Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have some sympathy with Deputy McNamara in trying to get to grips with a Bill that could be a small brick in a house, with considerable length and detail.

As the Vice Chair of the Oireachtas housing committee, both I and other members, including Deputies Higgins and Matthews, have had the opportunity to consider this legislation at pre-legislative scrutiny for some time. Even with that, there is no doubt that this is one of the largest Bills that this Dáil will deal with.

I was satisfied with the points made by Deputy McNamara. It is important to understand why we are here, why we are making this change and why this mammoth legislation is before us. It is because our current planning framework is more than 20 years old. Many things have changed within that period. That Bill was based on legislation dating back nearly 40 years. It is only right that a new Government that comes to office seeking to bring in new, clean energy, new infrastructure and new housing would look at the methodology of delivering that through the planning system.

It is important to note that this is work not just for this Dáil but for a generation. The benefits of the changes to the planning system here and the ability to deliver infrastructure and housing more quickly will probably only be fully realised over the coming decades. That is not because we are not putting every other support and measure in place for the delivery of housing but because legislation of this type is generational and has an impact over a longer period.

Anybody who has interacted with our current planning system or who has read in even a small way about the developments in An Bord Pleanála over the past 12 months can only welcome the idea that the Attorney General took on board one year's worth of work at the direction of the then Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, to see how we could do planning better. There is no doubt but that any number of "Prime Time" documentaries on RTÉ have highlighted some of the really significant deficiencies. It is also important that we ensure our planning system is open and transparent, and that there are ways and measures for the public to be able to contribute to it. I do not think anybody in this House wants to undermine those principles. The idea of having a stand-alone, independent planning system that is robust and insulated from any sort of political interference is incredibly important. Such a system would be resourced well and would have the ability to make timely decisions and people who live in the communities which those planning decisions are being made about would have the opportunity to contribute. I and Fianna Fáil welcome the Bill being brought forward by the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. I also welcome the work of the Minister of State, Deputy Malcolm Noonan, on this and the work that he has done with the joint committee.

Ireland's population has transformed in the last ten or 15 years. We are now at 5 million people. We are at the corner of a climate change opportunity but also a climate change crisis. We have the ability to become a net exporter of energy from wind. If we do not change our planning system and if we do not make it fit for purpose, we will not be able to respond to that crisis. We are currently living in the midst of one of the greatest crises we have had, which is the housing crisis. If we do not make changes to our planning system, we will not be able to fully prevent that being extended for an unnecessary period and to prevent future housing shortages in future decades. It is absolutely imperative that this Bill is dealt with.

I remember the Taoiseach being asked if he had read the Nice treaty. I will say at this point that I have not read all of this Bill. I challenge anyone other than the parliamentary drafters to say that they have read it cover to cover and understand every section. I look forward to Committee Stage where I, as a committee member, will have the opportunity to go through it line by line and amendment by amendment.

With the time I have remaining, I want to point out some concerns which have been raised at this stage. It is important that we build these concerns into the process so that we have an opportunity to make amendments. I would appreciate if the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, could take the suggestions back to the Department. As the councillors co-ordinator in the parliamentary party for Fianna Fáil councillors, I have listened to some of the concerns of both the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, and Local Authorities Members Association, LAMA. The extension of the development plan to a ten-year period, I think, has many merits, but we also have to make sure that councillors who are newly elected for a five-year term have some opportunity to contribute to that. I am not certain that we currently give those newly elected councillors in the middle of the development plan term an opportunity to refresh.

I will give an example. The development plan which I set when I was elected first in 2009 was an entirely different plan from the one that we undertook in 2016. Dublin's housing crisis had become more acute in those five years and we were able to make different decisions as a result. I agree with the AILG and LAMA that we must ensure there is an opportunity for new councillors, in a new term, to express some influence on the development plan. The County and City Management Association has expressed concerns with regard to the preparation time of one to two years. It believes it should be lengthened to three or four years. I think we have all been subject to those crazy development plan meetings that go on to 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night so that we can get to the next phase of the statutory process.

The increased role of the Office of the Planning Regulator in the early stages of the preparation of the development plan has been something that the AILG has expressed concern about. It said it reinforces the centralisation of the planning system. It is something that we should be conscious of.

I welcome some of the changes with the local area plans, breaking them down into three distinct types. That provides some clarity.

With regard to the judicial review reforms, this is one of the most important areas. We have to make sure there is still an appeals system. Section 258 retains the current sufficient interest test from the 2000 Act but some amendments appear to result in a more restrictive test, particularly for residents' associations where there are certain governance requirements. It is a very technical point but I think the public participation networks, PPNs, are a structure that could be used to help residents' associations to provide that governance so that they have sufficient interest.

I think we all have much more to say on this. I look forward to that on Committee Stage and I support the Bill.

See this speech in context