to the taxpayer. I support the proposition that we need a mechanism for central government to make planning laws. I support the need for consistency. That is not in dispute. What I am disputing is the way the Government proposes to do it, which is both deeply undemocratic and legally unsound. I have yet to hear the Minister of State explain to me why I am wrong on those two points, why no vote is better than a vote and why an agreement by Government is legally stronger than an agreement of the Oireachtas.