Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 2022

Vol. 1031 No. 2

Planning and Development and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2022 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stages

SECTION 1

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, to delete lines 19 to 22 and substitute the following:

“(4) This Act, other than section 6 and Part 3, shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes and different provisions.

(5) Prior to the commencement of section 6, the Minister shall—

(a) make a proposal for the establishment of an open, competitive and transparent system to which any member of the public can apply, and where such considerations shall inform the system which is to be established under section 106(2) of the Act of 2000 (inserted by section 6), and

(b) lay such proposal before both Houses of the Oireachtas, and facilitate a debate in each such House on such a proposal, and section 6 shall not be commenced until the proposal as drafted, or as amended, is approved by each such House.”.

In his concluding remarks on Second Stage, the Minister spoke about introducing a transparent, objective and fair process. At the heart of our concerns is that the Bill is too wide-reaching and too open. It gives far too much discretion to the Minister and not just this Minister but any subsequent Minister which is of great concern. We should never give those sorts of powers to any Minister. It is not particular to this Minister.

The amendment seeks that prior to the commencement of the section, the Minister's proposal would be subject to Oireachtas scrutiny and would need to be approved by each House of the Oireachtas. If the Minister is willing to accept this very sensible amendment, it will allay many of the issues and concerns we raised on Second Stage. If the Minister is as committed as he says he is to a transparent, open and objective process with proper Oireachtas oversight and scrutiny, there is no reason for him not to accept our amendment. I look forward to his comments and I hope he will accept it.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I again put on record our party's strong opposition to these sections of the Bill, dealing with changes to An Bord Pleanála. One of the most significant proposals the Minister brought forward this week is not actually an emergency measure at all. I fully accept there is urgency regarding an interim chair. I would not have proposed the interim chair in the manner that the Minister has, but I accept that it is urgent. Amendment No. 1 relates to the Minister's changes to the appointment process of ordinary board members. There is nothing urgent in that. That is something that could have been and should be in the planning and development Bill the Minister will introduce next year.

In understanding this very sensible amendment that Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, I and others will speak to, it is important to understand what is wrong with the proposition the Minister has tabled. Currently ordinary board members are appointed through a panel system. The panel list is very outdated. As we now know, some organisations listed in the legislation simply do not exist and there have been problems with that. However, the principle of the panel system is not a bad one because it ensures that organisations of good standing with professional expertise and knowledge of this sector can nominate people for the panel. The problem is that the panel system of itself is not good enough. I have argued for quite some time that we should have a hybrid system where we take the benefits of an annually updated panel, combine it with the benefits of an open competition through the Public Appointments System, PAS, and merge those into a hybrid so we get the benefits of both. Therefore, it would be updated and modernised but without losing the benefits of the panel.

That is not just my view. If the Minister had not effectively cut short the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny he would have benefited from the eminent wisdom of the unanimous view of that committee. If he has looked at that report, as I am sure he has, albeit unfortunately after he published the Bill, in the first instance he will have seen five separate recommendations we had for him on this issue. We recommended that the existing panel system be reformed, reviewed and updated rather than abolished and we set out the reasons why. The committee recommended an annual review of the panel system to ensure we do not have the difficulties we had with the nomination of individuals, including Paul Hyde.

It then made a set of other proposals. If the combined cross-party Opposition and Government members of the committee could reach that conclusion, it is hard to understand why the Minister has proposed what he has. I just want to read into the record what he is asking the Oireachtas to support. He has not set out in legislation how he intends to appoint ordinary members to the board. He has not set out what is that process. He is simply asking us, on trust, to allow him to put in place a process. He has not even detailed what it is. The Bill states a "procedure (which may include the establishment of a committee)", but it may not. In all of the last-minute planning changes that I have dealt with in my six years as a Deputy never has a Minister asked for so much on such trust with so little detail as what is in front of us today.

We have other amendments trying to reinstate the substance of what our committee report proposed. However, as Deputy Cian O'Callaghan outlined, amendment No. 1 is really sensible. My understanding is the Minister has not even decided what this process or procedure will look like at this stage. However, when he has decided what to do, the amendment would oblige the Minister to engage with us and seek our support for such a proposition. I think that is a pretty fair quid pro quo for what he is asking of us.

This amendment is probably not the strongest of our amendments because some subsequent amendments would actually create that hybrid system of a revised panel and an open public competition, a kind of PAS plus, as I call it. Assuming the Minister will not support the amendment, at a very minimum he should be willing to come back into this House, set out that process and seek our approval for it because without that he is asking us to take something on trust.

Even with the most generous interpretation of the Minister's intentions, the public no longer have confidence in the board and in the operation of one of the most important planning authorities in the State. It is vital, if we are going to pass legislation, that the public can have confidence in the changes the Minister is bringing forward in terms of the reform of that board. I, therefore, urge the Minister consider amendment No. 1.

Deputy Ged Nash

I support the thrust of this amendment and what it wants to achieve. I did not have the benefit of being involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny at the committee but my colleague, Senator Moynihan, did. I am familiar with the panel system which has been in place to nominate potential appointees from the nominating bodies. These are organisations, like the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, that have been identified. Yes, the process is imperfect, requires modernisation and needs to be reformed. We are all agreed on that. It is capable of being reformed, so I am not sure and have not had the benefit of engaging with the Minister on this. Perhaps the Minister might articulate precisely what his concerns are in terms of the panel system because we are very much diverting now to an entirely different system where the Minister will assume quite considerable power to appoint people drawn from a very narrow base. I expressed those concerns on Second Stage and my colleague, Senator Moynihan, has also done so.

I agree with Deputy Ó Broin where the Minister is asking us to take on trust what he said in respect of how the appointment process will work. I accept that the Minister has good intentions but it is our job to interrogate those intentions and to try to fully understand what those are, and how this will all operate. The Bill states that he may appoint a committee. I believe that “may” should be changed to “shall” and the Minister should be required to do that, and perhaps the Minister shall work with us in doing that.

Unfortunately, we are having to complete all Stages today and will not have the opportunity to come back to this. However, if it proceeds in the way in which it is currently constructed, the Minister may end up regretting it in time, and we may have to come back to it when we are dealing with the omnibus Bill next year. I would appreciate it if the Minister used the opportunity provided to him to put on record what his precise concerns are with the operation of the panel system and why he does not think it is capable of being appropriately reformed.

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Darragh O'Brien)

I thank Deputy O’Callaghan and his colleagues, Deputy Ó Broin and others, for tabling the amendment. I will put this and the timeframe in context. I am not accepting the amendment and will tell the House why. I will also take up one of the suggestions Deputy Ó Broin made, which is something I intended to do in any event. If we look at this Bill and at what we are doing, the context as to why I will not accept this amendment is that we have to strengthen the capacity of the board itself. Everyone agrees with that. We have five board members now and have effectively a deputy chair who, with the passing of this legislation, will become the interim chairperson. That is important because currently under the legislation, a deputy chairperson cannot carry out the function of the chairperson of An Bord Pleanála. We are changing that in this legislation to ensure that, on an interim basis, that appointment is made. From within the Civil Service and public service, a very senior official, with extensive knowledge of the justice area and the planning area, will be in there to steady the ship within the board as we carry out the further reforms we want.

On the panel system, my clear view on it over the past number of years has been that it has not served the operation of the board well. It is an archaic system and if one looks at some of the nominating bodies within that system, there are questions as to whether there were some, I am not talking about all of them, which existed or operated at all.

I will not get into the detail of this but everyone is clear on the controversies which arose over the course of this year. We were already embarked on a reform agenda with An Bord Pleanála where I said I was going to change the appointment process. When those controversies arose, we had to expedite this because we simply did not have enough people in An Bord Pleanála at board level to make those decisions. We need to do that. The urgency around this is very clear and was accepted by most Members during the Second Stage debate.

The new appointment process will be much more open and transparent than the panel system. When a Minister receives a recommendation, although it is not a recommendation, through the panel system, the Minister is given a list of the people but there are no recommendations. Currently, the Minister has to make his or her mind up at that stage. There is not an open competition. We will bring forward an open competition where any member of the public can apply, if they believe they have the relevant experience or qualifications to serve on the board. I do not believe we can be any more open or transparent about an appointment process than that. That process will replace what is in my view an outdated panel nomination process. It will be a new structure to replenish the new board into the future.

This is in advance of the consolidated planning Bill but it is a change that needs to happen now. The reason the change is needed is that any of the interim appointments I make now will be for 12 months.

Deputy Ged Nash

Plus.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

When those 12-month appointments cease, we must ensure we have a system in place where people can apply for new roles in a new and reformed an coimisiún pleanála. We need to have that as there has to be a transition. We cannot have a cliff edge between one system and the other. The reform of the appointment process for board members to the board of An Bord Pleanála is a critical step to ensure the impartiality and transparency of the board and, most importantly, to restore confidence in the board. It is in no way, shape or form any type of power grab or trying to go back to the future as was said earlier. It is not. This will be publicly advertised and people will apply. There will be an expert panel and I will give the House a sense of that.

I will come back to a suggestion made by Deputy Ó Broin, which I believe we can work with. If we look at other systems, such as a selection committee process, I would see this as similar to the selection committee for the chairperson of An Bord Pleanála, with the support of the Public Appointments Service, PAS, or an open competition which can be run directly by PAS. It is common in legislation that the selection process is not specified, or that it is explicitly specified that a recruitment competition is open. That is what is going to happen.

For example, the Land Development Agency, LDA, Act states that the Minister appoints the board and the board will appoint the chief executive. However, there is an open recruitment process for all of these positions and that works well through the PAS Stateboards.ie process for LDA non-executive board positions.

One can think about it in this way. Is it not a better process where any member of the public can apply, where their qualifications are gone through by an expert panel and where recommendations are made from there through a transparent open process, which is a public competition rather than a closed panel process? We believe that is a much fairer and much more transparent way to move.

This legislation needs to be passed in advance of the recess but I have no difficulty doing this with the joint Oireachtas committee early in the new year, when we have worked through and concluded this. The legislation states "may" but this is what is going to happen. We will have that panel in place. We can certainly share with Deputies and Senators through the joint Oireachtas committee, who are interested, what that structure and process will look like. We need to move and have the legislation passed to allow us to put that structure in place.

It is for those reasons that I will not be accepting amendment No. 1. I am happy to come back to the joint Oireachtas committee or whatever. The joint Oireachtas committee is probably the best mechanism to give clear sight to members of that committee, and through them to both Houses of the Oireachtas, what that structure and process will look like. We need to do this now. We are appointing interim members now, which we have to do. We have five board members and a chairperson, who is not even a chairperson yet. We will need to open that process and to have a public competition, so that nobody is excluded.

It is actually far less exclusionary than the current system. I respect what Members have said. I would not stop anyone from the RIAI, SCSI or any qualified person from applying through the process. The Bill is not inhibiting any of that. We want that input. We want diverse people from diverse backgrounds with the proper skills mix that is needed in An Bord Pleanála and on the board.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

We recognise the board has to function. However, the idea that the Minister will appoint the chair and board for a year and then have the option to do so for another year is a difficulty for us.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

It is an interim process.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

We accept there needs to be an interim process, but the period involved does not need to be a year. We want the whole thing scrutinised and discussed in detail in here in terms of how all of this will work and to ensure it is genuinely open, transparent and diverse and not subject to untoward influences from particular industry stakeholders, interests or political influence. Therefore, there should not be carte blanche for the Minister over an extended period. The matter should be discussed in detail in the House so that we have a level of transparency, given this is all being done in a rush. Our amendment is quite reasonable in that regard. The Minister should accept it.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

The problem is that section 6 does not guarantee what the Minister has outlined. Section 6 would allow for that, but also allow for other options. That is our concern. I refer to the unanimously agreed committee pre-legislative scrutiny report. While our preference is for a reformed panel system, recommendation 10 in our report states that, should the legislation proceed with the ministerial committee system outlined in the general scheme, it should prescribe the organisation that may nominate members to the board's committee, reflecting the panels etc. If the Bill set out that the Minister shall set up a committee, that would be preferable. At the moment, we do not know whether he will set up a committee because reference is made in the general scheme of the Bill to the Minister setting up a committee or some other procedure. In section 6, the Minister has reversed that and has said he will set up a procedure which may involve a committee. If the Bill stated the Minister would set up a committee and prescribe the organisations that would populate the committee from a range of professional bodies, including some of the bodies already on the panel system as well as other bodies like the Irish Environmental Network, IEN, or organisations representing civil society, that would be an improvement. If the Bill went on to say there would be a public call for expressions of interest for ordinary board members and an interview process, and a panel of experts, as set out in the Bill, would process those applications and forward recommendations to the Minister, we could have a conversation about that. It might be a compromise.

However, section 6 does not guarantee that. The worry we have is the Minister is asking us to pass the Bill and has said he will come back with a report to the committee next year. Given that he asked us to do pre-legislative scrutiny and before we had completed it he had introduced Bill in the Seanad, he will understand it is difficult for us to agree to that. Much of what the Minister has said is eminently sensible and would be a reasonable compromise in respect of what many of us want. However, it is not what the Bill states.

My big worry is that I do not think the Minister knows what this procedure is. That is the issue. I do not think the officials who provided the Minister with advice and the Minister and his Government colleagues have made a decision on the procedure. The reason this is before us is to give the Minister latitude to make that decision. That is a real problem for the Opposition. I do not think we are a million miles apart from the kind of system we would like to see. We are all agreed it should not be straight from the Public Appointments Service, PAS, or the old panel system. However, the Minister is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and that is something that would be very hard for any of us on this side of the House to accept.

I do not expect the Minister to consider any of the amendments where we try to introduce a hybrid system. All amendment No. 1 asks the Minister to do is what he has just offered to us, but on a formal and statutory footing rather than a footing we have to take on trust. That is not an unreasonable thing to do given this procedure has not yet been decided and will not be up and running by the time the committee starts meeting early next year. Therefore, the Minister could do this without creating any delay whatsoever. We would have a much better system and, crucially, a system that has cross-party Opposition and Government support.

It is a little bit like the turbulent final hours of the electoral reform legislation. We all worked on a strong cross-party basis. We wanted the legislation to go through with the unanimous support of the House so that the public would know it is above party politics. We will end up having a division between Government and Opposition because the Minister is not guaranteeing what the scheme will be. That is unfortunate because it would send the wrong signal out to the public at a time when cross-party Government and Opposition unity would be of maximum benefit to the restoration of public confidence in the board.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The Minister said he is in favour of an open, competitive and transparent system to appoint the board. That is great. However, in the next breath he said he will vote against an amendment which would make sure he has to bring forward a proposal for the establishment of an open, competitive and transparent system. The Minister is against an amendment which will ensure he does the thing he said he would do in any case. Forgive us if we are, therefore, a little bit doubtful as to his intentions. Forgive us if we look at the record of Fianna Fáil on planning, about which we would be a little bit doubtful. Forgive us if we are a little bit dubious about the process of the removal of An Bord Pleanála as an independent body, free of Government and ministerial control and interference and there being instead, ultimately, ministerial decision about who is appointed.

There is obviously a context to this in terms of the Bill that is coming down the line after Christmas. In reality this is a very minimal amendment. It is limited. It states the Minister shall come back with a proposal about what the open and transparent process he is supposedly in favour of is going to look like so that we can democratically discuss it, as opposed to giving a carte blanche to the Minister.

The consequences of this are quite significant. This will be an enormously powerful board. The consequences of the decisions it makes are immense for communities and people who are looking for housing. I agree that the current system is not appropriate, but the new body needs to be genuinely independent. The real danger is that it is not independent in any way whatsoever and the Minister can appoint who he wants. That could be done in a skilful way, whereby the Minister supposedly has an open and transparent process which is not really transparent and the Minister can appoint who he wants. We could have an open and transparent process. The best way to reassure anybody who has doubts about these things and might not accept the sincerity of Fianna Fáil on this issue is for the Minister to accept the amendment and say he will bring forward the proposals and allow the Dáil to debate them.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

To be clear, we are discussing legislation. Legislation needs to be clear and robust. The Minister is saying we should not mind that the legislation is not clear and robust because he intends to do something. He has asked us to forget that the legislation is poorly drafted and gives him sweeping powers and full discretion in terms of what happens in respect of an appointments process because he will do it well anyway. That would not inspire confidence because any Minister who comes in here with legislation to allow those kinds of far-reaching powers and discretion for a Minister and thinks that is a good way to pass legislation does not give us confidence that he or she will do the process well.

In terms of the process, the Minister has said it will be open to everyone. That is great, but it is not enough. A process can be open to everyone and at the end, depending on what is done, we can still have a complete lack of balance in terms of the outcome of that process.

That is a key concern.

The Minister made an excellent case in his comments as to how, potentially, the panel system should be reformed and improved, but at least that system was an attempt to ensure some diversity and balance. If, therefore, he is intent on abolishing that system, he should put into the legislation measures that will ensure balance and diversity in the appointments made, and that is not clearly done.

I have talked to people who have in-depth knowledge of the planning process and An Bord Pleanála, and a key concern they have is that over recent years people working in An Bord Pleanála, various inspectors, were put under pressure. We saw that with the inspectors' reports being overturned and in particular cases. They have a particular concern that pressure is being put on people operating in the planning system to conform with a certain outlook or viewpoint that happens to be close to that of developers and those who lobbied for the strategic housing development legislation that was introduced.

The Minister comes in here to ask us to let the Bill go through, even though it has these wide-ranging discretionary powers. He tells us it is okay because he will do it well anyway but he cannot commit to doing the legislation well. We are discussing the legislation, not an individual Minister's intentions or otherwise to do things well in the future. The legislation applies to this Minister and any other Minister. It must be robust and very clear and should not be open to a level of discretion that in itself undermines the independence of An Bord Pleanála. That is not what An Bord Pleanála needs now to restore public confidence.

Deputy Ged Nash

I thank the Minister for his response to my questions. What I do not hear from him, though, is any argument that would claim, from his point of view, that there is anything radically wrong with the principle of nominating bodies being involved in the process of appointing members of the board, as they have been in the past. I have not heard that from the Minister at all. It seems to me that he has simply made his mind up, or his officials have helped him to make his mind up, that this is a bad idea and that this process, while it is in need of reform, is, as far as he is concerned, incapable of being reformed. He is throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater now and starting again. That is the wrong direction of travel for something so important. I believe that the nominating bodies process, the panel process, is eminently capable of being reformed. Aspects of it need to be reformed anyway, and I urge the Minister not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I urge him to take what is good from this process, such as independent experts with knowledge and experience of the field using their knowledge and expertise to guide the decisions of the board. I ask him to reflect on that.

The ironic thing is that the Minister says he is dispensing with that because what he wants is a swift, expeditious process to appoint members of the board and to get on with the job because there are loads of backlogs dealing with An Bord Pleanála cases and we just need to knuckle down and get this done. Some tweaks to the nominating bodies element could actually resolve that. There are ready-made bodies with nominating powers under the panel system. The Minister could use that, reform it moderately and proceed on that basis.

I absolutely agree that there should be public processes to ensure a diversity of views and opinions on the board or at commissioner level, as it will be next year under the Minister's proposed new legislation we are all reading about. He says he wants that open, transparent system for appointment to the board, but I do not believe that section 6, as it is written, will actually do that to the extent he claims. We have tabled an amendment, amendment No. 28, that would, I think, strengthen that and honour that commitment to a public, transparent, open process for appointments to the board. My party has a very strong, honourable track record in respect of transparency in public life and the appointment of people to public positions. In reality, the way in which part of section 6 is drafted is not as open as the Minister would claim. It seems to me that it will deliver a system whereby there will be a degree of pre-screening anyway before people are invited to apply, so it is not as open, in my view, and in the view of the Labour Party, as the Minister would claim.

We want public competition. We believe that the ultimate goal here should be the kind of hybrid system to which Deputy Ó Broin referred and which would be open to the public, whereby people could apply as citizens with an interest in the operation of a functioning, transparent, independent planning appeals board and experts would be involved, as they have been in the past. I repeat that I think that panel system is eminently capable of being reformed and will deliver reforms more quickly than the Minister claims his new system will.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I always think that the language we use when we discuss planning is incredibly important. There is often commentary that labels people objectors when in fact there is no such thing. There are people who make observations, be they negative or positive, or maybe request conditions to be attached to decisions. Similarly, in the debate that has surrounded this, some of the language has been unhelpful. I have heard many people describe it as a power grab. That is not fair at all. I do not see it as a power grab.

Let us look at where we have come from and the 2000 Act, specifically the appointments procedure under section 106, whereby "The Minister shall appoint 7 ordinary members to the Board as follows". I ask the House to listen to the vagueness of the language in the Act of 2000. It states that "one member shall be appointed from among persons selected by prescribed organisations which in the Minister's opinion are representative of persons ...". It is so vague and open. It goes through all the different categories. Then, in 2006, we upped the number to nine but we still had that vagueness in the language. We know some of the difficulty with or some of the commentary on certain appointees to An Bord Pleanála recently from certain organisations. We have never been clear and there has never been a clear reporting process on these panel organisations, to the best of my knowledge - certainly, for some of them anyway. Then, in 2010, we went a little further. The Minister could appoint three ordinary members under the strategic infrastructure development amendment, I think, so it was limited. Then there was the flexibility to appoint one member, someone with satisfactory experience, competence and qualifications as regards issues relating to the environment and sustainability.

There has therefore been incremental improvement from the Act of 2000 up to what we have today. Let us look at it in that regard and at what is actually stated in this amendment to section 106. First, we set out much more clearly the type of experience and competencies we are looking for from members of the board: knowledge of infrastructure delivery, housing and physical planning. Sustainable development is listed. There are often inventive interpretations of sustainable development, but I would suggest that with sustainable development the situation relates to equality for our economy, our society and our environment. It is a matter of architectural heritage, community affairs, social affairs, planning and the environment, the marine, climate change law and corporate governance and an equal balance among them. To me, it is an improvement in that part of the Act to state that out. I did not get an amendment in on this, but I ask the Minister, if possible, to include knowledge of ecology and marine ecology there. It will be an incredibly important part of An Bord Pleanála's work to make decisions on a lot of marine planning applications that will come in shortly, so it would be important to include that there. Paragraph (b) of section 6, which is what is being debated, states that "the Minister shall establish a suitable, independent, objective, and transparent procedure".

All the way up to this point, we have had a panel system from which the Minister appoints. It has been very vague and I think people have agreed it has not been an ideal system, and it is not an ideal system at all. It does need improvement. On the selection that the committee that may or shall be set up, and it would be helpful if the Minister took some of the ambiguity out of that and clarified it, although he may have made a comment that I missed, there is nothing excluding all the existing panels from participating in this process. How and ever, the committee is set up by the Minister. It may be a committee but it also says "The Minister shall establish a suitable, independent, objective, and transparent procedure". That may be a committee, or a panel system or it may be a panel committee. We are not exactly sure on it, but what we are sure on is that it would have to meet that description.

Deputy Paul Murphy

The Deputy does not know what it is going to be but it will be all right.

Deputy Steven Matthews

Deputy Murphy can put his hand up and speak through the Chair if he wants to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Matthews, without interruption.

Deputy Steven Matthews

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I appreciate that. I will continue. It is important that the committee reports in some shape or form. I believe everyone present is agreed that the board has been badly shaken in the past 12 months. There are incredibly good, hard-working people in An Bord Pleanála, so whatever we do in this legislation has to support them and the good people working across planning and local authorities. We cannot do something here that damages that confidence even more. Clarity on the committee, the reporting procedure etc. would be very helpful, that it would be a committee that would be transparent and that would report, and that it is not something that is internalised in the Department. That is my suggestion on that. I ask the Minister to take on board the inclusion of ecology and marine ecology in the job description.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I thank Deputy Matthews for his intervention. It puts it in context. Just before he arrived, I mentioned that the existing system is not fit for purpose when it comes to appointments and it excludes people. An open and transparent competition process is open to everyone. I said that earlier but I reinforce what Deputy Matthews has said. He is correct that it should be open for everyone to apply. We have detailed in the legislation the type of skills and expertise we would be looking for, which is a vast improvement on what was there before.

On Deputy Matthews's question on marine ecology, the only appointment I am making under the existing legislation relates to the specialised marine planner. We clearly designated within it that detailed knowledge and expertise of marine ecology and biodiversity is an absolute prerequisite for the role. The Public Appointments Service, PAS, is in the final stages of that process because we need to move ahead and have that expert on the board who will head up the marine planning team there with the express intent of moving forward with the Maritime Area Planning Act and everything we need to do within that on our marine-protected areas and so on. That process is well under way. I expect it to be concluded very shortly.

I said to members that we cannot have a cliff edge between the old system and the new one. The appointments being made are not a power grab in any shape or form. We are appointing interim people to the board to add resources to it so that the board can do the work it needs to do. I have met the staff at An Bord Pleanála. There are some brilliantly committed people who have gone through a really difficult time. They need to see movement on how we will restructure the way in which the board functions. As a result of what has happened this year, the board's reputation has taken a serious battering. This legislation is the start of that reform process. We need to have interim measures in place. It has been agreed by most Members present that we need to ensure we have the interim chair in place with the functions and powers she needs to exercise her role in it.

When people refer to section 6, it is important they read the whole section. I will not do that because I do not want to delay Deputies but I suggest they do so. Deputy Matthews went through section 6(a) but Deputies should read the whole thing. Section 6(b) says, "The Minister shall establish a suitable, independent, objective, and transparent procedure ... in accordance with which recommendations may be made to the Minister in relation to the appointment of ordinary members of the Board.” We are going to establish a suitable independent system. It will be in place. I have told Deputy Ó Broin and others present that I have absolutely no difficulty and give a commitment in the House this evening that when that procedure is fully worked through and we have an idea of what we are doing, and we need an efficient way of doing this, I will absolutely come back to the committee with it. However, the legislation needs to pass. It needs to be able to provide us with some flexibility as to the type of process but it will be far better than the process that is in place now. I can say that as someone who has had experience of having to appoint people to the board and to deal with that process right the way through. The nomination system could lead to 20, 30 or 40 names coming forward, with all of those nominated having applied for a position and all having been interviewed or met with, but with no recommendations in written form to any Minister. That is the position. There is a greater risk to the integrity of a new An Bord Pleanála by using or retaining the current system. I do not want to do that, nor does the Government. We need a board that sits at the apex of our planning system that is fit for purpose and that the legislation underpins, but we need structurally to change it. The consolidated planning Bill will further advance this. It will bring further changes to the board and its structure as I outlined in my remarks on Second Stage.

I understand and respect the views that Deputies have voiced in the debate and the thrust of the amendment, but I put it to Deputies that section 6 outlines very clearly what we are going to do. I have told Deputies in the House and it is on the record that when we have concluded the work on the procedure, we will return to the joint committee and let it know, but we need the legislation passed. People have tried to portray this as a kind of power grab or that we are going back to the future with bad practice. It is anything but that. It is a fundamental change to the way in which members of the board will be appointed into the future. That will be further enhanced by the structural changes we will make to the board, which I will not discuss here as it will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the joint committee in the first quarter and into the second quarter of next year. We need that consolidated planning Bill passed.

I will not detain Deputies any further. The discussion around amendment No. 1 has been useful but I will not accept it.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 75; Staon, 0.

Tá

• Andrews, Chris.
• Bacik, Ivana.
• Barry, Mick.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Brady, John.
• Browne, Martin.
• Buckley, Pat.
• Canney, Seán.
• Clarke, Sorca.
• Collins, Joan.
• Collins, Michael.
• Connolly, Catherine.
• Cronin, Réada.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cullinane, David.
• Daly, Pa.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Paul.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Farrell, Mairéad.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Gould, Thomas.
• Guirke, Johnny.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Kerrane, Claire.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Munster, Imelda.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Murphy, Paul.
• Murphy, Verona.
• Mythen, Johnny.
• Nash, Ged.
• Nolan, Carol.
• O'Callaghan, Cian.
• O'Donoghue, Richard.
• O'Reilly, Louise.
• O'Rourke, Darren.
• Ó Broin, Eoin.
• Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
• Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Quinlivan, Maurice.
• Ryan, Patricia.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Tully, Pauline.
• Whitmore, Jennifer.

Níl

• Brophy, Colm.
• Browne, James.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Collins, Niall.
• Costello, Patrick.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowe, Cathal.
• Devlin, Cormac.
• Dillon, Alan.
• Donnelly, Stephen.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Duffy, Francis Noel.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frankie.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flaherty, Joe.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Foley, Norma.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Higgins, Emer.
• Hourigan, Neasa.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Lawless, James.
• Leddin, Brian.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Matthews, Steven.
• McAuliffe, Paul.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McHugh, Joe.
• Moynihan, Aindrias.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• O'Brien, Darragh.
• O'Brien, Joe.
• O'Connor, James.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Gorman, Roderic.
• O'Sullivan, Christopher.
• O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
• Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Anne.
• Richmond, Neale.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.
• Smyth, Ossian.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Varadkar, Leo.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Cian O'Callaghan and Eoin Ó Broin; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Ged Nash

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“(5) Each amendment to the Act of 2000 effected by this Act shall continue in operation for 18 months from the coming into operation of the amendment concerned, and shall thereupon stand repealed.”.

It will be useful to read the amendment again to the House. It states, "Each amendment to the Act of 2000 effected by this Act shall continue in operation for 18 months from the coming into operation of the amendment concerned, and shall thereupon stand repealed.” Essentially, this amendment seeks to introduce a sunset clause into the provisions proposed by the Minister in the Bill. The amendment concerns the rushed nature of the legislation. It is very clear the Minister will introduce his consolidated planning Bill next year. The Minister said that many of the measures here are, if not temporary, of an emergency basis to deal with the backlog in An Bord Pleanála and the necessary reforms that ought to be introduced at An Bord Pleanála. We are asking the Minister to put his money where his mouth is, and if it is indeed temporary and if these are emergency measures, then he should have no difficulty in repealing these measures within 18 months of the enactment of the Bill. Given the context of the new consolidated Bill to be introduced next year, this is a reasonable amendment. I ask the Minister to consider it. A sunset clause on the provisions of the Bill, on the basis of what the Minister proposes, may very well be overtaken in any case by measures in the consolidated Bill. This evening, the Minister is asking us to consider emergency measures on the basis that the board needs to function. We understand that. We might not agree with all of the emergency measures in the way the Minister is dealing with this, but introducing a sunset clause here is good public policy.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

To be fair, in any of my dealings with him on any legislation, Deputy Nash has always endeavoured to be, and always has been, constructive. I will not accept the amendment, however, and I will explain why.

First, it is very broad. The amendment proposes that "Each amendment to the Act of 2000 effected by this Act shall continue in operation for 18 months". As I said earlier, I do not want a cliff edge either. We will bring forward the open competition, for example, which I firmly believe will be a much better, a more transparent and a fairer way that will not exclude people from applying. As we have already discussed, going back to section 6, I have amendments to this Bill that I will bring forward when we are further on. By accepting amendment No. 2, I would be accepting a sunset clause on any changes that are brought in that pertain to the 2000 Act.

The point made by Deputy Nash on the consolidated planning Bill is actually very relevant. The single biggest reform and overhaul of planning law for what some would say is 23 years but others would say is longer than that, going back to the 1950s, is coming forward in the consolidated planning Bill. That proposed Bill received Cabinet approval just yesterday.

I want to assure the Deputy and the House that that Bill is a significant one; basically five years of work was done on it in 15 months. That was led by the Attorney General who worked directly with my officials and an outside expert group that has looked at all the different areas, including cost, planning, timelines and all the things we want. Most of us here want an efficient and effective planning system that serves our people, and I accept that Deputy Nash wants that as well. We want to make sure we can deliver the infrastructure and homes we need. Nobody who has spoken in the debate, either on Second Stage or so far on Committee Stage, has said that the planning system and the legislation that underpins it are fit for purpose for a modern-day Ireland and the development we need to do. That is not just in Housing for All but in the delivery of the national development plan and all the other different strategic and community infrastructure we need.

That Bill will be published on or about 9 January and it will go for pre-legislative scrutiny. A significant amount of work will be involved in that and that will bring forward further reforms, particularly in the structure and governance of the board, including how its staffing is governed and the corporate governance of what will then be an coimisiún pleanála. The make-up of the commissioners, the new role of the chief executive and all of those various things will be included in that Bill. This Bill should not be looked at in isolation from the other Bill that is coming forward and I know the Deputy is not doing that.

For those reasons I will not be accepting the addition of a sunset clause as brought forward in the Deputy’s amendment. I appreciate the remarks the Deputy has made and the reasoning for the amendment. However, it would be too far restrictive with the other changes we are making, including in Government amendments that will be brought forward on this Stage.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 73; Staon, 0.

Tá

• Andrews, Chris.
• Bacik, Ivana.
• Barry, Mick.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Brady, John.
• Browne, Martin.
• Buckley, Pat.
• Canney, Seán.
• Clarke, Sorca.
• Collins, Joan.
• Collins, Michael.
• Connolly, Catherine.
• Cronin, Réada.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cullinane, David.
• Daly, Pa.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Paul.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Farrell, Mairéad.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Gould, Thomas.
• Guirke, Johnny.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Kerrane, Claire.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Munster, Imelda.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Murphy, Verona.
• Mythen, Johnny.
• Nash, Ged.
• Nolan, Carol.
• O'Callaghan, Cian.
• O'Donoghue, Richard.
• O'Rourke, Darren.
• Ó Broin, Eoin.
• Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
• Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Quinlivan, Maurice.
• Ryan, Patricia.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tully, Pauline.
• Whitmore, Jennifer.

Níl

• Brophy, Colm.
• Browne, James.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Collins, Niall.
• Costello, Patrick.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowe, Cathal.
• Devlin, Cormac.
• Dillon, Alan.
• Donnelly, Stephen.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Duffy, Francis Noel.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frankie.
• Flaherty, Joe.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foley, Norma.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Higgins, Emer.
• Hourigan, Neasa.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Lawless, James.
• Leddin, Brian.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Matthews, Steven.
• McAuliffe, Paul.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McHugh, Joe.
• Moynihan, Aindrias.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• O'Brien, Darragh.
• O'Brien, Joe.
• O'Callaghan, Jim.
• O'Connor, James.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Gorman, Roderic.
• O'Sullivan, Christopher.
• O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
• Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Anne.
• Richmond, Neale.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.
• Smyth, Ossian.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Varadkar, Leo.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Ged Nash and Sean Sherlock; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 3, 42 and 43, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 43, amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 43, and amendment No. 49 are related and will be discussed together. Amendment No. 49 is consequential on amendment No. 43.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, after line 26, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 4 of Act of 2000

3. Section 4(1) of the Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (f):

“(fa) development to which section 179A applies;”.”.

I propose to address Government amendments Nos. 3, 42, 43 and 49 together, starting with amendment No. 42. This amendment proposes to amend section 179 of the 2000 Act relating to the Part 8 planning approval process for local authority-owned development proposals to provide that the Part 8 process shall not apply to development covered in this new proposed section 179A.

Further to amendment No. 42, amendment No. 43 proposes the insertion of a new section 179A into the 2000 Act to temporarily disapply the section 179 Part 8 planning approval process in respect of housing developments by local authorities on local authority or State-owned land in very strictly defined circumstances. I went through some of this in my Second Stage contribution.

The conditions and the defined circumstances are that 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 contravene the development plan or the local area plan for that area; the proposed development is in accordance with the relevant local authority's housing strategy; the land is serviced or will be serviced with the necessary supporting infrastructure within the timeframe of the development; and the proposed development is not required to undergo an environmental impact assessment under the EIA directive or an appropriate assessment under the habitats directive. There is no question of those requirements being set aside. Another condition is that the chief executive of the local authority shall provide plans and particulars of the proposed development to the elected members of the local authority to enable consultation on those proposals, and must give public notice and enable public inspection of the proposals. The development works must be commenced no later than 31 December 2024. As I said on Second Stage, I expect works on some of the sites to start well in advance of that, but we have set that strict timeframe. The measure will be time-bound and is justifiably required, having regard to the current housing supply situation, particularly in relation to social, affordable and cost-rental housing, and the need to use all levers in order to accelerate delivery of such housing developments as speedily as possible.

At this juncture, I wish to state that the focus of this will be about additionality. Some Deputies have specifically referred to the encumbered sites, for example. Local authorities have sites that are heavily encumbered with debt and have not been able to develop them because of that debt. I got approval from Government a number of weeks ago to introduce a land fund that will effectively take on that debt and write down the debt for the local authorities on the proviso that they develop the land, and do so within the time period specified. A number of weeks ago we began an assessment of the local authority lands. Indeed, Deputy Gould raised the issue of the €300 million debt earlier when I was responding the Deputy's colleague. I know some Deputies were not in the Chamber, so that is just for their own information. We have been able to split that €300 million into thirds. The first third of that land is very developable, and is serviced or serviceable land that can be built on quite swiftly. The middle third is a bit more problematic. However, having said that, there may be land within that third that we could develop further along in the process. We will assess whether the initiative to write down the debt works, and if so, we will move on to the second and third pieces of land. In respect of the third part, frankly, some of the land may not ever be suitable for housing. Why some of it was bought fadó fadó in some instances is beyond me. However, it may be put to other good use.

We see this particular measure, which is effectively an exemption from the Part 8 process, as enabling us to expedite additional delivery. I have met with the chief executives and directors of services of all local authorities, who I meet with regularly, to discuss these specific proposals and amendments, and the proposals around this also. I would expect that where Part 8 applications have been prepared and are moving through the process, they will continue, in the main. We are looking at it to get a picture of the additional piece that we can deliver, with a very clear focus on modern methods of construction, MMC, and building up the off-site construction capacity that is available.

One question that I did not get to respond to on Second Stage was on how we can bring about the additionality. While we have provided for an additional 350 staff across the 31 local authorities in the area of social housing and 69 additional staff in affordable housing to manage this process, we will also be looking at external supports for local authorities, particularly in the area of the MMC delivery. There is a real opportunity here for us to get an efficient process in place around procurement, design and all those various different things. I am acutely aware of how much local authorities have to do anyway. We will provide that additional resource. We are working with the local authorities on that.

A suggestion was made on Second Stage, which I am happy to agree to. Just to reconfirm, when we are in a position to be able to share the lands involved, we will do so. I think we can work with the Deputies on the level of detail to be provided. Certainly, we will keep the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage informed through the process of its progression. This is a new measure and it is work that has not been done before. I refer, in particular, to the incentivisation for local authorities to move on with land that is encumbered, and also the focus on modern methods of construction within it, and how we can bring about additionality to that.

As colleagues will know, there are already planning exemptions in place to facilitate accommodation solutions for beneficiaries of temporary protection from Ukraine, as well as international protection applicants from other non-EU countries, in line with our international obligations. That is working. There are sites currently under construction for modular home delivery for our friends from Ukraine. The new planning exemptions now proposed will enable us to make quicker progress on providing much-needed housing, including for the most vulnerable on our housing waiting list.

I will not rehash yesterday's debate; I will stick specifically to what we are looking at here today. The Deputies are aware of what I have been saying on delivery this year. I believe the delivery projections into next year are good, but we still need to do more. We are looking at how we can improve the process. Earlier, colleagues mentioned timeframes. Is Part 8 the problem? I am not saying Part 8 is the problem. We will save time with this process - probably about three to four months in each case.

We will also be looking at the approval process within the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, whether it is the one-stage approval process that is being used by a lot more local authorities now for developments of €6 million and under, or the four-stage process which is now effectively a three-stage process on the basis that local authorities use the design guide that is there, with a view to fast-tracking the mechanism. That is why I am talking about the external expertise around design. Some of these sites have already been designed in respect of layout, etc. We will certainly be looking at additional efficiencies. We have changed the four-stage process already. The new process is in place. Thankfully, the single-stage process is being used by more local authorities, and we are continuing to encourage them to do so.

With regard to EIAs and appropriate assessments, AAs, as I have said, it should be noted, in particular, that public consultation and participation are not a requirement of the EIA and habitats directives in relation to the initial to the EIA and AA pre-screening of proposed developments under this measure.

I will also comment on amendments Nos. 3 and 49. Amendment No. 3 is essentially a supplementary amendment to the amendments Nos. 42 and 43 in relation to the temporary disapplication of the Part 8 planning approval process for local authorities' own developments. The amendment to section 4(1) of the 2000 Act proposes the insertion of a new paragraph in section 4(1) to confirm that local authority own housing development proposals, as provided for in the new section 179A of the proposed Government amendment No. 43, shall also be exempt to development from the normal planning permission requirements under the provisions of the 2000 Act. Amendment No. 49 is merely an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the revised content of the Bill, taking into account the preceding amendments I have just discussed, namely, amendments Nos. 3, 42 and 43.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

As I said earlier, our party has always said that we would look favourably on a proposal which was intended to and would have the effect of accelerating and increasing the delivery of social and affordable housing. However, I have to say that when media briefings about this particular amendment emerged, there was an awful lot of confusion . There was talk of changes to zoning, ministerial zoning powers and other such things.

Thankfully, we got the amendments last Friday and the Minister's officials gave us a detailed briefing on Monday. I spoke to many people in the local Government sector and they were very surprised. This is not something they were expecting or something they asked for. In fact, if the Minister asked them to give him a shopping list of how to shorten the timeframe for the delivery of social housing, as he and his officials well know, they would have a very long list of elements of the four-stage process they would like to see reduced.

I am also not convinced we will save three to four months. Part 8 is 20 weeks. Many Part 8s go within 14 weeks. Much of the work that will still have to be done in preparing the plan for departmental approval is done in parallel with the Part 8 and much of that is still going to go. I have no doubt we are talking about a saving of some time but certainly, when we asked officials if they had any kind of firm basis to indicate how much time would be saved, the answer was "No".

I have a few questions specifically with regard to the Minister's amendments but I want to give some context. The Minister might only deal with and suspend Part 8, and not deal with stages 3 and 4 because for the majority of developments we still have a stage 3 and stage 4. The Minister's review that was published earlier this year indicated that there were certain circumstances for consolidating stages 3 and 4. That is not happening in practice in many cases, however. If we still leave stage 3 in place with a very complicated back and forth between the local authority and the Department in terms of design approval and cost appraisal, and we then have to go out to tender in a climate that is different from normal, we still could be looking at very long periods. That is a really important point for us to consider when teasing out what is in front of us.

It would be very helpful if the Minister were to give us an estimation of the number of units he hopes to add to the pipeline. We know there is an existing pipeline. We know from the quarterly reports - although we have not got the quarter three report yet - what that pipeline is. Therefore, the Minister is saying this procedure is not for any new social homes within the existing housing action plans that are coming into the pipeline, but specifically for these homes on specific sites using new building technologies. It would be good if we had some notion of how many over that period.

It is also important to say that many managers out there would be very reluctant to use any proposal that bypasses their elected members and the public, particularly if the gain is minimal. We know that is one of the key reasons they have not used existing emergency powers in this area. It will cause much consternation among elected members who will feel, even on a temporary basis, that their powers are being taken away, and for the public, who in my view have an absolute right be consulted about things that impact the community in which they live and who often have very good suggestions to improve social and affordable housing. There will be a grievance. If we are to convince those people that this is worth it on a temporary and emergency basis, we have to give them as much information possible.

I will put on record one concern I have that the Minister needs to examine. If public concern were to result in litigation, for example, that could significantly undermine and slow down much needed projects. In fact, others will propose amendments, and I am more than happy to speak to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and the Minister's amendment No. 43. These actually provide additional safeguards against such litigation, particularly in respect of projects that may have a significant environmental impact.

As I said to the Minister earlier, because we have been calling for emergency action, we will not oppose this section even though, in government, we would not implement many of its measures because we believe there are better ways. However, we will work with the Minister on this and, therefore, we want him to work with us.

Specifically, can the Minister give us even a ballpark estimate of how many units he hopes would be added to the public housing pipeline over the two years if this works in the way it is designed? If the commencement deadline for accessing this procedure is December 2024, and given that post-planning and pre-commencement can take 12 to 18 months, is it the Minister's expectation that this would only be used for securing planning permissions in the first 12 months? What happens if a manager comes to the Minister, for example, in the first quarter of 2024 with a proposal but he or she will not get to stage 3 and stage 4 in time for 2024? Will the Minister do more than just share the information he said he would share with us initially? Will the social housing quarterly pipeline report, for example, have a separate section clearly showing progress on these? Those of us on the committee would like to see that quarter-on-quarter progress. Will the Minister give us more information about those external supports? My understanding, particularly with the new building technologies and especially with the high-grade timber low-carbon building technologies, which many of us would like to see used, the real problem is that the framework agreements and procurement rules to get into standard social and affordable housing building exclude many of the providers of new building technologies. Will the Minister give us more information about what that external support looks like? How does he propose procuring those new building technologies in a timeframe he would, under no set of circumstances, be able to do with traditional build? Finally, can he give us a commitment that he will also sit down and radically reform the four-stage process? It is not fit for purpose. It is slowing down projects. We now know that not only does that delay the delivery of much needed social and affordable homes, but every six to 12 months of a delay increases the price. A public spending code and four-stage approval process introduced after the crash to try to introduce strong management of public finances is now actually costing the public money as well as delaying homes. If the Minister were to come back at a later stage with policy proposals to change that process, he would have willing partners on this side of the House.

Deputy Ged Nash

In my experience, Part 8 has generally worked very well. Certainly, in my experience as a local authority member for 12 years and as someone who is still very much engaged with my old council team in County Louth and east Meath, I cannot recall any particular problems in terms of Part 8, or any element of it representing a logjam for the council providing itself with permission, for want of a better description, to develop on its own lands, whether that has been for housing or a critical piece of infrastructure.

I have been sceptical about this proposal from the get-go. I could not quite understand where the demand was coming from or why the Minister would propose this. It appears to be a form of window dressing. I do not believe it is necessary. I do not know who it is designed to reassure. It is not required.

As I said, in my experience, Part 8 has worked very well. If we are talking about logjams and delays in the development of social housing, I can think of a dozen more problems before I would consider reforming or revising the Part 8 provisions or the disapplication of Part 8 on the basis the Minister is doing, albeit I accept he is doing this in good faith.

We all want to see the expeditious development of local authority housing on publicly owned land. I said earlier and will again put on record the work the Minister has done with Louth County Council on addressing the indebtedness of the local authority on two specific sites in Drogheda very close to where I live.

To be helpful, I met with Louth County Council on Monday. The view of the chief executive of the council and director of services for housing is that on those particular sites, up to 300 homes probably could be developed in a short period. That is very welcome indeed in an area in which people often languish on the social housing list for 11 to 12 years and where there is a great need in one of the fastest growing parts of the country. On that basis, I welcome the decision made by the Minister. It is a good use of the resources that are available in the Department at the end of this year.

To be clear, it is the case at present the way Part 8 is constructed that the planners and the chief executive make a proposal to the elected members, who then consider it. It goes out for public consultation for a number of weeks during which individuals can make known their views through the public consultation process. It is then adopted or not by the elected members based on a report from the chief executive and planners. It has worked quite well. I would be sceptical about these changes saving three to four months of the process. I am not sure it will. I am not even sure chief executives have necessarily wanted this. It is here now, however. I am still not certain why it is here but it is here.

We are, therefore, suspending Part 8. There is no public consultation on the proposals that will be brought forward on this basis on the lands in question. The Minister has set out the criteria in that regard.

I understand and appreciate the criteria and have no difficulty with them. Essentially, the chief executive of the council will make a decision at the stroke of a pen with no public consultation. I find it difficult to accept any proposition where public consultation is written out. It could be legally problematic and involve litigation which, perversely, will end up delaying things much more than if Part 8 remained in place as currently constituted. Undoubtedly, there will be at least a consideration of legal challenges on the grounds that no public consultation will be permitted. I do not encourage that but we have an obligation in the House to point that out. The Minister will understand that but he seems to be confident the measure he proposes, which will involve no public consultation, will, based on the fact we have a housing emergency, prove sufficiently legally and constitutionally robust to withstand any challenge. His advice is that this is doable, permissible and allowed and that this legislation and provision can be passed by this House and is, insofar as we can be sure, insulated from legal and constitutional challenge.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I welcome the clarification the Minister gave here and at the end of Second Stage concerning his intentions. None of that information was given at the briefing we had with the Department earlier in the week. We were not told this was about particular sites the Minister has in mind with regard to modern methods of construction in particular. I am not in any way opposed to what the Minister seeks to achieve. I understand he seeks to deliver additional social, cost rental and affordable homes quickly involving modern methods of construction. However, I have serious concerns about what he is trying to do to facilitate that. We have a history in this country of, in most cases, systems-building social homes that were not well planned or designed, caused huge problems in communities and ended up being demolished at great environmental cost and cost to the State and then replaced. They were largely system-built homes. The promises made at the time concerning modern methods of construction are much the same as those now made by producers and manufacturers, that they are factory built, therefore the quality will be really good and there will not be problems with them.

There are great advantages to modern methods of construction in terms of speed, cost and sustainability. A home with modern methods of construction can be very high quality build. There is no issue with that. When some manufacturers are able to build high quality on a smaller and lower scale, there can be issues when they go to scale up. There can be issues, maybe not with the construction off site, but with the assembly and construction on site. That is where problems in the past have arisen at massive cost to the State.

I want acknowledgement from the Minister that in the past there have been problems with this, acknowledgement of lessons learned and details of the safeguards that have been put in place. This is not simply an historical issue because quite recently in Ireland there has been huge cost from modern methods involving off-site construction and assembly on site. In schools, we have had huge issues with fire safety, as we have had in building more generally. The use of timber frame is environmentally sustainable and we should be doing more of it, but there have been huge issues because it has not been done well in terms of fire separation. We saw the rapid spread of fire in a housing estate. Luckily it was during the daytime when no one was asleep.

If it is done, it has to be done well. The concern I have is that one of the key safeguards to make sure it is planned and designed well is the Part 8 public participation process. That enforces certain standards and accountability on the local authority. If that is removed from the process, what are the alternative safeguards? I have not heard from the Minister of those alternative safeguards. I have not heard him acknowledging that if this is done we must learn from past mistakes, including recent ones.

A key issue in housing construction and very important when using modern methods is that amenities, community facilities and playgrounds are put in and it is done well. If we remove public participation from it, will the public be able to ask for those things? Will there be any sightline of accountability on that? We have not heard from the Minister that he will fund those much-needed facilities with it. I have a concern if this is not done properly and modern methods of construction are treated differently from other forms of delivery. I do not think they should be but they will be treated differently because the Minister says there will be no public participation process for these. That is what the Minister is proposing and telling us. He can shake his head all he wants but that is exactly-----

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I will come in and respond-----

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Absolutely, but the Minister is saying there will be different treatment for this type of construction. My concern is we should not treat it differently. It should be integrated into housing delivery and done well. By having a process where it is not subject to public participation, it can lead to it being segregated out more and could undermine it.

I make those points earnestly and want to hear the Minister’s response. Yes, we need to build but we need to build well. In my constituency the social housing that was built, designed and planned well has really worked. Think of Marino, for example, where public housing was built 100 years ago, and how successful that community is. It was well planned and designed. I will not name areas that were not well planned and designed but those areas failed at huge cost. Let us not underestimate the importance of planning and designing well and involving the public in that. It is about delivery next year. That is very important but it is also about how housing and communities are in ten or 20 years’ time. That is also very important.

Deputy Thomas Gould

We have been in here for the past two and a half years doing everything we can to be constructive and encourage the Minister and Department to deliver housing as quickly as possible. That is the way we want to come at things but I have concerns about this.

To touch on a point Deputy O’Callaghan made, I come from Knocknaheeny. It is a huge regeneration project. Whether it is Knocknaheeny, Moyross or Ballymun, hundreds of millions are being spent on the regeneration of communities that were badly designed at the start. They had no playgrounds, play areas or community centres. It was bad planning. It is not just those areas. Mayfield, the Glen and Togher also had to be regenerated. The services went in afterwards, sometimes years later. That is why we are concerned when the public consultation side and the feedback from the community is taken out.

Last week there was a meeting in Cork between city council officials and residents about a new social housing development that is being planned. They are sitting down with the local community to deliver the best scheme possible. That is what we want. The Minister wants that and we all want it. There are concerns. I spoke to councillors today in Cork who were on to me and who are concerned about this because we cannot make any more mistakes when it comes to people's lives. The consequences for communities and the people who live there can be life changing. We want to deliver housing and be supportive but we have serious concerns about the safeguards that are here. From talking to officials, I gather this was not a priority for delivering houses faster.

If the Minister does a survey of all the 31 local authority chief executives or managers, I do not think he will find this would have been at the top of their agenda. While we are not opposed to what the Minister is trying to achieve, we have concerns about the consequences of the lack of public consultation.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I thank the Deputies. I will try to address some of the questions that have been raised.

First, Deputy Ó Broin has asked about the type of scale or delivery of the additionality. We do not have the exact figures yet because we are still doing the surveys but there are approximately 38 sites in the €100 million fund that we have established. They are not in every single local authority area. Deputy Nash in particular referenced Louth, and there will be others.

I speak to chief executives in every local authority every single week. I have held a series of housing summits with them, as I do regularly with their directors of services, so I do not say this anecdotally. This is just factual. There are no surprises within the measures that have been brought forward here. One of the big asks by local authorities since I was appointed was to deal with this issue of legacy debt and to release land out, and that has taken some time.

On the option we are giving to focus on modern methods of construction, and I will turn to some of Deputy O’Callaghan’s points in a moment, we are not using enough off-site construction in the country. I have seen some local authorities doing it pretty well, such as our own in Fingal County Council. In Limerick, many of the infill sites in the Moyross regeneration were delivered using off-site construction. I visited many of the off-site construction companies and that capacity is building up. The Deputy referenced timber frame. Approximately 48% of new builds, both public and private, are now timber frame. It should be more, but the State is lagging behind in its delivery of that. This is a matter of putting a specific focus on modern methods of construction and off-site construction, including timber frame and some more concrete poured and steel frame. We must look at all the various things available and try to harness them to see what additional delivery can come about. This scheme is being prepared and in terms of surveys of the lands, we are talking about 38 different sites. We will provide external assistance to local authorities by way of procurement and design.

Using MMC, as the Deputies opposite have referenced, will help us in delivering more quickly. There are efficiencies there. I am confident the firms I visited and the ones the local authorities will engage with produce the highest quality of work. I note the points the Deputy raised about schools that have had issues, but there is an opportunity in the sector. With some skills shortages in some parts, there is a move to bring about those efficiencies. This is not just in delivering things quicker but also in being environmentally more sustainable. As the Deputy said, much lower carbon delivery of housing is better. We should do this because we have the products available here in Ireland. Part of the measures in this Bill are intended to give that specific focus in the development of these lands.

Deputy Nash raised points earlier and I will try to cover them. I am not suspending Part 8s. If Part 8s are going through or if there are other things moving through the system, they will continue. I have read into the record the strict criteria around how a local authority scheme would use this provision we are debating. This is clear in the criteria I have read into the record. In the amendments, and Deputy O’Callaghan has referred to this, Members will see what the term “housing development” will include. There is a full list, including “the construction or erection of a house or houses … the construction of a new road or the widening or realignment of an existing road” among others. I will not read them all through, but Deputies can see we are not just talking about dropping houses into a field. They are properly designed. I regularly travel across the country to view the developments we are delivering now, and they are top quality developments. They are well designed, extremely well built, and the vast bulk of them are A2 rated. They are well designed within communities and there is a good use of infill. There are good regeneration projects under way also. We are talking about trying something new and putting a focus on something new. That will unleash lands, some of which have been vacant for decades. We will be able to point the local authorities in a specific direction so that the debt write-down on those lands will allow those lands to be developed further. This can be underpinned by an efficient use of a time-bound planning measure to expedite the delivery of those homes. I am focused on them, but not exclusively on them. We have 38 sites, and we will seek to activate even half of them within the next year to 18 months. We are concluding surveys on them, so I am not being evasive in relation to numbers. Deputy Ó Broin and others will understand that we have to work on design layout, density and those types of factors. That work has been ongoing for number of weeks now.

I am trying to see if there is anything additional off site. A Deputy said this is like window dressing. It may perhaps have been Deputy Nash or it may have been Deputy O’Callaghan. It sounds like Deputy O'Callaghan's language. I assure him it is not window dressing. Deputies should trust me on this that all of us want to deliver additionality. The projections into next year are good even with the challenges we have. Effectively, this is an opportunity for us to build additional capacity within the sector. I have outlined the rationale for it. I have tabled the amendments and I think they are appropriate to it. They are time bound as well.

Deputy Ó Broin asked about where someone was to come with a site in mid-2024, for example, to access it. We are clear that we are looking at commencement before the end of December 2024. If we could activate a significant portion if not all of the sites we know are there already - we would like to activate all of them, but I cannot say all of them will definitely be within that timeframe - that would deliver significant additionality above and beyond what is being done already. That is why I want to provide the assistance to the local authorities through external supports to help manage these processes.

On public consultation, and this is very important, it should be remembered that the chief executives have said of proposed developments that plans and particulars would be provided to elected members of the local authority specifically to enable consultation on the proposals as well as giving public notice and enabling public inspection. Let us also remember very clearly, and I am not responsible for media reports or what the media report on things, that this is zoned land. Deputy Ó Broin is probably more responsible for that-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Come on.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

He is probably stirring the pot. This is zoned land and there are no surprises there. This is land that is zoned in the development plan and there are no material contraventions, no breaches of development plans and no breaches of local area plans, LAPs. It is land that was already identified. Most of us within the areas we represent will be aware of State-owned land that is zoned but has not been developed for a significant length of time. We are including State agency land as well. The amendment details what is meant by a State authority, so we are being very specific as to what that means. For example, there are specific Teagasc lands in my constituency that have been zoned since, I think, 1999. I know of HSE lands that have been zoned residential in a town in my constituency for as long as I have been in public life. That is serviced zoned land that should be used for housing. Whether we agree or disagree, all of us know those lands that are idle should be put to good use, and this will help.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

If the Minister disowns his own office's media briefing so quickly, he will end up damaging his relationship-----

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I was talking about you stirring the pot.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

-----both with journalists and with his own staff, and that would be terrible for Government communications, although it might mean we would get the official communication rather than the confused briefings that often seem to come from his direction.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

That is your opinion.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Let us be clear. Where a manager uses this process, Part 8 will be suspended. Nobody on this side of the House has suggested the Minister is suspending Part 8 in all circumstances. My understanding of Deputy Nash’s point was clear. Where a manager opts to use this provision, Part 8 will be suspended and the 20-week process dispensed with. Just so the Minister is clear, that is our understanding of what is on the table.

Timber frame housing is not a modern method of construction. This is a notion that really bugs me. Timber frame construction has been around for 50 years. In fact, in my constituency, there are social homes that were built 25 years ago from timber frame. It is a very old method of construction. Our problem is that our construction sector is so behind the times that it thinks materials such as steel and timber frame are modern methods, whereas they are not. Even in the case of steel frame and concrete slab, I heard one senior developer recently describe that as a modern method of construction, but it has been around since the 1940s. When we talk about new building technologies, we are talking about almost 100% off-site, factory-constructed, predominantly timber, zero-carbon building technologies. That is where we need to go, not just for these cases but for others as well.

Deputy O'Callaghan makes an important point. We know about the enormous difficulties the Department of Education has with Western Building Systems. They are a matter of public record but they are before the courts, so I will not comment on them. One point I would strongly urge the Minister to take from Deputy O'Callaghan's comments is that in respect of that additional support the Minister is going to provide to local authorities, he should put the national building control office, NBCO, at the very centre of that. When, for example, Dublin City Council, which has one of the best building control sections of which I am aware, learns of a building development with a newer building technology, it will spend twice as long independently inspecting it, on top of the building control amendment regulations, BCAR, inspections, to ensure both the council and the people using the technology understand it. We cannot have a repeat of Milford Manor or of the kinds of problems faced by the Department of Education. Consulting the NBCO in that regard is a useful suggestion the Minister should take up.

I also say the following in a constructive sense. One of the concerns on this side of the House relates to when the Minister and a former colleague of his, the then Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Eoghan Murphy, celebrated the introduction of the raised income threshold for the one-stage approval process. We were told it would accelerate dramatically the delivery of social homes. In fact, it has been hardly taken up at all. Most local authorities do not use it and the number of units it has delivered is minimal. We do not want to consent to something that is very controversial if it has only the kind of yield as that raised threshold for the one-stage process. In that regard, I urge the Minister please to ensure the managers engage with their elected members as early as possible. In real terms, we are not talking about a consultation with members but rather about members getting a presentation and, perhaps, having a bit of a verbal exchange. There is not a formal consultation process with submissions and so on. Likewise, notice of the public is fine, but there is no consultation, so the earlier the notice, especially to elected members, the better. Moreover, I am particularly keen that, on the grounds we are not opposing this measure, controversial and complicated as it is, there will be regular reports to our committee. I accept the Minister cannot give us a list this side of Christmas, for example, but it would be reasonable that, every quarter, our committee would get an updated report on the progress, the lands and what is being done.

To be clear, my question did not relate to what will happen if a manager comes to the Minister in the middle of 2024. Rather, it concerned what will happen if a manager comes to him in the latter stages of 2023 with this, because we know what will happen post planning permission, 12 to 18 months before commencement. Therefore, I wonder how he or the Department is going to give consent for the manager to proceed with this procedure without any certainty as to when commencement can happen. This is just about assuring us that what the Minister says he is going to do, namely, potentially add 500 or 1,000 social and affordable homes to the existing pipeline, essentially within a year given the planning permissions will have to go through next year, is what will happen.

As for the non-council lands of, for example, Teagasc, I see the provision in the legislation for lands of other State agencies but I do not see how the council is going to get access to that land because it belongs to another State agency and sits as an asset on its balance sheet. The only set of circumstances would be if the local authority asked it whether it could build on its land and it was willing to transfer it, but is the Minister offering additional money for councils to purchase that land, for example, or will it have to be transferred for free? It is a genuine question because some of us were also surprised at non-council land being included. How does he envisage that operating?

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Deputy Ó Broin is dead right in that modern methods of construction have been around for longer than most, if not all, of us in this Chamber. There has absolutely been success with modern methods of construction but there have also been some issues and problems with them, so it is important we learn from that. I want to see off-site construction work and I do not want it to be tarnished if there are construction defects at any location. There was a suggestion from Deputy Ó Broin that there would be engagement with the national building control office or some mechanism to make sure this would be properly regulated and inspected. Problems can arise with scaling up and with the use of building methods if there is not sufficient experience with them, so that side of it is very important.

Another way this could be tarnished is if it is not well planned or designed. Where there is public participation on this, one of the key issues that tends to pop up relates to infrastructure, amenities, community facilities, playgrounds and so on. In my area, in public participation or Part 8 processes for social housing, I have seen these issues arise, be addressed through the planning process and be worked and delivered on. I have a key concern, therefore, and I have not heard anything from the Minister that reassures me on this. I heard him quote the new section 13 of amendment No. 43, which lists the definition of a “housing development”, including the provision of open spaces, recreational and community facilities and amenities, but the fact that is included in the definition of what is included under “housing development” is no guarantee we will get it. This is raised with us all the time by people providing social homes, whereby they do not have funding streams for these much-needed facilities. In fact, it was raised with us in the Oireachtas housing committee just yesterday. Are there going to be specific funding streams for these off-site or modern methods of construction, or whatever we want to call them, to make these communities thrive and work?

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

We will set out in regulations the matter of reporting. We have to get the first phase of the work done, so I am not going to pre-empt anything, but I would expect it to be done quarterly. I want this to work. It is a new initiative and I am not saying I will expect understanding from the opposite side of the House-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

We are terribly understanding.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Nevertheless, it is important to be fair and I accept the points that have been made. We want the best quality builds and I fully understand what modern methods of construction, MMCs, are. I have visited many very good producers throughout the country, as I am sure many of the Deputies will also have done. There is a significant opportunity for us to scale it up and, I hope, we can point to what works well. Unless they travel throughout the country and visit different areas, people will not necessarily know where a product came from, that is, whether it was traditional build, as some people call it, off-site construction or MMC. That affords us an opportunity.

On approval processes, we are pushing hard on the single-stage process and more local authorities are now using it. I have visited every local authority area. As for the approval for these specific schemes, we are looking at a shorter process for approval. The outside assistance that will be given will be very strong on building standards. I will take on board the point Deputy O’Callaghan raised and I will do what he suggested because we have to set up such a group. That said, I want it to be efficient and expeditious. I am not saying we should rush it, but it has to be efficiently delivered. Some of these schemes will have been designed previously to deliver homes, but that could have been ten or 15 years ago, and they will need to be redesigned, potentially even in the case of some of the layouts and so on.

We will actually do that. We will certainly happily work with people to ensure we provide that update to Deputies and the best way to do it is through the Oireachtas joint committee.

There was a query as to why other State-owned land is involved. There may be opportunities there. The Housing Agency has its land fund now but we work with other State agencies on the transfer of lands. I mentioned the example of Teagasc and others know HSE lands that may require a financial contribution or purchase. That will not be used in the debt write-down fund. However, I think we should have the provisions available for other lands that the State owns where we can actually activate those lands and deliver that quicker. The first focus will be very much on the 38 sites I have mentioned. However, there are others with other State agencies that Deputies will know in their constituencies. We are engaging with other State agencies and Departments to get that land developed. The LDA is doing that in some instances. In smaller places that might be outside the LDA, we have opportunities to do that ourselves and I want to have that option available, be it local authority land or State-owned land. The Bill clearly defines what falls under the category of State-owned land.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 4 to 14, inclusive, not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, and 32 to 34 inclusive, are related: 18 and 19 are physical alternatives to 17. Amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, and 32 to 34, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 7, to delete lines 3 to 19 and substitute the following:

“ “105A. (1) Where no chairperson stands appointed under section 105 the Government may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), appoint an interim chairperson for a period of not more than 6 months, from persons who—

(a) are, or were formerly, established civil servants for the purposes of the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005, established public servants in State agencies or employees of the Board,

(b) who has been in such a position for no less than 10 years prior to their appointment as interim chairperson, and

(c) who is demonstrably and in the opinion of the Government, a suitably qualified person to perform the role and function.

(2) Notwithstanding the temporary nature of an appointment under subsection (1) the Government shall require that person to perform the function so as to preserve the independence of the Board and independence from Government.

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (3), a person appointed to be the Interim chairperson under this section shall cease to hold office on the appointment of a chairperson by the Government under section 105.

(4) Subsections (11), (13), (14) and (15) of section 105 shall apply to an interim chairperson appointed under subsection (1).

(5) A person appointed to be the interim chairperson under this section who ceases to hold office in accordance with subsection (1) may be re-appointed by the Government for one term if nominated by the Committee in subsection (2) of section 105, in accordance with section 105.”.”.

I will deal with this briefly because we want to get to other sections of the Bill, including those relating to the foreshore. The only aspect of the An Bord Pleanála amendments where I accept there is urgency relates to the appointment of an interim chair with full board powers. It is possible for the Minister to appoint an ordinary board member under the existing powers with many but not all of the powers of the chair. It is reasonable for the Minister to introduce an emergency amendment to have an interim chair. My preference would be an interim chair for six months rather than 12 months with the option to renew for another 12 months. I say this without any comment or any disrespect to the individual who has been appointed.

One of the vital functions of the board is its independence from Government. One of the problems in recent years is that that independence had been badly compromised in my view. Therefore, it would have been much better if the appointment of an interim chair was in a different manner and involved somebody not from within or recently departed from the Civil Service. That is not to say that any of those individuals do not have skills, ability or talent. It would have been a much better approach to have absolute separation not only between Government and the board, but also between the Civil Service and the board. I know the Minister will not accept the amendment so I will not waste the Dáil's time. While I agree to an interim chair, albeit for a shorter period, I disagree with the way he has done it. I think it will create problems. I will not come back after the Minister replies and I will not press the amendment to a vote. I want him to be crystal clear as to where our party stands on that issue.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

The Deputy got the right sense of where we are at. I will not accept the amendment but I will not delay the House either. Section 5 of the Bill puts in place the appropriate provision for the appointment an interim chair. The Deputies will know from our earlier discussions that there is a valid reason for that to happen and in fairness, most Deputies agree. In appointing a deputy chair, a deputy chair cannot carry out the functions of a chairperson or discharge his or her functions without these changes actually being made. The appointment of an interim chair will be of a serving or former civil servant under this and a term of office of 12 months is considered appropriate.

It is not envisaged that the provision to reappoint an interim chair will be utilised but it is in as a fail-safe mechanism. We need to advertise and then go and get the right person. We need to do that properly, which we will, in order to get someone with the appropriate skills and expertise to take that job on. It is appropriate that we provide for the reappointment of an interim chair for a second or subsequent term in order to ensure that should there be any reason for delay in appointing a permanent chair, the existing interim chair who will at that stage have her feet well under the desk and be dealing with it, could carry on. We need to allow for contingency in that space. That is a sensible and responsible thing to do. Because we will be prioritising the appointment of the new board and getting new people in there, I do not envisage we will utilise it. However, we need to keep that by way of a contingency. That is why I am not accepting this amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 20 is out of order.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 7, to delete lines 22 to 32 and substitute the following:

“(a) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):

“(1) The Minister in appointing ordinary members of the Board at all times under this Part, shall ensure, in so far as is practicable, that—

(a) the ordinary members of the Board are persons who, have satisfactory and demonstrable expertise or knowledge and experience of—

(i) planning,

(ii) environmentally sustainable development,

(iii) architecture,

(iv) archaeology,

(v) built heritage,

(vi) cultural heritage,

(vii) marine ecology,

(viii) terrestrial ecology,

(ix) climate science,

(x) water,

(xi) air quality,

(xii) engineering,

(xiii) landscape,

(xiv) hydrology,

(xv) hydrogeology,

(xvi) the Irish language,

(xvii) understanding of environmental law,

(xviii) experience of organisational governance, and

(xix) disability or accessibility,

(b) there is an equitable balance across genders,

(c) that no more than sixty per cent of the Board shall be of the male gender, and

(d) diverse perspectives capable of representing the ethnic and societal diversity within Irish society are included within the Board.”,”

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 23 to 30, inclusive, not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 31 to 36, inclusive, not moved.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 37 to 40, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are logical alternatives.

Amendment Nos. 37 to 40, inclusive, not moved.

Section 10 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 10, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 111 of Act of 2000

11. Section 111 of the Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (7):

“(8) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, a meeting of An Bord Pleanála, including a division of the board, may take place using remote video or telephone conferencing facilities or by any means of communication by which all of the board members and other persons participating in different locations can hear and be heard at the same time.

(9) In subsection (8), ‘meeting’ includes any meeting for the purpose of making any decision in relation to any appeal, referral or application.”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 10, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 179 of Act of 2000

12. Section 179 of the Act of 2000 is amended in subsection (1)(a), by the insertion of “, other than development to which section 179A applies,” after “a development or a class of development”.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 10, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“Local authority own housing development

13. The Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 179:

“179A. (1) This section applies to housing development—

(a) that is carried out by, on behalf of, or jointly or in partnership with, a local authority pursuant to a contract entered into by the local authority concerned, whether in its capacity as a planning authority or in any other capacity,

(b) that does not materially contravene the development plan or local area plan for the area,

(c) that is in accordance with the strategy included in the development plan for the area in accordance with section 94(1),

(d) 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,

(e) that is not subject to a requirement, in accordance with the Habitats Directive, for an appropriate assessment,

(f) that is on land—

(i) that is owned by a local authority or a State Authority,

(ii) that is zoned for residential use, and

(iii) that has access, or can be connected, to public infrastructure and facilities, including roads and footpaths, public lighting, foul sewer drainage, surface water drainage and water supply, necessary for dwellings to be developed and with sufficient service capacity available for such development,

and

(g) that is commenced on or before 31 December 2024.

(2) Prior to the commencement of development to which this section applies, the chief executive of the local authority shall inform the members of the local authority in relation to the development and shall provide documents, particulars or plans relevant to the development to the members.

(3) The Minister may make regulations providing for any or all of the following matters in respect of development to which this section applies:

(a) the giving of public notice by the local authority in respect of the development;

(b) the publication by a local authority of any specified notice in respect of the development;

(c) the making available for inspection, including by members of the public, of documents, particulars, plans or other information in relation to the development;

(d) notification by the local authority in respect of such development to such bodies as the Minister may prescribe;

(e) the entry of particulars of the development in the register;

(f) procedures for determining, through a case-by-case basis examination or by reference to prescribed thresholds or criteria, whether the development is one which should be made subject in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive to a requirement for an assessment with regard to its effects on the environment, the information to be provided for the purposes of such a determination, the basis on which such a determination is to be made, the time for such a determination, the contents of such adetermination, and the making available to the public of such a determination;

(g) procedures for determining whether the development is one which should be made subject, in accordance with the Habitats Directive, to an appropriate assessment;

(h) a requirement that local authorities provide the Minister withinformation regarding developments that have been notified, commenced, and completed, the type of information to be provided and the frequency with which such information is to be provided.

(4) Sections 138, 139 and 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 shall not apply in respect of development to which this section applies.

(5) In this section—

‘housing development’ includes—

(a) the construction or erection of a house or houses,

(b) the construction of a new road or the widening or realignment of an existing road, to serve houses referred to in paragraph (a),

(c) the construction or erection of pumping stations, treatment works, holding tanks or outfall facilities for waste water or storm water, to serve houses referred to in paragraph (a),

(d) the laying underground of sewers, mains, pipes or other apparatus,

(e) the provision of open spaces, recreational and community facilities and amenities and landscaping works to serve houses referred to in paragraph (a), and

(f) the provision of car parks, car parking places, surface water sewers and flood relief work, and ancillary infrastructure to serve houses referred to in paragraph (a);

‘State Authority’ means any of the following:

(a) a Minister of the Government;

(b) an Education and Training Board established under the Education and Training Boards Act 2013;

(c) Courts Service;

(d) Digital Hub Development Agency;

(e) Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies;

(f) Enterprise Ireland;

(g) Environmental Protection Agency;

(h) the Garda Síochána;

(i) Health Service Executive;

(j) Housing and Sustainable Communities Agency;

(k) Industrial Development Agency (Ireland);

(l) an Institute of Technology being a college within the meaning of section 2 of the Regional Technical Colleges Act 1992;

(m) Institute of Public Administration;

(n) Prison Service of the Department of Justice which is charged with the management of prisons;

(o) Legal Aid Board;

(p) Marine Institute;

(q) National Archives;

(r) Oberstown Children Detention Campus;

(s) Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland;

(t) Ordnance Survey Ireland;

(u) Sport Ireland;

(v) State Laboratory;

(w) Teagasc - the Agriculture and Food Development Authority;

(x) a technological university established by virtue of an order under section 36 of the Technological Universities Act 2018;

(y) An tSeirbhís Oideachais Leanúnaigh agus Scileanna.”.”.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 43:

After subsection (1) 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).”.

Amendment to amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 76; Staon, 0.

Tá

• Andrews, Chris.
• Bacik, Ivana.
• Barry, Mick.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Brady, John.
• Browne, Martin.
• Buckley, Pat.
• Canney, Seán.
• Clarke, Sorca.
• Collins, Joan.
• Connolly, Catherine.
• Cronin, Réada.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cullinane, David.
• Daly, Pa.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Paul.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Farrell, Mairéad.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Gould, Thomas.
• Guirke, Johnny.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Kerrane, Claire.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Munster, Imelda.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Murphy, Verona.
• Mythen, Johnny.
• Nash, Ged.
• O'Callaghan, Cian.
• O'Reilly, Louise.
• O'Rourke, Darren.
• Ó Broin, Eoin.
• Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
• Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Quinlivan, Maurice.
• Ryan, Patricia.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Tully, Pauline.
• Whitmore, Jennifer.

Níl

• Brophy, Colm.
• Browne, James.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Collins, Niall.
• Costello, Patrick.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowe, Cathal.
• Devlin, Cormac.
• Dillon, Alan.
• Donnelly, Stephen.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Duffy, Francis Noel.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frankie.
• Flaherty, Joe.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Foley, Norma.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Higgins, Emer.
• Hourigan, Neasa.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Lawless, James.
• Leddin, Brian.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Matthews, Steven.
• McAuliffe, Paul.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McHugh, Joe.
• Moynihan, Aindrias.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• O'Brien, Darragh.
• O'Brien, Joe.
• O'Callaghan, Jim.
• O'Connor, James.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Gorman, Roderic.
• O'Sullivan, Christopher.
• O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
• Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Anne.
• Richmond, Neale.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.
• Smyth, Ossian.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Varadkar, Leo.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Eoin Ó Broin and Cian O'Callaghan; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.

Amendment to amendment declared lost.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 43:

After subsection (3)(g) 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;”.

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 43 put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 43 agreed to.

Amendment No. 44 not moved.

Section 11 agreed to.

Sections 12 and 13 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 45 to 48, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48 are logical alternatives.

Amendment No. 45 not moved.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 10, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

“Provisions in respect of foreshore licensing requirements for certain surveying activities

14. The Act of 1933 is amended by the insertion of the following after section 3A:

“Obligations

3AA. Notwithstanding anything in the definition of the foreshore in section 1, and the powers of the Minister to grant a licence under section 3, and without prejudice to the view that there is already provided an obligation to secure a foreshore licence in order to conduct geophysical or geotechnical surveys in the subsoil and water column above the foreshore, to ensure compliance with the State’s obligations with the duty to—

(a) provide for assessments necessary to effectively implement a system of strict protection for species listed in Annex IVA of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 2002, and

(b) assessment and protections required under Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009,

the following requirements are explicitly clarified—

(i) that a foreshore licence consent shall be required in order to pursue the following activities:

(I) geophysical surveys using acoustic survey equipment or geotechnical surveys for the purposes of surveying for oil and gas or renewable energy site investigation or for related species studies;

(II) geophysical surveys using acoustic survey equipment or geotechnical surveys for the purposes of scientific studies,

and

(ii) that a derogation licence under Article 54 of the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477 of 2011) shall be required to be secured in advance of the grant of any such foreshore licence for the activities in subparagraphs (I) and (II) of paragraph (i), in respect of any breach of the protections required under Article 12 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 2002.”.”.

We are now in the foreshore licensing part of the Bill. As I said earlier during the Second Stage debate on the Bill, the issue of having regulation around this is very important in terms of the knock-on effects and consequences this could have if this is not properly regulated and the effects it could have in the form of potential conflicts with the habitats directive and the species and their habitats that are protected under that directive. I am very concerned about those sections of the Bill.

As for the need for the surveys to be carried out and, when it comes to our maritime environment, properly regulated, Article 12 of the habitats directive is particularly important, and I think the Bill as currently drafted, without this amendment, could be in conflict with Article 12 of the habitats directive. That should not be compromised. Ireland has already fallen foul of that directive in a previous European Court of Justice ruling. It is essential that this is taken as seriously as possible in this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

On a technicality, these amendments, Nos. 46 to 48, inclusive, were grouped with amendment No. 45, which was withdrawn. Therefore, prior to that amendment being withdrawn, there should have been a discussion if Deputy Cian O'Callaghan wanted to discuss these other amendments. Therefore, while I am taking it that the Deputy has moved amendment No. 46, I do not think I would be in compliance with procedure if I were to allow further debate because it did not happen when it should have happened, if Members follow me.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I think that might have been my error to have withdrawn amendment No. 45, so if I am-----

An Ceann Comhairle

It might have been but the amendment was withdrawn. We might have all made errors.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

A Cheann Comhairle, may I-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Very briefly then.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

With your latitude, we will restrict ourselves to a brief single round.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

You are obviously in a Christmas spirit. Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am always in a Christmas spirit.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

This is a very important part of the Bill and we were very keen to get to have this brief discussion because it is a significant change to the Foreshore Act. It is important to remember that this legislation is about 90 years old, from 1933, and for all of those 90 years people were working on the basis of an understanding of the definition of the foreshore which, it subsequently transpires, is not completely articulated in the original legislation. I think the concern we have and want to express here is that, because of the accelerated nature of this legislation's passing, this is something we have had very little chance to discuss. I think most of us are comfortable with what the Government intends to do here. Our big concern is about unintended consequences. Unusually, when we were undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of this, both the environmental NGOs and the offshore wind industry lobby had very significant concerns and we did not have adequate time to tease out those concerns to ensure that what was being proposed and potentially agreed did not have those unintended consequences. Part of the purpose of this amendment is to resolve some of those unintended consequences. All I will say to the Minister of State is that when we take these very significant decisions, even when it is just cleaning up outdated and poorly drafted legislation from 90 years ago, doing it in five or ten minutes late in the evening is not a good way to proceed, particularly when the Minister of State's line Minister denied the opportunity to conclude the PLS adequately before the Bill was published. I therefore support Deputy O'Callaghan in his amendment and urge the Minister of State in future to give us more time to consider these things because they are of very significant importance, not just to the protection of our foreshore but to inshore fishermen, coastal communities and sustainable, well-planned and well-delivered offshore wind energy.

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

I will address amendments Nos. 45 to 48, inclusive. These amendments to the Bill are intended to amend the Foreshore Act 1933 in order to ensure there is no doubt over the definition of the foreshore and that the Act can operate as it always has. This includes requiring a foreshore licence for the lawful undertaking of geophysical and geotechnical surveying. Many licences have been applied for, assessed and consented on that basis in recent years. The existing consent process includes assessments required under the birds and habitats directive and the EIA directive where required. Similarly, a proponent of any activity that may have the potential to cause disturbance of species listed in annexe 4 to the habitats directive, including marine mammals, is required to apply to the NPWS for a derogation order under regulation 54 of the birds and habitats regulations in order to allow for that disturbance to take place, usually under certain conditions. I am confident that this Bill allows the State to regulate the use of the foreshore, including developer activities identified by the Deputies in their proposed amendments, meet its obligations in respect of a range of directives for the protection of the marine area and provide a streamlined and transparent consenting process. There is no intention on either my part or the part of the Department to introduce any new regulatory or consenting requirements within the foreshore consenting system, including in respect of the airspace above the water, that did not exist until doubt was cast over the definition earlier this year. I am satisfied that the licences granted in accordance with section 3 of the foreshore Act do not create an estate in property. The licence that is granted following a robust assessment is a limited permission for certain activities subject to a range of conditions specified therein. It does not confer any rights or interest in the foreshore or any part thereof to the holder of the licence.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 74; Staon, 0.

Tá

• Andrews, Chris.
• Bacik, Ivana.
• Barry, Mick.
• Berry, Cathal.
• Brady, John.
• Browne, Martin.
• Buckley, Pat.
• Canney, Seán.
• Clarke, Sorca.
• Collins, Joan.
• Connolly, Catherine.
• Cronin, Réada.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cullinane, David.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Paul.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Farrell, Mairéad.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Gould, Thomas.
• Guirke, Johnny.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Kerrane, Claire.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Munster, Imelda.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Murphy, Verona.
• Mythen, Johnny.
• Nash, Ged.
• O'Callaghan, Cian.
• O'Donoghue, Richard.
• O'Reilly, Louise.
• O'Rourke, Darren.
• Ó Broin, Eoin.
• Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
• Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Quinlivan, Maurice.
• Ryan, Patricia.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tóibín, Peadar.
• Tully, Pauline.
• Whitmore, Jennifer.

Níl

• Brophy, Colm.
• Browne, James.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Collins, Niall.
• Costello, Patrick.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowe, Cathal.
• Devlin, Cormac.
• Dillon, Alan.
• Donnelly, Stephen.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Duffy, Francis Noel.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frankie.
• Flaherty, Joe.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Foley, Norma.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Higgins, Emer.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Lawless, James.
• Leddin, Brian.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Matthews, Steven.
• McAuliffe, Paul.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McHugh, Joe.
• Moynihan, Aindrias.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• O'Brien, Darragh.
• O'Brien, Joe.
• O'Callaghan, Jim.
• O'Connor, James.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Gorman, Roderic.
• O'Sullivan, Christopher.
• O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
• Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Anne.
• Richmond, Neale.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.
• Smyth, Ossian.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Varadkar, Leo.

Staon

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Eoin Ó Broin and Cian O'Callaghan; Níl, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.

Section 14 agreed to.

Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

TITLE

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 5, line 7, after "Pleanála" to insert the following:

"and, in order to facilitate and accelerate the provision of housing on lands owned by local authorities and certain state authorities, to provide that certain housing development on such lands be exempted development,".

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.

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

The Dáil divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 13; Staon, 32.

Tá

• Berry, Cathal.
• Brophy, Colm.
• Browne, James.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Colm.
• Burke, Peter.
• Butler, Mary.
• Cahill, Jackie.
• Calleary, Dara.
• Canney, Seán.
• Cannon, Ciarán.
• Carey, Joe.
• Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
• Chambers, Jack.
• Collins, Niall.
• Costello, Patrick.
• Cowen, Barry.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowe, Cathal.
• Devlin, Cormac.
• Dillon, Alan.
• Donnelly, Stephen.
• Donohoe, Paschal.
• Duffy, Francis Noel.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• English, Damien.
• Farrell, Alan.
• Feighan, Frankie.
• Fitzmaurice, Michael.
• Fitzpatrick, Peter.
• Flaherty, Joe.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Fleming, Sean.
• Foley, Norma.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harris, Simon.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Heydon, Martin.
• Higgins, Emer.
• Hourigan, Neasa.
• Humphreys, Heather.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Lawless, James.
• Leddin, Brian.
• Madigan, Josepha.
• Martin, Catherine.
• Matthews, Steven.
• McAuliffe, Paul.
• McConalogue, Charlie.
• McGrath, Mattie.
• McGrath, Michael.
• McHugh, Joe.
• McNamara, Michael.
• Moynihan, Aindrias.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
• Naughton, Hildegarde.
• O'Brien, Darragh.
• O'Brien, Joe.
• O'Callaghan, Jim.
• O'Connor, James.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Kieran.
• O'Donoghue, Richard.
• O'Donovan, Patrick.
• O'Dowd, Fergus.
• O'Gorman, Roderic.
• O'Sullivan, Christopher.
• O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
• Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Phelan, John Paul.
• Rabbitte, Anne.
• Richmond, Neale.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smyth, Niamh.
• Smyth, Ossian.
• Stanton, David.
• Troy, Robert.
• Varadkar, Leo.

Níl

• Bacik, Ivana.
• Barry, Mick.
• Boyd Barrett, Richard.
• Collins, Joan.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Murphy, Catherine.
• Murphy, Verona.
• Nash, Ged.
• O'Callaghan, Cian.
• Pringle, Thomas.
• Sherlock, Sean.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Whitmore, Jennifer.

Staon

• Andrews, Chris.
• Brady, John.
• Browne, Martin.
• Buckley, Pat.
• Clarke, Sorca.
• Cronin, Réada.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cullinane, David.
• Daly, Pa.
• Doherty, Pearse.
• Donnelly, Paul.
• Ellis, Dessie.
• Farrell, Mairéad.
• Funchion, Kathleen.
• Gould, Thomas.
• Guirke, Johnny.
• Kenny, Martin.
• Kerrane, Claire.
• Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
• Mitchell, Denise.
• Munster, Imelda.
• Mythen, Johnny.
• O'Reilly, Louise.
• O'Rourke, Darren.
• Ó Broin, Eoin.
• Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
• Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• Quinlivan, Maurice.
• Ryan, Patricia.
• Stanley, Brian.
• Tully, Pauline.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Jack Chambers and Brendan Griffin; Níl, Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett and Cian O'Callaghan.

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Bill, which is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2° of the Constitution to be a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, will now be sent to the Seanad.