Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I previously addressed amendment No. 17, which deals with developed student accommodation. I propose now to speak to Opposition amendments Nos. 18 to 26, inclusive, and amendment No. 28. Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are all related to short-term letting and various Senators have made comments on that issue. We are awaiting the short-term letting Bill from the Department of tourism. I know this issue affects the tourism sector in Senator Cummins's region of Waterford. It is important this is done right and practically, without any unintended consequences. It is important we ensure there is a review of the wording in the current Bill. We will look at the word "licensee" in the context of the Bill and will review it as needed. We will also be publishing new planning guidelines for short-term lets to accompany the short-term letting Bill.

Amendment No. 18, as proposed by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall, intends to amend section 8(3) by including a new penalty for a person who contravenes regulations made under subsection (2) of that section. When they come into operation, these regulations will require people to provide information to planning authorities on short-term lettings. While the withholding of information in respect of short-term lettings is potentially a serious matter, I am of the opinion that the current penalty on summary conviction, that being a maximum fine of €5,000, is appropriate. Given the scope of the offence in question, I do not see the need to expand this provision further to provide for conviction on indictment and for this reason I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 19 is proposed by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan. It intends to place an obligation on the Minister to lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas relating to the enforcement of short-term letting in rent pressure zones. This is to be done within six months of the commencement of section 8. Amendment No. 20, as proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, is similar in that it relates to a report that must issue within six months of the enactment of the Bill but the report would cover the impact of short-term letting on Gaeltacht communities. The various issues relating to short-term lettings are, of course, significant, particularly for areas in our Gaeltacht regions. As the Senators are aware, significant work is currently under way on a revised version of the registration of short-term tourist letting Bill and my colleague, the Minister for tourism, Deputy Catherine Martin, is currently progressing that matter. I believe that Bill will be a far more appropriate vehicle for the further consideration of these matters and it is for this reason that, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

That is not to take away from the issues about short-term letting that have been raised by various Senators. Senator McDowell has raised issues in respect of the licensee. We will take those issues away and report back on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 21 to 28, inclusive, relate to exempted development. Section 9 provides that all exempted development will be provided for in regulations rather than in the enacted Bill itself and the exempted status of any development that has been carried out under the Act of 2000 will be preserved. Unfortunately, I cannot accept amendment No. 21, as proposed by Senators Boyhan and McDowell, as it retains the approach that is currently taken under the Act of 2000, which I am in favour of moving away from. It is anticipated that the new approach to exempted development in the Bill will see increased expediency and flexibility. While the exempted status of any development carried out under the Act of 2000 is preserved, the Bill migrates these exemptions from the primary legislation to secondary legislation so that all exempted development is now to be provided for in regulations rather than in the Act itself. This will allow agility and future-proofing of the classes of exempted development, allowing the Minister to modify such provisions where necessity dictates.

In reply to a question asked by Senator Cummins, my Department is currently working on the new exempted development regulations and will undertake public consultation before they are finalised. We have public participation and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. They must take into account section 9(3). Senator McDowell referred to section 9. Anything that is exempt under the current Act will remain an exempted development. Regulations will be laid before the Oireachtas in a manner that is accommodated. Under section 9(1), powers to make exempted regulations are subject to subsection (6). Regulations under that subsection are also subject to being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Amendment No. 22, also in the names of Senators Boyhan and McDowell, if accepted, would remove necessary enabling provisions that are essential for the correct functioning of the envisaged exempted development regulations. For that reason, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 23, as proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, inserts a new subsection into section 9 relating to regulation-making powers that would see the introduction of prescribed screening criteria to determine if a given activity has a significant impact on the environment. Section 9(3) already provides that development cannot be exempted development where an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment is required. In practical terms this will mean, subject to subsection (6), that where it is determined a development will have a significant impact on the environment, that development cannot be exempted development. This is a reasonable threshold, which in my opinion does not require further alteration in the manner suggested under amendment No. 23 and for this reason, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept the Senators' position.

Amendment No. 24, as proposed by Senators Boyhan, McDowell, Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, intends to delete section 9(6).It is important to note that regulations under subsection (6) can only be made where the development in question is permitted under another enactment and all environmental requirements have been adhered to. The purpose of this subsection is to prevent or reduce any unnecessary duplication of administrative processes. This provision is needed and must be retained. For that reason, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Amendments No. 25 to 27, inclusive, are linked and are proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. The purpose of these amendments is to add a new paragraph (c) to subsection (6) to provide for additional requirements relating to development that does not require an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment. The proposed new paragraph will not work for the purposes of subsection (6). This is because, as per paragraph (b), subsection (6) can only come into effect where an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment is required to be carried out. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 28 is also proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. It relates to the deletion of transitional provisions provided under section 9(10). The latter is required to ensure development that is the subject of a declaration made under section 181(2A) of the Act of 2000 or the subject of a declaration made under section 181B(4) or (4A) of the Act of 2000 is deemed to be exempted development for the purposes of the enacted Bill.