Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I highlight how disappointed, shocked and upset I am at the manner in which the guillotine procedure is being used today. There is a lack of confidence in the whole planning system and the process around the granting of planning permission that is compounded by a number of factors. On top of everything else, the manner in which this legislation is being passed is going to further erode people's confidence in the system. If the Government seriously believes it is right and proper for us to come in here and to have less than one hour to debate, scrutinise and go through 48 pages of amendments, it is totally wrong. It is completely unfair. This is politics at its worst. The job of legislators is to go through legislation and amendments properly. I have no problem in the world with Members or the Government bringing forward pages and pages of amendments. However, we must be given the opportunity to go through them. The Government is not doing that.

There is a significant lack of confidence in An Bord Pleanála. Even though I would be entitled to do so, I will not go into the details of what I would refer to as the shenanigans of An Bord Pleanála. However, I wish to make this point on record. An inspector from An Bord Pleanála can go out and inspect a project, produce a report and put it before the members of the board. People might think that meetings of the board are well organised, convened and structured. They are no such thing. The meetings involve a few people turning up willy-nilly if they are on time. Meetings can take place at 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock in the evening. Members can be in whatever state they wish to be in because there is nobody there to scrutinise or oversee what they are doing. An inspector can lay a proper report before the board. If there are three people attending the meeting, including two board members and the inspector, the two board members can reject the inspector's report and overturn the findings of it. These board members may have never been in the county, town or village of the planned development that is up for discussion. The members may not have read the inspector's report. However, if they do not like the individual developer or something about them, they can overturn the decision of the inspector. How can that be right and proper?

See this speech in context