This is not my amendment but it is a very sensible one. The question of the placing of it is really by the by. That is a product of the fact that this legislation is being pushed through Committee and Remaining Stages, as have ten out of 11 planning Bills in the last decade. Every planning Bill except one has been guillotined in the Seanad in the last week of July or the last week of December. The technicalities of placement are exactly what Committee and Report Stage are meant to be about. Fundamentally, the sugge…

I will be brief. I am just speaking to section 61. It relates to section 62 and I will then come to my specific amendments on section 62 when we get to that. I want to highlight that sections 61 and 62 together are amending the definition of "material alteration". Effectively, they are bypassing public participation, which is a crucial point when it comes to decision making. It is yet another thread in the dilution and evasion of proper public democratic participation in planning. There are huge implications to thi…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 35, to delete lines 10 to 17. Senator Stephenson will speak on the amendments.

I want to pick up on that point. The removal of the word "expedite" is key because it exposes the logic. As I said, the logic has been the same. Every July, we get a new planning and development Bill that includes a new set of concessions to developers and creates more problems. We have tied the hands of the public in relation to their rights to judicial reviews and access to justice. The Government has blamed councillors and sought to erode their powers systematically. It has blamed the public and environmental gr…

In light of the fact that the Minister can actually tell local authorities what is meant by material alteration, I am going to press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 35, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(4) An alteration of a permission referred to in subsection (3) shall be considered a material alteration if substantial works have not commenced 2 years from the point the permission was granted.”.

The Minister has provided for it in the Bill. This is a scenario he is setting out. He is making the change. People may have reasons that are reasonable or they may have reasons that are not reasonable, but they are still humans. They may be acting from paranoia, fear or concern, or they may be acting because they have had experience of abuse in the past. There are many reasons for people making decisions. The point is the decision the Minister is making is that those people can be removed from the emergency accomm…

It clearly is. The intention is to increase the pressure on vulnerable persons in emergency accommodation to accept what is deemed to be a reasonable offer, with an additional threat that if they do not do so, they could be moved to night-to-night accommodation. It cannot be read as anything other than an increasing of the pressure on people to make a decision on that. Maybe they will accept an offer of social housing they would not otherwise have accepted in some cases, but they will not in other cases and the con…

The Government is trying to hide behind people who are doing their jobs when it is bringing in legislation. Let us be real. We were explicit that we are debating the legislation and what is provided for. For Senator Flaherty to try to say that other Senators are saying this person or that person is not nice or good is ridiculous. If they are all such wise and wonderful people, they would not need guidance from the Minister to tell them that they can throw somebody out. They would not need that.

The legislation is what it is. It is frankly ridiculous to drag this up. The Senator, not us, brought up staff in the area and told us not to worry about the law because we know the staff are going to be doing their best. If they were doing their best, these coercive laws would not be needed and would not apply. The Government is bringing the laws and we are debating the point of law. That is our job. We are legislators. We are certainly not going to be intimidated while questioning dangerous law when it is brought…

I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, line 17, after “10(1)” to insert “at a minimum”. Section 7 creates residency requirements for people who are seeking emergency homeless accommodation. These provisions we have previously spoken about are very worrying with regard to the offer made. Our amendment No. 9 for this section deals with that question of the reasonable offer and the fact persons may have refused support in the past. That is one piece. In general, section 7 creates a new extreme vulnerability for persons wh…

Could the Minister please repeat the last line of what he said? I did not actually hear what he was saying. He is rejecting, as I understand, the text with regard to the "minimum" but is he suggesting that the text "minimum" will be included somewhere else? I did not hear what the Minister's last sentence was.

Can I clarify? Will that guidance be provided by the Minister or how will it be provided? I am genuinely inquiring because-----

We like to have stuff in legislation when we can as it is more transparent, but I am noting the commitment by the Minister in respect of guidance specifying that eight to eight should be a minimum. I would appreciate it if we could be informed as to when that guidance is published.

We are still speaking to the section.

Okay, sure. Are we on amendment No. 4?

I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, lines 17 and 18, to delete all words from and including “between” in line 17 down to and including line 18.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 8, lines 21 to 24, to delete all words from and including “for,” in line 21 down to and including “formed” in line 24.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 8, line 22, after “period” to insert “at a minimum”.

It is also an important question. If there is a deterioration from that situation, then that is also relevant. If it is the situation that persons can currently seek other emergency accommodation but, in the future, would not be allowed to, that is pretty significant. I have two questions, one I have already asked but will ask again. Why is this being done? Who is it for? Another related question is where are the people meant to go? There are two pieces here. The Government is deciding to bring forward legislation …