Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

For reasons stated right through every hour of the debate and in every section of the Bill and every amendment we tabled. Fundamentally, we need a planning system and planning legislation that support the needs of our people. If you go outside this House and say to any normal person on the street the word "planning", the first word most will come back with is "delays". What do delays do? They cost people homes, schools and strategic infrastructure. This is more than an earnest effort; this is actually doing something about it and not just talking about it. We are bringing forward the most significant planning legislation we have seen since 2000. It is needed.

There will be stakeholders who will disagree with parts of it. People are fully entitled to do so and I respect those opinions but there are also those with a vested interest in the planning system not being as effective as it should be.

I do not want to see planning decisions taken in courts. I have said that, but we have ensured access to justice is paramount within this. I was the planning Minister who abolished SHDs, brought back the two-stage planning process and brought the planning process back to our local authorities where people can have their say. The rights of third parties are enshrined in and run right through this legislation . After the hundreds of hours of debate we have had and the thousands of hours of preparation and work that have gone into this, it is time to pass and enact the legislation and provide for the transitionary measures so we have a new legislative basis to support the needs of our people. That is why this is being done.

I will answer some of the specific questions raised. Deputy Ó Broin raised the substitute amendment. That will have been circulated. That was a very slight error. It referred to section 586 in the original list. It is in section 1(2). The reference is being replaced by section 588, which is asterisked in the substitute amendments paper. To answer the Deputy's question, an unauthorised development remains unauthorised if it has not been carried out in accordance with planning conditions.

There has been some discussion of the role of local authorities. There is no diminution of local authority member powers or of local democracy within this. We are providing for an extended period for development plans with a proper review - a ten-year development plan and a proper review. If anything, the legislation allows more power for our councillors to bring forward, should they wish, amendments to a plan outside the development plan cycle.

Members mentioned the LNG amendments. The Seanad amendments clarify the definition of "strategic gas infrastructure development" in Part 4 to reflect the types of gas infrastructure already listed in Schedule 2. The amendments merely align the definition of "strategic gas infrastructure development" with the types of strategic infrastructure development already listed in the schedule, as included in the Schedule to the original Act, the 2000 Act. That is all that does. It does not change any policy position whatsoever from Government. We have been abundantly clear on that.

Other matters were raised which are outside the scope of amendments Nos. 1 to 18 and I understand why that is the case. I have already gone through the timeline. It does not stand up to scrutiny for anyone to say the legislation has been rushed. If we were to go on the basis of the proposed timelines some Members opposite or some stakeholders with interest in the Bill wanted, we would not have this legislation ever passed. Can anyone honestly say our planning legislation does not require updating, reform and change? I do not think so. That is what this significant legislation endeavours to do.

We will ensure in the passing of it there are transitionary measures from the old Act into the new Act. We will provide the three things sorely lacking: certainty, consistency and clarity. There will be certainty on timeframes and decisions, in relation to how observations are made and around Aarhus. It is important to note this legislation is Aarhus-compliant. People know what the convention is about. It relates to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice on environmental matters. If you compare our planning system with others in the western world, the third party has a much greater say in Ireland - and I respect that - than in most others. Third-party obligations are central to it and protected within it.

I and my Department are absolutely satisfied the Bill is in compliance with all international obligations, including those of the Aarhus Convention. The Bill, as I have outlined, is the culmination of a three-year process which included a most comprehensive legal review led by the Office of the Attorney General - the principal law agent in the country. There was extensive stakeholder engagement and extensive legislative scrutiny. As part of the drafting of the Bill, it has been extensively reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General and my team to ensure full compliance and alignment with Aarhus and all other international obligations. Deputies can be assured of that.

People mentioned that the Aarhus compliance committee raised a number of issues recently. It did, but most were not related to the Bill and were being considered by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, which is the lead Department. A response was prepared and issued by that Department in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and my Department. It was issued on 1 October, as requested. People have thrown it out that the Aarhus Convention compliance committee said the Bill is not compliant with Aarhus; however, it is compliant with Aarhus. Some matters the compliance committee raised, which it was perfectly entitled to do, did not relate to the legislation at all. A response has been issued by the lead Department, which is the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, on the matters raised. I think I have covered all the items raised.

See this speech in context