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

Perhaps we should reset the tone of this conversation because I do not think any of us will benefit if we have a row. We are going to have some strong disagreements about the legislation but, just as we did with the Maritime Area Planning Bill and other significant Bills, we can have a rational conversation without trying to provoke each other. To respond directly to the Minister of State's comments, I believe the media coverage is accurate. I will set out in as non-provocative a way as I can why I believe that to be the case.

We should be spending the two and a half hours on the substitute consent Bill. That is significant legislation. Not only do Deputies on this side of the House have significant concerns about its provisions but so too do many legal experts and environmental NGOs. We have tabled significant amendments that we wanted an opportunity to discuss. On Thursday night last week, we received 48 pages of amendments. To put it in context, the Bill we are meant to be debating here is 18 pages. The amendments that are going to take up most of our time amount to 48 pages. The Minister of State is correct that some of them are completely without controversy. The proposed changes with respect to the OPR legislation and the Valuation Acts are relatively straightforward. They are technical and minor, and there is no issue with them. The amendments with respect to short-term letting provisions will be welcomed by many of us on this side of the House because, as I said this morning, a Sinn Féin Private Members' Bill with the same effect was supported without Government opposition some weeks ago. However, there are some significant questions as to whether the amendments will do what the Minister of State says they will do. In that regard, we support their intent but want to tease them out.

To describe amendments Nos. 25 and 26, or just amendment No. 26, as technical does not reflect the potential significance, confusion and legal delays they will cause if they are got wrong. We can get into the detail on this when we come to it. The amendments are at the very centre of many of the public concerns that have been expressed in the newspapers.

The issue of the design envelope was raised during Committee Stage. It was something the Government and Department had decided not to proceed with. My understanding is that it is on foot of the loss of a legal challenge that these proposals are now being made. The problem is that it is not just about wind energy in that the design envelope is also being proposed to apply to terrestrial planning, including residential planning. If we have time, we will get to this; I hope we do. When we were dealing with the offshore wind discussions in the context of the planning regime, some of the people made a very convincing case as to why one would need or why it would be reasonable to have some design-envelope flexibility for offshore wind projects given that they take such a long period and that the technology is advancing so rapidly. I can, therefore, understand the logic of it; however, if the legislation is got wrong or is not drafted in the right way, what is being presented as something to meet our rapidly advancing renewable energy target deadline through wind generation could make matters more difficult. I do not understand why the Government would apply a design envelope to residential developments. These normally take a set period. There is a five- or ten-year planning permission and the types of building technologies used are not stipulated in it, so I have significant concerns over how the design envelope applies to offshore wind. I am opposed to the provision as it stands, although I will listen to the Minister of State's view on how it applies to terrestrial planning and residential developments.

With respect to information, we are very grateful that his officials briefed us for an hour and a half. He should keep in mind that such briefings are for officials to answer technical questions; they do not represent full scrutiny. They entail officials providing time so we can understand what is written on the page. With respect to the amendments before us, there will be no scrutiny by outside experts and we will not know what industry and the NGOs have to say. We will not know what some of the legal experts in this specific area or the Irish Planning Institute have to say. Significant, profound changes are proposed. These are not simple technical-efficiency measures; they are significant technical changes. Not only are we not getting enough time to debate them on Committee Stage but we are not getting time for any scrutiny at all. We can have a row if the Minister of State wants, or we can have a rational discussion. We might not agree at the end of it, but these changes, the substitute consent Bill and the amendments we make to it will have profound impacts on people all over this State for years to come.

I will finish with a general comment. The profound impacts are best seen in one of the most egregious substitute consent cases in the history of the State, that of Derrybrien. Pretty much everyone present will know that case very well. Since Governments repeatedly got the planning rules and regulations wrong, the communities in the part of the country in question had to live with the consequences of mistakes of this House for decades. They are still living with those mistakes because, while substitute consent has rightly been refused, the very real issue of the remediation of the enormous amount of social, economic and environmental damage in Derrybrien has yet to be resolved. That is before we even talk about the millions of euro in taxpayers' money spent on fines.

We have a significant discussion to have.

I hope we get through some of the amendments and I hope the Minister of State listens to some of the arguments we are making. We are not here to mislead. A number of us here have spent a lot of time discussing planning legislation with him. We take this stuff seriously. I have significant concerns, even about the portions of the amendments I am minded or open to support. The amount of time allocated for scrutiny, debate and voting is wholly inadequate. This is why I believe that newspaper reports are accurate.

See this speech in context