Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is great to be back in the Seanad. I hope everyone had a lovely recess.

I will address amendments Nos. 1, 6 and 16, as tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell, and amendments Nos. 17 and 22 to 25, inclusive, as tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. These amendments all relate to Part 1, which contains the general provisions, including the Long Title, commencement and definitions.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to amend the Long Title of the Bill. At present, the Long Title includes, among other matters, that the Act is to provide for proper planning and sustainable development in the interests of the common good. The amendment seeks to expand this to include the “recognition and empowerment of the constitutional role of elected members of local authorities as provided for in Article 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann”. I cannot accept this amendment.The position of local government has been specifically recognised in the Constitution under Article 28A since 1999, whereby the State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law, and in promoting, by its initiatives, the interests of local communities. The Local Government Act 2001 is the core legislative code supporting the structures, powers, functions and duties of local government. As local government and the role of elected members of local authorities has constitutional recognition, it is not appropriate or necessary to repeat it in the Long Title.

Amendment No. 6 and 17 relate to the definitions in section 2. Amendment No.6 seeks to insert a new definition of “Chief Planning Officer”. This term does not feature elsewhere in the Bill and there are no corresponding amendments being moved in respect of this definition. The purposes, scope and functions of roles relating to planning should be set out clearly in legislation and not in guidance documents as proposed. It would appear that this matter primarily relates to the recruitment of staff within a local authority and should be progressed by way of an amendment to the Local Government Act 2001. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 16 seeks to delete the definition of “planning regulator”. The amendment along with others proposed later seek to delete the role of the Office of the Planning Regulator from the Bill. The OPR was established in April 2019 on foot of recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal, which made 64 recommendations aimed at significantly enhancing the transparency of planning in Ireland against a backdrop of significant historical deficiencies in decision-making on local authority development plans and other planning functions. I oppose this amendment as I believe that if it were accepted, it would have a negative impact on the planning system in its entirety. The OPR carries out significant functions that assist with the effective operation of the planning system as a whole.

Amendment No. 17 calls to remove a reference to “subsection (8) of section 156” from the definition of a “State authority”. This reference is necessary for the purposes of State authority developments carried out under section 156 by reason of an accident or emergency. Such developments can only be permitted where an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is not required.

Notably, a Minister proposing to make a State authority development emergency order must inform a State authority where the making of the order may affect the exercise of a function carried out by that State authority. Therefore, it is sensible to ensure that the definition of a "State authority" should include a statutory undertaker for the purposes of section 156. As this reference needs to be retained, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No 22 to 25, inclusive, relate to section 4.

Amendment No. 22 seeks to provide for public consultation on regulations which may have an impact on the environment.

Amendment No. 25 seeks to provide that the Minister shall prescribe bodies for consultation on regulations specifically including bodies involved in environmental protection. I cannot accept these amendments as sufficient provisions have already been made throughout the Bill providing for public participation in matters that may have an effect on the environment. There will also be consultation on regulations where necessary and appropriate, but I do not consider that it to be appropriate that the requirement to do so is set out in the Bill. Many regulations are of a technical nature and it would not be appropriate or necessary to consult on them. Others are more substantial in nature and when they are being drafted it would be normal to have increased consultation with relevant stakeholders on them.

Where regulations are screened for strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and an SEA is required, a public consultation takes place as part of that process.I believe the Bill strikes a suitable balance between fulfilling the State’s obligations in respect of public participation on matters concerning the environment while not overburdening administrative processes or procedures. I thank the Senators for their proposal but, unfortunately, I cannot accept this amendment for the reasons I have outlined.

Amendment No. 23 would require practically all regulations made under the enacted Bill to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in draft form before being approved by resolution. As I have stated previously in Dáil Éireann, this proposed approach is highly impractical, and it has to be noted that the regulations in question can only be introduced to give effect to the principles and policies contained in the enacted Bill, and it is these principles and policies that are currently before the Houses. The proposed approach would radically slow down the making of secondary legislation and this could dramatically inhibit the Minister’s ability to provide for the matters to be prescribed under the enacted Bill. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 24 proposes to delete section 4(6), which restates section 269 of the Act of 2000 and is a standard technical provision to enable the Minister to make regulations to remove any difficulty in the operation of any section of the Bill within three years of its commencement. I must oppose this amendment. Section 4(6) was added to the list of regulations in section 4(4) on Report Stage in the Dáil, whereby a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made unless and until a resolution approving the draft is passed by each such House. I believe this change gives appropriate safeguards if such power is to be availed of in the future.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, 7 to 15, inclusive, 18 and 19 are Government amendments. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to section 1, which sets out the Short Title and a standard technical provision providing for the commencement of the Bill. Amendment No. 2 moves the collective citation relating to the Residential Tenancies Act from Part 24 to Part 1 so that all collective citations are contained together in section 1. This increases clarity for the reader.

Senators Warfield, Gavan, Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn have proposed three amendments to amendment No. 3, which relate to proposed new reporting requirements and propose that the Minister should report on the Bill’s compliance with the Aarhus Convention before commencing provisions, and should submit a report to the Oireachtas joint committee explaining the consequential amendments in Schedule 7. I am satisfied that the Bill is compliant with the Aarhus Convention and, therefore, I cannot see the need to report on these matters in the manner suggested. With regard to the consequential amendments, these are standard amendments that have been brought at this Stage to other legislation on the Statute Book that make reference to the Planning and Development Act 2000.