Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Last week, the new Planning and Development Bill was discussed for the first time. It is a very large Bill, as one might expect. It runs to 712 pages and contains many new legislative proposals, although much of it is also a restatement of existing law. The problem is it is not clear which is which.

The Standing Orders of the House are very clear on the matter. Standing Order 175 states: "A Bill shall be printed only [there is no discretion in this regard] if accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum which shall, in clear terms ... set out ... in the context of existing law ... the changes proposed [and do so] on a section-by-section basis." Instead of that, the explanatory memorandum, which is only 120 pages, despite the fact the Bill is 712 pages, is vague. It references provisions that are "largely unchanged", and includes non-exhaustive references to things such as "principal changes", "changes include", and "shall include", but it is not systematic or comprehensive.

This was raised last week by Deputy Cian O'Callaghan. The Taoiseach said he would look into it. This is important legislation that will give rise to a lot of litigation one way or the other. That litigation will cost the State a lot of money and will slow up the development it hopes to accelerate. Will the Government withdraw that Bill until there is time for a proper explanatory memorandum to be put in place? This is not a criticism of the parliamentary draughtsman. It is the pressures under which that office works. If the Government does not do that, will the Ceann Comhairle apply the Standing Orders of the House without fear or favour?

See this speech in context