I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy John Cummins. The debate on the Bill will conclude at 9 p.m., if not previously concluded.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendments Nos. 1 and 2 amend section 1 to provide that Part 2 comes into operation on the day immediately following the date of the passing of the Bill.

Part 2 amends the Act of 2024 and the amendments will not have effect until the relevant sections of the Act of 2024 that they are amending are commenced. By commencing the amendments now, it means that when an order is made to commence a section of the Act of 2024 that is amended by this Bill, the section, as amended, will be commenced.

Normally, I would not comment on a section of this kind but I want to draw the attention of the House to what we are doing. We are proposing to amend the Planning and Development Act 2024. I have a copy of it here. The Act will be twice as long when it is translated into Irish. We are waiting for that process to take place. I want to put on the record of the House that the Bill was guillotined with the great majority of amendments not even reached or considered. The Bill came from the Dáil to this House in such an altered state that a special version of it had to be prepared to enable Senators to understand what had actually emerged from the Dáil and to show how it was different from the Bill that started off in the Dáil. When the Bill came to this House, we were told it was a matter of absolute urgency that it would be enacted before the last general election. The Bill was guillotined in this House with hundreds of amendments, including Government amendments, never being reached or discussed. The Bill then went back to the Dáil and a guillotined motion said that all Government amendments were approved, even those that were never considered or discussed. The Bill got a fairly light consideration in the Dáil of less than a day because, again, it was urgent that it would be passed before the general election was called. This document, which is now the cornerstone of all planning and development law in Ireland was enacted without being properly scrutinised. I will say what I have to say on some provisions of the law that we are changing now. Scarcely a year later, here we are amending this Act, which was so urgent that it had to be guillotined through the House at the time without proper debate.

I want to make a general observation. I believe the passage of this Act and the enshrinement in Irish law of a whole series of things, including the position of An Bord Pleanála, retitled An Coimisiún Pleanála, and processes involving national development objectives set out as criteria by which local authorities are bound, ministerial directives and the infamous Office of the Planning Regulator - which in its time has operated to dezone land zoned for building domestic houses at a time of housing shortage - all of that is now being made a permanent part of our law. Some of the amendments we are making today are sensible but the Act by itself, as amended, is fundamentally an obstruction to development in this country not an enabler.

It sets out to put in place a system of planning law in Ireland, which will obstruct planning and development for many years even though it purports to limit the capacity of individuals and unincorporated associations to avail of judicial review. It will in fact enshrine the system of planning law, which at the moment has reached crisis point where we do not have the infrastructure in terms of water or electricity to carry out relevant development to deal with the housing crisis. We are struggling to provide water from the Shannon to Dublin or to establish the national electricity grid in a sufficient way to deal with every kind of demand, whether domestic or data centre, that has been put in place.

We are dealing with what I believe is a complete error. That is the supposition by one Department of State that An Bord Pleanála is competent to deal with every issue, from offshore wind farms to be built in the Atlantic, to motorways, to every form of compulsory purchase anywhere in the country, and even to the trivial such as if you are entitled to an overhead electrical gantry outside your house in Ranelagh to feed your car at night. All of these things are now coming within the purview of An Coimisiún Pleanála, which, with the greatest of respect - and I put this on the record - will turn out as one of the greatest mistakes this country has made. If we are serious about major infrastructural developments, we should do it in a different way. We should use what continental countries are entitled to do. That is state-sponsored legislative infrastructural developments, which are not the subject of the normal planning process, which are not the material sent to An Coimisiún Pleanála and which are not in any way accountable to judicial review of the inordinate kind we have at the moment. I put those views on the record.

This Bill will be twice as large as it is now when the Irish translation comes about, and by the way it is not available as signed by the President until that is done. This is an unofficial copy. This Act and the amendments we are already making to an Act that was guillotined through these Houses is not the solution for Ireland's solutions planning-wise. It is an enshrinement of everything that is wrong in Irish planning law. It is an enshrinement, in my view, in Irish law of something that will ensure that the coming ten and 20 years will be as unproductive as the previous ten or 20 years in respect of those badly-needed projects. Take a look at the Shannon to Dublin water supply. It was planned at least 30 years ago by Dublin Corporation as it then was. The head of Uisce Éireann told a conference recently that if he got the green light today to go ahead with it, 30 years later, even though it is agreed it should be done, it will be another ten years before it would be completed because of the delays associated with Irish planning law. We cannot go on living like this. We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we think the Planning and Development Act 2024 or the amendments we are making to it today will substantially improve what is radically wrong with the capacity of the Irish State to deliver to the people what they are entitled to, that is, decent infrastructure, decent development and a decent response to the housing crisis.

I will continue on from what Senator McDowell was saying about this particular juncture we are at. I will share some thoughts. I am conscious of time and do not want to waste too much today. I am conscious I have no amendments myself but I intend to contribute to some of the amendments. I have certainly collaborated with a number of people. I do not believe everything I read in the print media but I buy the Business Post on Sunday. It is an excellent paper that focuses particularly on a lot of planning and real estate issues. If you were to believe some of the articles in it, which are attributed to a number of people, you would certainly be scratching your head and asking what is really going on. I will share what was said by Gavin Lawlor, president of the Irish Planning Institute, IPI, of which many of the Minister of State's staff are members, be they officials in the Department or our local authorities. I have spoken to a number of chief executives in local authorities. I have spoken to many of our city and county councillors. One might ask what city and county councillors have to do with it. They are the guardians of their city and county development plans. Of course, we were told that this famous Planning and Development Act 2024 would be the panacea for everything in planning. We do not have a completed version of this, and I hope the Minister of State will touch on that because we need an answer at this point. Remember, the citizens of this State can litigate as Gaeilge. That is their constitutional right. After all of this time, are we to believe or to be told that nobody has the capacity, will, or resources to translate this critical and important legislation into our native language? We want an answer to that. We also want to know when it will happen. That is the first thing.

Second, Gavin Lawlor, president of the IPI stated, "While we all share the Minister’s priorities of bringing development costs down and accelerating housing delivery, we are not convinced that the announced changes will achieve what’s intended." He is of course referring to the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025 that we are considering now. Gavin Lawlor issued a formal press release that has been covered extensively in the media. He states:

Professional planners not only recognise the gravity of the housing crisis - we are actively working to be part of the solution. We welcome meaningful, evidence-based reforms that support the accelerated, coordinated, and sustainable delivery of apartments and homes in communities across the country. While we all share the Minister’s priorities of bringing development costs down and accelerating housing delivery, we are not convinced that the announced changes will achieve what’s intended. In particular, the erosion of unit mix requirements represents a market-led approach to housing that is fundamentally at odds with the significant work undertaken by the Department of Housing to date to create a plan-led system.

I go back to that plan-led system. The Minister of State, Deputy Cummins, will remember this because he was sitting in this Chamber then. In our development plan, the whole emphasis was, as we were told by the then Minister and Ministers of State that this was moving from a developer-led system. There were suggestions, assertions and aspersions about developers and what they may or may not have been up to. I do not subscribe to them, so I put that to one side. We were told this would now be planning-led development. What I want to say is that I am deeply concerned. The IPI states "Our members understand the motivation to make unviable housing projects deliverable, however our members are deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the Minister’s actions." I talk to chief executives around the country and many of them are aghast. It is not all of them, some of them I did not get to speak to. I had reason to be at two local authorities in Dublin yesterday. I spoke to people there. They just cannot understand it. The Land Development Agency seems to know more than anyone about what is going on. Of course, it has a lot to gain. I am a supporter of the Land Development Agency. I do not have an issue with the Land Development Agency. I want to share two stories before I close. I am absolutely against the idea of single aspects. If you face north, you will have to use energy. We are talking about sustainable development. You will have to use energy to heat them up. If you face south, for the past two weeks, you would have had to have energy to cool them down. This is not sustainable planning. It is not proper and sustainable development - end of story. I spoke to a man last week who told me he lived in the Fingal County Council area. He ended up buying accommodation.

He told me the price and the repayments were a little more than €1,000 per month. I said "Oh, that sounds like great value.". It was local authority or private arrangement partnership funding mechanism. I did not quite know the funding mechanism. The point is his repayments were €1,050 per month. I asked him how many rooms he had and he told me he had no rooms. He was living in a studio. He was married and 37 years of age. His wife was 38. They were not able to have a family at the moment. He said the other day he got a knock on his bathroom door. It was his wife and she asked him if he was okay in there because she had not heard the water. He said no, he was in there reading a book. That paints a picture. It paints a picture that the only room to break away from someone else for a couple who are stuck, because that was all they could afford, is in this room. Quite frankly, that is not the way we should be going. There is a place for studio apartments but not for single aspect.

I will finish on that and look forward to contributing to the debate. There are serious concerns and shortcomings. The Minister of State knows there has been no regulatory impact assessment of this Bill. He knows the committee waived pre-legislative scrutiny; it is the right of any committee to waive, but that does not mean anything. It just means the Government wrote to the committee to ask whether it would waive pre-legislative scrutiny. It did in this case, which is its right, and I respect that right. That was a pity too.

We are talking about this being emergency legislation. The timing of this legislation as it kicks in will be critical because the Government has given notice to developers of this legislation. I do not know the extent of the notice given but there certainly has been now. We have no guarantee. Many sections of the 2024 Act have not commenced. What assurances do we have? I note there is no emergency request for the President to sign this legislation as of yet. If this Bill passes the Houses this week, when will it be signed by the President? What is the Government's intention? When will it be fully, not partly, enacted? Timing is of the essence with this legislation.

In summary, this is unsatisfactory. I cannot see how many Members will support this legislation. We can spend all night pointing out the shortcomings or we can engage in a meaningful way, have our votes, make our points and ultimately, vote on this legislation, which will clearly happen tonight.

It is not directly related to the Bill but I take issue with a comment by the previous speaker. He said he does not agree with everything he reads in the printed media. It was a disappointing comment, given the veracity of the printed media, particularly in Ireland, is second to none. It operates within the confines of draconian defamation laws and at the same time, we have the Wild West of social media. It is a sector that is under immense pressure through job cuts and job losses. They say we are the last generation of people who will buy newspapers. It is a sector that has served this country incredibly well since the foundation of the State. The Senator phrased it incorrectly or wrongly but it was a disappointing comment.

That is okay. The Senator is entitled to his comment.

I will stick to amendments Nos. 1 and 2. We have had extensive Second Stage debates, both in the Dáil and the Seanad, to make the general points. As I said in my opening remarks, it is a technical amendment to amend the relevant sections of the Act of 2024. Those sections, as amended, will take effect once this is commenced. I will address one point about the translation of the 2024 Act into Irish, which Senator Boyhan raised. That is a matter for the Oireachtas; that is not a matter for my Department.

The Minister of State is very welcome. I thank him for coming to the Seanad this afternoon. Despite what has just been said by the Opposition, I stand here and compliment the Minister of State on the amendments before us. They will do exactly as intended: enable development. I will go to the bones of the amendment: "The holder of permission for residential development may apply to the relevant authority who granted the permission for the certificate certifying that a proposed modification...of the permission is a permitted modification.". We debated this last week. We spoke about the need for apartments of all sizes. As we said last week, irrespective of what ideal sizes and large sizes we may believe are optimum to live in, if they are not financially feasible to be built, they will not be built and they are not being built.

There is a lack of development in this sector. We have to address that. Irrespective of what we may see as being the ideal apartment to live in, be it facing north, south or both, if they are not being built, they are no good to anybody. We have to be honest. Apartments that are simply not financially viable to build will not be built and are not being built. These amendments are for facilitating the financial viability of a sector that is not currently functioning properly. I compliment the Minister of State on what he is attempting to do. These are progressive amendments and I congratulate him on that.

The Minister of State is asking to us support a Bill that erodes basic human dignity and environmental protections and basically gives carte blanche to developers to hide the fact that his Government is a serial failure when it comes to housing. We are asked to support a Bill that will lower housing standards at a time people are struggling to find homes that support basic well-being. He did not like the critique of the Bill last Thursday and suggested we have no solutions. The Social Democrats have a fully costed, comprehensive policy on housing and I invite him to read that. He can use it if he wants because at the end of the day, we need houses built.

It is possible to deliver housing in a way that does not just give carte blanche to developers and it is not just me saying that. The Irish Planning Institute also said that as it issued a statement expressing its deep concern in quite an unprecedented move. I want to put it on the record so that members of the public and stakeholders are made aware that after 3.30 p.m. last Friday, we received 12 pages of Government amendments to this 18 page Bill. We had until 11 a.m. on Monday morning to submit amendments. Essentially, we had less than one working day to try to consolidate the effect of the Government amendments that increase the size of the Bill by two thirds, consider their implications and draft our amendments in response to them. How does the Minister of State think that is okay? How do his Department officials think that is okay? We cannot meaningfully call that type of turnaround scrutiny. Some of the amendments he has included in this Bill are actually corrections to the 2024 Act. We now see the consequences of pushing through a Bill without pre-legislative scrutiny. I am not really sure this Bill will be any different. I feel this will cause huge legal uncertainty and flawed decisions which will, in turn, risk increased numbers of judicial reviews. It is outrageous the Minister of State plans on using Part 9 of the Act to egregiously limit judicial review. In doing it that way, it could be legally and practically very problematic and could cost the Government unestimated, untold millions of euro in complex litigation.

These amendments are quite complex in their effect and many are deeply controversial, problematic and cause widespread concern. It is really important to put that out there. The legislation proposes to reduce ceiling heights, weaken light and ventilation standards and remove communal amenity requirements. It encourages the delivery of smaller, darker, lower quality apartments at a time we know how deeply housing conditions impact mental and physical health. They are only suitable for one person to live in. They will attract only those who may be short-term renting or have no other option because of the housing crisis we have. They will do nothing to address the growing number of families or couples in that situation. It seems the Bill is about the warehousing of workers rather than giving people somewhere decent to live. Even worse, these units will still command the highest rents as they fall under the new rental legislation. When these come on board, we will see rents of more than €2,300 per month for these tiny box rooms. They are being built for developers and not the people who will live in them.

The Irish Planning Institute, in a rare and serious intervention, warned that "the erosion of unit mix requirements represents a market-led approach that is fundamentally at odds...with a plan-led system [focused] on long-term, sustainable outcomes". It adds: "Our members are deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences of the Minister's actions." If we are not careful, one of the concerns is that we will design the slums of the future. Homes will undermine well-being and dignity. What the Government is doing is having more apartments and fewer people and completely ignoring families and people with disabilities.

I have not seen any detailed breakdown of the data cost on savings. I would love the Minister of State to be able to provide the data cost on savings today; that would be brilliant. We all want more homes built, but quantity must never come at the cost of basic quality, and this Bill really does need serious revision before we entrench lower standards into Irish law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendments Nos. 3 and 13, amendment No. 1 to amendment 13, amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 16, amendment No. 25 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 25 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will address amendments Nos. 3, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 25. I know Members may want to address the amendments to my amendments first perhaps before I respond.

My amendment relates to the Office of the Planning Regulator.

What amendment is that?

Amendment No. 4.

That is not in this grouping, it is-----

It is not in this section, is it? I am sorry; I do not have the-----

It is not in the grouping. Has the Senator got the groupings?

It is not in this grouping; I apologise.

That is grand. I call Senator Stephenson.

On amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13., I am going to double-check this and let the Minister of State know later, but this might have been slightly reformatted from my original submission. Maybe it was something to do with the renumbering but anyway, I will speak to the essence of the amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to limit the potentially negative effect of the specified overriding powers in the 2024 Act that it refers to, which could otherwise be used to negatively impact an existing public right of way by removing, reducing, limiting, diminishing or compromising the use of or enjoyment of existing public rights of way that were in place before the commencement of Part 3 of the 2024 Act.

Specifically, it limits the effect of negative changes given new revised national planning frameworks or regional, spatial and economic strategies via SI 5 or section 68 and any negative changes in further alignments forced by sections 61 and 62 - consequences of new or amended national planning statement for development plans and expedited variation of development plan". I very much urge the Minister of State to consider the importance of rights of way and ensure that the 2024 Act is not used to negatively impact any existing rights of way and the enjoyment and use the public gets from them, and to accept this amendment, at least in principle, and further improve it as outlined when the Bill reverts to the Dáil given that we might not have a chance to have Report Stage. Maybe it could be considered in the Dáil, or the Minister of State could accept a similar amendment from colleagues who might put these forward in the Dáil.

Is my amendment No. 3 in this section?

Yes.

It relates the Office of the Planning Regulator.

I am sorry; the Senator was correct initially. That is amendment No. 4 in relation-----

I know but is says No. 3. I am sorry; it is amendment No. 3 in the list, is it not?

It is amendment No. 4.

It is amendment No. 4. Is it amendments Nos. 3 and 4?

No, amendment No. 4 is next.

It is not in this grouping. It is No. 4-----

That is all right. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

If it is better for the Minister of State, maybe I should speak to all the amendments as opposed to-----

All within the group.

I propose to withdraw the amendment to amendment No. 16. Amendment No. 14, to delete “varied.”.” and substitute “varied.”, is to deal with a punctuation issue. I am sure the officials will pick up on that on another Stage of the Bill.

The purpose of the amendment to amendment No. 25 is to ensure that extraordinary and worrying new powers under the 2024 Act shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the record of protected structures included in a development plan in existence or whose drafting is under way prior to the commencement of the Act. Similar concerns have been highlighted in respect of the earlier definition of potential negative consequences of the 2024 Act on public rights of way that I have just spoken about that may obtain here as well.

The sections of the 2024 Act referred to that are precluded from compromising protected structures under our amendment include section 68(5), which if left effective would also force the precedence of a new or revised national planning framework over a development plan. In this regard, I refer to the list of all protected structures. Also relevant are section 61, which concerns consequences of new or amended national planning statement for development plans, and section 62, which refers to the expedited variation of development plans. As mentioned regarding amendment 13 in respect of public rights of way, ideally the list would be expanded to include sections 64 to 67, inclusive. I urge the Minister of State to accept my amendment in the public interest and given the importance of our heritage and protected structures, and also to allow for improvement, as suggested in the Dáil. That is everything from me.

Let me address the Senators’ proposed amendments. Senators Higgins and Stephenson have tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 13, which seeks to provide that the variation of a development plan on foot of a national planning statement or the fact that the provision of the NPF or the RSES takes precedence over a provision of the development plan continued in force from the Act of 2000 “shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the use of enjoyment of a public right of way contained in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3". I cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is unnecessary. The Act of 2024 has several provisions relating to public rights of way. Section 51(2) provides that a development management statement may include objectives for a range of matters, including “preserving a specific public right of way, including a public right of way which gives access to any seashore, mountain, lakeshore, riverbank, monument or other place of natural beauty or recreational utility”. Section 51(4) provides that nothing in section 51 shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way. Section 60(10) of the Act of 2024, which I am amending in amendment No. 13, already provides that any provision relating to the preservation of a public right of way contained in a development plan continued in force until section 68 may be included in a subsequent development plan made under this Act without the necessity to comply with this section. Section 60(11) provides that nothing in section 60 shall affect the existence or validity of any public right of way not included in a development plan. It is important to note that the creation of public rights of way either by agreement or compulsorily is a matter already provided for under sections 268 and 269 of the Act of 2024. Furthermore, section 270 provides for a right of way to be maintained by the planning authority. I am satisfied that there are adequate provisions in the Act of 2024 to provide for the preservation and maintenance of rights of way and therefore cannot accept the amendment to amendment No. 13.

Senators Higgins and Stephenson have also tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 16, which seeks to delete subsection (7) of section 81 of the Act of 2024. I cannot accept this proposed amendment to my amendment as the subsection provides that where a local area plan that is continued in force conflicts with a provision of the NPF, RSES, a national planning statement or a development plan, the higher-order plan or strategy takes precedence. This is an important provision that gives clarity to the hierarchy of plans in our country. The overriding policy behind the Act of 2024 is that the national planning framework will continue to spearhead the planning agenda. The Act sets out a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning, from regional to local, align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF, which was adopted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Put simply, lower-order plans are required to align with higher-order plans, with development plans aligned to the regional strategies and in turn to the NPF and national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to development plans. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment to amendment No. 16.

Senators Higgins and Stephenson have also tabled a proposed amendment to amendment No. 25, which seeks to provide that the variation of a development plan on foot of a national planning statement or the fact that the provision of the NPF or RSES takes precedence over a provision of the development plan continued in force from the Act of 2000 “shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the record of protected structures included in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3”. I cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is unnecessary. The Act of 2024 has several provisions relating to the record of protected structures and specifically section 307(2) of the Act of 2024 provides that the “making of an addition to, deletion from or amendment to a record of protected structures under subsection (1) shall be a reserved function”.

Government amendments Nos. 3, 13, 16 and 25 all provide that a reference in various plans throughout the Act of 2024 to a development plan continued in force under section 68 of the Act of 2024 should also include a reference to a development plan prepared or varied in accordance with section 69. Section 68 of the 2024 Act provides that the development plan in place under the Act of 2000 continues in force when the Act of 2024 is commenced. Section 69 allows the making of a development plan or a development plan variation commenced under the Act 2000 prior to the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024 to continue under the Act of 2000 notwithstanding its repeal. As sections 68 and 69 both carry over development plans from the Act of 2000 to the Act of 2024, it is necessary to update any references to section 68 and also include a reference to section 69, where appropriate.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 apply to procedures in subsections 68(3), 68(4) and 68(5) of the Act of 2024 in respect of a development plan prepared or varied in accordance with section 69. This is reasonable as both sections 68 and 69 carry over development plans from the Act of 2000 to the Act of 2024.

Amendment No. 14 just edits the punctuation of the Bill to allow the text of amendment No. 15 to be correctly inserted.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 1 of Principal Act

3.Section 1 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):

“(2A) Without prejudice to subsection (2) the provisions of this Act relating to the repeal of the termination of the Office of the Planning Regulator shall come into effect on the passing of this Act.”.”.

This relates to the Office of the Planning Regulator, which has been the biggest stumbling block when it comes to building housing in this country. The Government talked earlier this year about appointing a housing tsar.

I think we already have one. This particular regulator has caused serious issues for city and county councillors. It sets objectives for a county's development plan, determines planning strategies and sets objectives for each of the local authorities. It has dezoned land. The amount of land that was dezoned in this country by the Planning Regulator is criminal. The Bill last year reinforced the role of the Office of the Planning Regulator which, from time to time has sought to undermine planning decisions.

Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe. We should be looking to change this. Considering that most councillors are familiar with their area, they should be the ones entrusted to make decisions on planning, zoning and other issues. At this moment in time local authority members are waiting for the numbers to come out from the Department on what they will be allowed to build. The Department is looking for lands that are zoned or may have services on them. Almost half these lands were dezoned by the Planning Regulator in 2018. I remember being a member of the council at the time and we had to dezone land. Here we are shouting for housing today. For me, this office has been the biggest stumbling block to housing in this country and it should be terminated.

Amendment No. 4 seeks to repeal the Office of the Planning Regulator. As everyone knows, the OPR was established in April 2019 on foot of recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal. It made 64 recommendations aimed at significantly enhancing the transparency of planning in Ireland, against a backdrop of significant historical deficiencies in decision-making on local authority development plans or other planning functions. The OPR carries out a range of important and significant functions which assist with the effective operation of the planning system as a whole. Therefore, I oppose the amendment as I believe that if it were to be accepted, it would have a negative impact on the planning system in its entirety.

I will address the point on the zoning of land. The Minister, Deputy Browne, and I will write to local authorities very shortly on their housing growth requirements. We have already informed local authorities to commence the variation process in terms of the zoning of land. It is a matter for each local authority as to where it zones particular lands. Certainly from our perspective, the Department will write with the housing growth requirements very shortly and we expect local authorities to implement them as quickly as possible to ensure we have an adequate amount of zoned and serviced land throughout the country, to ensure we have the homes we require for our people throughout the country.

Will the Minister clarify when this will be? Will it be prior to the summer recess, in the coming weeks or when?

Shortly.

What does "shortly" mean?

Shortly.

Will it be in weeks or months?

Very shortly.

Very shortly is fantastic. I thank the Minister.

I share Senator Keogan's reservations about the Office of the Planning Regulator. I understand what the Minister has said on it emerging from one of the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal but, with the greatest of respect, the fact the tribunal had to deal with allegations of corruption in respect of zoning and rezoning by local authority members never required something as draconian as the Office of the Planning Regulator to be established. It certainly did not require the Department giving to the Office of the Planning Regulator a power effectively to undo decisions of local authorities by fiat, subject only to an ultimate veto by a Minister, which has to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It gave massive power to the Planning Regulator to undo decisions that local authority members made in good faith.

I do not accept the proposition that local authority members are ignorant or foolish when it comes to the zoning requirements in their area. I heard that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council was told by the Planning Regulator to dezone land in its area. It is a city area, virtually. For the Planning Regulator to say it had zoned land for housing to an excessive degree was an extraordinary proposition. The requirement it should dezone that land was made by the Planning Regulator which, we are told, is independent in the execution of its functions and is subject only to the right of a Minister to supervene again and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a direction to ignore the Planning Regulator. Otherwise, such a direction from the Planning Regulator takes effect. This is the direct opposite of local democracy.

The members of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council were entitled to decide, and were in a far better position to decide, on what likely demand for housing there was in their area and to make their zoning decisions accordingly. It was never suggested that the rezonings directed to be rescinded by the Office of the Planning Regulator more recently were in any way tainted by corruption or suspicion as to the bona fides of the councillors who made their decisions. It was never suggested this was the case. In fairness, this has to be said. They are people who make decisions in good faith based on their calculation of what demand for housing in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will be.

I have seen, from work I have done elsewhere, the Office of the Planning Regulator intervenes in the sequence of rezoning land outside the centres of towns of medium size. This has happened on a number of occasions. The Planning Regulator has said that in theory, the land could be rezoned but there is land closer to the centre of the town in question that should be developed first. This is all very well, except the persons who own the land nearer the town centre have no intention, for one reason or another, of carrying out any development on it. They cannot be forced to do so unless the local authority decides to CPO the land. In these circumstances we go through the entire rigmarole of having An Coimisiún Pleanála confirming a CPO regime if, as a housing authority, the local authority decides to intervene and purchase land compulsorily. This requires, in the way things actually operate, that the Department backs it up financially when it comes to a CPO for this purpose.

I agree with Senator Keogan. The OPR was a heavy-handed overreaction. It is an aggregation of power to the centre of the Department, operating through a so-called independent agency to examine in minute detail, by reference to national planning directives, frameworks and the like, and micromanage what local authority members did and do in respect of the development of their areas.

I have seen other cases where, for instance, the Office of the Planning Regulator decides there have to be duplex-type developments in developments outside towns. The local authority, having consulted the developers in their area, says there is no demand in rural Ireland and in rural Irish towns for those duplex arrangements. The local authority, though, is overruled and told it must have duplex-type housing densities on the land it is now proposing to zone or grant planning permission in respect of. In my view, all of that is grossly excessive.

Regarding Senator Keogan's proposals in her amendments, I support them. I think it is time we said goodbye to the Office of the Planning Regulator. There are different ways to handle suspected corruption. It should be done by a Minister and the consent of these Houses. It should not be done by a so-called independent and largely autonomous officer who imposes his or her will on the democratic choices made by local authority members against the possibility that they would behave improperly or in bad faith or corruptly in relation to their decisions on zoning and in the content of their own development plan.

I will add one thing, and that is this list of amendments to this Bill contains 21 amendments that are Government amendments. This is for a Bill that has just been guillotined through the Dáil and flung in here for our consideration under similar time pressure. In the main, these are amendments that could have been envisaged as necessary at the time when the Planning and Development Act 2024 was guillotined through this House and rushed through Dáil Éireann prior to the last general election. This is not a way to conduct parliamentary business. We do not have the explanatory memorandums for this House for these 21 amendments. The Minister is in a position to tell us what each amendment is about but we do not have a detailed account ahead of the debate as to precisely what is planned.

Regarding housing standards, and we will probably come to it later concerning section 44B, which it is proposed to insert in Part III of the Planning and Development Act 2000, a Bill which is proposed to be repealed in its entirety by the 2024 Act. These are controversial proposals and should be the subject of detailed consideration in both Houses and they are not going to get it, like so much of the 2024 Act. For everybody's benefit, I had a researcher just look at the 2024 Act and how many individual amendments were made and never considered by either House. My researcher says that in total it came to more than 1,500 amendments. It is some achievement that a code could be enacted with that volume of unconsidered amendments made by both Houses but deemed by virtue of guillotine resolutions to have been considered and approved by both Houses. It is the exact opposite of democracy. I have to just put this on the record.

I thank the Senator. Does the Minister of State wish to respond?

Yes. As I said, I am opposing the amendment because I believe it will have a negative impact on the planning system. As I said in my initial comments as well, the housing growth requirements will be notified to local authorities very shortly. It is important to put in context the previous housing growth requirements at 30,000 units per annum. The national planning framework adopted by both Houses of this Oireachtas has it at 50,000 units plus. This requires a significant increase in zoned land to be able to facilitate it.

I support it.

I know this is being welcomed by the Senator, but it is also important to say that the OPR is independent of the Department. It is also important to say there have been changes in the 2024 Act, which was debated in this Chamber. I was sitting on that side of the House last year in respect of the changes to the OPR in terms of the advisory board, which will be in place by the end of this year.

To address a few other points, this explanatory note to all the amendments was circulated by my office last Friday. It was circulated to all Senators and it is important to put that on record. Certainly, I hope we will get to many of the substantive amendments the Senator just referred to, but we did spend 45 minutes talking about two technical amendments at the very start of this process.

Is Senator Keogan pressing the amendment?

Yes.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Repeal of section 21 of Principal Act

3.Section 21 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, which propose to repeal sections 21 to 24, inclusive, of the principal Act. These sections, as they stand, embed the national planning framework deeper into our planning system. I have serious concerns about this direction. Let me be clear: the national planning framework is not law. It was never voted on by the people. It is a policy document that has become a straitjacket for local democracy. It is being used to override the will of elected councillors to dictate from Dublin what should be decided in Drogheda, Donegal and Dingle. Planning should be bottom up, not top down, but what we see in these sections is the opposite. We see a centralised vision being imposed on communities regardless of their needs, their geography or their aspirations. Section 21, for example, reinforces the idea that local development plans must conform to national policy, but who defines that policy? It is not the people, the councillors or the communities. It is defined by civil servants and consultants and your fella in the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, often with little or no connection with the areas affected. In the most recent vote here, the OPR dezoned 28,000 ha that would have delivered 100,000 homes for the people in this country and we are in a housing crisis. We bring in emergency legislation for stupid things but we cannot bring in emergency legislation to build houses for our people.

Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, continue in the same vein. They embed a system where local authorities are implementers, not decision-makers, where councillors are sidelined and where the lived experience of communities is ignored in favour of abstract targets and glossy strategies. I have said it before and I will say it again. Ireland has one of the weakest systems of local government in Europe and instead of strengthening it, this legislation continues to hollow it out. We need to trust our local representatives. That is what this legislation is about when it comes to planning. It is about trusting our local representatives and trusting the people who are on the ground to make the right decisions, to build the houses in the right places and to know where the water services are. Councillors are not stupid. They do not put planning into areas that have not got services. They know their areas, they know what works and they are accountable to their people, not to a framework, not to a regulator and not to a Department. This is why I call for a repeal of these sections. Let us restore balance, restore democracy and give local government the respect and responsibilities it needs.

Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, as tabled by Senator Keogan, seek to delete sections 21 to 24, inclusive, of the Act of 2024, which relate to the national planning framework, NPF. I cannot accept these amendments as the NPF is provided for in the existing and new planning legislation and sits at the apex of the hierarchy of our statutory spatial development plans, the purpose of which is to ensure the sustainable development of our urban and rural areas to 2040 with the core objectives of securing balanced regional development and the sustainable compact growth approach to the form and pattern of future development. Provision for the NPF is appropriately and necessarily dealt with in the Act of 2024. The NPF is a long-term strategy for the spatial development of Ireland to promote a better quality of life for all, with sustainable economic growth in an environment of the highest quality as its key underlying principles.

The subsequent review of the regional spatial and economic strategies and the review of individual city and county development plans to align with the NPF and the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES, establishes a robust integrated hierarchy of spatial plans within Ireland. In turn, this will inform the making of decisions on planning applications in a robust and efficient manner, assisted by the statutory decision-making timelines contained within the 2024 Act. The Act requires that the NPF include policies and proposals for the furtherance of a number of objectives and securing national and regional development strategies including maximising the potential of our regions, supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban and rural areas, supporting the circular economy, securing the co-ordination and regional spatial and economic strategies and development plans, providing for land and sea interactions and securing co-ordination with the national marine planning framework, and the integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective and the national biodiversity action plan into plan-led development within the State. This plan-led approach to development, reaffirmed and further enhanced under the Act of 2024, will continue to align strategic planning policy from the national level through to regional and local plans, giving effect to real and sustainable outcomes for our regions, our cities and our communities both urban and rural.

Both Houses of this Oireachtas approved the revised NPF in April of 2025. This is important given the comments the Senator has just made that there was no vote on this. The revised NPF provides the basis for the review and updating of regional spatial and economic strategies and the local authority development plans to reflect matters such as the updating of housing figures, which the Senator spoke to in her previous set of amendments, when I also informed the House we would be writing to local authorities very shortly about updating their development plans in that context. I am satisfied the existing provisions regarding the national planning framework are appropriate and, therefore, I cannot accept these amendments.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Repeal of section 22 of Principal Act

3. Section 22 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Repeal of section 23 of Principal Act

3. Section 23 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 4, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“Repeal of section 24 of Principal Act

3. Section 24 of the Principal Act is repealed.”.

Amendment No. 9 amends section 30 of the Act of 2024 to clarify the trigger for the first review of an existing regional spatial and economic strategy under the Act of 2024 and is necessary for the commencement of Part 3 of the Act of 2024. Section 31 currently provides that a regional assembly shall commence a review of the RSES not later than six months after the publication of a revised or new NPF under Chapter 2 of the Act of 2024. As a revised NPF was recently published under the Act of 2000 and will continue in force under the Act of 2024. This amendment provides that a regional assembly shall commence a review of the RSES not later than six months after the commencement of section 21(6) of the Act of 2024, which provides for the existing NPF to continue in force. This ensures that once Part 3 is commenced, the RSES will be reviewed in line with the requirements of the Act of 2024 and updated accordingly.

The RSES will be reviewed in line with the requirements of the Act of 2024 and updated accordingly. This ensures the plan making hierarchy is followed and allows the RSES to reflect the NPF and any subsequent development plans to be made in line with RSES made under the Act of 2024. Any future new or revised NPF will trigger the RSES in place to be reviewed.

Amendment No. 10 is in the names of Senator Stephenson and Senator Higgins. Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is it agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(3) The strategy referred to in subsection (2) shall allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing as defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021.”,”.

The amendment relates to Ireland's planning system, which has long prioritised market-led housing delivery. It introduces a necessary rebalance towards public interest planning where local authorities can proactively designate land for homes that meet socioeconomic needs and not just market profitability. By anchoring zoning authority in statute, the amendment strengthens the legal basis for local authorities to ring-fence land for affordable housing and it protects councils from external pressures to rezone land for higher value and often speculative uses. Zoning for affordable housing enables the delivery of integrated communities not segregated by income. It helps meet the real housing needs of workers, families and young people, a demographic we can acknowledge is increasingly shut out of the housing market. The Affordable Housing Act includes both affordable purchase and cost rental models. Zoning lands specifically for these can be de-risk delivery for approved housing bodies and enable direct build by local authorities and State agencies such as the LDA.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 go to the heart of what I believe is missing from the Bill, real empowerment for local authorities. Amendment No. 11 proposes a new section 42A, which would allow local authorities to purchase unzoned land for residential and other strategic uses. This is a practical, common-sense measure. Right now, councils can only buy land that is already zoned, but that land is often more expensive, more contested and more difficult to develop. Why not let councils act earlier? Let them identify land that is suitable, buy it at a fair price, zone it appropriately and get on with the job of delivering homes. This is how we used to do things in this country. When we were poorer, we built more because we trusted local authorities to lead.

Amendment No. 12 complements this by restoring discretion to elected councillors in zoning decisions. It inserts a new subparagraph in section 46, making it clear that councillors, not just officials, should have the final say on whether land is zoned for housing or other uses. Zoning is a reserved function, or at least it used to be, but more and more we see national policy overriding local decisions. That is not right. If a council wants to zone land for housing, enterprise or community use, it should be able to do so without having to refer to diktats in Dublin. These amendments are about trust - trusting local knowledge, local democracy, and the people closest to the ground to make the right decisions for their communities. If we are serious about solving the housing crisis, we need to cut through the red tape and empower those who can act. That starts with local authorities.

Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, all relate to the zoning of land. Amendment No. 10 seeks to provide that the regional economic and spatial strategies shall allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of affordable housing. I cannot accept this amendment as zoning requirements are adequately dealt with within the 2024 Act. The purpose of land use zonings is to indicate the development management objectives of the planning authority's administrative area generally whether residential, commercial, agricultural, recreational, open space or otherwise, or a mixture of those uses. When land is zoned for residential use, it is not appropriate to designate the housing type or tenure attached to such zonings. Land use zoning is determined at development plan stage. However, I cannot accept these amendments. Section 43 of the 2024 Act outlines the content requirements of development plans. Section 43(6) provides that the written statement for an integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area included in the development plan shall include zoning objectives for the zoning of land for a particular use or a mixture of uses. Prior to the making of a development plan, a planning authority shall prepare a housing strategy for the purpose of ensuring that the housing development strategy makes adequate provision for the housing of the existing and future population needs of an area within the development plan in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. The housing strategy shall take account of the existing and likely future need for affordable housing. Section 242(10) provides that up to 20% of land used for residential purposes, including land that is not zoned for residential use or for a mixture of residential and other uses but in respect of which permission for the development of houses is granted, must be provided for social, affordable or cost-rental housing. I am satisfied, therefore, that the existing provisions regarding affordable housing are appropriate.

Amendment No. 11 seeks to provide that local authorities should have the power to purchase unzoned land for residential use. It would not be appropriate to provide for this within legislation. It is a matter for the local authorities concerned to acquire land on an ongoing basis for their own use. There is no preclusion on local authorities acquiring any given landbank. The future use of that from a zoning perspective then is a matter again for local authority members within the development plan process or any variation that may occur to that development plan.

Amendment No. 12 seeks to provide that in zoning regard shall be had to the members of local authorities who shall have discretion in approving whether land should be zoned for residential use or other forms of use. Zoning is a reserved function of the elected members of local authorities and in preparing their statutory plans, including in relation to the zoning for particular purposes, elected members are required to consider and be consistent with the framework which is set down from the NPF, the regional economic strategy and relevant planning guidelines. Of particular relevance to the zoning of land for residential development, a ministerial circular on the housing supply target methodology for development planning guidelines for planning authorities were issued in 2020 to all local authorities under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The guidelines introduced a standard national approach to be employed by each planning authority in projecting housing supply targets for each of the specific six-year periods when reviewing city or county development plans and following on from that assessment the zoning of sufficient land to meet those housing targets. I am satisfied therefore that this is sufficient. For those reasons I cannot accept the three amendments.

In June 2022, the Irish Independent reported the then director of Savills Ireland as saying local authorities around the greater Dublin area, that is the four local authorities in Dublin county, and those in Kildare, Wicklow and Meath, had in response to the national planning framework changed their previous county development plans to reduce zoned lands by enough land to build 100,000 houses That is how the national planning framework actually works. In the greater Dublin area the affect of the NPF four years ago was to persuade local authorities to reduce the amount of land available for development by enough land to build 100,000 houses. That was done because the NPF envisaged that development would take place outside the city of Dublin and the greater Dublin commuter belt area.

However, where people want to live and where they are told by the national planning framework, NPF, they ought to live are two different things. The local authorities in question would not have dezoned all that land if it were not for the NPF and the supervisory function of the national Planning Regulator, which effectively cajoled them into dezoning land for 100,000 houses. We wonder why we have a housing crisis. That is the reason, as 100,000 houses could have been built on the land that was dezoned under the second last set of development plans.

When we introduce this hierarchy of criteria, as the Minister mentioned earlier in the debate, and it is then policed by the Planning Regulator, the result is, as the director of Savills outlined, a reduction of 100,000 housing places in the area where the greatest demand exists. It was done in the hope that people would go to live in other places and that increased zoning in those other places would attract them out of the greater Dublin area. It is no wonder we have a crisis. The crisis originated from the complete failure of the mechanisms we put in place under the planning Acts to deal with the growing population and the locations where people wish to work, live and bring up their families. We say that it is out of balance, but the people of Ireland vote with their feet. If they are given the choice, they want to live in areas where local authority members had previously made provision for them, taking a view of what was likely to happen in the property market by way of demand for housing. Effectively, we now have a situation where, on a hierarchical basis, local authorities remain capable of being told not to provide enough land in their areas for the requisite housing demand but to obey a different viewpoint, which is that the NPF knows better than the people who would come to live in those homes if they were built. I am sorry to say that those figures - 100,000 homes effectively taken off what was provided for under the second last set of development plans for the greater Dublin area, in pursuit of policies in the national planning framework at that time - are a major contributory factor in the cost of housing and availability of it where people want to live.

The Minister of State, Deputy John Cummins, already outlined in great detail why these amendments cannot be accepted. I am satisfied with the existing requirements in Part 3 of the Act of 2024 that relate to zoning and the requirements in Part 7 of the Act of 2024 that relate to the housing strategy. The matter raised is adequately covered in the Act of 2024 and therefore I cannot accept the amendments.

Senator Stephenson, how stands amendment No. 10? Are you pressing it?

Yes.

I move amendment No. 11:

“Insertion of section 42A in Principal Act

6.The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 42:

“Empowerment of Local Authorities

42A. Local authorities shall have the power to purchase unzoned land for residential use or other forms of use to address regional spatial and economic strategies.”.”.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 46 of Principal Act

6.Section 46(3)(b) of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subparagraph after subparagraph (vi):

“(vii) the members of the local authority who shall have discretion in approving whether land should be zoned for residential use or other forms of use;”.”.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 13:

1. After “section.” to insert the following:

“(10A) Notwithstanding subsection (1), subsection (5) of section 68, and sections 61 and 62, shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the use of enjoyment of a public right of way contained in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3.”.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 16:

To delete paragraph (e) and substitute the following:

“(e) by the deletion of subsection 7, and”.

Amendments Nos. 17, 19, 44 and 46 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(a) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (7):

“(7A) Notwithstanding subsection (6), paragraph (e) and anything elsewhere in this section, the planning authority or the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, as the case may be, shall not amend the date the duration of the permission expires except where—

(a) the effect of this section in extending the duration of the permission consequent on this section will result in an alteration of a minimal period only, or

(b) in circumstances where the development the subject of the permission, is—

(i) a project or activity which falls within the scope of Article 6(1) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998, that—

(I) the public have been consulted,

(II) the requirements of the Transboundary Convention have been observed in respect of any such consultation, and

(III) in an effective decision on whether to amend and thus extend the duration of the permission or not under subsection (6), that due consideration has been taken

account of the comments and outcome received during the consultation,

and that—

(ii) all further screening determinations and assessments required to comply with the State’s obligations as a member of the European Union, have been conducted and complied with given that any consideration of altering the duration of the permission under subsection (6), is effectively a revisiting of the authorising decision for the activity or development in question, including under—

(I) Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment,

(II) the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive,

(III) the Birds Directive,

(IV) the Habitats Directive, and

(V) the Water Framework Directive, in particular Article 4 thereof,

and

(iii) that consultation and assessment obligations under the Transboundary Convention have been fully complied with in the context of and decision to amend the duration of the permission under subsection (6) is effectively a revisiting of the authorisation for the activity or development in question.

(7B) The Minister shall prescribe regulations for the purposes of the public consultation requirements necessitated under subsection (7A), and to identify and provide for the screening, assessment and other determinations necessary under subsection (7A).”,”.

Amendment No. 17 is an amendment to section 13, which effectively extends section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 to the area of judicial reviews. The key issue is that section 180 amounts to the giving of a de facto extension. In this case, it extends the application of that to matters that were subject to judicial review. The key issue is that while one might have some sympathy where there has been a delay relating to a judicial review - we should remember that 40% of all judicial reviews are taken by developers - it is an extension and runs into the same issues and problems we have highlighted previously. We have made it abundantly clear to the Government that section 42 of the 2000 planning Act is clearly in breach of the Aarhus Convention in not making proper provision for public participation in relation to an extension.

The Aarhus compliance committee has been completely clear that the fixes as proposed and as transpired in the 2024 Act did nothing to address that non-compliance. It has been explicitly clear that there is non-compliance. We have an area which is non-compliant as regards extensions and ensuring there are proper public participation provisions, we have been found in breach and we have been told the Government has not fixed it and is in fact doubling down. I am going to go into this more on amendment No. 44, which I believe is to this section, because I do not want to repeat the same points.

The key point is that the amendments are attempts to add nuance to what is almost a de facto blanket extension provision and to give even a small example of the kind of nuance we would have to attach when giving an extension, be that in relation to judicial review, as in section 13, or wider extensions, which are the subject of amendment No. 44.

Amendment No. 44 highlights the issues in section 42 of the original 2000 Act and the proposed new section 16 in this Bill. It points to the fact that extensions of the duration of permission need to be granted in a way that is compliant with our obligations under two international conventions and EU law . We have been clear that the Aarhus Convention is not an aspirational piece of work; it is binding law we have signed up to. If the development falls within the scope of Article 61 of the Aarhus Convention, the public has to be consulted and the requirements of the transboundary convention have to be observed in relation to such and in any effective decision on whether to amend or extend the duration of permission, due consideration has been made to input from the consultations. My amendments provides that if there are extensions, they should be for a minimal period. That is what the Aarhus Convention makes clear. If it is not for a minimal period, there is a danger of the surrounding circumstances having substantially changed, both in terms of environment and local development plans. Where there is a matter into which key provisions such as the strategic environmental assessment directive, the birds directive, the habitats directive, the water framework directive and other matters that require screening and determination apply, an automatic extension cannot be given. There is a requirement that the extension of a development would only happen where it is for minimal periods and where the public has been consulted – again this is where the development falls within Article 61 of the Aarhus Convention - the requirements of the transboundary convention have been observed, and there is compliance with other EU law requirements. For example, I mentioned the birds directive, the habitats directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive. My amendment also provides in subsection (7C) for the Minister to prescribe regulations to facilitate the consultation, screening and assessments that need to be specified and delivered. These are the boxes we need to tick in relation to an extension. We cannot simply bring automatic extensions into law and scrap all of the duties and obligations relating to them.

The Government has been found to be in breach of the Aarhus Convention and it has failed not only to address the concerns both in the original finding and by the compliance committee, but in this Bill it is making the same mistake in two different ways, which if anything, shows a wild disregard for that convention, which is law, and crucially, a wild regard for the fundamental point in it, which is the principle that the public will be consulted on matters that have substantial impact on them, including on environmental grounds.

I will take amendments Nos. 19 and 46 together because they both speak to third-party observations. When a planning permission is paused, it can often be that many years have passed since the original planning permission was granted. There has to be some consideration for what might have changed within that time. There must be another opportunity for public participation in that part of the extension request. The State needs to be compliant when it comes to obligations under the Aarhus Convention, and the principles of good planning and development. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it also protects against future legal challenges that may come down the line.

Amendment No. 46 calls for public participation and for the Government to be mindful of the State's obligation to the Aarhus Convention.

I wish to focus on amendments Nos. 44 and 46 and meaningful public consultation. The Minister of State is welcome back to the House. I am conscious of his particular role with special responsibility for planning and local government and his own keen interest in this area, which I have observed over time. He is genuinely committed to this area outside of politics. He has a particular grá and interest in it. It is appropriate that he is actually our Minister of State with special responsibility for heritage, built and natural. In the 2024 Act and this legislation, it is important that we reassure the public in respect of the Aarhus Convention. There are issues in relation to the compliance committee. I do not know if the Minister of State is in a position to tell us where we stand on all that. There are very successful NGOs who work well and are funded by the Minister of State’s Department.

It is one of the great things about our democracy that we fund many prescribed bodies and NGOs in the environmental area. They make a great and very valuable contribution. There is a special place for them as there should be in any democracy. The fact that the Government supports them and finances them and they are sometimes the strongest opponents to Government policy is democratic. That is a healthy democracy. I commend all of them and thank them for engaging with us.

The real issue is public consultation. I understand what the Government is trying to do in this legislation and the needs, but I am not convinced based on the lack of data. The IPI, as I said earlier when the Minister of State was not here, raised concerns. A number of independent commentators and expert planners have raised concerns. I was at the meeting of Oireachtas committee on housing, planning and local government, although I am not a member, where the Minister was asked to substantiate the saving of €50,000 to €100,000. There is no evidence for that. There is absolutely no evidence that I have seen on it. Let us not get into that. To go back to amendments Nos. 44 and 46, in terms of the Aarhus Convention, is the Minister of State in a position to share any concerns that may have been expressed to him or his Department regarding this legislation? He might share that information with us.

I will address amendments Nos. 17, 19, 44 and 46 Amendments Nos. 17 and 19 seek to provide for a third-party observation as part of the suspension of duration due to judicial review provisions in section 13. Amendments Nos. 44 and 46 seek to make similar provisions for third-party observations as part of the extension of duration provisions in section 16. The criteria for the suspension of a duration and the extension of a duration are set out in the legislation and do not involve a decision of the planning authority beyond whether the criteria are met. If the criteria set out in legislation are met, the planning authority shall grant the suspension or extension, as a decision of the planning authority beyond whether the criteria are met is not part of these processes.

Public participation is not necessary nor is it appropriate. The extension of duration and suspension of duration provisions proposed in the Bill are in line with existing provisions. It should be noted that extensions of duration cannot be granted where the extension proposed would require an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment. If an EIA or AA is required under the Act of 2000's procedures, a new application for permission would be required in respect of the development and thus require requisite public notification and participation. Under the Act of 2024, if an EIA or AA is required, there are procedures for material extension of duration that include public participation and notification procedures.

In relation to the publication of notices, section 42(5) of the 2000 Act provides that the details of any extension of duration is entered on the planning register. Similarly, section 180 of the 2024 Act provides that details of the suspension of duration of a permission due to a judicial review shall be entered on the planning register. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendments.

With respect, the fundamental issues highlighted by the compliance committee when it found that Ireland had breached the Aarhus Convention and had not been addressed adequately still stand. Can the Minister of State recognise the concern? He referenced the practices in place but they have been found to be non-compliant. This was also highlighted clearly during the debate on the 2024 Act. The Minister is now taking them and applying them in two new contexts. The measures the Minister of State just referenced are not adequate to meet the obligations on public participation as made clear by Aarhus Convention compliance committee.

Could the Minister of State indicate when and how the Government intends to address this fundamental issue? When the previous planning and development Bill was going through, we were told not to worry, the Attorney General was on it and the Government was going to come up with some fixes that would be produced at the last minute when the Bill was going through in September. They were not fixed. They were not addressed. There is now a cavalier attitude with the Government saying it will do two more kinds of the same thing without fixing or addressing the fundament concerns of the compliance committee. What is the Government's plan to work on compliance?

These amendments sought to add public participation requirements to the suspension of duration and extension of duration provisions. I am satisfied that the provisions as drafted are appropriate. The Act of 2024 includes procedures, including public participation for extensions of duration where an EIA or AA is required. The Act of 2000 does not allow extensions to duration where an EIA or AA is required. Many of the Senators referred to compliance with the Aarhus Convention. I assure them this legislation is in compliance with the convention. There have also been many references to environmental impact, the habitats directive and the birds directive. Again, these are catered for within the legislation because where an EIA or AA is required, an extension of duration cannot be granted. Therefore, we cannot accept these amendments.

It is important to be clear that simply saying that it does not require an AA or EIA, which bear in mind decides if a development impacts on a strategic area of particular natural value, is not enough. The key point was that the compliance committee informed the Government that this was not sufficient because the test is: does it have a potential substantial environmental impact or effect? It is not simply a matter of whether it requires an EIA or AA. A number of other factors influence whether a development has a substantial environmental effect, including all of those other pieces around compliance such as the directives the Minister of State referred to. That is why in our amendments we list some of those in a non-exhaustive way. The Minister of State talked about the assessment directive and asked whether it required an assessment, but he did not talk the about birds directive, the habitats directive or the water framework directive. We have not talked about whether public participation is needed when there is a potential substantial environmental impact. He just went to where there is a particular type of assessment deemed to be required. That is covered in Chapter 5, Part 4 of the original Act. This is the exact proposed fix the Government put to the compliance committee. It was told that it would not. It is still the fix being used. The Government can push it through, but it is not compliant. If the Minister of State says that it is compliant with the Aarhus Convention, can he provide anything from the compliance committee confirming this, besides just stating it? The only evidence we have had from them is that it is not compliant. We have not had any opinion from them to indicate that the problems have been fixed.

This was a three-year painstaking process where there was extensive public consultation. We are satisfied that it is compliant with the Aarhus Convention.

In relation to where an extension of duration would require an appropriate assessment or environmental impact assessment, these would be screened. If it is deemed that a development requires either of those, the extension of duration will not be granted. As Minister with responsibility for nature, heritage and biodiversity, I am satisfied that these areas are safeguarded.

Is the Senator pressing the amendment?

Yes.

Amendments Nos. 18, 22, 23, 33, 35, 45, 54 and 55 are related and may be discussed together. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Amendments Nos: 18, 22, 23, 33, 35, 45, 54 and 55 are all minor amendments to change the language used in the Bill for consistency. They change references to the Bill's commencement and the coming into operation of the Bill.

I will speak to amendment No. 35. Section 16 proposes a new subsection (1A) in section 42 of the 2000 Act, which is the section was found to be non-compliant by the Aarhus Convention's compliance committee. The affect of this new subsection is to allow for the extension of durations for uncommenced developments of one or more houses. The compliance committee has been very clear why there is a problem with it, but there is also a shift in policy in it that directly rewards developers for sitting on development permissions. These are developers with planning permissions who have been sitting on them for no good reason, allowing them to squeeze supply and drive up prices, facilitating them to extract more concessions and derogations and watering down of good planning from the Government, which is only too happy to do so.

Amendment No. 35 would require that the planning authority would be satisfied that there were substantial and valid reasons that prevented the commencement of development, which is crucial These are the developers who have their planning permission. They are sitting on their sites. The checks and balances, which were provided in a previous NAMA version of section 42 that has since been repealed, was that the developer would have to give a substantial and valid reason for not building.

We do not require that at all. To be clear, we are saying that people have got a planning permission they have not used and we do not care why they have not used it. We do not care if, for example, they have not used such permissions precisely because there are opportunistic benefits to not using them. The longer people do not use them, the more they can squeeze out of the Government because they have it waiting desperately for them to use their planning permissions. We are not even asking if they have a valid reason.

You hear a lot of reasoning like there was a judicial review, they were waiting for electricity supply or water but we are not looking for any reason like that. Is it not a fair and basic thing that we ask people who have been sitting on planning permissions to justify why they have not acted? We heard previously from Senator Boyhan how so few of those planning permissions are because of judicial reviews and instead, the majority of them are being sat on for other reasons. They could have been using their planning permissions, which they have during a housing crisis. They then look for an extension on that planning permission, which they may have only been using as an asset for selling or buying all of this land with potential money attached to it. If they are getting an extension on such planning permission, rather than asking for this justification the Government is saying that is fine; it will reward them. We will come to some of the other rewards that come later, namely, the dilution of standards for those who may have planning permission for apartments and have not built them. Yet another reward is the potential to gouge a little bit more money out and to lower the bar and the standards still further.

In this regard, I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. It is what we had in a previous version of the legislation, which stated the planning authority should be satisfied there were substantial and valid reasons which prevented the commencement of the development to date. Is that not a very basic bar?

I was dealing with Governments amendments Nos. 18, 22, 23, 33, 45, 54 and 55. While this is an Opposition amendment I can speak to it if-----

The Minister of State can speak to it as they were grouped together by agreement.

Amendment No.35 seeks to provide that an extension shall only be granted where the authority is satisfied there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technical nature beyond the control of the applicant that substantially militated against the commencement of a development. I cannot accept these amendments as there are already regulations associated with section 42 of the 2000 Act which deal with some of these issues.

Article 42 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 provides that applications for extensions of duration should be accompanied by, among other things, particulars of the works which are proposed to be carried out, pursuant to the permission during the additional period by which the permission is sought to be extended, the date or projected date of commencement of the development to which the permission relates, the additional period by which the permission is sought to be extended and the date on which the development is expected to be completed.

I am satisfied these requirements are sufficient and it is appropriate such matters are set out in regulations rather than primary legislation. Prior to commencing this provision, these regulations will be reviewed and updated, if needed, to reflect this provision. Therefore, I cannot accept amendment No.35.

All those requirements the Minister of State has set out are just information on what the Government plans to do with the extension. There is not anything there which asks why the person is looking for this extension or why the planning permission has not been used to date. There is nothing there which acts as a discouragement in any way to future land hoarding, hoarding of planning permission or engagement in speculation around the exchange or trading of land with planning permission on it, rather than the use of planning permission to actually deliver on housing.

What the Minister of State is telling us is it does not matter why someone did not build and nor does it matter if the reasons someone may not have built were speculative and solely profit-based. Again, the idea is these are beyond the control of the applicant. Basically, the Government will reward you with an extension. It is effectively saying the normal planning permission lines do not have any basis because everyone can get an extension for planning permission and they do not have to show a valid reason why they did not act to date.

By doing so, the Government is effectively massively extending the duration of planning permissions which again, brings us into all those other issues around proper accountability and the potential need for a new public consultation and so forth. This is yet again another giveaway and reward for those who have actively watched a housing crisis develop, have sat on planning permissions, have chosen not to use them and waited it out in order to extract further concessions from the Government. The Government has been doing this since I entered this House back when we had strategic housing developments brought through, which did not work. It has been constantly diluting standards and the requirements for any kind of accountability. This would then wait two more years to dilute them further, rather than any form of stick or pressure on people to at least be able to show why they have delayed. I would like to ask all those developers who have been sitting on active planning permissions with no obstacles relating to connections to infrastructure or anything else, with no judicial reviews hanging over them, why they have not been acting and building. That is the kind of thing the Government should be asking them when giving these extensions.

I appreciate the points made by the Senator but there is a whole myriad of reasons why land with planning permission require extensions. There could have been barriers or something prohibiting the development of that land. That is the exact reason why we are introducing this legislation, to try to use every lever and tool possible to ensure we deliver as many houses at scale and as quickly as possible.

The Senator's amendment seeks to introduce an amendment where a local authority is satisfied there were considerations of a commercial, economic or technically aid beyond the control of the applicant which has militated against the commencement of the development. We feel - and I am certainly satisfied - the requirements, as set out in this legislation are sufficient and appropriate. I therefore cannot accept the Senator's amendment.

I will move to pressing the amendment but I will say we will not know what the myriad of reasons are if we do not ask them.

I thank the Senator. We will press the amendment when we get to amendment No. 35.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 11, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“(e) The Minister may, by way of regulations, provide for third party observations for consideration by the planning authority to ensure compliance with the State’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention and the principles of good planning and development.”.”.

Amendments Nos. 20, No. 1 to amendment No. 20, 29, amendment No. 1 to No. 29, 30, amendment No.1 to No. 30, 31 and amendment No.1 to No.31 are all related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will speak on amendment Nos. 20, 29, 30 and 31. There are proposed amendments to my amendments-----

It is quite complex, there are a number of amendments.

-----by Senators Stephenson and Higgins. Perhaps, they might like to speak to those amendments to my amendments.

I move amendment No.1 to amendment No. 20:

After “applies.” to insert the following:

“(13) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of subsection (12), a housing strategy of the planning authority in respect of whose functional area the development plan applies which is varied in accordance with section 69, shall only have effect from the date of such variation, and prior to such a variation, reference in this Act to a housing strategy shall be construed as including references to a housing strategy in place before a variation under section 69.”.

There is a potential issue with section 242 of the 2024 Act which the Minister of State's amendment to of section 242(12) fails to correct. The issues around the potential ambiguity or intention of an issue created by section 68(5), which is a new revised regional, spatial and economic strategy for our national planning framework, will have precedence over an existing housing strategy.

It is unclear what impact this will have on the housing strategy. What effect will it have and at what stage? I suggest that it should only have an effect after the new or revised national planning framework or the revised spatial and economic strategies are properly implemented. That would create more clarity. I am withdrawing this amendment but I just wanted to make that point on it. I urge the Minister of State to take it into consideration.

I will now speak on my amendments to amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 in totality. This makes sense because of the groupings. The Minister's amendment No. 29 proposes to delete the clause “prepared in accordance with Part 7” in section 603(5) of the 2024 Act. Section 603 of the 2024 Act is concerned with the development of planning frameworks for an urban development zone. Subsection (5) of that section requires that the planning framework be consistent with the housing strategy prepared in accordance with Part 7. A concern arises around this given the deletion of the reference to Part 7 and the potential confusion around the version of the housing strategy that the planning framework will be required to comply with and from what effective date. If there are changes to the housing strategy or other aspects of the Bill, will that override the housing strategy? My amendment endeavours to provide some clarity around that point. The amendment replaces section 603(5) and preserves in subparagraph (a) the requirement that the planning framework is consistent with the housing strategy. It also specifies that it is a pre-existing housing strategy, where the commencement of the planning framework commenced before the variations made under section 69. Ideally, it would also specify that there is a housing strategy in place after a variation is made to the development plan under section 69. Again, this is about making sure that the housing strategy is not affected by how this is enforced.

I seek clarification on something because I have a different grouping from the one here. As I understand it, amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 were not part of the previous grouping. Is that correct?

The previous group comprised amendments Nos. 35, 45, 54 and 55.

I am sorry. I had a wrong grouping in my own notes. Thanks for the clarification.

As no other Senators wish to speak, I invite the Minister of State to respond.

I cannot accept the amendments proposed by Senators Stephenson and Higgins because what they are seeking to achieve is already achieved by Government amendment No. 20, namely that a housing strategy under the Act of 2024 can only be either the housing strategy saved by way of section 68 or 69, or the housing strategy in a new development plan made under Part 3. Amendment No. 20 amends the transitional provision in section 242(12) of the Act of 2024 for two purposes. The first is an amendment, similar to those discussed, that updates a reference to the housing strategy included in development plans continued in force under section 68 of the Act of 2024 to also include a reference to a housing strategy included in a development plan prepared, or varied, in accordance with section 69. The second purpose of the amendment is to clarify that references in the Act of 2024 to the housing strategy include a housing strategy under Part V of the Act of 2000 included in a development plan until the replacement of that development plan under the Act of 2024.

Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, are consequential amendments to Amendment No. 20. They ensure that references to the housing strategy throughout the Act of 2024 include any housing strategy that is carried over from the Act of 2000.

Amendment No. 21 in the name of Senator Keogan has been ruled out of order because it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Amendment No. 24 in the names of Senators Stephenson and Higgins has been ruled out of order because it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill.

I have looked carefully at the amendment against the requirements which need to be addressed under Chapter 2 of Part 9 and I do not believe that the amendment cannot be fully justified within the Bill. There is a strong focus in Chapter 2, Part 9 on the implications for the Exchequer of the two sets of regulations which need to be prepared for the Chapter to be commenced and on the role of the Oireachtas. We are consistent and in line with standing orders. Our concern is that the ruling is more about preventing the massive cost exposure of the new cost rules in Chapter 2, Part 9 than discussing this important amendment because win or lose, the State plays under these rules and they will also have to be rolled out into new environmental sectors. There is compatibility on cost rules. I make this point by way of clarification and argue that the amendment is within Standing Orders.

The Cathaoirleach ruled amendment No. 24 out of order because it would have made the commencement of certain provisions of the Bill contingent on non-statutory actions such as the preparation of reports and confirmation of compliance with the Aarhus Convention. It is a long-established precedent that making commencement contingent on non-statutory administration action which is external to the provisions of the Bill itself is in conflict with the provisions of the Bill. The amendment must be ruled out order in accordance with Standing Order 165, as it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

That is fair enough.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 25:

After “section 69.” to insert the following:

“(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of section 68, and sections 61 and 62, shall not operate to remove, limit, reduce or otherwise compromise the record of protected structures included in a development plan in existence or in a draft development plan process underway, prior to the commencement of any section under Part 3.”.

Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27, amendment No. 28, and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 28 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 all correct minor errors in the Act of 2024. Amendment No. 26 corrects a reference to the Criminal Justice Act 2006 in section 355 of the Act of 2024. Currently the reference incorrectly refers to subsection 177 of that Act. This has been updated to refer to section 177 of that Act. I invite Senators Stephenson and Higgins to speak to amendments Nos. 27 and 28, to which they have tabled amendments.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 27 and 28 together in the interests of time. Government amendment No. 27 amends section 410(1)(c) of the 2024 Act which is concerned with the continued vesting of powers, in this instance, specifically, for the compulsory acquisition of land for strategic gas infrastructure. The Minister's amendment is simply to change the reference to the Commission for Energy Regulation to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities. The purpose of our amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27 is simply to delete paragraph (c) of section 410(1), given concerns around the power for compulsory acquisition of land for development of what is referred to as "strategic gas infrastructure"; the already extraordinary powers in the 2024 Act and the lack of safeguards around them; and in particular the LNG provisions in the 2024 Act which were made at the last minute when that Act was going through the Oireachtas, without proper legislative scrutiny, as we are again seeing here today.

The dysfunctional approach of this Government is to allow for more data centres where these are likely to use up any renewable energy we can generate, and the deficit then in energy supply will drive ongoing deficits in fossil fuels, including gas. These consequentially dysfunctional and highly damaging aspects of the 2024 Act are of extreme concern in the context of interdependent climate and biodiversity crises and, in fact, pose a triple planetary crisis when pollution is also taken into account within that whole scope. The intent here is to highlight such dysfunction and concern on the potential impacts under the 2024 Act. This amendment seeks to prevent the ongoing vesting of powers for compulsory acquisition of land to facilitate so-called strategic gas infrastructure. That should remain the case until such a time as an improved response to our energy management requirements is indeed in place so that the powers under the 2024 Act cannot be exploited without proper regard for a just transition to a sustainable energy future. Government amendment No. 28 will effectively do the same thing to replace the name of the utility and provide for an ongoing vesting of powers in respect of maritime sites, again, for strategic gas infrastructure.

Senators Higgins's and Stephenson's proposed amendments to amendments Nos. 27 and 28 seek to delete sections 410(1)(c) and 423(1)(c) of the Act of 2024, which provide for the continued vesting of the function of the Minister or the Commission for Energy Regulation under sections 31 and 32 of the Second Schedule to the Gas Act 1976 in relation to the compulsory acquisition of land in respect of a strategic gas infrastructure development in An Coimisiún Pleanála. I cannot accept this amendment. It has been long established that these functions are vested in An Coimisiún Pleanála and these sections merely clarify that the functions will continue to be vested in An Coimisiún Pleanála.

Government amendments Nos. 27 and 28 update two references in the Act of 2024 from the old title of the “Commission for Energy Regulation” to read the new title of “Commission for Regulation of Utilities”.

Government amendment No. 27 has already been discussed with amendment No. 26.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27, in the names of Senators Stephenson and Higgins, has already been discussed with amendment No. 26.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 27:

To delete all words from and including “in subparagraph (ii)” down to and including “Regulation” ” and substitute the following:

“by the deletion of paragraph (c) of subsection (1).”.

Government amendment No. 28 has already been discussed with amendment No. 26.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 28, in the names of Senators Stephenson and Higgins, has already been discussed with amendment No. 26.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 28:

To delete all words from and including “in subparagraph (ii)” down to and including “Regulation” ” and substitute the following:

“by the deletion of paragraph (c) of subsection (1).”.

Government amendment No. 29 has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 29, in the names of Senators Stephenson and Higgins, has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 29:

To delete all words from and including “in subsection (5)” down to and including “Part 7” ” and substitute the following:

“by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (5):

“(5) (a) A planning authority shall ensure that a planning framework that includes residential development is consistent with the housing strategy.

(b) In considering the consistency of a planning framework under paragraph (a) with the housing strategy, the housing strategy that will be relevant will be—

(i) the housing strategy in effect for that planning authority prior to any variation under variations under either section 61 or 62, where the commencement of a planning framework under subsection (1) commenced prior to the variation under section 69, or

(ii) when the commencement of a planning framework under subsection (1) commenced after to the variations under either section 61 or 62, the housing strategy in place after such a variation.”.”.

Government amendment No. 30 has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 30, in the names of Senators Stephenson and Higgins, has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 30:

To delete all words from and including “Section” down to and including “Part 7” ” and substitute the following:

“The Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 608:

“Draft development scheme which includes residential development

608. (a) Where a draft development scheme includes residential development the planning authority shall ensure that it is consistent with the housing strategy prepared in accordance with Part 7.

(b) In considering the consistency of a draft development scheme under paragraph (a) with the housing strategy, the housing strategy that will be relevant will be—

(i) the housing strategy in effect for that planning authority prior to any variation under variations under either section 61 or 62, where the commencement of a planning framework under subsection (1) commenced prior to the variation under section 69, or

(ii) when the commencement of a planning framework under subsection (1) commenced after to the variations under either section 61 or 62, the housing strategy in place after such a variation.”.”.

Government amendment No. 31 has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 31, in the names of Senators Stephenson and Higgins, has already been discussed with amendment No. 20.

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 31:

To delete all words from and including “in subsection (2)” down to and including “Part 7” ” and substitute the following:

“by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):

“(2) (a) In considering an appeal under this section the Commission shall consider the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the provisions of the development plan in the area to which the scheme relates, the provisions of the housing strategy, any relevant National Planning Statement, the provisions of any special amenity area order, the conservation and preservation of any European site in the area to which the scheme relates, and, where appropriate—

(i) the effect the scheme would have on any land contiguous to the area to which the scheme relates,

(ii) the effect the scheme would have on any land outside the functional area of the planning authority, and

(iii) any other consideration relating to development outside the functional area of the planning authority, including any area outside the State.

(b) In considering an appeal under this section, consistency of a planning framework under paragraph (a) with the housing strategy, the housing strategy that will be relevant will be—

(i) the housing strategy in effect for that planning authority prior to any variation under variations under either section 61 or 62, where the commencement of a planning framework under subsection (1) commenced prior to the variation under section 69, or

(ii) when the commencement of a planning framework under subsection (1) commenced after to the variations under either section 61 or 62, the housing strategy in place after such a variation.”.”.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 47, amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, to amendment No. 47, amendments Nos. 48 and 49, and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 49 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will address amendments Nos. 32, 47, 48 and 49. Perhaps the Senators wish to speak to their amendments to my amendments first before I respond.

Do any Senators wish to speak on the amendments?

What amendments are we on?

We are on amendments Nos. 32 and 47, amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, to amendment No. 47, and amendments Nos. 48 and 49.

I will go second.

In bringing forward our amendments to these amendments, it is really important to begin by saying that we will be opposing this whole section. Leaving aside the way this was brought forward, not that we can really leave it aside, the substantial nature of what has been put forward here and the failure to properly disclose or address these issues during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage but rather produce them at the last possible effective Stage, which is a Committee and Remaining Stages guillotined debate here in the Seanad, is outrageous.

These are provisions in terms of modifications and are completely different. The rest of the Bill is around extensions. This is around modifications to planning permissions. It is, therefore, a completely different and very significant thing to say that someone can change a planning permission application after the fact for residential developments. Again, we have amendments, but they do not actually resolve how terrible the amendment is. What we simply have are some amendments to try to do damage limitation to what is effectively an appalling provision brought forward in an appalling manner.

The developments that will be built as a result of this are already being referred to as brown foxes. They not only potentially affect the quality of housing to be delivered but they risk compromising existing valid planning permissions for people who are going to be applying for them. We will have situations again where the planning permission is there, and nothing is holding back building except the will of the developer. They will now be in a situation where they will apply for modifications, which will leave them potentially open to judicial review because of the multiple serious legal flaws with the proposals. We have a situation whereby there is existing permission and people are ready to build. We are going to replace this with modifications being introduced in a way that unpacks multiple legal issues and may well be subject to judicial reviews in a way the original planning permissions were not. Of course, at a very minimal point, it is going to have delays in terms of issues like fire safety. The fact is that if we change the numbers and the layout and everything about the inside of a building, that has implications for fire safety and health and safety. Therefore, a whole new certification process has to start.

This is recipe for delaying planning and delaying the delivery of housing. Leaving aside the underlying point that as well as all the potential delays from judicial reviews that may arise solely because of this badly provided for set of modifications, and leaving aside the practical delays that when substantial changes are made inside a building, that has serious implications for health and safety, fire safety and all the associated certification processes, it is also a discouragement to building things because the message it sends, yet again, is that if a person sits on his or her planning permission and does not use it, we will reward him or her.

We will give him or her another sweetener. We will condemn a generation to live in shoe boxes.

The Irish Planning Institute issued a press release expressing considerable disquiet among its members and referring to more legal unpredictability that is going to flow from this. Its members understand the motivation to make housing projects deliverable, but they are deeply concerned about the potential unintended consequences. I am concerned about the message it sends to the public, because if a person can get a little bit more money by taking that planning permission he or she had for apartments that maybe families could live in, and turning it into a set of studio apartments to gouge a little bit more money, that is what he or she will do. It is not these people’s fault. Many of them are answering to investors. They are looking for maximisation of profit. That is their obligation. That is their job. If the Department makes it the more attractive financially to create more, smaller apartments with lower standards, it is actively disincentivising the delivery of the kind of apartments a family wants to live in. I am part of a family that lives in an apartment. That will become a less attractive investment component and when we consider the figures relating to the crisis of families facing homelessness in Ireland, the Department is directly doing something that might actually lead to less planning and fewer apartments being built for families because it has incentivised the mass production of studio apartments, which are identical.

I will very quickly address the amendments but it is crucial to make these points because the amendments, I have to emphasise, are damage control. We will oppose this section.

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 47 states: “a relevant authority should not grant a certificate if the modification relates to the removal or reduction of communal space or cultural space within the proposed development.” Among the reporting on these new proposed mechanisms for alterations, something that has been mentioned is that this new section will allow for the removal of any obligations on developers to provide communal or cultural space within a proposed development. The developer may have been granted permission by promising a mixed-use facility and amenities attached to the development but the Government is getting rid of that requirement for amenities fulfillment. The amendment to the amendment seeks to address that concern.

Housing is not just a place for people to return to after a day's work so they can eat, sleep and return to work the following day. These are places where people exist and live their lives. It is crucial that this dreadful modification does not create atomised living quarters that provide no opportunity for people to develop social relations with the people around them, or their surrounding community. The Dublin city development plan obliges developers of sites that are 10,000 sq. m or more to include a minimum of 5% community or cultural space. The mechanisms in section 17 of this Bill will gut these provisions. Yes, we need housing, but we also need facilities to serve that housing. We need playgrounds, open spaces, community centres and facilities such as crèches. Our artists need work and performance spaces. Developers have always tried to get around these obligations, with the redevelopment of the Tivoli theatre being a prime example. The infrastructure of the Tivoli provided cultural facilities for Dubliners in Dublin city centre for 80 years. As part of the planning permission for redevelopment of the Tivoli as an aparthotel, again, not addressing the housing crisis, developers were required to provide performance and exhibition spaces. The space was provided and then used as storage space. It has never been used and never been delivered. This would formalise getting rid of those obligations and not delivering on them. A prominent example is artists Eve Woods and Aoife Ward. They hosted an exhibition space to highlight how unfit it was for its purpose, for example, containing no toilet facilities.

Amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 47 provides that any permitted ratification would need fire safety certificates, health safety certificates and other appropriate certification. That has been very clear. It is standard, but this is as a reminder that these elements will need to be provided. We know the dangers in terms of fire safety that are created when more people are packed into higher buildings.

Amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 47 provides that any permitted modifications to the mixture of apartments in different classes in the proposed development should require a varied mix of different classes of apartment. This is crucial in order that the modifications would not result in entire apartment buildings consisting of one-bedroom or studio apartments. There are no restrictions in section 17, yet the financial incentive to provide substandard arrangements for apartments means the we could end up with the same kind of apartment throughout. There is no space in these apartments to form a relationship, bring a child into it, or have a friend or family member visit. The figures we have for these apartments are 24 sq. m or 36 sq. m. They are tiny potential rooms. There should be a mix. When we spoke about wanting to have social housing built, we were told we needed that mix in order not to create ghettos. We need to have a mix of the kinds of apartments that are going into these buildings. We need to have facilities, for example, for family apartments.

Amendments Nos. 5 to amendment No. 47 seeks to put a time limit on any modifications granted if substantial works are not commenced. This is an attempt to prevent developers from using the modification secured under section 17 to gain financially from such modifications. Planning permission goes on the developer's list of assets, and he or she can trade it as an object or product. It is an investment artefact, rather than something that actually gets built. If substantial works have not begun within six months on a proposed development - and bear in mind, these are proposed developments where all planning issues have previously been resolved - the delay will have been caused by the changes being justified here, which means this legislation is creating an additional new six-month delay or more, or if it is not going to create such a delay, then it should be reasonable to require them to have commenced within six months of getting these modifications.

Notwithstanding anything else in this Act, the section would expire by 1 January 2027. It is a sunset clause. The Government amendment states: “the section is motivated by the acute shortage of residential accommodation in the State and the rise in homelessness, as well as the rise in cost.” It is one of the most remarkable admissions of failure to put in the language "rise in homeless" in the Bill, as a fact.. That is floating there. We have had the same Government parties for a large number of years. It is almost putting in a marker to put that criterion in that they are admitting these failures in the Bill. The key issue is that it should not be implied that these are conditions that somehow suggest the poor are always with us. The rise in homelessness is a permanent thing. It has been permanently put into legislation as if it is an immutable fact of nature, rather than a situation that has arisen from policies and so forth. Given the science, gravity, and the existence of various factors it has been described as a permanent factor, along with the acute shortage of rental accommodation. If the Government is serious about addressing these issues, it should not be putting them into legislation for the long haul as provisions and situations which the legislation, as it is written now, assumes will continue indefinitely. There should be a sunset clause. If it is an emergency, then frame it as an emergency and put a sunset clause on those provisions that use that language rather than framing it as an ongoing provision.

I want to be clear that we will be opposing the rest of the Government amendments to this Bill. As I said, our amendments are simply an attempt at damage control. These are the kinds of measures which lower standards that were tried before. They did not deliver housing. They did deliver greater immiseration for the people of Ireland, for those who were forced to live in lesser standard developments and housing situations. I hope the Minister of State will address these amendments. We will see sad consequences from the provisions the Government has made.

I will address some of the statements made by my colleague Senator Higgins in her contribution. She stated that there is nothing stopping developers proceeding with existing planning permission for apartments. There is something substantial stopping developers proceeding with existing planning permission. It is financial viability. If a development is not financially viable, how can one proceed? We can talk about our aspirational large apartments all we like, but if they are not financially viable, they will not be built and they are not being built.

We can talk about these aspirations for large apartments, but for people in their 30s who are still living in their parents' box rooms, these smaller size apartments sound absolutely wonderful compared with their current living situations. The amendment being put forward by the Minister of State will facilitate developments with planning permission that are simply not financially viable in their current form. I commend the amendment.

I will be opposing amendment No. 32 because it relates to amendment No. 47 on the modification of existing permissions.

On amendment No. 47, Professor Orla Hegarty has talked about poor-quality accommodation and its impact on mental health and well-being in many recent articles, specifically in relation to the proposals the Government has put forward. On the one hand, people are talking about the actual implications of living in these places. They are the size of two or three car parking spaces. They are small. They are effectively boxes. While I recognise that there might be a lot of people in their 30s who are willing and desperate to get out of the family home, it will not be possible to have a partner or child while living in these conditions where the only spare room is the bathroom. People might be sitting on the loo to try to get some personal space. I nicked that from Senator Boyhan. I am sorry, in case he was hoping to make that point. However, it sparked the idea that when people want to get some space from their partners or maybe they have children, they will not have another room other than the bathroom or shower. That is no way to live in the long term.

We risk people being forced into these homes for the long term, that they will not be starter homes, although the idea of the starter home is kind of nonsense in this day and age in the Irish housing market. We will see people moving into places like this at extortionate rents. Who are the people we envisage will live in these places? Most people want to enter into long-term relationships. They might want to get married or have children. How could anyone live long term in these places? The Minister of State will say this is just a starter home and that people will move out but that is not the reality of the current housing market.

At the same time, legal experts are flagging the multiple serious legal flaws in the proposals. The proposals will not only affect the quality of housing to be delivered but risk compromising existing valid planning permissions. Developers will apply for these modifications, which will leave them open to judicial review because of multiple serious legal flaws in the proposals in the first place.

These kinds of developments will leave a lasting legacy and be the slums of the future, providing a poor quality of life for the people who live in them. They will be considered to be boxes and have a negative-equity legacy, given the narrative about how they started. People will therefore not want to move into them, certainly not for the long term, because of the poor accommodation in the developments. It is likely the people who have bought them will not be able to sell them and trade up after living there for a while. That might not be possible. They might not be able to use these as a step on the so-called property ladder, because of the negative-equity legacy that might be attached to them, when more desirable properties come onto the market. I imagine this is a legacy the Government and the Minister of State's Department do not particularly want to have, given the emphasis on stimulating the housing market.

I will not be supporting this amendment. I urge the Government and the Minister of State to withdraw it, although I do not believe that will be the case.

I will speak briefly on my amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6 to amendment No. 47. As Senator Higgins said, this is an attempt to mitigate the negative impact. I expect the Minister of State will not accept these amendments, but if he were to, they would not go any way to resolve all the challenges of amendment No. 47. They are just an acknowledgement of the grave implications of amendment No. 47 and an attempt to mitigate them in some way.

The previous speakers on this side of the House made a very good point. To go back to what Senator Murphy said on viability, we are worn out with this idea of viability. I have been around for a long time. I have served for two terms on the Oireachtas joint committee on housing, planning and local government. We constantly heard from developers and other representatives of the construction industry looking for changes and we kept giving them changes and modifications to issues around regulation and all of what I have said previously. The reality is that the private sector will not build unless it can sell the units. There is no huge demand. On the argument we hear time and again about the €50,000 to €100,000, no one has provided that information. The Minister of State might be able to provide us with that data. Where is the evidence on the finances to back it up? Does it stack up? There was no regulatory impact assessment of this Bill, as the Minister of State will be aware. Can he share with us the evidence that suggests that this will dramatically reduce costs, by €50,000 to €100,000? That is what the Government press statement said. I looked at it this morning. That is an important point.

A councillor wrote to me this evening about the new design guidelines from last year, which were working quite well. However, she says that because no revised planning permission is required, the public will not have any say in respect of the revised structure and their input into the original planning permission will be set at naught. She then asked whether that can be legally sound. The Minister of State might consider it. To nail that point, this section is particularly interesting, as are all the proposed amendments to it that we have spoken about.

I do not know what the Minister of State will say about the amendments that were debated a few moments ago, but is important that we nail the lie. Only 7,500 of the 50,000 unstarted units are held up in the judicial review process. That is the narrative people have decided to peddle outside the Oireachtas. The reality is different. I do not know how we can compel developers. There are all kinds of advantages. They have made cases for reduced planning levies and reduced public spaces and public realm. There comes a point where we have to stop and tell them either to deliver the houses or not.

I am interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say, more so about the debate on the amendments.

I will speak on amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 47. Like the rest of our amendments, this one is out of concern about public participation in all these changes.

The Government's changes to apartment sizes are madness. They are a repeat of past failures and will not work. It is rushed legislation, which could be open to legal challenge down the line. Public consultation was skipped. This will most likely have unintended consequences. The Minister of State should have sat down with Opposition parties and gone through pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill.

There is nothing in the rules that will reduce the cost of building apartments. That has been said by many sources. They will just allow more smaller apartments to be put into the plans. Experts are saying the cost will not be reduced. Reducing minimum apartment sizes means renters will pay higher rents for smaller and darker apartments and that does nothing to increase the supply of housing or reduce the cost of rent, which is a huge issue throughout the country at the moment. It is likely to increase the value of the land and push up construction costs. The Irish Planning Institute has showed its disquiet, as many of my colleagues mentioned, and its concerns about the proposed changes.

I will leave it at that as I do not want to take up too much time. We are opposing amendment No. 47.

To clarify, it was an article in The Irish Times that stated it was the size of three car parking spaces. In fact, it is a double tennis court. We were all watching Wimbledon in recent days. Would we be delighted to live somewhere the size of a tennis court?

I want to address a few points before going into specific amendments. Reference was made to the fact these amendments were not flagged. It is important to state this was flagged both on Second Stage in the Dáil and on Second Stage in the Seanad last week. As I said in response to Senator McDowell, a briefing paper on all Government amendments was issued to all Senators last Friday.

Just at close of business.

A briefing session was carried out with Oireachtas joint committee members on Monday. Importantly, these amendments could only have been made after the publication of the apartment guidelines last week.

Questions were asked about the costs. Details on savings were also provided to the Oireachtas joint committee. I appreciate Senator Boyhan is no longer on the Oireachtas Joint Committee for Housing, Local Government and Heritage but I will make sure he gets a copy. In general on the points that have been made, nobody can live in an apartment that is not built. This is the important thing to say. Reference has been made to shoeboxes. The only focus of the contributions has been one change being made to the size of studio apartments to 32 sq. m. As I said on the record of the House last week, everyone lauds and applauds Vienna and the model it has for social and affordable housing. The average size of a studio apartment in Vienna is 25 sq. m. We will have 32 sq. m for a studio apartment, with no change to one-bedroom apartments. It is important to state single people also need homes.

I will now address amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to Government amendment No. 47, which concerns the modification of permission for residential development. Amendment No. 47 proposes to introduce a new section 44B to the Act of 2000, providing a certification procedure for modifications to planning permissions for residential development that are in line with certain specific planning policy requirements contained in the recently published Planning Design Standards for Apartments - Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2025.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 47, tabled by Senators McCormack, Murphy, Andrews, Collins, Ryan and Tully, seeks to include a requirement that applications for certificates under section 44B be notified to the public by way of a site notice. Subsection (13) of the proposed section 44B enables the Minister to make regulations for the purposes of this section. Where it is determined that a site notice is required, such a requirement will be introduced by regulations made under subsection (13), as is the case under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 47 further proposes that the relevant authority must provide for public participation in the certification process by inviting written submissions from interested persons or organisations, and the relevant authority must also have regard to those submissions when issuing a certificate under the proposed section 44B. The Aarhus Convention relates to access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Following discussions with the Office of the Attorney General, the Department remains satisfied that the Bill is in compliance with all international obligations, including the Aarhus Convention.

It is important to note that subsection (5)(b) of section 44B provides that a relevant authority cannot issue a certificate under section 44B if an appropriate assessment or environmental impact assessment of the proposed modification of the permission is required. Where an EIA or AA is required, such proposed modifications may only be sought by way of a planning application, a process that provides for public participation and notification. In this context, regulations made under section 44B will provide the screening procedures for an EIA and an AA to facilitate this provision. Given the urgent need to increase housing supply, section 44B enables a limited number of modifications to existing planning permissions to facilitate the building of much-needed apartment developments while ensuring environmental screening is carried out in respect of those modifications.

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 47, tabled by Senators Higgins and Stephenson, seeks to provide that a relevant authority shall not grant a certificate if the modification relates to the removal or reduction of communal space or cultural space within the proposed development. It should be noted that subsection (15) of section 44B defines "permitted modifications" for the purpose of the section. A number of references are contained therein to specific planning policy requirements in the new guidelines. These relate to apartment mix, apartment floor areas, dual aspect ratios, floor-to-ceiling heights, lift and stair cores, and works, including to footpaths, boundaries, gardens and balconies, required for the purposes of the foregoing, or to ensure access to the development. The removal or reduction of communal spaces or cultural space is not of itself a permitted modification. The permitted modifications will be predominantly internal, with any additional works allowable only permitted if they are necessary for the purposes of internal modifications or to ensure access to the development. It is for these reasons that I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 47 seeks to provide that any permitted modification shall be subject to fire safety certificates, health and safety certificates and any other appropriate certifications. I do not consider this provision necessary for two reasons. Subsection (5) of section 44B at paragraph (a) will preclude a relevant authority from issuing a certificate in respect of a development that has already commenced. Second, subsection (7) of section 44B provides that where a relevant authority issues a certificate, the permission stands modified in accordance with the terms of the proposed modification. The modified permission will be subject to building control requirements in the same manner as would have applied to the original permission, if commenced. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

I will now address amendments Nos. 4 and 5 to amendment No. 47, as tabled by Senators Higgins and Stephenson. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 propose the insertion of a new subsection (16) into the proposed new section 44B. Amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 47 seeks to provide that any permitted modification to the mixture of apartments of different classes shall be a varied mix of different classes of apartments. I cannot accept this amendment as it conflicts with specific planning policy requirement, SPPR, 1 in the recently published planning design standards for apartments. Under SPPR 1, with the exception of certain specified social housing developments, there are no minimum or maximum requirements for apartments with a certain number of bedrooms.

Amendment No. 5 to amendment No. 47 seeks to reduce the duration of a modified permission to six months. I do not consider this to be an appropriate measure as it could reduce the likelihood of the holder of a permission applying for a certificate under the proposed section 44B and in some cases could reduce the duration of an existing permission by a significant period of time. For these reasons I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

My amendment No. 47 will introduce a new section 44B to the Act of 2000, providing a certification procedure for modifications to planning permissions for residential development that are in line with certain specific planning policy requirements contained in the recently published Planning Design Standards for Apartments - Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2025. Viability presents an ongoing challenge to housing delivery and this is particularly relevant for the delivery of apartments, where a considerable gap has emerged between the cost of delivering apartment development and comparable general housing market prices.

The new guidelines provide guidance, standards and policy requirements in relation to the design of apartment developments to take account of current Government policy and economic, social and environmental considerations. Given the urgent need to increase housing supply, the proposed section 44B will enable the holders of existing permissions for apartment developments that have not yet commenced to modify their permissions in line with the new guidelines. As the provision explicitly sets out, its purpose is to facilitate the construction of greater numbers of dwellings in apartment complexes than permitted under permissions already granted, taking account of the acute shortage of residential accommodation, the rise in homelessness, the rise in the cost of residential rental accommodation and house and apartment purchase prices.

Section 44B enables the holder of a permission for residential development to apply to the relevant authority that granted the permission, either a planning authority or An Coimisiún Pleanála, to certify that a proposed modification of a permission is a permitted modification. The relevant authority must be satisfied that the proposed modification, if made, would be a permitted modification in order for a certificate to issue. Applications for certificates will need to be accompanied by revised plans and drawings and other documentation and information related to the proposed modification for purposes including the carrying out of environmental screening.

Certificates will not be issued for proposed modifications if the development has already commenced, if an appropriate assessment or environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed modification is required or if the applicant for the certificate fails to comply with requests for any documentation or further information. In addition, if the development is located in a strategic development zone, a certificate cannot be issued if the proposed modification would cause the number of dwellings in that strategic development zone to exceed the number permitted by its planning scheme.

Where a certificate is issued, the planning permission will stand so modified and any development carried out in accordance with the modified permission will not be unauthorised development. Public notification requirements are set out requiring the relevant authority to issue a public notice in a newspaper and on its website as well as making the relevant documentation available for inspection, including on its website. Section 44B is a temporary provision and certificate applications for proposed modifications must be made within two years of the Bill coming into operation, that is, by July 2027.

Amendments Nos. 32, 48 and 49 are consequential to the introduction of this new certification procedure for modifications to existing apartment permissions. Amendment No. 32 amends section 7 of the Act of 2000 to provide that particulars of any permission modified in accordance with section 44B must be entered into a planning authority's register. Senators Stephenson and Higgins have proposed an amendment to amendment No. 49 that seeks to provide that any fees set should not be prohibitively expensive. I cannot accept this proposed amendment as it is unnecessary given section 246 of the Act of 2000 has appropriate safeguards in place and provides that, in setting fees, the amount shall be related to the estimated cost of the development or the unauthorised part thereof, as the case may be. It also provides that fees for making copies shall not exceed the reasonable cost of making such copies.

Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 concern the setting of fees for certification applications and propose to amend section 246 of the Act of 2000, whereby the Minister may prescribe in regulation a fee in respect of applications under section 44B , and section 144 of that Act to facilitate the commission to set a fee in respect of such applications where it is the relevant authority.

I appreciate there was a lot of content in that response but it was important to respond to the amendments to the Government amendments and to give the background and detail behind the amendments Government is proposing.

I will correct my correction. Eight units could fit on a tennis court. Forgive me; it is very late. If eight units could fit on a tennis court, they would be minuscule. I just wished to point that out.

The Minister of State made reference to the Vienna housing model. The Vienna housing model is based on loads of shared amenities and diversity of housing type to avoid creating slum-like developments. That diversity of accommodation type is not referenced in the Government amendments. It is obviously not just about size; it is also about having fewer windows and lifts. All of those things matter and will impact people's quality of life. I will again make the point that receiving these amendments at 5 p.m., or whatever time it was, late on a Friday cannot be considered advance warning. To be clear on the record, a briefing is not pre-legislative scrutiny. A briefing is a briefing. It is not the same as pre-legislative scrutiny.

Amendments Nos. 34 to 40, inclusive, 42 and 56 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 12, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“(b) an explanation as to why the development has not yet commenced, a viability assessment setting out what has changed that would allow the development to commence if an extension of duration is granted, and a detailed schedule of works setting out when the various stages of development will occur,”.”.

I will speak on amendments Nos. 34 and 56 together to save time. These amendments relate to the extension of planning permissions where development has not commenced. While these delays can be caused by genuine viability challenges, proper monitoring is needed to ensure that requests for extensions are actually genuine and are not being used by speculators who are deliberately sitting on land. Our amendment seeks an explanation from the developer and six-monthly reports on extensions for the same reasons. We just want that bit of transparency. Amendment No. 56 is very similar. It just ensures regular reporting on extensions to improve monitoring and to keep an eye on extensions to planning permissions.

I support amendment No. 34, which Senator Collins has just set out. It makes a lot of sense. It is a very practical suggestion. It introduces some sort of monitoring and engagement, which is important. It is also important that this engagement be on the record because we have heard many excuses. The amendment refers to an explanation as to why a developer has not yet commenced and requires a viability assessment. Let us keep it simple. These developers put in these applications at great expense to themselves. They must have thought the developments were viable. Otherwise, why would they have put them on the drawing boards in the first place? They then got these permissions. One of the kernels of the problem is that we have all of these developments approved and ready to go on serviced sites in the key locations where we want them but we are told they are not making enough money. The developers are making a profit. No one is doing this at a loss. Let us not fool ourselves.

The Vienna model is interesting. My colleague Senator McDowell searched it on Google a minute ago. We are talking about €300 a month in Vienna for the studios the Minister of State has mentioned. I respect that there is a market for studios and I have no difficulty with that but you cannot talk about the Vienna model, where units are €300 a month, when a man has told me he is paying €1,050 a month. If anyone is talking about the Vienna model - I am not referring to the Minister of State per se - that is the reality.

Amendment No. 34 is a very practical suggestion. It seems to be run of the mill for Government not to accept amendments. No amendments have ever been accepted. Some Ministers come in here reading out pink sheets stapled together saying they cannot accept amendments for whatever reason. It is all pretyped and ready in advance then a fresh set of stuff comes in for the next Minister. We have not yet had the Minister here, although we have had two Ministers of State. We live in a democracy. This is a democratic bicameral parliament. We are meant to be enhancing and revising legislation, as the Minister of State's former leader reminded us in this House on many occasions. I will again put on the record that it is exceptionally disappointing that senior civil servants prepare papers, staple them together and then hand them to the Minister of State or someone else - I am not commenting on the Minister of State personally - to be read out. There is a record of opposing everything. The Minister of State has been on the other side of the House himself, although his group has been in government for many years. Every few months, there is another excuse. There comes a time when we have to put our hands up and hold people to account. Our job is to hold the Minister of State to account as he has held many people to account over his own political career, which is right and proper.

I just wish he would go back to someone in his Department. Sometime, it would be lovely for a Minister to come in here and say, "Actually there's a bit of sense in what you're saying, Senator, and we're going to accept it." However, there is a mentality of opposing everything for the sake of opposing and then having spin doctors go out on the airways to tell us they have the problems all sorted.

They have not got the problems sorted. The country is in a mess in relation to housing. The last three Administrations in this country have failed to deliver. That is the reality of it. This is a legacy issue on the Minister of State's hands. He needs to be realistic. We hear all these things about the disappointment and everyone is mad and a lunatic because they are outside the gate complaining. People have no homes. People who work here are coming from the midlands every day. People cannot afford to pay for anything. They are in rooms. The only place they can get away from their partners is to lock themselves in a toilet with a shower, not even a bathroom.

Let us have a bit of empathy here. Let us be practical and respectful to everyone involved. The Minister of State has put his best foot forward, but it is simply not good enough.

I will be brief because I am keen to move to later in the Bill and be able to get to vote. Amendments Nos. 38 to 40, inclusive, deal with the use-it-or-lose-it principle. If people are granted these extensions, they should be required to act upon them. If people are getting extensions for one or two developments and have not commenced, they should not be given permission for delays on all their developments unless they follow through. Someone who gets an extension on one development should start building that before going looking for an extension on another development. These are all attempts to ensure these measures do not reward speculation, as I am concerned they will.

Regarding the tone of some of the amendments from the other side, there is very much an argument that developers are at fault. The tone is very much use it or lose it. Senator Boyhan mentioned the midlands. As a rural TD, I find that one of the biggest laggards in the housing crisis are the local authorities here in Dublin. I have followed one case, as I know the Minister of State has as an avid reader of the Business Post. It is a scheme of 103 apartments on the Old Naas Road, which were completed in 2019. They are still empty, albeit fully furnished, and the developer was prepared and ready to release them onto the rental market. They have been held up repeatedly, primarily by the enforcement team in Dublin City Council, which seems to have a free rein over how that council operates to the detriment of everybody, but most importantly to the detriment of the people Senator Boyhan spoke so eloquently about, the people in the teeth of a housing crisis at the moment.

In the middle of last year, it was recommended that the issue would go to mediation and the eminent former Chief Justice Frank Clarke presided over that mediation. It came to a point where he suggested a lawyers-only meeting to try to reach a compromise and ultimate agreement in this case. Dublin City Council took that as its opportunity to exit the mediation process and unfortunately it still goes on. The message I am trying to deliver is that until people working in local authorities and particularly people in positions of influence, such as enforcement and planning, come to realise that there is indeed a housing crisis and that it affects them and their families, we will never resolve it.

I appreciate what the Minister of State and the senior Minister are doing. We need to engage every lever in an effort to try to sort this housing crisis. This Bill is very much part of that process. The staff and officials of local authorities are key players in this and they are not engaging with the sincerity and conviction they need to engage with if we are serious about dealing with this issue.

I will now address amendments Nos. 34 and 56, as tabled by Senators McCormack, Murphy, Andrews, Collins, Ryan and Tully, and amendments Nos. 35 to 40, inclusive, and 42, as tabled by Senators Higgins and Stephenson. These amendments relate to the extension-of-duration provisions of the Bill.

Amendment No. 34 seeks to provide that as part of an application for an extension of duration, the applicant shall submit a viability assessment and a detailed schedule of works.

Amendment No. 36 seeks to amend the extension-of-duration provision to provide that a contractor who is in receipt of State subsidies must publish an annual profit-and-loss account, an auditor’s report and a balance sheet in order to qualify for funding. Section 16 of the Bill does not relate to funding and therefore I cannot accept this amendment. It would not be appropriate to seek accounting information as part of a request to extend the duration of a planning permission.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 40 seek to provide that development must begin construction within a specified timeframe after receiving planning permission, and penalties for non-compliance will include the withdrawal of permission for the development. Amendment No. 39 seeks to provide that substantial works must commence in two years or otherwise the permission will expire. These amendments are unnecessary as the provision already provides that works must commence within 18 months of the coming into operation of the provision or otherwise the extension will cease to have effect. For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 38 seeks to provide that applications for extensions may not be sought on other developments if a person has sought an extension on a development already and not commenced it. I cannot accept this amendment as applications should be dealt with on an individual basis. There may be circumstances beyond a person’s control as to why a development did not commence.

Amendment No. 42 provides that extensions should be granted for a minimal period only. This is unnecessary as the provision already provides that the planning authority is limited to extending the appropriate period by such additional period as the planning authority considers requisite to enable the development concerned to be completed. For this reason, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 56 seeks to provide by legislation that the Minister shall lay a report before the Oireachtas every six months on the operation of the extension of duration, detailing the number of developments that have availed of the extensions, the number of units granted extension that have commenced and the number of units that have been completed. Section 42(5) of the Act of 2000 already provides that the details of any extension of duration is entered on the planning register. As there are already provisions in place to deal with these matters, I cannot accept this amendment.

Further to Senator Boyhan's comments, it is important in responding to amendments that full clarifications are given on the record of this House for anybody who may read the record of this debate. That is the case for any Minister who comes before the House. I take very seriously the debate that happens in this House and in the Dáil. As someone who was a proud Member of this House for four and a half years, I have agreed with the Leader to extend the duration of the debate, which he will propose shortly.