Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As this is the first major planning Bill in 25 years, we should try to improve the legislation and, therefore, language having been used in the past is not necessarily a justification for our continuing to use it. "Expedient" includes possibly improper or immoral acts, so I want a justification from the Minister of State as to why he thinks it is appropriate to put in legislation these sorts of powers for the Minister and that the Minister can access them in ways that include improper and immoral ways.

Nothing the Minister of State has said so far seems to suggest any justification for this type of language. He said this provision is similar to that in the 2000 Act. However, it is quite different in this context because the Bill gives sweeping powers to the Minister in respect of regulations that the 2000 Act did not. Specifically, while the 2000 Act required the Minister, when making regulations in a whole range of areas, to get the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas by resolution, this Bill only requires that for two sets of regulations by the Minister for housing. Everything else the Minister can do without approval by resolution from the Houses.

There is a very big change in the centralisation of power under these provisions in the Bill compared with the 2000 Act. I will give an example. Under section 262 of the 2000 Act, multiple sets of regulations require resolutions approved by both Houses, specifically, sections 4(2), 19(3), 25(5), 100(1)(b), (c) or (d), 126(4), 126A(2), 176, 179(1), 181(1)(a), 221(4), 230(1) and 246. That is all being got rid of. Under the Bill, the Minister does not require approval by the Houses. This is being coupled with the word "expedient". The use of "expedient" is now in a different context because where there were safeguards for regulations previously, which included needing approval by the Houses, the Bill is now getting rid of those safeguards. This is then added to the use of the word "expedient", which allows for possibly improper or immoral acts. How can this possibly be justified? It is absolutely shocking.

Recommendation 3.61 from The Final Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments states, "The Tribunal is concerned at the extent of the Minister’s powers in the planning system as a whole." That related to the 2000 Act, under which the Minister's powers in making regulations are much more limited and curtailed than what is in the Bill. If we take the tribunal report seriously, which we should, we should not centralise more power in the hands of the Minister. We should be doing the opposite by putting in more safeguards. The Bill is doing the opposite. It is removing safeguards and leaving in a wording that implies improper or immoral is possibly okay in the setting of regulations.