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

I wish to put on the record my objection in the strongest possible terms both to the motion and, more important, to the way these amendments have been introduced at a very late stage with virtually no possibility of Oireachtas scrutiny. That is not only a breach of proper procedure, but it is also treating this House and its Members with appalling disrespect. More important, it shows disrespect to the public, many of whom will be directly impacted by the negative and possibly unintended consequences of some of these amendments significantly.

The Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill is already controversial legislation. We should have had two and a half hours to deal with detailed Opposition amendments to that before concluding that Bill. Late last Thursday, we received 48 pages of amendments to an 18-page Bill. Those amendments cover six other legislative areas that have nothing to do with Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill relating to substitute consent.

One of the areas of potential amendment the Minister of State mentioned, which is the sanctions on platforms advertising non-compliant short-term lets, is a welcome move. I introduced a Bill to give effect to such a proposal, which was passed a few weeks ago. However, because we cannot scrutinise it, we do not know if something that is good in principle will be good in practice. For instance, the former Minister, Eoghan Murphy's, short-term letting regulations, which were also good in principle, turned out to be bad in practice. We do not have adequate time to scrutinise that. Other amendments relating to the Valuations Acts and the Office of the Planning Regulator are not controversial. The real problem the Minister of State will hear from all Opposition Members shortly relates to those amendments to judicial review and to design envelope flexibility for planning authorities particularly with respect to the Maritime Area Planning Act.

When technical and complex changes to planning law are introduced, the potential for negative impacts, unintended consequences or creating further confusion and uncertainty for applicants, third parties and the legal process is enormous. We have seen that year after year when similar last-minute changes have been introduced. That lack of scrutiny is real problem because we take our job as legislators seriously. Even when we are broadly supportive of something the Government is doing, we want to ensure that whatever we are asked to put our names to is fit for purpose and does what it says on the tin. We will simply not be able to do that in two and a half hours and deal with significant issues relating to substitute consent.

How many times have we seen profound changes to planning law have negative and unintended consequences? The strategic housing development legislation is a case in point. We were told the mandatory ministerial guidelines on building height and design standards for apartments were efficiency measures to streamline the planning process, but all they did was undermine public confidence in that process and lead to lengthy and complicated litigation that has been costly for the taxpayer as a result of dramatic increases in judicial review losses by An Bord Pleanála.

Some of these changes also move the goalposts where applicants or third parties are engaging in the judicial review process. Judges are now being mandated to make decisions that will have a significant impact of people's access to justice in line with European law and particularly with the Aarhus Convention. I have said this previously. We will be back here in a year or two and we will be saying we told the Government so, pointing out that it has not improved the process but in fact made it worse.

Some of these amendments are not even necessary. The idea of non-consequential amendments, as I understand it, is either to deal with small minor technical drafting things - we have a few of those and that is okay - or matters of great urgency. One could argue that the short-term letting regulations are a case in point.

I thank the Minister of State and departmental officials for providing us with a briefing on Monday. At that meeting I asked how many cases the proposed changes to judicial review proceedings will affect. We were told it was a very small number and they listed some of the types of cases that arose. I asked if there was any urgency in introducing these changes now particularly given that we will have substantial legislation reforming the Planning and Development Act and the judicial review proceedings later in the year. I was told there was not any urgency. I asked why they are being introduced now and the answer was the Attorney General said they could be. Lots of things could be but should they be? Absolutely not. The last time I checked the Constitution, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage was responsible for policy, not the Attorney General. The Attorney General provides legal advice, but the Government decides when to move forward.

This is, therefore, not about streamlining, improving or assisting much-needed offshore wind farm or good quality residential development. These changes will make things more complex, more problematic, more difficult for the public to engage with and more expensive for everybody. On that basis, I urge the Government to withdraw amendments Nos. 25 and 26 with respect to judicial review changes; amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 40 to 42, inclusive, with respect to the design envelope and planning authorities; and amendment No. 77 with respect to the design envelope and the Maritime Area Planning Act.

The design envelope is a good case in point. I am open to being convinced of the merits of that. If it is designed in the right way, it could be useful. However, the Minister of State has given us no time to consider whether this has been done in the appropriate manner and consistent with good planning practice in line with Irish, EU or international legal obligations. On that basis, I oppose the motion and urge the Government to withdraw those amendments. Let us get on with important business we have of the substitute consents legislation later today.

See this speech in context