Sharon Keogan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Right. Okay. I have prepared something so I will continue. A headline I saw yesterday encapsulates the essence of this Bill and the amendments presented to us today. It came from the satirical Waterford Whispers News website. The headline was, "Government Celebrate Winning Confidence Vote By Ramming Through Planning Laws Only Developers Want". The amendments before us undermine citizens' rights to access justice and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Aarhus Convention. This Bill is opposed by several organisations, including the IPI, An Taisce, and the environmental pillar. They are all drawing attention to the fact that not enough time is being given to allow the amendments to be studied.

The passing of the Bill and its accompanying amendments seems premature. I question the need for this Bill at a time when the Attorney General and the planning advisory forum are studying the operation of the Planning and Development Acts. To highlight the insanity of the situation today, Members of the Oireachtas only received this slew of amendments, which are unrelated to the content of the original Bill, last Thursday. The public did not see these amendments until last Friday. Deputies and Senators were not briefed until after the deadline for input on Monday and there was less than three hours of parliamentary debate before Members were forced to vote.

These new provisions create wide-ranging and confusing changes that will lead to further litigation and delays to planning and development as a result. The Government is actively muddying the waters around these procedures. The amendments will result in greater cost and legal uncertainty around judicial reviews and will fall foul of EU law. It is not me just saying that. These are the words of An Taisce. Ms Phoebe Duvall, the planning and environmental policy officer with An Taisce stated:

The proposed amendments are a stealth attack on public participation in the planning system - they are not ‘administrative’ or ‘streamlining’ changes as described by Government. These amendments will have far-reaching consequences.

In a letter addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, An Taisce condemned amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 41, 42 and 77. The solution proposed in the amendments is to allow an applicant to propose a range of options and, subsequently, notify the planning authority after planning permission has been granted. There is no requirement for the planning authority to have to agree to any section at the time of implementation. This raises serious concerns about environmental impact assessment, the habitats directive, public participation etc. There are simpler, legally compliant and more effective ways to address these challenges without creating further legal problems. An Taisce also condemned amendments Nos. 25 and 26, as well as the judicial review aspect. Amendment No. 26 proposes changes requiring that prospective litigants exhaust all possible administrative options to correct errors by planning authorities before applying for leave to take a judicial review. Equally, no clarity is provided on the cost implications, which would be challenged.

It is worth noting that this is incompatible with EU law. See, for example, the ruling in Case C-73/16, Puškár, paragraph 7. Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin, environmental law officer with the Irish Environmental Network, IEN, said the amendments were "throwing a minefield into the judicial review process". Last Thursday, Opposition Deputies and Senators received 48 pages of amendments that had been added to this legislation, which was originally 18 pages long. This left just three working days for an examination of this material before this legislation was voted on in the Dáil. Given the complexities of planning law and how complex the interaction between the courts and the judicial review process and planning is, it is reckless to be making these changes without proper time and scrutiny. We do not know, nor can we know, the full implications of what this legislation will entail. In all likelihood, the party line will be toed and what little credibility the Government has left on this issue will be undermined. I am glad the Government has confidence in itself, because after witnessing the antics in the Chamber and in the Dáil, I certainly do not.