Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not sure if my colleague is here so I will take the ten minutes. I would happily take the Government time as well if I could because this is quite complex legislation. The manner in which this is being put through is quite unacceptable. I do not sit on the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and I have done my best to come to terms with this Bill in the short time we have. To waive pre-legislative scrutiny for such complex legislation is unacceptable, and to then go to the Seanad and not accept its basic amendments to change the wording to "shall" as regards having public meetings on development plans is totally unacceptable.

The Bill started out at three and a half pages and it is really three pages because the fourth page is the Title. I would have no difficulty with it as a temporary measure to deal with Covid and indeed that is what the original Bill says. The original Title reads, "An Act to amend section 11 of the Planning and Development Act 2000; to provide, in connection with the crisis occasioned by the spread of the disease known as Covid-19" for specific periods. The Preamble goes on to use the word "whereas" three times, setting out each time that it relates to Covid. That is not what it will say now. The Minister has come forward tonight and has said that the change relating to no public meetings for the development plans will be permanent. I have no idea where that is coming from and the Minister should take that change out. It is ironic that the changes he is making tonight regarding public participation have come from the courts, namely, the European Court of Justice and the Supreme Court. On a night where he is forced to act in the most minimalist way possible because of the judgments of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice, he is taking with the other hand and minimising public participation.

I looked up the word "insidious" to make sure I had it right. It is, "Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects." That is exactly what the Minister is doing here tonight and I will not support it. I do not know how many times the Government has come forward with legislation because of the emergency, which is ostensibly very good, and then transforms it into something else that makes it difficult for Deputies, because they are voting for something that is minimally good but contains something very bad. That has become a pattern with the Government since Covid came in. I find it dangerous, insidious, and unacceptable.

July was an interesting month with the courts. On 1 July there was judgment in the two cases relating to substitute consent on which the Minister is now acting in the most minimalist way possible. The judgment noted many issues, which I will not go into as I have limited time, but I will read from its conclusion:

i. That on Issue One, for the reasons therein stated, I would hold that section 177C(2)(a) and its corresponding provision, section 177D(1)(a) are inconsistent with the EIA Directive as interpreted by the Court of Justice, in that they fail to provide adequately for the exceptionality test as demanded by that court;

ii. On Issue Two, I would likewise hold that given the structure of s. 177, the failure to make provision for public participation at the leave application stage for substitute consent is inconsistent with the public participation rights conferred by and outlined in the EIA Directive.

The Minister has come forward in an emergency to act under that judgment from 1 July.

On 30 or 31 July, two other judgments were made which are interesting in the context of tonight's discussion. One related to the Government's policy, which was very good, on excluding trawlers of a certain size from the six-mile zone. The court said that the Government held a public consultation process which was not fair and just and was inadequate, and found that the policy was at nought. Here was a good Government policy, but when it came to the consultation process, it did not do it well, so the policy was at nought and big trawlers are now allowed in to fish for sprat. The Minister might ask the relevance of this to this debate. There was a fundamental failure to understand the importance of public consultation. Also on the same day, the Supreme Court found in favour of the concerned people who went forward on the climate action plan. That was also set at nought.

One would think that any Government that was sensible would learn from that the importance of public consultation. The courts consistently speak of the trinity in the planning laws: the developer, the local authority and the citizen. Without citizens' active participation, many bad planning decisions would have gone ahead. We should be thanking the citizens and residents who have who have come forward and shown courage and challenged very bad decisions. Instead of that, what the Minister is doing tonight is insidious. In the guise of emergency measures under Covid, he is making a permanent change and depriving the public of its right to a public hearing and telling us it is for our own good and in line with the modernisation agenda for the planning system. It is not modernisation to prevent people from attending a public meeting. Yes, there is a role for Zoom and online meetings. I have attended joint policing committees and various seminars, including one on direct provision, and none is substitute for a meeting in person. That was only in that limited sense. For something like the city or county development plan we need the active participation of our residents and citizens.

I agree with every word that Deputy Boyd Barrett said; I could not put it better. The Minister is building absolute alienation into this Bill and he is giving us a Hobson's choice. The part relating to the protection of tenants, which is extremely limited, is good. The part relating to substitute consent is good, but it is minimalist. Therefore, if we vote against the Bill, we are voting against the good parts, but we have to accept the bad part. I find that absolutely objectionable. I find it objectionable that complex legislation like this did not go through pre-legislative scrutiny. I find it objectionable that the Minister came forward with a three-and-a-half page Bill that was acceptable except in respect of public participation, and which was then transformed in a manner worthy of Kafka. It is absolutely Kafkaesque. There were three and a half pages dealing with Covid which were transformed into something entirely different, and the Minister tells us that it is for our own good.

I ask the Minister to see sense at this stage and realise the importance of public participation in the planning process, that without public participation we are on the road to disaster. We need active citizenry and active residents to keep us on our toes as politicians. We know that from the climate debate. The public - the people on the ground and the children - are way ahead of us. They were way ahead of us 20 years ago in Galway when they led the debate against incineration. They did not do so in the manner of "not in my backyard" but they said that they wanted zero waste, and we were led by the nose to do that. The response was to remove the power from the local authority to make a waste management plan. We we did everything right and the power was taken from us.I had the benefit and privilege of being a councillor for 17 years and presided over a city development plan with meetings until midnight or 1 a.m. as mayor of Galway. I would not like to repeat it and I would not be able to, but one thing I learned was that it is a David and Goliath situation with developers on the one hand and the ordinary citizen on the other. We lose the citizens' participation at our peril and at great damage to society.

At the very least, if the Minister wants my support, he should put public meetings back in the Bill, that there shall be public meetings, which is what the Seanad wanted. If the Minister does that and puts a time span on the Covid measures, he will have my support. Then we will go back to look at making better legislation on substitute consent. He will realise that he has been forced every step of the way by the superior courts of this country which have forced each Government to take action, which it does in the most minimal way possible.

See this speech in context