Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response to my amendments. I would have liked more elaboration on the Government’s amendments because the proposals that the Government is putting forward will have significant consequences. While my amendments to the amendments have been addressed, but when the Minister of State has the opportunity to come in again, he might elaborate on what the Government is doing with its different amendments.

This is coming in the context of the turnaround times. It is regrettable that we are only having a Report Stage debate so I am conscious that I will only get to speak once and we will not get to go back and forth constructively or try to refine these amendments so that we can ensure that this section is doing the best that it can because the way that this whole process has been done has been where these massively significant changes by the Government, including significant changes to Part 8, and significant removals of powers of local authority members have been brought in as an amendment in the Dáil after we already had our Fourth Stage scrutiny in the Seanad. They, therefore, have benefited neither from pre-legislative scrutiny nor from proper scrutiny in this House. That is why we find ourselves with only opportunity to speak to them. I do not believe that is an adequate or acceptable legislative process.I do not think it is an acceptable legislative process. I will move to the amendments in the grouping.

My first amendment in the section is amendment No. 3. There are multiple threes and ones in the list of amendments because there are Government amendments as well as mine.

Amendment No. 3 relates to the language in the Bill. It has a very wide frame, whereby it refers to anything that can be done. The Government amendment suggests that the special exempted development status would apply to land owned by local authorities or a State authority zoned for residential use and which has access or can be connected to public infrastructure and facilities, including roads, footpaths, public lighting and so forth. Anything can be connected. We can build a bridge to the UK. We can build a 100-mile pipeline.

However, we want to ensure that the kinds of developments that get built are ones that will have proper connections to public infrastructure and facilities, that there will be proper development with proper services and the best choices are made in that regard, because it is also about the proper use of the State's resources. It is reasonable that we do not simply say they can be connected, but rather that they can be practicably connected so that we make better choices around where we locate developments and what we consider to be new housing developments, rather than stating that something can theoretically link to the grid which may take time or prove onerous. We need to ensure it is practicable to do so. That will allow us to make better choices in respect of new developments and ensure they are delivered in a timely and more cost-effective way and are better places for those who live in them.

Amendment No. 4 concerns an avoidance of doubt provision. I understand the section refers to land owned by a local or State authority and zoned for residential use. The amendment is framed as an avoidance of doubt. The State authorities included in this list are substantial. There are, for example, a large number of potential areas such as technological universities and educational institutions, as well as many other bodies.

I want to address a scenario where part of a site owned by a State authority is zoned residential, as is the case in certain university lands in Galway where part of the lands are zoned for residential use. It is the same in UCD. Other parts of the land are zoned for other functions. When land is owned by a State authority, part of which is zoned for residential use, that should not be used as a justification for losing the other functions that might be on the land or for the extension of new housing developments on land that is serving other important purposes in the hands of State authorities. I hope that is the correct interpretation of the Government's amendment.

If it is intended that only land which is zoned for residential use will be affected, I do not see why my amendment would not be entirely acceptable. My amendment simply states that any land, or a portion of land, which is owned by a State authority but is not zoned exclusively for residential use shall not be relevant under this section.

A portion of mixed-use zoning which is residential, if my amendment is accepted, would mean that the entire mixed-use lands would not become liable for new developments and lose the other functions. This would be a useful clarification and alleviate concerns from those who rely on State authorities for a variety of amenities and functions. That is something that needs clarification.

Amendment No. 5 proposes to insert a new subsection (1A). This concerns the significant effect on the environment where a determination needs to be made publicly. It is one thing to say that the screening in terms of the EIA is an appropriate assessment. However, there are other requirements. This relates to the Aarhus Convention and the right to environmental information. There is a right to participate in environmental decision-making and to environmental information. This is wider than the screening and assessment process in EIAs and AAs. Simply using the screening for EIAs and AAs as a shorthand to say that we have done screening and, therefore, there is no environmental matter of public consequence is inadequate.

This does not relate to every case, but where there is a potential significant impact on the environment, there needs to be a determination that requires that information is publicly available within a 12-week deadline. Impact assessments and AAs are one part of people's right to participate in the environmental decision-making process and the right of the public to access environmental information, but they are not the whole picture. Using those screenings as a shorthand for saying that we do not need to talk to the public about environmental matters is not adequate.

We do not always need to open things to public consultation or a public information process. However, in any case where there is a potential significant effect on the environment that is a requirement. The 12-week period relates to the fundamental point. We need to bear in mind that the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity was clear. It is worried that we are not applying environmental law properly in Ireland. If we apply it properly and consult people properly at an earlier stage, then we get better decisions. That is what leads to fewer judicial reviews.

The problems we have had with planning have largely come from the fact that planning was not done properly in the first place and shortcuts were sought. Any time we seek a shortcut, we create further problems and often end up making the process longer. I am concerned that it is seen as so burdensome and something to be avoided that we try to avoid having to talk to the public on environmental matters. We then create decisions that are less good and nuanced than they might be.

Amendment No. 6 proposes to insert a new paragraph into subsection (1). It stipulates that where a development may have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, public participation is required, there will be the publication of the determination or decision that this may have a significant effect on the environment. It also proposes the publication of the information which has informed the planning process around that and should include issues such as the consideration of the impact on water quality so that the requirement of Article 4 of the directive of the European Parliament and Council is reflected in the decision. It relates to the establishment of a framework for community action in the field of water policy. We know there are huge concerns about water quality issues in Ireland. It should also deal with the impact on air quality and species as related to the habitats directive and flora protection orders. These are tools, rather than obstacles. Let us make sure that we are applying them properly at an earlier stage in the process.

Amendment No. 7 proposes to insert a new subsection into section 179A. This is an important amendment. I will deal with amendment Nos. 7 and 8 simultaneously because they are about the notice period. The new section 179A the Government is introducing allows the Minister to set out procedures regarding lots of things for which there are already procedures in our planning Act.Now the Minister is going to set out new procedures relating to them. What I am trying to ensure is that any new procedures that the Minister may set out in these areas will at least meet the basic standards in some of the standard procedures. Frankly, the idea that the public is to have five weeks' notice in which to engage in respect of a development is somehow terribly burdensome and is going to stop anything happening in the State is very worrying. Five weeks is currently prescribed for the public engagement. Let us look to the periods of time developers and proposers have. The idea is that we will have procedures that are less than that. What are we looking at? A week, for the public to see something that is going to be a very significant new development in an area, have notice of it and respond to it. Will it be two weeks or a day? Who knows? I expected the Minister of State to say of course the Minister will fulfil and be consistent with the five weeks, which is the standard practice, but instead we have heard that we might not. It comes to the same thing in regard to the piece on more haste and less speed. There is ambiguity around what new parallel procedures for planning the Minister might put in place. It is not as bad but it reminds me of the other Parts of the Bill where the Minister is going to put in place procedures for the appointment of members to An Bord Pleanála, which also were not figured out in advance of bringing the Bill to the House. We do not even know who is making the appointments or whether there is a committee. There is no specification for how new members of An Bord Pleanála are going to be appointed because the Minister simply says a procedure will be put in place. The Minister of State can understand that there is a lack of public confidence in a Department and Minister stating that they are going to do something later or invent a procedure later and it will have certain adjectives attached, when there is almost no information about what the procedure will be and no guarantees for us, as legislators, who have been asked to give permission and pass that power to the Minister. The procedural section is not as vague as the section in respect of the appointment of members of An Bord Pleanála, but it is right up there. It is also a little bit much for the Government that did not take the time to say what it is going to do or to consult on these particular provisions with the relevant Oireachtas committee or indeed to sit through three Stages of proper debate in the Seanad on the proposals in front of us today, to also say it is in so much in a hurry we do not have time for the public to say anything. That does not instil confidence. If we want to have a functional planning system in which people have confidence, that works and moves forward, it would be better to show that the Minister takes it seriously in terms of scrutiny and that he takes what the public has to bring to the planning process seriously.

On the issue of there being five weeks for the public to offer their input and observations, it is not as simple as objections and support, as they often make important observations. The public gives information about what a place is like and what matters. Policy in the end is the decisions we make about how we want to live together. One of the most fundamental parts of policy and democracy is that people can have a say in the decisions about how they live together in their own community.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 relate to the five-week notice period. Then there is amendment No. 9. The Minister of State has given an indication in respect of amendment No. 10 and I would like him to clarify that because it would be reassuring to have it on the record. I am concerned because the legislation before us provides for the Minister to put in place procedures on EIAs and AAs under the habitats directive. Given the lack of appetite for engagement in these areas, I have been concerned that potentially under the sections proposed by the Government, the procedures the Minister puts in place could be dilutions of the existing process. I would like to know whether that is a definite commitment, because it would be reassuring for people if any procedures the Minister puts in place in respect of these new exempted developments, would be consistent and in no way a dilution of anything in Parts X or XAB in respect of the environmental impact assessment and the appropriate assessment so that we are not going to see parallel processes for EIA or AA but that Parts X and XAB procedures would be mirrored in any procedures set out by the Minister. I genuinely would be very grateful if that could be confirmed and if the Minister of State could commit to it on the record.

Amendment No. 9 goes a little further. I am trying to ensure that the procedure that might be set out by the Minister would be consistent with the procedures set out in Part X of the Act of 2000, and any further mandatory requirements under Article 4 of the EIA directive. That is because there are some new mandatory requirements under Article 4 of the EIA directive, which have come subsequently to the original transposing of that directive in the Act of 2000. They are law, because they are European law, but we must ensure our procedures reflect the additional and further mandatory requirements under Article 4.

I apologise as this is a long grouping. I might even request a glass of water. We are about half way.