Victor Boyhan (Independent)

I will come back to the Minister of State. I take on board his point that translation is not a matter for the Department, but that it is a matter for the Oireachtas. However, I have had raised this with numerous Ministers. I have raised this under Commencement matters, which is nothing to do with this debate and which I will send to the Minister of State tomorrow, and I have been told every time that the sponsoring Minister and the Minister of State's Department are endeavouring to get it published. We do not, therefore, operate in a bubble or a vacuum. It is cross-party and interdepartmental, and it is in everyone's interest, including the legislators and the Minister of State, to pursue the agenda. The Minister of State might not personally be responsible but let us park all the sideshows here. It should be translated at this stage. That is my message. I do not think the Minister of State is disagreeing with me, so I would appreciate if he could push it along.

I want to wrap up on two issues. We need to be clear; the public are listening in and watching "Oireachtas Report", and they need to see the context. I thank the library and research team for their Bill digest last week. I will reiterate one key line, which states that today, there are 50,000 apartments in Dublin with active live planning permissions. We heard that great old cliché about use it or lose it. That is the problem. All I am hearing is viability. I run a business; it has to be viable. Many of us are involved in businesses that have to be viable, but we cannot bend over backwards for people every name of the game. We were told about the regulation for the construction industry was happening; it still has not happened. We hear all the commentary about viability and resources. I am sorry; there comes a point. The public are losing hope here. We have today 50,000 units with full planning permission not being built out. Why? Because developers that coming down the track, they will have opportunities under this Bill. That is the nature of it.

The other myth we need to nail here once and for all is that there are only 7,500 units affected by judicial reviews. They are the facts. There should be none of all this old poppycock about judicial reviews and litigants and people frustrating planning processes. That is not factually correct. We know that many of these judicial reviews have actually been initiated by developers themselves. I have taken the time to have a look. Many of the appeals with regard to some developments are by developers. Many appeals, particularly around infrastructure for development, have been objected to by democratically elected TDs and Senators and city and county councillors from all parties and none. That is their democratic right. That is not a criticism, absolutely. I have always been active in planning and monitoring planning in my own area and will continue to do so. We need to get that message out there. There are plans on the drawing boards, fully approved to go, but developers have decided they want to stall them. However, if they were told to use it or lose it, and if that was in this legislation, they would be developing it pretty quick then. They will hold and hold and keep changing and changing.

Of course, one other aspect of this Bill is that they can go back and modify this without any reference to the planning authority. We must remember that citizens who we represent have that right to engage in a planning process. That is a constitutional right. We have to careful when we look. I am all for reform and for more houses, and I do not have difficulty with studio apartments in appropriate places and with a ratio. However, in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown, where I live, there was a proposal for three-bedroom units and a percentage of them would be there. That is all going to be thrown to one side.

Where is the democracy for local men and women who we elect to run our councils, and who are the guardians of their city and county development plans? It is a bit like the big case that was made that we do not need to have development, and we want ten-year plans because we want consistency. The Minister of State is back here already within the year amending the 2024 legislation, but we were told that not at all, ten years will be loads. We talked about that flexibility, and how a development plan and planning Bill had to be agile and responsive to the ongoing needs. Of course it has to be agile and responsive to ongoing needs, but that was not the argument the Government wanted to hear a year ago. Now, suddenly, it can bring this up.

I am going to sit down and shut up at this point, but this does beg a question. I received a letter from a councillor in south County Dublin today that talked about democracy and the local task force. She asked what it was all about. She said they are city and county councillors, and they are now being asked to be involved in a task force, yet the Government does not want to hear what they have to say. It is talking about all this meaningful engagement, but councillors have a role too in the planning and development process. It begs the question about how things become so centralised. The Office of the Planning Regulator has so much control. The Department has so much control. It just begs the question when it comes to our democratically elected members, who have a mandate to represent communities and have knowledge of planning, somehow, there is no consultation with regard to what they say.