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

First, I want to object very strongly to the way this Bill is being rushed through and not given proper time on Committee Stage to allow for full scrutiny and discussion of amendments and that it was brought to the Seanad before the pre-legislative scrutiny, which the committee was doing in the new reduced time. We were ahead of schedule but that was done before that was completed. It shows absolute contempt for the legislative and democratic process. When the Government brought in the reduced time for pre-legislative scrutiny, an absolute commitment was given by the Government that if committees were going with the reduced timeframe, Bills would not be introduced before it had been completed. It did not take long for the Government to break yet another cast iron commitment that it gave. It is hard to regard the Government with credibility when that is the way it behaves towards the democratic process.

One of the problems this Bill is trying to fix is the result of rushed legislation. The lowering of the quorum for decisions by An Bord Pleanála to two members was a direct result of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 which was rushed through the Oireachtas by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party to avoid proper scrutiny. Time and again, rushed legislation shows itself to be flawed legislation. Legislation that seeks to cut corners actually ends up creating delays instead of saving time. The strategic housing development legislation is a prime example of that.

At the moment there is a very deliberate strategy and narrative around blaming the planning system for the failure of the Government to deliver housing. The facts simply do not match up to that. There are currently 80,000 planning permissions which are not built out and are not commenced. People are really being gaslighted by the Government with a developers agenda which it is parroting here. You can see that in how the crisis at An Bord Pleanála is being used to ram through changes to concentrate more powers in the hands of the Minister and undermining the independence of the board.

We are having the wrong conversation entirely on planning. We should be talking about how to make the planning process better and stronger so that we can build more sustainable, cohesive, successful and thriving communities.

On the specifics of the Bill and some of the difficulties I have with it, first I refer to the changes in An Bord Pleanála and the Minister’s attempt to go backwards to pre-1983 to centralise power in his hands to appoint members of the board. It is a regressive step and a return to the bad old days. There were very good reasons that those changes were made in 1983. The power and discretion to the Minister that this Bill allows for are extraordinary and are not subject to Oireachtas oversight. In recent days I have heard Government Deputies misrepresenting the text of section 6(b) of the Bill, saying there is no issue with the appointment process to the board because the Minister “shall establish” a committee. They failed to say that section 6(b) gives the Minister discretion on this and that while establishing a process, he may include the establishment of a committee. It is an absolute flaw in the Bill to give the Minister such discretion.

We have to ask why the Minister did not use his existing and substantial powers under section 104 of the Act to fill vacancies that have arisen on the board. Is it because that process is subject to Oireachtas oversight and to very strict time limits in terms of any of the appointments made?

Section 3 relates to the amendment of section 106 of the 2000 Act and the key skills and competencies of members of An Bord Pleanála. The list proposed in the Bill by the Minister is highly deficient. Amendment No. 20 which I and others tabled sought to deal with this but it has been ruled out of order. It is a very significant amendment. My amendment No. 22 also deals with it. There are a number of key skills listed as recommended by the joint committee in its pre-legislative report. It was recommended unanimously and was a good list of the skills that would be needed on the board. I would ask the Minister to take on board the all-party recommendation.

Along with the list of expertise around built heritage, archaeology, marine ecology, terrestrial ecology and so on, the knowledge of planning matters and how it affects Gaeltacht areas and Irish language speakers in Gaeltacht areas in particular is something that is needed on the board. The Minister took an interest in that before.

On the foreshore aspects of the Bill and the water column, I fully agree there is a need for regulatory clarity here. I do not agree that there is no need for proper regulatory oversight. We must comply with our obligations under European law. Article 12 of the habitats directive states that we must give the highest protection to species and their habitats that are listed in annex IV(a), including whales, dolphins, turtles and otters. Ireland has already been found in breach of this directive in the European Court of Justice case 183/05. It is critical to note that surveys that are invasive may require an environmental impact assessment. I have concerns about the redefinition of subsoil and that there is a risk of unintended consequences from this. It is worth saying that seismic surveys can kill the marine food chain. They can fatally maim and kill whales, dolphins and porpoises. That aspect of the Bill needs to be very carefully considered.

There are very significant concerns about renewable energy and the long delays of two years to obtain a foreshore site investigation. There is a potential to create huge delays in developing renewable energy and impacting severely on our meeting our climate action targets and meeting our needs around energy security and sustainability.

Finally, I want to raise the temporary abolition of public participation in the planning process for social, affordable and cost-rental homes. I will welcome any measure that speeds up the delivery of much-needed social housing. However, while we must build fast, we must also build well to last. Many mistakes have been made in this area in the past. It is highly questionable whether these provisions comply with EU law and the Aarhus Convention which Ireland signed up to and which requires public participation as part of the planning process. It is worth noting that the real delays in providing social housing are not caused by the planning process or indeed public participation. They are caused by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the very cumbersome bureaucratic process around approvals and the delays around that. I do not think that process is necessary. In my area, very close to where I live, social housing was meant to be built. Every time I have been on to the council about it over the years, I have been told that it is waiting for go-ahead from the Department and the next stage of approval. This has been going on for years in respect of these much-needed social homes. It is nothing to do with the planning process or public participation and everything to do with the Department.

When we had a briefing on this with the Department a few days ago, the officials were asked what evidence there was on which to base these changes. They said there was none. They were asked if there would be a regulatory impact and they confirmed there would not be. They confirmed that zero analysis had been done to see what benefits have arisen from public participation and what problems were identified that were fixed. There was no analysis done on that. They were explicit that the public participation process and Part 8 had worked very well since it was streamlined in 2018. They were exceptionally clear on that point and that zero issues, as far as they knew, had arisen from the public participation process and there were zero examples of it running into any difficulties or creating any delays. It is quite extraordinary given what the Department is telling us that these measures are being brought forward.

There is a cost to abolishing public participation in terms of reducing accountability. That will inevitably lead to the reduction of design and planning standards. Part of the reason we have the housing disaster we have at the moment is that millions of euro was spent and thousands of social homes were built that were not planned well and were not designed well and they ended up having to be demolished at huge financial, social and environmental costs. We must be very careful about any measures that will reduce the oversight and accountability and may lead to a reduction in planning and design standards.

The Minister often says the Opposition comes forward with no solutions, but here is one: if he insists on going ahead with this, he should provide dedicated funding for amenities and community facilities such as playgrounds, for which all the social housing providers tell us they have no funding models or funding streams. That would provide some amelioration in respect of getting rid of the public participation process concerning social housing.

See this speech in context