Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes, indeed. It meant a very large number of very important amendments relating substantially to the issue were not discussed at all. I am sure the Minister will want to assure us that there will be no guillotine on the Committee Stage debate on this legislation and that all amendments will be dealt with. That will be very important. While this may be emergency legislation or may relate to a particular crisis, it is important that it has full and proper scrutiny.

On the substantial issues, I have some caution and concern. I welcome the fact that there was a suspension of planning decisions during the first lockdown. That was a positive decision. I would have liked to have seen a similar action taken during the current level 5 lockdown, and I understand that section 3 of the legislation could facilitate such a measure if an emergency period is declared. That is positive. The Minister said he hopes to use it very rarely. I think he should use it if it is the situation that circumstances are getting in the way of people being able to participate fully in the planning process.

I have a concern that it seems to be that a very large volume of planning applications have been made during the Covid crisis. Perhaps between now and Committee Stage the Minister might provide us with this information because I think it would be useful. I can only go on partial figures that I might have and we do not have the option of asking parliamentary questions in the Seanad. I have spoken to people who encountered real difficulties in engaging with the process at that time. It would be useful to know how many applications have been made.

I know that many local authorities encourage those making or intending to make planning applications to engage with others who might do so, resulting in many cases in sets of planning applications being made. This is sometimes a co-ordinated activity at a time when individuals or individual households who may be impacted by planning and development decisions have not had the same freedom to engage with each other, not just simply giving their input into the process but engaging in a co-ordinated way around input into the process.

In that sense, I have a strong concern about the proposal to make some of the changes in this Bill permanent. While it is fine to modernise systems, if we do so in a way that leaves people out, if we change our consultation process to upgrade it but effectively leave out those who need to be consulted, that is not adequate. I am concerned by the changes to section 11 of the principal Act and the idea that could potentially lead to a scenario where all consultation takes place online. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that 55% of people in Ireland are not considered to have strong digital skills. We might be confused by seeing the high-rise buildings of the many digital platforms headquartered in Ireland, many of which are very familiar with navigating the planning process, but Ireland is 17th out of 24 countries in terms of digital literacy. Some 55% of the adult population between the ages of 18 to 65 are qualified as having low digital skills. It is not enough that there is consultation if it is not consultation that everyone can access.

Given that the Minister is amending the Bill anyway when it comes to Committee Stage, I urge him not to make that a permanent change in section 11. If he is bringing the Planning and Development Bill 2020 back to the Houses again, let us examine a roadmap towards making such permanent changes, if they be needed. If, however, the Minister is asking for a particular measure in response to Covid-19 while inserting a permanent change in policy, that requires a different level of scrutiny.I suggest that the Minister does one or the other. If these are measures around Covid-19 and responses to similar emergencies, so be it. If these changes relate to the Aarhus Convention, public consultation, and the right of every person, be they or be they not skilled in navigating digital platforms, to be heard, to exercise their rights and to have a say in the environment in which they live, then that is a separate discussion. I urge the Minister to separate these issues and to remove the sections of this Bill that make those changes permanent. I will be challenging that on Committee Stage, although I would prefer if we were able to have a proper and more robust discussion. I recognise that the amendment the Minister intends to bring to the Dáil is a small step but it is not adequate. That amendment would require a public meeting but it could still be online. I look forward to further debate on these issues.