On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 18 of 321 decisive votes (0 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| SF | Sinn Féin | 1,054 | 2020-06-29 – 2024-05-29 |
| CC | Ceann Comhairle / Chair | 94 | 2021-11-11 – 2024-05-01 |
Membership spells on record: SF 2020-03-30–2024-07-15
I move amendment No. 66: In page 43, line 22, after "appeal" to insert "except where any such documentation is materially relevant to the appeal".
Amendment No. 1 refers to the group 3 theme, which is about design flexibility. Group 1 refers to the Airbnb issue.
I refer to our Seanad amendments.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, in group 1 are Government amendments rather than our proposed Seanad amendments.
We welcome the measures relating to short-term lets.
On a point of order, my understanding is that the grouping relating to our amendments Nos. 1 and 2 relates to design flexibility, which is group 3. Our amendments seem to have been put in for discussion under group 2.
Yes. Group 2 relates to ministerial directions regarding the statutory plan and related provisions. Our amendments seem to refer to group 3, relating to flexibility in planning applications.
I do not mean to put words in the Senator's mouth. The issue is that we think the amendments should be included with group 3 rather than group 2.
No disrespect to the Bills Office, because the people there are completely run off their feet, but the fact that nobody even spotted the problem with these amendments, and I am not referring to the Chair but to the Minister of State, shows us how shoddy this procedure has been. No disrespect is intended. The Minister of State is bringing in 48 pages of amendments with no oversight, no pre-legislative scrutiny and no time for us to even go through them and assess them. These are major changes. It must be recorded th…
Nobody does.
I will speak to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in group 3. Amendment No. 1 is around the design envelope flexibility for large-scale residential developments. Senator Higgins has gone into incredible detail on what these two amendments are trying to do. Nobody is saying we do not need design flexibility, especially when it comes to large offshore wind projects, but we do not believe replacing the deeply flawed strategic housing development system with design flexibility for large-scale residential developments is the way …
The planning laws are under review, and we are due to see the result of that review by the end of the year. Judicial review legislation is due in the autumn, so I have to ask why we are trying, at breakneck speed, to introduce quite serious changes to the judicial review process that have a fundamental impact on people's right to access justice. We are not going to stop judicial reviews from happening if we cannot screen out the bad planning. As we know, the significant majority of judicial reviews are won. I belie…
I move amendment No. 1: In page 11, to delete lines 31 to 37.
I move amendment No. 2: In page 11, to delete lines 38 to 40, to delete pages 12 to 14, and in page 15 to delete lines 1 to 23.
I second the amendment.
I second the amendment.
I second the amendment.
I move amendment No. 6: In page 22, to delete lines 33 to 38 and in page 23, to delete lines 1 to 14.
I second the amendment.
I second the amendment.