Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Dec 2022

Vol. 291 No. 1

Planning and Development and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2022: [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] Report and Final Stages

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. This is a Seanad Bill that has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 138, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", a Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. For the Senators' convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. The Minister of State will deal separately with the subject of each related group of amendments.

Senators have tabled several amendments that arise from the changes made to the Bill by the Dáil. In view of the number of amendments and to avoid repetition of debate, I propose that amendments made by the Dáil and related amendments tabled by Senators be debated together in related groups. Decisions on the amendments tabled by Senators will be taken when the discussion on all groups of amendments has concluded.

I have circulated the proposed groupings in the House. A Senator may contribute once on each grouping. I remind Senators that the only matters that may be discussed are the subject matter of each grouping of amendments made by the Dáil and the amendments tabled that arise out of the amendments made by the Dáil.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

An Cathaoirleach

I call the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, to speak on the subject matter of amendments in group 1, which pertains to the facilitation of the provision of housing on lands owned by local authorities. It includes amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Seanad Report Stage amendments Nos. 3 to 15, inclusive.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Peter Burke)

The proposed measure to temporarily disapply the Part 8 planning approval process to facilitate the accelerated delivery of housing supply is subject to the satisfaction of several conditions: the land is owned by the local authority or another State body; the land is zoned for residential development; the proposed development does not materially convene the development plan or local area plan for the area; the land is serviced or can be serviced with the necessary supporting infrastructure or facilities within the timeframe of the development; and the proposed development is not required to undergo an environmental impact assessment, EIA, under the EIA directive, or an appropriate assessment, AA, under the habitats directive.

Amendment No. 3, in the names of Senators Higgins and Black, proposes, in regard to the servicing of infrastructure and facilities for proposed developments coming within the scope of the new measure, wording referring to land that is serviced or can practically be serviced with the necessary supporting infrastructure and facilities. The insertion of the word "practically", as proposed by Senators, is unnecessary and superfluous, and, therefore, we cannot accept it.

Regarding amendment No. 4, the provisions regarding the proposed temporary exemption from the Part 8 approval process apply only to lands zoned for residential use, whether they are owned by the State authority or not, or whether they are on State authority land exclusively zoned as residential or not. Therefore, if land is zoned as residential, it would come under the measure. If not, it would be excluded from the measure. The zoning of the land for residential use under the local development plan is what determines which lands can be used for this measure and where accelerated delivery of social, affordable and cost-rental accommodation can be provided. If the Senators' amendment was accepted, it could exclude significant parcels of vacant and idle land from utilisation for the provision of much-needed social housing. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

On amendments Nos. 5 and 6, as tabled by Senators Black and Higgins, I acknowledge that an EIA under the EIA directive and an AA under the habitats directive are core elements of our development consent process and are processes that must be taken into account as required by the EU directive and national legislation before a decision in respect of development consent is taken. The proposals I have outlined in Government amendment No. 43, as tabled for Dáil Committee Stage yesterday, expressly provide that developments can only be developments that do not require an EIA or AA, or both. They must also be carried out in areas zoned for housing development and, further, cannot be involved in the material contravention of the development plan. In effect, all proposed projects will be subject to preliminary EIA and AA screening by the relevant local authority prior to being published and notified to the public. Where it is determined that an EIA or AA, or both, are required in respect of the proposed development arising from the screening process, the project will not be able to avail of the Part 8 exemption and will, therefore, be required to undergo an EIA and AA, as required, as part of the normal Part 8 planning approval process. The EIA and AA screening of proposed projects will, as a matter of course, take into account all the environmental and nature aspects referred to in the amendments of Senators Higgins and Black, including the possible impacts of the proposed project on the environment generally, water and air quality, protected species and nature protection generally.

I assure the Senators that full cognisance the EIA and habitats directive requirements will be taken into account by local authorities in their preliminary assessment and screening processes of those projects.

The preliminary EIA and AA screening terminations arrived at by local authorities in respect of proposed projects will be required to be published and made available to the public in the interests of full transparency of the process. In effect, local authorities would have to justify why they have screened out the undertaking of a full EIA and AA in their proposed project before they can proceed with and make a determination available to the public. Furthermore, on the EIA and AA aspects, it should be particularly noted that public consultation and participation are not a requirement of the EIA and habitats directive in respect of preliminary EIA and AA screening of proposed developments.

With regard to the public participation aspects referred to in the Senators' amendments, the proposed provision made in the Part 8 exemption will only apply to development on land that had been zoned for residential use in the local development plan. In addition to the development plan, the zoning of land would have been subject to SCA and AA screening as well as public consultation participation. On this basis, the public would have been afforded the opportunity to participate in the development plan adoption process, including the proposed residential zonings of land owned by local authorities or State agencies that might be available and used for housing developments under the new temporary Part 8 exemption arrangements. In effect, it will have been known beforehand the specific parcels of land owned by local authorities and State agencies that have been zoned for residential will likely be subject of housing developments arising from development plan adoption process. Furthermore, under the proposed arrangements, selected members representing their constituents and the public will also be informed by the chief executive of the housing departments that this is proposed to avail of the Part 8 exemption. As part of the process, they will also be provided with plans and particulars of the proposed development. In addition, the plans and particulars of the proposed projects will be made publicly available. These public notification arrangements will enable elected members to take account of any views their constituents might have to convey them to the chief executive, thereby providing democratic input regarding housing projects being proposed by the chief executive under this measure.

In developing these proposals, we have tried to take into account all the obligations that need to be met under the EU and national legislation. As I have outlined, we are faced with a significant housing supply shortage, particularly in relation to social, affordable and cost rental, and we constantly need to be able to use all possible levers to help address this situation but also in respect of international and EU obligations in this regard. In light of what I have just outlined, I cannot accept these amendments.

With regard to amendments Nos. 7, subsection 3 of the new section 179A provides that the Minister may make regulations in relation to the giving of public notice by the local authority in respect of the forward development, the publication by the local authority of a notice in the local newspaper in respect of the proposed development, and the notification of proposed developments to prescribed bodies. The purpose of this exemption from the Part 8 approval process in respect of the relevant developments is to streamline and to accelerate the delivery of much-needed social, affordable and cost-rental housing on already zoned residential land. Elected members representing their constituents and the general public will be notified of the proposed developments by the chief executive and will be able to comment on the proposals. The provision of a five-week notice period, as proposed by Senators Higgins and Black would undermine and run counter to the streamlining objectives of the proposed measure an extend and delay the period of such developments could be progressed and commenced. Accordingly, I cannot accept these amendments.

In amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, Senators Higgins and Black propose that any procedures that the Minister may regulate by regulations shall be consistent with the procedure set out in Parts X and XAB of the Planning and Development Act relating to EIA and AA under the EIA and habitats directive respectively. These provisions apply generally in respect of all forms of development under the planning Act and will also apply in respect of projects coming under the proposed new measure. There is no need to insert references to Parts X and XAB. If that approach were to be adopted, we would have to insert cross references to Parts X and XAB throughout the Planning and Development Act for every reference to environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment. Accordingly, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 12 is unnecessary as the proposed Part 8 exemption provisions in respect of social, affordable and cost rental housing cannot come into effect until supplementary regulations providing the detail operation aspects of the new measure are made. These regulations are being advanced by my Department and should be finalised in a matter of weeks. There is no question that supplementary regulations will be made in this connection. Accordingly, I cannot accept this amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 13, the new section 179A(4) proposed by the Government provides that sections 138 to 140, inclusive, of the Local Government Act 2001 shall not apply in respect of development that is intended will be exempt from the Part 8 approval process. In this regard, section 138 requires a chief executive to inform elected members prior to commencing any works of the local authority. Section 139 enables elected members by resolution to instruct the chief executive to not proceed with the works informed under section 138. Section 140 enables the elected members by resolution to instruct the chief executive to undertake any particular act or function it feels is required to undertake the functions of the local authority. These provisions are disapplied in the proposed new section 179A providing for the exemption from the Part 8 planning approval process for qualifying housing developments. If the amendment was accepted, it would completely undermine and negate the new section 179A provisions, such that they would have no effect with the party 8 process effectively remaining in place for the purpose of approving housing developments proposed by the chief executive. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

In amendment No. 14, the definition of "housing development" that applies to development works and supporting infrastructure and facilities that will come within the scope of the scheme and that can be undertaken for the purposes of providing the necessary housing under the scheme is intended to cover development and infrastructure that is necessary and ancillary to houses being constructed under the provision. The establishment of the construction of primary and secondary roads as referred to in the amendment goes beyond the scope of the housing and development that is covered by this measure. The provision of such roads as a subject of separate process involving the local authority, the National Transport Authority and other key stakeholders. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

Finally, on amendment No. 15, the provision of appropriate cycling and pedestrian infrastructure are among the key considerations taken into account in development of housing schemes. Pedestrian footpaths are standard in all developments and while appropriate cycling infrastructure, including cycle lanes and stands for bicycles, are increasingly being taken into account by local authorities in the assessment of schemes and the determination of planning applications generally, it may not be possible to provide cycle lanes in all housing schemes due to space restrictions and, accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

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.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I think I might go for my lunch.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

No, we are probably slightly more than that. Amendment No. 11 seeks to insert a new subsection after subsection (3). I have mentioned that in regard to Part XAB.

Amendment No. 12 relates to the "mays" and "shalls" that we often come to in this House, but which can be so significant. There is a reference to the fact that the Minister may make regulations providing for "all of the following matters". We must take a preventative approach, especially when we have not had the opportunity for consultative back-and-forth engagement. I seek assurance. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to address the issue. Could he assure me that there is no question of regulations being created in respect of these new proposed exempted developments, which do not address some of these issues, so that we do not, for example, end up with regulations that leave out procedures for EIAs or one of the stages around publication? I ask that because it states "may", although I do not believe that is the intent. I want to be clear about that, but we must look to the language before us. All we have is the text, which we only received last night. As an avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that if the Minister does not make regulations providing for any of the matters listed in Part 14(3)(a) to (h), that the existing standard provisions in the Act in respect of those matters would apply, so that we do not end up with any risk of a lacuna where there is a gap in the regulations, and that wherever there is a gap the standard procedures would apply. For example, if the Minister does not regulate for a new notice period, the standard notice period would be assumed to apply. Perhaps the Minister of State could reassure me that there is no such danger. I hope I am being overcautious in this particular amendment.

Amendment No. 13 is probably one of the most important amendments. It is one in which other Members have significant interest.

Sadly, this is part of a pattern we have seen of the constant chipping away at the powers of local authority members. It should be borne in mind that when we do that, we chip away not just at the powers of some councillors but also at the powers of communities and those who elect local councillors. We have seen this again and again in small things, such as when local authority members could not attach conditions when handing over land for cost-rental or give some local information that might have improved or informed that. We saw it in an earlier part of the Act and a small provision that used to be there whereby if something were to contravene the local development plan, there would have to be a slightly higher quorum. All these little things are designed to ensure that our planning system and our local authority system are recognised as key elements of a democratic State and key to the public's confidence that they, as citizens or as people living in an area, have a say in their lives and in the places where they live. I stand over my comments on the changes relating to An Bord Pleanála proposed in the Bill as being a direct power grab. There is also a power grab here in that more power is taken off local authorities and handed over to the chief executive. It should be borne in mind that chief executives are not elected. They do not have a mandate in the same way our local authority members do. The chief executives - and maybe people need to be reminded of this - are there to serve local authorities. The governance, strategic direction and policies of local authorities and the development plans come through the local authority members with input from the public. Simply saying that the councillors could say something to the CEO, who may or may not take it on board, is an alternative to having an actual democratic process. It is outrageous and ridiculous, and we cannot gloss over it. I have huge sympathy for local authority members of all parties, including the Government parties, and for the Senators who did not get to have proper scrutiny of this and who are elected by local authority members. Let us be clear. This Government is so afraid of any input from anybody that, as well as wanting to get rid of the periods during which the public can have an input, and as well as looking to have to do as little as possible on environmental law, it is also removing basic powers from the council.

I refer to section 138, titled "Prior information to elected council", of the Local Government Act 2001. If the Bill, as drafted, is passed, the chief executive will no longer have to inform council members of a major new development in their area. Many local authority members are hungry for new developments. There is an underestimation in that regard. Most local authority members I know are keen to see new developments happen in their areas. As for the idea that the chief executive would not even have to inform them in advance of a new proposal, what are we so afraid of? They would not have the fundamental opportunity to vote on a resolution in respect of works if the local authority had a fundamental concern about the project, which I do not believe would be brought forward lightly. That is not a vote to say they have to vote in favour of it; it is a vote when they want to express concern about it proceeding. There is a wealth of knowledge and information at local level which comes through the public and local authority members and which does not necessarily always come through CEOs, who are often transferred back and forth across the country as they move their way up the ladder and may or may not have local commitment or knowledge.

Section 140 reminds me of a previous planning Bill. It is almost traditional now that legislation in this area gets rushed through. It might seem like a great idea but it is not and it will damage public confidence further. When a previous Bill was being rushed through last summer we saw the erosion of local authority powers. Here is another example. The proposal on cost-rental was reasonable and stated that when land is being given over and there is a new project and it is said that something will be built, a local authority might have been able to add a condition or even say something like "We have a high level of pet ownership in our area and we would like a park attached to the development" or "We are aware of a particular need in this area in that there are many children, so if you are putting in a new development, can we be assured there will be a large playground?". The local authority may be aware of disability needs in the area and may want that to be reflected. The idea is simply that one would be able to add on good conditions. Section 140 is titled "Requirement that a particular thing be done". It should be borne in mind that under that section there is already a safety net. It is not something a couple of councillors can do. A resolution under section 140 already requires at least a third of the total number to vote in favour of the resolution, but that is undone by the Bill, as drafted. Fundamentally, this relates to three very reasonable powers of local authority members, which can and should be used in co-operation with the laudable goal, which I support very much, that we want to build more local authority housing. However, this whole section relates to local authority own housing development. It is exactly what we have wanted for years, namely public housing. We want public housing built in local areas, but local authorities and their members and representatives are taken out of this section. That just does not make sense to me. It will create deep disappointment and a sense of disempowerment rather than opportunity for constructive engagement.

I come to the two final amendments to this section. Amendment No. 14 is one of the three preventative amendments. The Minister of State may have addressed this issue, so I might not have to press this amendment. My concern was that one of the aspects of exempted development which had been allowed for was the construction of a new road or the winding or realignment of an existing road to serve houses referred to in paragraph (a). The Minister of State did touch on the following, and maybe he could elaborate when he replies to the debate. I wanted to make sure that there would not be any risk that, for example, because two or three new housing developments are proposed and being created, that then be used to treat a major road as an exempted development. We know that so many roads - I am thinking of Galway and the Western Distributor Road - are based on new developments in an area and built to serve those developments. I just wanted to be assured that there was no danger of major roads, primary roads, motorways or bypasses or anything like that inadvertently coming under the provisions in this section. I understand that the Minister of State has indicated that that is a separate process and that this would simply involve service roads or, as one would expect, roads appropriate to serve a specific development. As I said, I am happy to withdraw the amendment if that is not a danger.

I will probably press amendment No. 15, however. We should not be building anything that does not have cycle infrastructure. There is no excuse for that. That cycle infrastructure may be different depending on the circumstances. For a new apartment building it may be as simple as cycle parking. For a new housing estate it may be bike lanes. It may be about ensuring, for example, that where a housing estate meets a main road there are proper supports there to ensure safety. Some of the worst things I have seen are the estates built in the past that were islands. I am thinking of Oranmore and other places where I have seen that. People in those estates can only drive out of them. They cannot walk or cycle safely into a town that might be only 1 km away because there is no infrastructure to connect the estate with local services and communities. I will press amendment No. 15. I am not saying that there should be the same cycling infrastructure in every case, but there is no excuse for any new housing development in this State not having both pedestrian and cycling infrastructure built in, by design, at the outset.

That concludes my comments on this very large group of amendments. I hope the Minister of State will address some of these concerns and that I do not have to press all of these amendments.

I am deeply disappointed at the way the process has been designed. A lot of concern has been expressed about the new proposals the Government might introduce in the new year and I hope they are nothing like what we have heard about. I do worry about some of the very poor decisions that have been made in this Bill. I have comparatively small concerns about this section but huge concerns about the appointment of An Bord Pleanála. Some ambiguities remain about the foreshore and I am really worried that they are not getting the scrutiny they need. Sadly, this Bill is not going to bring us forward. It was an opportunity to bring us forward but is not now because of the way it has been drafted. Also, due to the signal the Bill sends in respect of An Bord Pleanála I am concerned it will take us further backwards in terms of public confidence and ultimately in the effective delivery of housing we so badly need.

Senator Fintan Warfield

I commend my colleague on her marathon speech on a marathon grouping of amendments. We only get one shot at Committee Stage and Senator Higgins took a pretty good shot.

The last-minute amendments on social and affordable housing propose the suspension of the Part 8 process for up to two years. That option has been presented as a mechanism to speed up the delivery of social and affordable homes. Sinn Féin has always said we will look positively at any measures that accelerate or seek to accelerate the increased delivery of social and affordable homes. We would have chosen other ways of doing so but we do not oppose the amendments. However, the amendments do contain a number of risks the Minister of State should and needs to address. First, it is not clear how much time will be saved by a suspension of the Part 8 process. There is also a risk of creating conflict with council staff, elected members and the public. It is unclear how many, if any, additional social and affordable homes will be delivered by the suspension. Finally, the removal of public participation, as we know, could be also open to litigation which could, therefore, delay projects.

Having said all that, we are in a housing emergency. Sinn Féin will not stand in the way of this proposal. However, we would ask, and I know Sinn Féin has asked this in the Dáil, that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage - some of its members are present, including Senators Fitzpatrick, Boyhan and Moynihan - be provided with a quarterly report on the use of the provision to allow the committee to monitor it very closely. Notwithstanding what Senator Higgins has said about engagement with councillors, chief executives need to engage with councillors extremely early in this process.

In conclusion, given that Sinn Féin is strongly opposed to the An Bord Pleanála section of the Bill but not opposed to the Part 8 suspension section, we will abstain on the legislation itself.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome the Minister of State and Mr. Terry Sheridan from the Department to the House.

The amendments are clustered and I shall touch on a number of recurring issues. I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Senator Fitzpatrick is another member who is present. We did our very best and worked exceptionally hard on a cross-party basis. I want to acknowledge the work done by the Chair of the committee, Deputy Steven Matthews. We did not delay proceedings and entered into the spirit of engagement. To be fair to the committee, whatever differences we may have we reach a consensus when deciding recommendations and get on with the business. We live with that and advocate for that. I have had to do it on occasion but I do not like coming in here and speaking against any of our recommendations. The committee is an exercise in collaboration and consensus building. We do not always get everything we want but that is the nature of politics and pragmatism is a necessity.

I make no apology for being a strong advocate for sitting county councillors. I work exceptionally well with city and county managers or chief executives as they are now called. I am somewhat concerned about the suspension of Part 8 for two years. The Minister of State will be aware of what is meant by a Part 8, and I shall quote some details that I have copied from his Department's website and cross-referenced myself. I shall explain what Part 8 is for the benefit of anyone who does not know and the wider audience outside of this Chamber, particularly the public who are listening to this debate, watching live or watching the video of these debates.

A Part 8 allows the application of a planning permission for projects by local authorities and states, "Where a project is being progressed by the local authority, planning permission is applied for under Part 8 of the Planning Development Regulations 2001-2015, and the procedure is set out in Part 11, section 179 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended. This procedure requires that notice of the proposed development be given in an approved newspaper and that a site notice be erected on the land on which the proposed development would be situated. After the expiration of the period during which submissions or observations may be made, a report is presented to the members of the council", which is the elected members. The report contains, among other items, a list of the persons, members of the public or bodies who made submissions, along with a summary of the issues raised by them and the chief executive's response to each and every one of them. The following lines are important, "This report recommends whether or not the proposed development should be proceeded with as proposed, or should not be proceeded with. Following consideration of the Report, the proposed development may be carried out as recommended in the Report, unless the local authority, by resolution, decides to vary or modify the development, otherwise than as recommended in the Report, or decides not to proceed with the development. The timeframe for the Part 8 process is set out below."

Clearly, 20 weeks is a long time. So one forwards an application and newspaper notice in week one. There is the public display period of not less than four weeks. Next is the submissions period and the provision is, "submissions accepted not less than two weeks after the end of the public display period", so we are up to week 6. Next we are talking about the assessment in the CE's report and the chief executive's report within eight weeks. The chief executives have said this is a tight timeframe already and informed the Department of their view. I have seen correspondence from the County and City Management Association, CCMA, to that effect, which I am happy to share with the Minister of State and Members if necessary. In the end, the council decides within six weeks of the CE's report.

Clearly, the Part 8 process must be reformed. I have always said that one of the anomalies of the Part 8 process is that it is a never ending process and I do not like anything that is never ending because circumstances change. We have city and county development plans every five years and they might now be pushed out to ten years, which is a crazy recommendation. It would be very tight to have a review within seven years but that is an issue for another day and for another debate.

Planning is clearly going to be very much the focus of our debates in these Houses over the next few months as we see so much coming down the track. I have expressed my concerns about the Part 8 process.

More importantly, I am concerned about the role and function of elected members. This week we have heard so much about the engagement of communities and the environmental pillars in the planning process. The Minister of State and I know, as former county councillors, as does everyone here who has been involved in councils, that many people in public life and politics, be it at a local level, in the Dáil or in this House, live in communities. We also have a background in community activism.

We have come through Tidy Towns, the GAA, sports, recreation, and from campaigns of all sorts, including for underground electrical cables, for example. In public life many politicians in these Houses have come through that process. They have been politicised through campaigning to make their community a better place through a whole range of issues, some of which are more successful than others. There are many Deputies who make a good job of advocating for their communities in Dáil Éireann and in this Chamber.

I have a genuine concern, however, and this is not to have a bash at anyone, that we have to put in place a system. I am not too sure if it is going to be a temporary suspension. We are told it is a temporary suspension for two years. That will bring us pretty neatly into our next local elections. I can tell the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, that this is going to politicise communities. I am looking forward to that engagement. I look forward to being active in that engagement. I attended two meetings in south Dublin the other day, and I understand that right across this city and county community groups will mobilise into an umbrella group to campaign. They feel they are under threat in the context of their engagement with planning.

The Minister of State may or may not have been at our meeting last week when I said that I had looked at various objections that have been made to An Bord Pleanála. I see that a large number of Deputies, and indeed Deputies who are now Government Ministers, had put in submissions, and rightly so, with concerns about planning in their constituencies. I am not complaining about that as I believe that it is right. We in Ireland pride ourselves on our close connectivity with our electorate and our communities. We all more or less live within our own communities, which is another strong part of the Irish political system. I am concerned that, on the one hand, we are legislating for policies against participation in the process, and yet we are jumping up and down to the independent appeals board with appeals. I hope public representatives continue to advocate strongly, through their planning authorities and through an open and transparent system, and right up into the board. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, may not recall, but Mr. Sheridan will, that we had a very tough campaign in the last Seanad to allow councillors to have a waiver from the €20 fee that had been proposed by the last Fine Gael administration. We fought tough and it was a hard battle. It was touch and go. There was a different dynamic in Seanad Éireann then. There was a confidence and supply agreement and there was a block of Independents here, from the Taoiseach's nominee Independents right across to the Independents who were directly elected by the universities or through the panel system. They formed a very strong, focused and cohesive group. They managed, despite all of the objections, to get to a situation where the councillors would have no fee. I would like to check that there is no proposal to levy local councillors so they would have to pay to engage with the planning authority. It would be outrageous if there was such a proposal. It was a hard battle and I hope we do not go down that road. I hope we do not try to rescind that waiver to councillors.

I will move on now to the other detail in the Bill starting with section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001. The Minister of State will be familiar with this section of the Act and the power it gives to elected members. Sections 138, 139 and 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 empower local authorities to prevent the manager or the chief executive, or the Executive per se, to carry out various issues. It gives power and control to the elected members. The Minister of State, Deputy Burke, got great accolades and support this morning across the Houses for his commitment to local government. Earlier I spoke about maternity leave for councillors, along with the pay for elected members of local authorities. That is not enough. Better reform for councillors and sitting county councillors is important too, but let us remember that we cannot water down the powers for those councillors.

I will not go into a big history lesson here, but the record of the House will show that I made a strong case for keeping councillors' involvement in decisions relating to the disposal of lands to the Land Development Agency. This was resisted by all three sides of the Government. The vote was taken. Some might say that having a few votes is a waste of time but it sets the record of the House when the arguments are going to be debated outside of the House. The Official Report will show what some of us over on this side of the House tried to do.

We had it with the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, and the arrangements around the harbours. A case was made that councillors would be considered. Again, this was resisted. We have it in relation to An Bord Pleanála and the special role the Association of Irish Local Government has with regard to feeding into the nomination for one of the panels. Again, this was resisted.

This Government and the previous Government have centralised more powers. We hear of all the reforms of local government, but somehow there is a strong resistance to set out a series of measures to relinquish certain powers into local government. At best, it is a local administration and it is not local government. This is a pity. I am aware the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, is committed. He has been two and half years in the job and has a lot more to do. It is important. I am conscious of the large number of councillors the Minister of State has in his Fine Gael party, and in Fianna Fáil. These are big blocks of councillors who are also members of the Minister of State's party. I am aware the Minister of State has them engaged in the processes and feeding in and out of them, but one must start to scratch one's head and ask why is it that every time we make a case for these elected members across the board on the local council, they seem disappointed. I spoke with a colleague of the Minister of State who is a councillor. He told me they are powerless. There is the odd councillors' forum and they talk about issues but they cannot do anything with them. It is all part of the system. I just wanted to share this with the Minister of State, for what it is worth.

This relates to the part of the Bill that provides that "Sections 138, 139 and 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 shall not apply in respect of development to which this section applies.". This means those sections that allow councillors to receive prior information about a development and so on. They will have the power to make changes under section 140. Section 140 is very important. I am saying to the Minister of State that I want us to work together to empower local authorities. This is not about further additional powers. I am trying to stop this Bill taking powers away from them. The Government is proposing to take powers away from these elected members. These are Fine Gael party members. The Minister of State, Deputy Burke, has responsibility for local government, and he is doing a really good job, but why leave this legacy after him? The Minister of State will be very familiar with section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001, which states, "...an elected council or joint body may by resolution require any particular act, matter or thing specifically mentioned in the resolution and which the local authority or the manager concerned can lawfully do or effect, to be done or effected in the performance of the executive functions of the local authority." There are reserve functions of local authorities and there are executive functions of local authorities, as the Minister of State is aware. There is a clear mark between those functions. There is no doubt and no issues about them. Members respect the executive functions of the local government executive but by golly they will defend, and rightly so, the reserve functions that are given in law to elected members.

I thank Senator Higgins. She has done a very good job with these amendments. I am, however, concerned in relation to environmental impact assessments and environmental impact statements. We must work in a spirit of co-operation with the environmental panels. They are not against us, they are not against the Minister of State and they are not against the Government. The Aarhus Convention was talked about in great detail and I do not propose to read out a summary of what the Aarhus Convention is. It is clear for anyone to see online. It is important because we live in a community but we also live in an environment. It is about proper planning and sustainable development. It is about consultation with all stakeholders. It is not about supporting the might of developers to do what they want to do. They have a role, and I am supportive of private development and supportive of private enterprise.

I know what the Minister of State is dealing with when he spoke about the amendment that was made in the Dáil. Amendment No. 5 relates to local authority own housing development, and I am concerned about the subsection (d) which states, "...that is not subject to a requirement, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, for an assessment with regard to its effects on the environment...". What an extraordinary statement. The Green Party is in Government. Has it agreed to this? I am shocked by it. Subsection (e) states, "...that is not subject to a requirement, in accordance with the Habitats Directive, for an appropriate assessment...". The Minister of State sometimes asks why environmental groups and residents' associations must take judicial reviews. It should not happen. We need a good, strong, robust planning system. We should not put obstacles in front of people. We live in an environment and it is important. Many of the cases of judicial reviews that have been taken to An Bord Pleanála on planning matters have been successful. Indeed, there is one such case down the road from where I live. The residents gathered thousands of euro through coffee mornings, fund raisers, discos you name it. They were very successful. One can read the judgtments on the Courts Service website. It is clear the process is broken and needs to be mended, but I do not believe we should raise higher bars or raise higher walls to stop people.

I remind the House that we live in communities. We were elected by communities. We are advocates and we should not apologise for being advocates for the environment and a better place to live.

I think of Ringaskiddy and the incinerator. I had a look today. The names there and how they lent their support to the campaign are very interesting. I think of a case in County Galway which was on my desk again today. It was very interesting to see the number of elected representatives involved in that and I say "right" to them too.

They are just some general observations and comments. I want to work with the Minister of State, as does the committee. There is no point in a history lesson about what happened with the pre-legislative scrutiny. Let us not have another setback in our committee because it has been challenging and frustrating.

I understand the need and desire of the Minister of State and the Government to reform An Bord Pleanála. Of course there needs to be reform of An Bord Pleanála but one has to ask why it has taken so long. I shared with the Minister last week in this House the fact that I put a freedom of information request to An Bord Pleanála months ago. I was pleasantly surprised to receive all the documentation within two days. What does that tell you? It possibly tells you two things because this is speculation. One is that the board was delighted to get it into the public arena quickly. It certainly put it in a good light. I saw correspondence from the Department. The log should be up to date for An Bord Pleanála, although I had a letter from it this week telling me it was slightly delayed in uploading its latest freedom of information documents. I know it has had a substantial number of freedom of information requests so it is reasonable that it is not up to speed on its log for the past month. The documentation tells me that the board at the most senior level had been in touch with the Department to request additional supports and sanction for additional staff but that was not forthcoming. Qualifying conditions were set down. For every case you made, you had to get back to the Department. This was centralised control by the Custom House over the independent board. We want an independent board. We want able and capable people in planning. We want proper planning and sustainability from a variety of sectors representing a variety of interests in the board. We want to cut the link between the board and the Department. I am concerned and would like to see it changed in time. I know the Minister of State must push things along but I would like to see a change in time so that there is a full disconnect from Ministers or anybody else in respect of the independence and appointment of the board.

It is clear from the correspondence I have that the Department was aware of shortcomings in An Bord Pleanála. It has a strong relationship with the board and the planning regulator. Many of the individuals involved worked in the Custom House. They are not strangers to the Minister of State's people. When I think about the planning mess and why we got here, I wonder who were the architects of the strategic housing planning scheme that the Minister of State and his officials are now rightly saying was inappropriate and a disaster. It was a pity it took so long to wind it down because we are still flushing strategic fast-track projects through the system. Does the word "fast track" not say it all? It was on the Minister of State and Government's watch or part of its watch. It was in government. Who were the architects who spoke about rebuilding Ireland and how there would be nobody in a hotel in six months? We were assured of that. I questioned the chairman of the board and everybody else at every committee meeting. When I asked whether it had resources, I was told it had loads of resources, money and office space and did not need anything as it was handy-dandy and it was going to fast-track all this strategic housing. Now we have all woken up to the fact that it was a disaster. Where did the architects of all those policies end up? The Minister of State knows and I know, and we will leave it at that. We must be careful who we promote and prefer. There is an acceptance across the Houses that it was a disastrous policy that did not work. Now we are on to Housing for All. I wish Housing for All well. I wish for housing for everybody. What is important is security of tenure, decent homes and assisting people to live in communities across this country.

I know I have meandered but I am passionate about it. I am passionate about the engagement of our citizens. I am particularly grateful to the Irish Environmental Network and the pillars associated with it, including An Taisce and other groups. I am very much associated with them and believe they are doing really good work. I acknowledge that the Government supports An Taisce. It supports the environmental networks. I got a print-out of what funding the Government sanctioned for them so let us not make it appear that it is a case of "them and us". There is very much a crossover between the Department and the funding of activities which are legitimate and admirable and should be encouraged.

I thank the Minister of State for his time and for listening. I have been sharing my thoughts. I genuinely wish the reform of An Bord Pleanála well in order that we can get on with housing. I welcome any reform of An Bord Pleanála. I want a faster system. I want a Part 8 system and I want it reformed but I do not want it abolished. I know the Minister of State will not do this but he is only one person in the Government. He and his colleagues must support the city and county councillors to do their job without eroding any of their current powers and functions. I remind the House that the chief executives of local authorities are not bad people. They have a very difficult job to do. Between us all, if we operate in a spirit of co-operation and collaboration, we can make proper planning and sustainable development for our communities and for the environment a top priority and a class act in which everyone will have confidence.

Senator Rebecca Moynihan

I wish to speak to the grouping as a whole, and specifically to the so-called social housing amendment that was passed by the Dáil last night. Last week, we were told that this Bill needed to be fast-tracked through because we were in a housing emergency. The reality is that the social housing amendment has not been effectively looked at by the Department. In the briefing we received on Monday morning, I asked the Department whether it had a list of projects where the suspension of Part 8 might apply, or Part 11 as it is now. I asked the Department whether it had any units and what the on-site delivery times involved in that might be. Frankly, the Department did not know. It had done none of the homework on it and had not drafted the regulations to do with it.

We have been here before at local authority level, specifically on Dublin City Council for the suspension of Part 8. It is worth bearing in mind that even if you suspend the 20 weeks in Part 8, you are not saving the full 20 weeks because there is an awful lot of the process that must be gone through. You cannot magic up houses out of nowhere, as the Government side often says. So you are not even making the 20-week savings but they do not know where this applies. There were projects that did not have a Part 8 process that went through. I refer to developments like Springvale in Chapelizod, which is two minutes down the road from me, and Bonham Street, which is just off Cork Street, for the provision of modular housing just down the road from where I grew up. None of them will be ready before 2024. We signed off on that in 2018 so I do not see the logic of doing this as part of this Bill except to provide window-dressing for the Bill, which is effectively a ministerial or - as I see it - departmental power grab of An Bord Pleanála.

There are small changes that could have been made to An Bord Pleanála. Emergency legislation could have been introduced for the appointment of a chairman. There is no reason to do it during the last sitting week before Christmas. We have much fanfare about a Bill that was agreed by the Government but again lacks detail and has yet to be published in advance of January. For the life of me, I cannot see the logic and do not understand why this is being rushed through this House this week.

The last time we did this in 2016, we did it for the SHD process. Again, we were told this would speed up the delivery of social housing and we were in the middle of a housing crisis. What resulted was a load of housing delivery items getting bogged down in the planning process.

What we have in this country is a permissions system. We do not have a planning system.

We do not have adequate master planning or pre-planning. We have SDZs, but they do not apply everywhere. There are individual disputes over individual projects and we do not join up our thinking. The blame does not lie with any particular side - Government, Opposition or otherwise - because the organisation has been established for almost 50 years. The evidence shows that we are not meeting our housing, climate and transport targets. We have an opportunity to look at international best practice in planning and to adopt an entirely new system, rather than adopting these last-minute rushed pieces of legislation to change the make-up of a board and do some tinkering around the edges with legislation that has been floated, but has not even been published for us to see the detail.

I want to put on the record of the House that no specific homework has been done on the social housing provision. We are told it is specifically for social housing and aims to speed up delivery. I would fully support it if that is what it was going to do. However, that is not the case. We have the evidence in projects that were agreed in 2018, with Part 8 suspension, and now there are people who are not going to be in their homes until 2024. That was the exact reasoning and rationale behind the suspension of Part 8 then. I cannot see how this is any different in any way. It appears to be spin and window-dressing.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I will speak to the amendments and the Bill generally. As a member of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, it is a real privilege to work with my colleagues from this House and from the Dáil, the Minister of State's Department and all relevant stakeholders. The joint committee completed pre-legislative scrutiny on this important legislation, albeit not with the most recent amendments. My colleagues and I see legislation as being an iterative process. The Planning and Development Act was first introduced in 2000 and the foreshore legislation was introduced in the 1990s. Legislation constantly needs to be updated. It is important that we remember that. We must not see today's debate as being an end point. This legislation seeks to amend existing legislation to enable us to move forward. Everybody accepts and recognises the need for it. I do not believe I have heard anybody object to an initiative to try to improve our planning process and the functions within it. Everybody is hugely disappointed in the deterioration and the disappearance of confidence in An Bord Pleanála. Many of the allegations that have been made were made anecdotally for quite a while. There was anecdotal discontent with the organisations. The allegations that the Minister referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Garda and SIPO, following consultation with the Attorney General, are very serious. They will have serious consequences and have already had such consequences for our country, society and for development and planning generally. It is imperative that every effort is made and that we all work together to try to re-establish some level of confidence in a professional, objective, transparent planning system.

The amendments relating to An Bord Pleanála are only short-term measures. The Government has signalled its acknowledgement of that by indicating its intention to bring forward much more substantive planning legislation in the new year. That legislation will follow over a year's work on the part of the Attorney General, working with the Minister, the Department and other stakeholders. I look forward to the publication of the complete legislation and to engaging with all stakeholders in the pre-legislative scrutiny. It is really important that when we undertake to make new laws to create a consolidated, comprehensive and fit-for-purpose planning process, we must look at every element of the planning process, from national planning, regional planning, city planning and county planning, right down to planning at the very local level. Obviously, the national planning framework and the regional, county and city development plans are already in place. I know that in Dublin city and in local authorities all over the country, local authority members, communities, residents, individuals, business owners and all stakeholders, including environmentalists or cultural stakeholders, are involved. In my own community, the stakeholders that engage in those city and county development plans include parents, schools and clubs. They are really important. The public participation in the making of those plans is paramount. The SDZ process and the local area plan process should also be reviewed.

I acknowledge the Minister of State and the Government for their recognition of the failure of the SHD process, which led to even greater inertia and delays in the delivery of really important infrastructure, including homes, and resulted in far too many judicial reviews. No homes or vital infrastructure, including schools and transport, environmental and energy infrastructure, will ever be delivered in a courtroom. It was really important that the SHD process was done away with. It should also be acknowledged in this debate that the introduction of the large-scale residential development process is an absolute acknowledgement of the primacy of local knowledge, the understanding of local needs and the local ability to make decisions on what are and are not good planning and development proposals for local communities. The fact that the large-scale residential process has restored decision-making at a local level is welcomed by councillors and local authority members all over the country. I acknowledge the Government's acceptance of the failure of the SHD process and most importantly, the proactive and constructive action of introducing the large-scale residential process, which has restored local decision-making at a local authority level and allows for the participation of communities, residents, local businesses, schools, organisations and environmental groups. Anyone with an interest in specific developments is invited to engage, participate and have their say.

The local authority members are the bedrock of our democracy. They are the people who champion ambition and opportunities for their local communities. They are best positioned to guide and inform development in their local areas. This Government has enabled and supported those local councillors. For far too long the councillors have been under-resourced and undersupported. I commend the Minister of State and the Government on having acknowledged the really important role that local authority members play, and for having ensured are better resourced. I would not say they are as adequately resourced as they could be, but that is a debate for another day. I acknowledge the Government taking action to ensure they have some modicum of resourcing.

It is important when it comes to housing that local authority members have been empowered by the affordable housing legislation. For far too long our local authority members have not been in a position to deliver any form of affordable housing in their local authority areas. In Dublin city and county and many other parts of the country, the affordability of housing is second only to the supply of housing as an issue. This Government and the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, in support of the Government, implemented the Affordable Housing Act 2021. This legislation has, for the first time in over a decade, given local authorities the power to deliver social and affordable housing. As well as that, for the first time in the history of the State, local authorities have the power to deliver affordable cost rental housing. This is an important initiative and I know from speaking to councillors that they value it. They value the fact that, for the first time, they will be able to exercise and influence the delivery of social, affordable and affordable cost rental homes on local authority lands. It is a huge innovation, which is long overdue and desperately needed. Councillors welcome it and are committed to making use of the €20 billion in funding the Government has allocated to ensure a massive increase in the delivery of social and affordable homes, including 90,000 social homes and 60,000 affordable homes. I urge the Minister of State and the Government to continue to support, enable and fund local authorities because they are best positioned to understand their communities' needs and what needs to be delivered.

In Dublin city, where the chief executive exercises the power to deliver social and affordable public homes on public land without a Part 8 process applying, the local authorities will be required to commence construction before 31 December 2024. I look forward to that change. That deadline is welcome and I know from speaking to councillors that they appreciate that some urgency will be brought to bear on the delivery of homes in our city and county because for far too long they have not been in that position. They have been at the coalface of dealing with and responding to their communities and fighting for adequate social and affordable homes for them but until now they have not been in a position to deliver them. It is important that they are being enabled and supported to do this and that the chief executives work with the local authority members, including by making information available to them and taking advantage of the value local authority members can bring to the process.

I hope we can move swiftly to the next Stage after we have disposed of these amendments. I look forward to the substantial work ahead in the new year. It has been more than 20 years since the last planning and development legislation was passed. I look forward to engaging across the House and bringing forward proposals and legislation that will be fit for purpose into the future, will take us through the next 20, 30 or 40 years and will enable the delivery of housing and other vital social infrastructure such as energy projects. We are all acutely aware of the energy crisis. As a country, society and economy, we must secure our energy independence. It is taking far too long for us to develop vital energy infrastructure and we must move away from that. We have an enormous opportunity with offshore wind and I am hoping the legislation the Minister will bring forward will enable the delivery of renewables.

As regards public transport infrastructure and the way we live and move around, we need to ensure we have a planning process that is objective, transparent and fit for purpose. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit and his Department for the work they have done on this. I look forward to working with them on the future legislation.

Deputy Peter Burke

I thank the Senators for their contributions. On the Government amendments, I note the huge challenge we are facing with homelessness and the Ukrainian citizens here. We must ensure we provide a strong and robust Government response and international protection. These Government amendments seek to temporarily disapply the Part 8 planning approval process for local authority developments, specifically for housing, to try to meet that demand. I understand that 38 different projects and sites have been volunteered by local authorities. Last week, the Cabinet approved €100 million in funding which will give local authorities a chance to reduce their debt level on various sites they own and deliver badly needed public housing for our citizens. This amendment will do a huge amount to resolve the issue.

To respond to Senator Warfield, there will be a quarterly report by local authorities on the specific sites that were using this mechanism to increase housing supply. We are talking about modern methods of construction and trying to use innovative responses to ensure we strongly increase our housing supply. The environmental impact assessment directive was transposed into our planning code in 2018. We are ensuring that all the projects that go through this process will have been screened out for AA and EIA, which are critical to meeting our very important environmental obligations. I fully appreciate the volume of legislation coming before Senators. I thank the committee for adjudicating on this legislation. I know Senators had a significant debate on Second Stage of the Bill, notwithstanding the new amendments.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Specific questions were asked on specific amendments. It would be useful to have answers to decide whether to push them. I ask the Minister of State to address them.

An Cathaoirleach

Members may only come back in once and the Minister of State has made his contribution. He will also speak on group 2, which relates to the meetings of An Bord Pleanála using remote video and conferencing facilities, the subject matter of amendment No. 3 and Seanad Report Stage amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

Deputy Peter Burke

I cannot accept amendment No. 1 as provision for virtual or blended meetings of the board is an efficiency measure to facilitate the board in processing its caseload. It is consistent with other recent statutory initiatives, such as the holding of annual general meetings virtually, through the Companies Act 2014. It is not intended to create a distinction between an in-person, virtual or blended board meeting by having different meeting arrangements for such meetings.

I will not be accepting amendment No. 2 either as there is no basis for having a different meeting quorum for in-person, virtual or blended board meetings. A board meeting will be a board meeting whether it is held in-person, electronically or by a combination of both, provided the minimum statutory quorum and any other statutory requirements for the meeting are complied with.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

Serious concerns about An Bord Pleanála have been flagged for a long time. We have heard a lot about the Government learning from things. I welcome the inclusion of a use it or lose it requirement in the section. We looked for such a requirement when SHDs were going through and we were not given it. We flagged concerns on SHDs back in 2016 and they were not listened to. That is why we should have proper and better Oireachtas engagement. Sometimes Members, even those who are not on the Government benches, make useful points that should be listened to.

Similarly, when it comes to An Bord Pleanála and its decision-making, we had the extraordinary situation just before last summer when we were looking for significant and important decisions, not so much on retention but on brand-new projects on adjoining sites that the Government had successfully fast-tracked to An Bord Pleanála, that there were already serious concerns in the public domain concerning the board and its operation.

I have listened repeatedly in recent years to Government representatives saying the problem is everyone who takes a case against An Bord Pleanála rather than that the problem is An Bord Pleanála's failure to properly apply decision making and deliver on it. There have been concerns around the process. It shows in the rulings on how the law has been applied and as to whether there has been proper scrutiny.

There are other concerns. One thing which arose that is slightly addressed here is how two members of An Bord Pleanála, one of whom is now under investigation, signed off on a pile of things all together. We need to be really careful. There is a concern that within An Bord Pleanála and with certain members there appears to have been a somewhat cavalier culture in respect of the application of the fulfilment of responsibilities and the application of scrutiny. We brought forward amendments to improve confidence. When we last looked at it, I brought forward amendments around declaration of interest and strengthening the declaration of interest requirement but the Government chose not to accept those. We brought forward other forms of requirements and scrutiny. These are things that would have genuinely improved public confidence such as measures to improve the panel system. It was a very good system because it was meant to address the idea that you would draw from different parts of society. The problem with the panel system was that entities that no-longer existed were allowed to nominate people and, indeed, their nominees seeming to be chosen in preference. Two of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association nominees were chosen, for example, even though that entity no longer existed. We put forward genuinely constructive amendments to address the confidence issues but instead we have something the Government told us it was planning anyway and it has nothing to do with restoring confidence which is that it wanted to move towards it being all members who were coming through selected by the Government through an unknown process and procedure that will be invented after the fact. The Bill states that it shall be a procedure that shall be created after the fact with functions that may or may not be performed by a committee. It is not the same as with any other body or Ministry.

Our planning structures were designed explicitly because of the lessons learned from years and years of difficulties and from the tribunals and scandals of the past, etc. They were explicitly designed to ensure that too much power was not given to a Minister with responsibility for planning and housing who sets the policy and the laws so that they would not have undue influence on the application and adjudication of those policies. That is why there were lots of safeguards such as how only one third of members could be appointed by the Minister. There were safeguards around section 30 and how the Minister could not have undue influence in respect of an individual application. Those safeguards have been eroded now because not only can the Minister appoint all the members of the board, rather than one third, but if they do not like what the board states, the Minister can add other temporary members and shift the numbers as much as they wish. Those members can be in the difficult position where they may be seconded from a Department where they must then go back and continue to work.

I genuinely believe this Bill will further damage public confidence in An Bord Pleanála and, in that context, we need to ensure at the very minimum that we have safety-net measures. These are two amendments which are very reasonable. There were those who said that I should oppose the remote video or telephone options because of the lack of confidence but I am in favour of remote and hybrid work options and will always support them. What I have proposed are two very simple safety-net clauses that will ensure the new powers in respect of remote meeting are not abused. One is to require that the quorum for a remote meeting shall be five. Given the membership will be at least 14 and could be up into the 20s, as temporary members are appointed, a quorum of five is not unduly onerous.

The Bill refers to sections relating to the local authorities. They are required to have at least one third of their members present for making those important decisions. It is reasonable that you would have five members of a aboard of 14, 20 or whatever it might be for a video meeting. Remote telephone or video conferencing makes it more possible for members to be present.

We should remember that the Bill no longer sets out the requirement that used to exist that there would be one member of An Bord Pleanála who has expertise in environmental law. That is no longer a requirement under this Bill where it was under the previous legislation. Now there is simply 14 members with a balance of skills across them. If we do not have a quorum of five in relation to some of the crucial decisions, we risk that necessary skills that should be applied in relation to a permission or a decision will not be present because we are relying on a diffusion of skills across the board rather than targeted and specialist skills. A quorum of five means there is more chance we get better decisions and a mix of skills, perspectives and expertise applied to those decisions.

It was alarming for the public to hear of two members getting together and making a lot of decisions. We do not want any situation whereby a member or members of the board can say, "Let us meet in half an hour or an hour." It is bad practice that sometimes happens where people might be told of a meeting with an hour's notice or even two minutes after the meeting started. That practice where someone can say they had a meeting and they had sent something around at lunchtime to say they would meet at 3 p.m. is dangerous.

Senator Victor Boyhan

It is very dangerous.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

That is very dangerous and that is the kind of situation that happens when people almost want to take advantage of people's other commitments and the fact they must schedule their time. Again, it leads to bad decisions. I am not looking to remove the provision of remote conferencing but I am saying that if there is a remote meeting, 72 hours' notice should be given. That is very reasonable. There would be an obligation to inform the board members, all 14, that there will be a meeting. Those who can make it can attend but we would not have the situation whereby decisions were made in a rush which are bad and end up being rightly challenged by judicial review because either there was not the right expertise in the room or, in some very unfortunate cases, as we have seen in the past, there was opportunism attached to those decisions.

These amendments are reasonable. Whatever about the quorum, which I like as an idea, the 72-hours' notice is fairly reasonable. I know we are all in a hurry but if you cannot give three days' notice of an important meeting, that will have serious consequences and that is a problem.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

As a body politic, we need to restore confidence in An Bord Pleanála and the whole planning process. I have a pathological dislike of the whole virtual meeting scenario given that we are now out of Covid. Yesterday, we met members of the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA.

Some council meetings are now held virtually or a blended version is available. Several possible scenarios could present themselves here. If there is a vote, mar shampla, on a proposal and it is my turn to vote, I could pretend that my line had frozen, the screen was not working or I could not hear and I could opt out of making a decision. Another possible scenario is that the recording system may not allow for the recording of the vote of a member online because it could be said that the system did not work or it broke down. Post-Covid, I have a dislike of the use of virtual meetings, especially in the context of the planning process.

Senator Higgins is right about the notification process and the due time. While I agree that 72 hours is reasonable, what happens if there is an emergency? Is there a window of 24 hours in the case of an emergency? All of us agree that there is a need to reform our planning processes. As former members of local authorities, as politicians and as residents, we have all engaged with appeals at An Bord Pleanála and so on. I made the point on the Order of Business yesterday, which is probably the minority view in my own political party, that I would not like to see residents' groups within the catchment area of a planning application being unable to submit an objection to An Bord Pleanála or to apply for a judicial review. I will use the example of the M28, which will be one of the most important roads for Cork city because it will facilitate the movement of the Port of Cork down to Ringaskiddy. Had there been real engagement by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, with the residents and local organisations, there would never have been a judicial review. To be fair to An Bord Pleanála, its old hearing system was very good. It allowed for a real presentation of the issues, a thorough examination of same and the result came back, which was fine. However, the residents took a different view, which is their prerogative.

Let us proceed with reform to restore confidence in our planning process. We need a planning process that delivers, most particularly one that delivers houses as a matter of urgency and priority without having to stop at every single check and balance. That said, we do need checks and balances. In response to Senator Higgins again, I am concerned that if we tie the hands of officials with bureaucracy then we will be back to where we are today, where there are roadblocks and no way forward.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I echo some of the concerns of the two previous speakers. Do I need a lesson in short notice for meetings, and virtual ones at that? That is a question for another day. I sit on three audit committees, one of which is the Oireachtas audit committee. It deals with audits relating to Oireachtas Members, their pay, security and a whole range of other issues but I am sure Members would be appalled if they thought the audit committee could discuss the Minister of State and his pay, for example, at a virtual meeting. It would not be right or proper. I have resisted virtual meetings in all areas of my life. I do not know how Fine Gael operated during Covid-19 in terms of virtual meetings but I accept that the Covid period was exceptional.

Serious allegations of corruption and collusion have been made against the board of An Bord Pleanála. I am aware of the rumours and the media coverage of the issues and I look forward to the speedy presentation of the report to these Houses for debate. We can talk all we want about cleaning up the board's act but if we do not hang, draw and quarter some of the people involved, we are not going to be effective. That is what the public expects and wants, and it is something I would support. We need to clearly hear what was going on and what happens next. People going off into the sunset, taking pensions, going on holidays, taking sick or extended leave and running from interrogation, examination, transparency and accountability is simply not good enough. That said, there are processes in place which I respect and I am not going to go into any more detail on this now. I assure the House, however, that I will be standing up in this Chamber in a few months asking for the reports to be made public and I will not accept excuses such as that the reports are sub judice or that there are issues around privacy and confidentiality. This is about our public planning system, taxpayers' money, and accountability and transparency in our planning processes.

There is a lot of money to be made when one gets a favourable planning decision. If decisions are skewed in one's favour in any walk of life, there is money to be made and that is at the root of some of the problems we have here. Who is to suggest that some prime developer in Dublin does not have access to An Bord Pleanála? Who is to suggest that a new planning authority or body would not facilitate it? Remember, members of An Bord Pleanála came under pressure previously. I am not confident that pressure could not be put on the board by developers or by anybody who wants something that others do not want to give them and that is not good for our planning process.

The commissioners or inspectors will be well paid; indeed, they are well paid now. An Bord Pleanála has headquarters on Marlborough Street and it may have other offices around the country. Members can get up, do a day's work and be accountable. They can don their shirts and suits, go to Marlborough Street and do their job. I do not buy the idea that they can open a laptop on their breakfast counter and semi-engage in the planning process. We must be really careful here. I know we are coming out of Covid but we have learned a lot of lessons about virtual meetings and blended working. The issues being considered are hugely sensitive and so open to influence and pressure.

I want to be clear that the vast majority of people in An Bord Pleanála do a really good job and I do not want people to think otherwise. I believe the organisation should be retained and reformed. I do not believe we need to be playing around with changing the name and so on. An Bord Pleanála has done well and has delivered some really good results. I have taken some appeals to An Bord Pleanála and have been very pleased with the outcome. I have also taken other appeals and not been pleased with the outcome but I recognised that the board was at a remove from the situation and presented a strong rationale for its decisions. That said, it could improve somewhat in terms of presenting its rationale or providing an explanation for some of its decisions. Part of the problem is the fact that the public does not understand the board's decisions, particularly when the board overrules the recommendations of its own inspectors.

To return to the issue of virtual meetings, I am involved in a planning application in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown that has gone on for a number of years. It is a very sizeable and considerable development on a site that is zoned either major town centre or neighbourhood town centre. It has enormous potential. There has been to-ing and fro-ing with An Bord Pleanála. Some months ago there was a limited and virtual oral hearing during which Oireachtas Members, including me, engaged but still there is no decision on what is a very substantial application. One must ask what is going on here. We were told that the hearing would be virtual in order to speed up the whole process. We all went online in the morning and said our piece. The developer came and said his piece, as did the elected members of the council. The planning authority also had some contributions to make and rightly so. The point is that the virtual meeting did not speed anything up. I am very happy to share details of this particular case with anyone who is interested. This is a very significant application but somehow all of the virtual business and the limited, virtual oral hearing came to nothing.

Senator Paddy Burke

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. This is important legislation to restore confidence in An Bord Pleanála. I remember when Bertie Ahern was Taoiseach, which is quite a few years ago - we have had a number of Taoisigh since then - he brought forward legislation to fast track the planning process for large projects. Since then, the whole system has actually slowed down, in every aspect.

I have a few points to make in respect of the planning system. I appeal to the Minister of State to notify county managers in regard to how planning staff should operate. Usually, when a planning application goes in and the 60 days are up, the planning officer will send out for further information. That should not be happening in this day and age. People who lodge a planning application should know within a couple of days whether they have made a full application. If further information is required to make the application legitimate, for want of another word, applicants should know that within a few days. It is not acceptable to have applicants waiting two months and then getting a notification that their application is not complete and additional information is required.

In larger counties like my own, County Mayo, there is a huge difference between the different municipal districts. The latter should be able to make recommendations when the county development plan is being compiled. When a county council meets, the process is very unwieldy, with a lot of debate and different projects to discuss. In Mayo, there are issues to do with marine areas, inland areas, lakes and so forth. The different municipal districts could add to the development of the county plan in a way that is better for local communities.

As Senator Buttimer said, this is all about restoring confidence in An Bord Pleanála. I am opposed to virtual meetings because they may be open to manipulation. Online participants might have people with vested interests sitting beside them.

Senator Jerry Buttimer

That is true.

Senator Paddy Burke

It is a weakness in the case for such arrangements. I would be wary that it might put members under stress and lead to corruption or whatever else.

The members of An Bord Pleanála are well paid, as Senator Boyhan said. At every meeting, the question should be asked as to whether members have a vested interest in the cases being dealt with. They should have to sign a declaration before every meeting stating they have no vested interest in the particular files being considered. There is a lot at stake here. People can be vulnerable. As we know, people can be got to in lots of ways. There should be a system in place whereby all boards members, or whoever is dealing with the planning applications, are required, at every meeting, to sign off on their having no vested interest in respect of the files they are considering. If a person does have an interest in a matter or knows somebody involved in it, he or she should leave the meeting, indicating why, and that should be recorded.

I wish the Minister of State well with the Bill. It is about getting the houses built that are badly needed.

Deputy Peter Burke

I thank the Senators for their contributions. It is important to ensure the public has confidence in the integrity and consistency of An Bord Pleanála. Under this Bill and, in particular, the new planning and development Bill we will bring forward next year, we are implementing significant reform of the board. This is being done in response to the first report of the Office of the Planning Regulator. We await its second report, the recommendations of which we hope to encompass in the new Bill. That legislation will be significant and important in ensuring the board operates correctly. We are all aware of the challenge in terms of the backlog and the need to get housing units built for our citizens. Key to this is ensuring that the board is operating correctly.

Senators raised a number of points. The meeting quorum of two is being increased to three, which is an important change to ensure good practice. A number of reviews and reports have been carried out. I will not comment on some of the statements made in that regard because there is an investigation ongoing, which I do not wish to prejudice.

An Cathaoirleach

We will now deal with the Seanad Report Stage amendments. I remind Senators that each non-Government amendment on Report Stage must be seconded.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, line 18, after "time" to insert ", where notice of such a meeting has been provided not less than 72 hours in advance,".

Senator Victor Boyhan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 10, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"(8A) Where a meeting takes place using remote video or telephone conferencing facilities or other means of communication provided for under subsection (8), the quorum for such a meeting shall be 5 members.".

Senator Victor Boyhan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, line 6, after "can" to insert "practically".

Senator Victor Boyhan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

"(fa) for the avoidance of doubt, any land or 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,".

Senator Victor Boyhan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

"(1A) This section shall not apply to a housing development which may have a significant effect on the environment and any such determination needs to be made publicly available at least 12 weeks prior to the notification of the commencement for the development provided for under subsection (2).".

Senator Victor Boyhan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 12, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

"(ga) procedures for determining whether the development is one which may have a significant effect on the environment and where public participation is therefore required, and the publication of any such determination and the information relied upon, and should include in particular determinations in respect of—

(i) impacts on water quality so that the requirements of Article 4 of the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy,

(ii) impacts on air quality,

(iii) impacts on species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive,

(iv) impacts on species listed in Annex V of the Habitats Directive, and

(v) impacts on species protected by floral protection orders;".

Senator Victor Boyhan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 13.

Tá

• Boyhan, Victor.
• Boylan, Lynn.
• Clonan, Tom.
• Gavan, Paul.
• Higgins, Alice-Mary.
• Keogan, Sharon.
• Moynihan, Rebecca.
• Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
• Sherlock, Marie.
• Wall, Mark.
• Warfield, Fintan.

Níl

• Burke, Paddy.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Maria.
• Carrigy, Micheál.
• Conway, Martin.
• Crowe, Ollie.
• Currie, Emer.
• Dolan, Aisling.
• Fitzpatrick, Mary.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Murphy, Eugene.
• O'Reilly, Pauline.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Victor Boyhan; Níl, Senators Seán Kyne and Mary Fitzpatrick.

Amendment declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No 7:

In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(3A) Regulations made in respect of subsection (3)(a), (b) and (d) shall not specify a notice period of less than 5 weeks.”.

Senator Sharon Keogan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(3A) In respect of subsection (3)(c), documents, particulars, plans or other information, in relation to the development, shall be made available for inspection by the public both online and in person for a period of not less than 5 weeks.”.

Senator Sharon Keogan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 17.

Tá

• Boyhan, Victor.
• Boylan, Lynn.
• Clonan, Tom.
• Gavan, Paul.
• Higgins, Alice-Mary.
• Hoey, Annie.
• Keogan, Sharon.
• Moynihan, Rebecca.
• Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
• Sherlock, Marie.
• Wall, Mark.
• Warfield, Fintan.

Níl

• Blaney, Niall.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Malcolm.
• Byrne, Maria.
• Carrigy, Micheál.
• Conway, Martin.
• Crowe, Ollie.
• Currie, Emer.
• Dolan, Aisling.
• Fitzpatrick, Mary.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Martin, Vincent P.
• Murphy, Eugene.
• O'Reilly, Pauline.
• O'Sullivan, Ned.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Victor Boyhan; Níl, Senators Seán Kyne and Mary Fitzpatrick.

Amendment declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(3A) Any procedures which the Minister may regulate for under subsection (3) (f) shall be consistent with the procedures set out in Part X of the Act of 2000 and any further requirements under Article 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessments Directive.”.

Senator Sharon Keogan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(3A) Any procedures which the Minister may regulate for under subsection (3) (f) shall be consistent with the procedures set out in Part X of the Act of 2000.”.

Senator Tom Clonan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(3A) Any procedures which the Minister may regulate for under subsection (3) (g) shall be consistent with the procedures set out in Part XAB of the Act of 2000.”.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 12, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(3A) Where the Minister has failed to make regulations under subsection (3), the ordinary provisions of this enactment shall apply.”.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 12, to delete lines 8 and 9.

Senator Lynn Boylan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Boyhan, Victor.
• Boylan, Lynn.
• Clonan, Tom.
• Gavan, Paul.
• Higgins, Alice-Mary.
• Hoey, Annie.
• Keogan, Sharon.
• Moynihan, Rebecca.
• Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
• Sherlock, Marie.
• Wall, Mark.
• Warfield, Fintan.

Níl

• Blaney, Niall.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Malcolm.
• Byrne, Maria.
• Carrigy, Micheál.
• Conway, Martin.
• Crowe, Ollie.
• Currie, Emer.
• Davitt, Aidan.
• Dolan, Aisling.
• Fitzpatrick, Mary.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Martin, Vincent P.
• Murphy, Eugene.
• O'Reilly, Pauline.
• O'Sullivan, Ned.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Victor Boyhan; Níl, Senators Seán Kyne and Mary Fitzpatrick.

Amendment declared.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Senator Alice-Mary Higgins

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 12, line 14, after “road,” to insert “where such roads are accompanied by appropriate cycling or pedestrian infrastructure,”.

Senator Tom Clonan

I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question again put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Senator Seán Kyne

Now.

An Cathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 8.

Tá

• Blaney, Niall.
• Burke, Paddy.
• Buttimer, Jerry.
• Byrne, Malcolm.
• Byrne, Maria.
• Carrigy, Micheál.
• Cassells, Shane.
• Chambers, Lisa.
• Conway, Martin.
• Crowe, Ollie.
• Davitt, Aidan.
• Dolan, Aisling.
• Fitzpatrick, Mary.
• Kyne, Seán.
• Martin, Vincent P.
• McGahon, John.
• Murphy, Eugene.
• O'Reilly, Pauline.
• O'Sullivan, Ned.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

• Boyhan, Victor.
• Clonan, Tom.
• Higgins, Alice-Mary.
• Hoey, Annie.
• Keogan, Sharon.
• Moynihan, Rebecca.
• Sherlock, Marie.
• Wall, Mark.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Seán Kyne and Mary Fitzpatrick; Níl, Senators Alice-Mary Higgins and Victor Boyhan.

Question declared carried.