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

This has been an issue of quite significant discussion, both at PLS and subsequently. It is an issue on which I am still completely unclear as to why the changes that are in the Bill have been made. Probably one of the strongest contributions we heard on this, both during the prelegislative scrutiny and more recently, was from the Irish Planning Institute. It officially reiterated its concerns on this matter again yesterday. As the institute has such an important function in the planning system and the implementation of the Bill, in support of the argument I am going to make I want to put some of its official position on the public record because it is quite important. The Irish Planning Institute stated yesterday that the Bill, as drafted "is not the silver bullet for faster and more consistent decision- making – it will not speed up the delivery of housing, energy projects or infrastructure. Our members are the professional planners working in local government, for developers, in the private sector and for semi-states and agencies. They work for, and with, communities around the country."

Some of the criticisms the Irish Planning Institute has received from its members are that the Bill is "tone-deaf to the staffing shortage in the sector", and that it is a "missed opportunity" built around "too much administration and not enough implementation", and this speaks directly to the section we are dealing with now. The institute also says the Bill "scraps parts that are working while making other elements unnecessarily complicated" and that it will "lead to significant disruption to the operation of the planning system in its initial years if enacted in its current form, and will open up a wide range of potential new litigation, all with a negative impact for the efficient and effective operation of the planning system."

It went on to say, again specifically related to these amendments, that:

Unnecessary changes include amendments to the process of how a developer confirms compliance with conditions attached to planning permission, and allowing the public to seek declarations on whether a particular development needs planning permission. At their core, these seek to provide solutions to problems that do not exist. [...] Rather than streamlining planning, we risk further increasing the complexity of the system with hundreds of amendments being brought forward by Government compounding rather than addressing such concerns.

It concluded its remarks yesterday by saying:

Addressing all these issues will require further section-by-section consultation and review with practitioners so the implications in practice of the new measures can be considered and the bill amended accordingly throughout at report and committee stage. Without this, [and this is really crucial] the bill will not achieve its objectives and will lead to many years of amendments (usually belated) to try to iron out the difficulties we already see will arise in practice. Unless we are listened to, planners will be left holding the baby trying to implement unworkable legislation and all of society will be the losers.

Representatives from the Irish Planning Institute have been regular attendees of our committee over the years. It is a very cautious body and speaks in very considered tones. It reaches compromised positions between the plurality of members within their organisation. Obviously, it cannot speak for every individual planner but its opinion should be taken very seriously. That opinion piece in yesterday's Irish Independent by Gavin Lawlor, the current president of the Irish Planning Institute, is a withering critique of the Bill overall and of the process by which the Bill has been produced. The section with which we are now dealing is one of its areas of concern.

It is not the largest. I will come to those when we get to them.

I do not for the life of me understand why the changes to the existing provisions of section 5 of the Planning and Development Bill are being made in this section. I would be interested in the Minster's response and in his response to the Irish Planning Institute. What does he say to the official body that represents planners who will be making and deciding on applications when it tells the Minister clearly that this Bill will lead to litigation and delay and that the legislation is unworkable? They are serious criticisms that do not come from the Opposition, who the Minister could dismiss as being politically motivated, but from the professional body that represents professional planners whose members are saying that the legislation as it stands is not right and that it needs substantial additional work and amendment, including this section of the Bill.