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

I have submitted a number of amendments to Seanad amendment No. 2. We have three hours to go through 175 pages of amendments. Some of the amendments are relatively straightforward and technical in nature but many of them are not. Many substantively change key aspects of the legislation. Late last night, we received another eight pages of substitute amendments, one of which is the second amendment in this group, which I will come to in a moment. While the Seanad dealt with some of the amendments, it did not manage to scrutinise all of those that were subsequently agreed because the debate was guillotined after the allotted time.

This has been a feature of the debate on planning legislation, although not of the Committee Stage debate on this Bill. In fairness, thanks to the Cathaoirleach of the Oireachtas committee, Committee Stage was conducted in an entirely appropriate manner. The Minister's officials were exhausted after the very length sessions but given the length, complexity and significance of the Bill, it was the right way to do it. That process is in stark contrast to the procedure for the passage of these amendments, which, unfortunately, is not in the control of the committee but of the Government. Here is the problem. We have had ample examples, including recently, of last-minute, inadequately scrutinised and rushed amendments to planning legislation. In fact, we previously had two rounds of legislation amending the substitute consent procedures.

5 o’clock

Because very complex, technical amendments to planning legislation did not get adequate scrutiny or time in the House, it did not work in real time. Our opportunity, as available to us on Committee Stage, to highlight errors of drafting, gaps between intention and actual impact, is lost. I cannot for the life of me understand why, given the damage that has been done to our planning system from rushed legislation previously, including some legislation the Minister has brought into this House, he would risk making the same mistake again.

The problem is that the concern I am articulating is not just the view of those of us in opposition; the Irish Planning Institute, the body that represents professional planners, who make and decide on applications, over and over again has warned of this. Therefore, I just want to put on the record that this is an entirely inappropriate way to progress legislation. I would go so far as to suggest that it shows a level of contempt for the Opposition and the important role we play. We have just had before the House legislation that shows we are willing to work and be co-operative with the Government when given the time to do so. Also, however, I think this shows a contempt for the procedures of the Oireachtas itself. This is not a good way to proceed.

I know what I am saying is falling on deaf ears, like the thousands of amendments many of us have submitted to try to improve this Bill. I know the Minister has made a political decision that he just wants this Bill published, concluded, come hell or high water. For the record, however, and for people who will look back on this three-hour debate when what is in this Bill goes terribly wrong, I want them to know there were people in here who stood up and said this would not work and would create enormous confusion in our planning system that would lead to a very dramatically increased level of conflict. Those conflicts will increase third-party appeals and third-party litigation, and all of that will delay the delivery of much-needed housing, critical infrastructure, public transport and renewable energy projects. The crazy thing is that we in here are all agreed that we need more of those things and need to reform the planning process. That is not what we have here, and I object to that in the strongest possible terms.

With respect to the amendments the Minister has presented and our amendments, I will speak to amendment No. 2, in the Minister's name, and then I have a query about amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive. The Minister says he believes the Bill is fully compliant with Aarhus, yet no actual Aarhus compliance assessment has been undertaken. A general view of the Attorney General on these things, as the Bill has progressed, has been referred to, but no specific Aarhus compliance assessment has been undertaken. We know that because Deputy Cian O'Callaghan pressed the Government on this at an earlier stage and it was confirmed that that had not taken place. What we do know, however, is that the Aarhus compliance committee, in respect of one section of the legislation it has had cause to assess, is of the view that it is not in compliance. I refer to Chapter 5 of Part 4, which relates to public participation. That speaks directly to the reasons we are looking for additional reporting requirements and consideration of the Oireachtas to ensure full compliance with Aarhus. If the Minister gets the public participation elements of this wrong - in my view as well as that of many of us on this side of the Chamber, the Irish Planning Institute and many of the legal professionals in the Bar association and the Law Society, who specialise in planning and environmental law, he has got them wrong - this will be the cause of so much difficulty in our planning system. Again, therefore, I ask why no specific Aarhus compliance assessment was undertaken. What will the Minister do if, at a future stage, the Aarhus compliance committee raises other problems with this Bill? The Minister may not be in his current position at that point in time. He might have another ministerial position or, God forbid, be in opposition. We will be here to remind him that we told him so, that we warned him, that we said, "You do not have to do it this way."

It is important to understand what Aarhus is for. Aarhus is not some abstract, technical thing; it is an international, legally binding treaty that this State has signed to underpin the rights of citizens to access information about the environment and public health and to access justice where they believe they are being denied access to that information or where public health, the environment and the well-being of themselves and their communities are being put in jeopardy. It is a fundamental underpinning of a good, proper, functioning planning system. In fact, if you get the Aarhus stuff right, you do not have to worry about the judicial reviews because they dramatically fall in number. We are agreed we would like to see fewer judicial reviews but where we fundamentally disagree is on what we believe is the best and most appropriate and human rights-compliant way of doing that.

I am not clear on the following. The Minister's amendment No. 2 is the first of the substitute amendments on the list we were given yesterday. I cannot see any actual textual changes so I am wondering if there is just a layout or a grammatical change. Will the Minister explain that one? Also, if possible, where he is speaking to an amendment in respect of which we have been given a substitute amendment, of which there are a small number, he might speak to why the substitute amendment is before us and explain the difference.

As regards amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, this was the subject of very significant discussion. It was one of those areas where, I think after about 40 minutes of a dialogue with the Minister on this section of the Bill, we realised, or he realised, that there was a problem. With respect to unauthorised development, will it still be considered unauthorised if it has not been carried out in accordance with the grant of planning permission? I am still unclear because the Minister said it would be unauthorised if it was not carried out in compliance with the licence, but the licence is for the activities, not the structure. I ask him to clarify that because that was the issue of concern in committee.

See this speech in context