Grace O'Sullivan (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It is great to see the Minister in the House again. Unlike my colleague, Senator Coffey, I believe we need to build units urgently in the right way and not at any cost.

I welcome the Bill but we need to be careful to make the planning system work better. Making it work efficiently and effectively is a priority. We have a huge backlog of permitted housing units that have not been brought to the market. As Senator Boyhan has said, we have planning permission for 27,000 units in Dublin but most of them have not been acted upon. If unreasonable delays in the planning system exist then they should be addressed. It is incorrect to suggest that it is the planning system alone that has caused delays in the supply of housing.

The changes proposed in this legislation reduces public participation in the planning process. They completely remove the participation of local councillors through the area committee. There is no provision for an appeals mechanism for some of the most planning decisions affecting an area. These provisions are in breach of Ireland's obligation under the Aarhus Convention and are contrary to the Maastricht Recommendations on public participation. We need more planning scrutiny and more public participation, not less.

Chapter 2 of Part 2 dwells on the screening of an environment impact assessment. I am concerned about the proposed changes to the EIA regime. I should be grateful if the Minister would address some aspects of the chapter. First, what is the provision for public participation in the EIA screening process?

Second, there is a particular focus on flood alleviation projects in the section. As the Minister will be aware, Ireland is required under the Water Framework Directive to achieve good status in all of its water bodies. Recently the EPA published its State of the Environment report and it demonstrates just how badly Ireland is failing in that regard. The European Court of Justice in the Weser case made it clear that member states must refuse consent for projects that could cause a deterioration in water status. How will the Minister ensure that this approach gives effect to the ruling by the European Court of Justice and enables Ireland to comply with the Water Framework Directive?

My third question is on Chapter 3 of Part 2, section 22 dealing with extension of permissions. How many housing units does the provision apply to? Section 23 of Chapter 3 of Part 2 refers to a Part VIII procedure. I welcome the chief executive's timely report as I understand that reports did not come to the fore in the past. However, there is no justification to reduce the public consultation period.

The Bill addresses aspects of Part VIII procedures that badly need reform. I want to refer to the adequacy of the information that is put on public display. The information required for a Part VIII application is minimal. If a normal planning application was submitted with the information acceptable for Part VIII approval it would be immediately rejected as invalid. I ask the Minister to table a simple amendment requesting that the information supplied in a Part VIII application is the same as that specified in the regulations for a standard planning application.

In terms of tenant protections in Part 3 of the Bill, it is incredible that the protection of tenants shall apply only where a landlord proposes to sell 20 or more units. Sales of investment properties by professional landlords should provide for the existing tenants remaining in situwhether the properties are sold singularly or in groups of any size. We have repeatedly heard about people being evicted in order for the properties in which they live can be sold. This is an unacceptable situation. Often the initiative is driven by a bank recovering on its mortgage that makes no difference. Where a property was bought as an investment and the bank lent money as an investment then the property should be sold as an investment. What on earth suggests that it is acceptable to evict people when they live in a group of fewer than 20 properties?

Finally, the Minister has said this legislation is only the first part of provisions to provide better protection for tenants. If this is how he intends to continue the current provisions will make no difference to the lives of tenants. Also, he will fail to make renting any more secure, affordable or attractive. We all know what the FFF stands for - fair rent, fixity of tenure and free sale. Surely in the 21st century we can offer tenants the right that Michael Davitt and the Land League won in the 19th century. I ask the Minister to bring forward an amendment to Part 3 that will protect all tenants.