asked the Minister for the Environment when he intends to amend the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Amendment of Local Government Act.
6.
(Dublin South-East): I intend to introduce legislation in this Dáil session to repeal and replace section 29 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976. This legislation will extend the duration of planning permission, including those which ceased to have effect on 31 October 1981 and will also cover a number of other urgent matters. In addition I intend to review planning law generally but I cannot say at this stage what proposals may emerge from this.
How long does the Minister intend to extend those planning permissions which have expired since October 1981?
(Dublin South-East): At this stage that is all the information I can give the House. As soon as further information comes to hand I will be very pleased to furnish it to the Deputy.
This is a very important question. Many planning permissions have expired and people do not know where they stand. It is time that the Government stated clearly what they propose to do. When does the Minister intend to introduce this legislation? Can he give a date?
(Dublin South-East): I cannot give a date. It will be done as quickly as possible.
In this session?
(Dublin South-East): I expect so but I do not want to pinpoint a date.
Would the Minister elaborate on what other urgent matters, if they do not include some of the matters we have been discussing, he intends to reform in this legislation?
That is a separate question. It does not refer to Question No. 6.
In his reply the Minister referred to other urgent matters.
This does not relate to the question tabled by Deputy Naughten, which refers specifically to when the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act will be amended. Question No. 7.
It has always been held appropriate to ask a supplementary question arising from the Minister's answer and that is what is being done in this case.
The Chair decides as to the appropriateness of any supplementary question and I am now calling Question No. 7.
I am putting it to you as a point of order that in ruling out a supplementary question because it relates to the Minister's reply you may be acting not in accordance with precedents of the House.
That may be the Deputy's view but as far as I am concerned all questions, supplementary or otherwise, refer to the question tabled on the Order Paper. I am calling Questsion No. 7.
That is not in accordance with precedents of the House and it is a matter we will have to take further. Supplementary questions have consistently and for decades related to the Ministers' replies and they would not be much use if they did not.
If they referred to what was material to the question.
If the Minister's reply does not refer to matters material it should be ruled out of order. Once you allow him to make the reply it is by definition in order and supplementaries are by definition in order.
On a point of order, are you implying that in the Minister's reply he was not giving the information required and that he was in fact talking about urgent matters relating to something totally irrelevant to the 1976 Act? If he was not, then I am entitled to ask——
I am making no judgment on the nature of the Minister's reply, but rather that questions should refer to what is material to the question tabled. We cannot have a situation here where we discuss the legislation on a question.
The Minister's answer was in reply to a question about amendments to the Act. My understanding was that everything he said related to the Act. I do not understand the grounds for ruling it out of order.
(Dublin South-East):: With the permission of the Chair, I should like to answer Deputy Owen's question. As I said in my reply, I intend to review planning law generally. It will be a general review but at this stage that is as far as I am prepared to go in my reply.
(Interruptions.)
(Dublin South-East): I do not agree with Deputy Quinn's interpretation that it is a trick.
In the early part of his reply the Minister mentioned extending—
We must proceed to the next business as the time allocated to Question Time has expired.
On a point of order, I was not trying to be insulting to the Minister of State. The Chair called Question No. 7. Is it in order for it to be answered? I will not press supplementary questions.
Question No. 7 has not been answered. It will be answered tomorrow.
With the permission of the Chair, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the matter of withdrawal of services in my constituency, where day-care centres are being closed during the summer months.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Would it be out of order for me to compliment the Minister of State on the courtesy of his replies?
(Dublin South-East): I thank the Deputy.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.