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

Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. On first reading the Bill and after listening to the debate in the Seanad, the circumstances in which the Minister was intending to use these powers were not quite clear, but having discussed it with his officials there are, in principle, two key areas where the powers outlined in the sections of the Bill to which these amendments relate could be used. The first would be a case where a local authority's planning department has a reduced staffing capacity because of Covid-19 absences. In that context it might be difficult for the local authority to be able to meet its statutory timelines in terms of a grant of planning permission. It is likewise with the board. The second would be circumstances where, if the Covid-19 infection numbers at some stage next year were to deteriorate, there might be a decision to apply a local lockdown, possibly a level 5 plus, with additional restrictions, on a county or a region rather than State-wide. The difficulty is that the sections of the Bill, as drafted, are very broad and give the Minister massive discretion to apply these powers. Some of us worry that they could be applied in an uneven way and, unintentionally, they could be applied in a way that undermines public participation in the planning process.

Amendment No. 8 seeks to raise the bar against which the Minister would apply an extension of periods, from when the Minister thought it was appropriate to when the Minister had evidence to believe that it was essential. That is a crucial difference. Amendment No. 9 requires the Minister to set out the reasons for making these orders publicly and explicitly, particularly in terms of the non-application of emergency periods or the varying of emergency periods between planning authorities geographically or in different aspects of the planning process, for example, a decision by local authority versus public participation. Amendment No. 10 deals with the need for an even-handed approach. Again, it does not just relate to granting more time to a local authority to make the decision, but also to ensuring that people who want to participate but who may have limited access for a variety of reasons due to Covid-19 also get extended periods.

Amendment No. 11 deletes lines 22 to 25 of the Bill, to try to remove the possibility of inconsistency in the approach to all of this. Amendment No. 12 specifically addresses the issue of county-only extended periods. I will explain it further to the Minister. There could be two neighbouring local authority areas or counties, and one is in a level 5 plus lockdown and the other is not. However, the residents of the local authority area where there is a level 5 plus lockdown and who cannot travel into the neighbouring local authority might have a serious concern about a planning decision in that local authority, but they are not able to participate in it. Likewise, one can imagine a situation in the Minister's constituency in Fingal in which that part of the county or the neighbouring commuter counties were under additional restrictions but the residents there wanted to engage with the board and visit it directly to lodge a submission and so forth.

None of these amendments are against the spirit of what the Minister is trying to do. They are an attempt to try to tighten it and make it much clearer, transparent and more equitable when, in the unfortunate circumstances in which he has to use any of these powers, they are deployed.

See this speech in context