Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I accept that amendment No. 6 is flawed in that it does not specifically state, as amendment No. 4 does, that it relates to a principle private residence rather than an office block or an hotel. I accept that those few words are missing but the amendment is intended in the same context and spirit as the previous amendment. It also dovetails with Deputy Healy's amendment.

The Minister of State has argued that this amendment is not relevant to this Bill, which is concerned with land valuation. Having read the Bill, I am aware that most of the amendments relate to the valuation of land and to changes to the Valuation Acts. I understand the purpose of the Bill. The Minister of State has argued that, technically, this amendment is not relevant to the Bill but he does not explain how section 5, which amends section 170A of the Planning and Development Act which relates to the strategic development zones, SDZs, is relevant. The section begins thus:

Section 170A (inserted by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2015) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is amended—

(a) in subsection (3)(a), by the substitution, for “satisfies”, of “fails to satisfy”, and the deletion of “and may satisfy the criteria referred to in subparagraph (v) of that paragraph”,

This section deals with a measure which will allow developers to easily change an SDZ should an alteration or amendment be required. Why has an amendment to the Planning and Development Act 2000 been stuck into this Bill? We will be discussing both the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill and the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Bill this week and surely that amendment would be more appropriate in one of those.

Given everything that has been said about the urgency of stopping evictions and helping the tens of thousands of families who are stressed, worried and, in some cases, distraught, what is the problem with inserting an amendment that enables ordinary families to stay in their homes as against a provision which enables developers to bypass planning laws? Why is it appropriate for an amendment to the Planning and Development Act to be included in this Bill, while an amendment that deals with the current crisis for tens of thousands of families is deemed inappropriate?

See this speech in context