Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for clarifying that. I would have thought that the courtesy that should have been given to the Dáil is that we should have been told that in the opening statement rather than relying on media reports. That is just the latest in how this has been very poorly handled by the Government.

I oppose and object to the approach by the Government in the strongest possible terms. As Deputy Ó Broin said, we were told at the briefing on Monday, which took place after the deadline for submitting any amendments to the Government's amendments, that these amendments relating to judicial reviews only relate to a small number of cases and there is no urgency with them. Why, therefore, are they being rushed through in this manner? Why is no time being given for scrutiny? In fact, detailed scrutiny is needed because these are complex, detailed matters regarding planning and judicial reviews. Why is the Government and the Minister avoiding scrutiny of this? That is what we need to hear from them.

A deeply cynical approach is being taken. The original Bill is problematic in respect of the issues relating to substitute consent. The housing committee was asked to do its pre-legislative scrutiny of that as quickly as possible last September. It was concluded a long time ago and then the Bill appears to have just sat with the Government and appears to have been deliberately timed to come to the House right at the end of the legislative process. If that is not the case, why have we not heard any explanation from the Government? Then in a highly cynical move we get these 48 pages of amendments that are not consequential to the Bill. We heard from the Department during the briefing that many of them are not of an emergency nature and relate to a small number of court cases. It is welcome that amendment No. 25 has been withdrawn, but I call for amendment No. 26, which also relates to judicial review, to be withdrawn too. If the Government has seen sense and seen fit to withdraw amendment No. 25, it should do the same with amendment No. 26, which relates to similar issues in respect of judicial review, and just give the democratic process, the Oireachtas and the people of Ireland the courtesy of having it scrutinised and debated. If the Government is going to make profound changes in planning law, it should at least allow them to be scrutinised. Why not do that?

I also call for amendments Nos. 12, 13, 40 to 42, inclusive, and 77, which relate to the design envelope, to be withdrawn, again to allow time on that. There could well be merit in some of the proposals, but let us try to get them done right by having them scrutinised.

Regarding the changes in planning and judicial reviews, this is being done in the context of multiple allegations being made with respect to An Bord Pleanála that are currently under investigation and the reports on which have not been published. At the very time a key allegation is being made that there has been a concentration of power by a small number of individuals, that files were not randomly allocated and that a significant number of planning decisions in An Bord Pleanála were made by a tiny number of individuals with no explanation as to why they were allocated the files and why the files were not randomly allocated, the one safeguard people had in that respect over the past number of years had been their ability to try to hold An Bord Pleanála to account through the courts process. That has been a limited safeguard, incidentally. Most people and communities simply have not had the resources to exercise that. Some have, and in the cases where people have been able to do that, most of the cases were either conceded by An Bord Pleanála or won. It is in that context, with all those questions hanging over the board, that the Government is proceeding with amendment No. 26, even though amendment No. 25 has been withdrawn, and with other amendments that will curtail the ability of people to hold An Bord Pleanála to account. That is quite shocking.

All the wording about this in terms of flexibility, streamlining and so forth makes it sound as if these amendments are of no consequence when, in fact, they are profound. If the Government is going to make profound changes to planning law, it should do the people of Ireland the courtesy of not trying to brush them off as being merely streamlining or merely about flexibility. Do not treat people as if they do not understand what is actually afoot here.

People are well able to understand, when language is being abused and misused to try to brush off profound changes, that is not what is at stake here; there is much more at stake. I urge the Government to stop treating the people of Ireland with contempt and allow those who are elected to represent them to engage in proper scrutiny and detailed analysis of any changes to the planning law it is trying to bring forward that will have profound effects in this country.

This is no way to enact legislation. The President of Ireland has commented on it. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has analysed it and shown the vast bulk of legislation brought forward by this Government was brought forward in the last couple of weeks of December and the end of June and into July. Members of the Government and others in this House are quick to criticise poor process in other democratic countries, and countries where democratic norms have been eroded, but this is an erosion of the democratic process. Measures that seek to undermine judicial discretion in respect of court cases is also an erosion of judicial independence. If the Government wants to bring forward any amendments, it should withdraw everything that is now on the table, bring them back at a later stage to allow for scrutiny and await publication of the reports into An Bord Pleanála and the planning review.

See this speech in context