Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

With respect, I understand that the Minister of State does not want to move towards or bring in other issues, but that is not what the restriction is. The restriction here still excludes; it excludes anything else that happens. Perhaps the fact that section 11D has been removed from section 9A means that section 11D is not here. It does not include the other subsections of section 11D. They are not reflected, including that process of observations made by the public, the submissions they made and such other matters as may have been highlighted. I am concerned about this language. This restriction effectively means that there will be arguments only about how much time members would like to continue the period. Observations raised may create concerns in that regard. They may be concerns about, for example, a counterbalancing urgency. There may be an opinion that an extension should last only six months and not a year. A lot of things may be in these observations and submissions the public may make. There is no provision, as it stands, for those to be considered, and that is a matter that should be addressed in the Bill. That is different from saying that only certain matters shall be considered or that the only thing that might be considered is the question of a time extension and not a variation. There are lots of other provisions and indeed later amendments in which we discuss the question of variations. I have an amendment in which I suggest a restriction on the kinds of variations that might be made in respect of such an extension. This is not about "anything goes" in these observations; the public may make relevant observations in submissions and they should be part of the consideration in the making of decisions. This wording may need to be re-examined in the Dáil.