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

I will make a final comment because I appreciate what the Acting Chairman said, although these are important sections. I will make a final appeal to the Minister. I know he is not going to accept the amendment but I want him to consider the following argument after this meeting and during the final passage of the Bill. We are having a similar conversation to the one this committee had in 2017 when the strategic housing development, SHD, legislation was being passed. The Minister is correct that he introduced large-scale residential development, which abolished the SHDs, and we supported that legislation notwithstanding some of its deficiencies.

We made very similar points when the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Cowen, was the Fianna Fáil spokesperson for housing. He was on the committee at the time. We urged them to consider the points we were making. If the Minister’s predecessor and his own party had listened to us at that stage, they would not have had to abolish the SHD, because we tabled amendments that would have maintained a two-stage process and all the damage that was done to our planning system as a result of Fine Gael’s refusal to amend the SHD legislation, as well as Fianna Fáil’s abstentions on those amendments, could have been avoided. Most of us here experienced that.

There is a problem with the interrelationship between sections 62 and 65 because, as I read it, particularly with respect to regional strategic implications, it could include, for example, a ring road in Galway, a data centre in Athenry or a cheese processing plant in Kilkenny, based on the argument that those things are of regional or strategic importance. All three of those things, it could be argued, would have huge regional and strategic importance.

I know the Minister keeps using the word “extreme” but it is not in the Bill, and we have to deal with the text that is before us. We also have to deal with the possibility of other governments, parties and Ministers that might take a progressive view of these measures. By repeatedly suggesting this is only for extreme national emergencies such as Covid, the Minister is actually downplaying the range of other uses of these functions, which I think are very serious.

I agree with the Minister on one point. I know he is not talking about individual housing developments, schools, etc., but the regional and strategic implications. What would happen if there was a clash? The Galway ring road is a good case in point. I have no view on the matter. It is not my constituency and I will not weigh into a controversy, but there are clear strategic and regional tensions there between something that has environmental implications versus personal employment implications. There are arguments on both sides. This particular provision could be used to come down on the side of either one or the other, irrespective of the views of local communities, democratically elected representatives, etc.

This provision is far too broad and wide. It is not as narrow or as exceptional as the Minister presents it, and I think he is using that case to try to strengthen his argument. In reality, it has much broader applications and implications. I urge him to at least consider that at a later stage as he goes through this, because the consequences could be very significant if he proceeds with it as it is outlined.