Alice-Mary Higgins
National University of Ireland · Independent · Ireland
“We are signing up to be customers of liquefied natural gas - potentially fracked gas, potentially coming from a country that is busily fighting against climate action and trying to fast-track our route to destruction. We will be doing that every year in the budget and every day in the terminal.”
“We are not getting solid measures on those safeguards. The other safeguards we have, which are our planning laws and climate laws, are being either fast-tracked or suspended. We are suspending the existing safeguards and are not putting hard safeguards into this Bill, and we are being asked to go on faith.”
“Nonetheless, I have some practical questions. We need a little more on what the emergency is because it is not sufficient to say we will deal with it then. The emergency is the ground on which the Minister of State is asking for the normal planning process and the climate Act to be suspended. We need to know what the emergency is.”
“It should happen only after all relevant market-based measures have been implemented. Those market measures should include the demand-reduction strategies that are eligible under N-1, including demand reduction by large energy users, and should have been implemented, exhausted and proven insufficient.”
“Sure there is detail in it but the key issue is that what he is asking of the Oireachtas, which is to agree to it being built, is on the argument of there being an emergency. It should be very clear what the emergency is. I mentioned previously that the committee said our N-1 obligations could be met through demand management.”
“It comes from real places with real communities that are immediately and terribly impacted by fracking, as well as having an impact on the atmosphere that surrounds our beautiful planet, which we are destroying. As the Minister of State said, it impacts not just on business but on the liveability of large portions of this planet.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,900 lines we hold for Alice-Mary Higgins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 38.
“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.”.”
“There needs to be something that says that if developers have planning permissions and they are being granted concession after concession, even to the point of risking illegality, then they need to use them. If they do not use them, then the Government should start taking the sweeteners away and start saying that we cannot have a lowering of standards and continued non-delivery. I will oppose section 62 as a whole because it is wrong, but if the Government is serious when it says that this is about delivering anything, the minimum it should do is introduce a use-it-or-lose-it clause - the kind of clause we looked for on strategic housing developments, where almost half of those developments with planning permission were never built.”
“The bar cannot get much lower, but it is happening again, and this time the Government is bringing a legal complexity with it, and our amendment is a use-it-or-lose-it clause. This is basic. If these developers have been sitting on planning permissions for two years, and if the Government, having lowered the bar for them last year, then gives them another sweetener this year, lowers the bar yet again in terms of what is deemed a material alteration and allows them to do that and they continue not to build, because that is the issue, then at a certain point there needs to be a stick and not just carrots. This is not anybody held up by judicial reviews, These are people with ready-to-go planning permissions who are not using them.”
“This time the developers want to be sure that they can row ahead and put people into hot boxes with single-aspect windows. The Minister said it. They are not even going to increase the occupancy number. What they will be doing is changing the unit structures, cutting corners on public spaces and standards, and ensuring that what we do not have the mix that we should have in terms of family size and residences within these residential developments, as well as ensuring that the most profitable unit can be produced in the highest numbers with the highest profit margin. That is explicitly what it is doing. It is solely about enabling the construction of greater numbers of dwellings within residential developments. It is just a lowering of the bar again.”
“The blame has been widely spread every year, but what happens every year is that the Government gives more concessions to developers and it does not deliver because the goals of developers, who are looking to maximise profit, and the goals that our public representatives, who are serving the public, and our Government should have are not directly aligned. The job of the Government is to hold developers and standards to account. It is to drive forward the provision of housing. This language removal tells us a lot because it has gone from saying that we need to cut yet another corner to expedite the construction of greater numbers of dwellings and apartment complexes to saying we have to do it to make it happen because otherwise they will not build it. They want another thing. It is another pound of flesh from the public.”
“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 groups for ever taking judicial reviews.”
“Planning permissions, for speculative reasons, are not being used because developers know that if they wait a few months, the Government will give them something else. There comes a point at which those permissions may be compromised by legal uncertainty, become vulnerable to judicial review in a way they previously were not and risk being quashed for known non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention, thereby sending the whole project back to the drawing board. This measure will end up leading to slower and more convoluted delivery of lower-standard apartments. That may not concern a speculator who is just trading in the potential and is not actually planning to build but it is a very worrying situation for members of the public waiting for projects to be built.”
“Instead of fixing the issues in our now annual July rush through planning and development Bills, it could have been a chance to maybe fix some of the known problems. Instead of fixing them, we are actually compounding the issues of non-compliance with Aarhus, Article 6.10 and public participation requirements with further changes. In many cases, existing planning permissions have not been acted upon because there are no use-it-or-lose-it clauses attached to them, many fast-tracking measures apply, there is a dilution of standards and we have all the rest of the things the Government does in its annual giveaway in the rushed planning and development Bills that are brought forward every July. I will discuss this further when we reach my amendments to section 62.”
“The Minister of State cannot say he is not aware of them, because Chapter 5, Part 4 of the principal Act, the relevant one here, is the one Chapter of the Planning and Development Act 2024 which has already been put on the desk of the Aarhus Convention compliance committee. Even following the final version of the Chapter following Report and Final Stages in the Seanad - the version that went into law in terms of material alteration - the Aarhus Convention compliance committee rejected it as non-compliant in early November 2025, which is contained in paragraph 44.102 of that decision by the convention committee. It has already been decided that it is not compliant and now the Minister of State will drag more things into it.”
“The upshot is that, actually rather than speeding anything up, existing lawful positions will now potentially be rendered unlawful and drowned in legal uncertainty because things that have secured planning permission that then go ahead to have these material alterations in them that have legal ambiguity over them will actually be super-counterproductive. I have other problems when we come to section 62 that I will highlight, including the lack of proper use it or lose it clauses, including the actual specific quality and dangers and things like that appalling idea of single aspect apartments and the creation of hotboxes. Those are specifics but because I am now speaking to section 61 I want to highlight the legal issues which are crystal clear.”
“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 this in terms of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention, specifically Article 6.10, which Ireland is a party to and which is a key part of the EU legal order.”
“Given the level of assault on democracy and access to justice that has been shoved through in planning Bill after planning Bill on the basis of a narrative that judicial reviews are terrible, including the dilution of people's ability to take them, the capping of the moneys and the dilution of locus standi , it is very reasonable for somebody to ask for the facts and their publication, and to ask for a justification for these ongoing erosions of judicial review powers and the public's access to justice.”
“For example, the Library and Research Service has found that 40% of judicial reviews were taken by developers. You would not think that from the vilification of local communities when they or others, including environmental groups, take judicial reviews. You would not think, for example, that much of the major backlog that existed related to bad, rushed planning decisions in previously rushed planning and development Bills, including the strategic housing development provisions, which fast-tracked planning and led to a whole pile of planning permissions being given in ways that completely abandoned proper process. Even when they were granted, they were not built on because there was no use-it-or-lose-it clause.”
“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 suggestion of independence and so forth rings a little hollow because we have listened for years to direct attacks on judicial reviews, to the vilification of those who take them, and to comments showing an unwillingness to engage with any of the figures and facts.”
“Currently, members of the public can check whether properties they view to be derelict or vacant are included on the vacant sites register. What equivalent powers will the public have in terms of both raising concerns and transparency?”
“Where someone currently has a liability, will that person still have a liability following the repeal or is it only where a request for payment has been made by the local authority? If the latter is the case, it would perhaps be useful to give proper notice to the local authorities before commencing the Act to ensure they act on all those moneys. We know dereliction is a disgrace and that vacancy is a profitable practice for many developers and speculators. In fact, it has been profitable at a pace that has outstripped even the 7% that was not being claimed and that certainly may outstrip the 3% to which we are returning. I would like the Minister of State to address that move from 7% to 3% and the fact of the non-continuing availability. What transparency will the public have?”
“That is reassuring to a degree but I still have concerns, which I ask the Minister of State to address. Appeals and the non-application to appeals are specified in section 3, whereas for the other measures the Minister of State is describing, we are relying on the Interpretation Act. He might clarify why it was specified in section 3(2) in relation to an appeal but not similarly specified in relation to the issuance of fines or the liability for fines. Where a property has been placed on the vacant property register and the owner has moneys that would be due, will that apply or will it only apply if the request for payment has already been made? Does the Minister of State know what I mean? If so, I would like him to clarify that.”
“There are things being lost here in this. It is not a straightforward repeal and replace. It is not clear to me, first of all, how the gaps between the two measures are being tackled, and second, just straightforwardly in terms of when this repeal comes into effect, what the issue will be. I know there are measures in the Bill where there is an appeal under way, but what is not clear to me is if there are situations whereby an outstanding payment is due or a case has been taken, will they still be proceeding? Will the Minister of State clarify on both those issues?”
“There is nothing stopping a landowner avoiding the application of the RZLT if they instead chose to pay local property tax on a vacant property. There are vast swathes of the RZLT maps where it is shown that the RZLT will not apply. The aim of the vacant site levy was to tackle the adverse negative impacts on dereliction in the surrounding areas, and that is potentially being lost by the repeal of that measure. The provisions on the vacant site register also do not apply to the RZLT therefore we are losing that crucial public oversight of landowners so that we can know who is utilising sites solely for the purpose of financial gain or speculation. We will not have that information as we would have had it previously in the vacant properties register, even though the consequences of the speculative behaviour are immense.”
“What I do not see is why we are potentially letting people off the hook who should have been liable under the vacant site tax. It is really regrettable that for nine years, nothing was done to make that very important measure be effective and deliver. The RZLT, compared to the vacant site levy, is a self-assessed tax to be applied to properties located in particular areas of RZLT maps published by local authorities that are zoned for residential use; again, not necessarily tackling the dereliction on main streets in many towns across Ireland. Exemptions are given to any residential property on the map which is subject to a local property tax. The framing here is all around tax compliance rather than tackling vacancy.”
“All liable sites were required to place themselves on the vacant site register, giving a public view to the owners of sites and vacancies. It was tackling multiple issues. The problem was it was not implemented and was not applied. Rather than tackling the implementation of that, including, for example, some of the proposals, which were to ensure the moneys that would be collected by local authorities could be used in relation to housing provision by local authorities to actually tackle the wider and negative impacts of dereliction on that local basis, rather than measures such as that we are now repealing the entire thing. I want to be clear that I am not necessarily opposed to the residential zoned land tax, RZLT in itself. That is one thing.”
“The vacant site levy applies to residential land where there is a need for housing and regeneration other than residential in an area where the majority of the site is vacant or idle and is having a negative effect on existing amenities, or reduces the amenity provided by public infrastructure, or has an adverse impact on the character of an area. The piece on the provision in the vacant site levy was not solely about providing more housing, even though that is very crucial; it was also around recognising the knock-on effects of vacancy on the civil fabric of an area. Coming from Cork, the Minister of State will be very familiar with the footage and the monitoring of dereliction in Cork city centre, for example, and the impact that has had on the city and on the town.”
“A proposal by me, the then Senator Grace O'Sullivan and others back in 2017, almost nine years ago now, to increase that levy to 7% was rejected only to finally be brought in a couple of years later, in 2019. The residential zoned land tax, RZLT, which is the new tax that is going to replace that, brings it back down to 3% of the market value of the land. By moving the entire system to the collection of RZLT and the Revenue, the Government is effectively cutting the penalties for underutilised sites that should and could be used for residential housing. There is also a difference between the purpose of the vacant site levy and that of the RZLT, and I am concerned that something is being lost in that transition.”
“I am concerned that the repeal of the provisions as set out could let landowners who are sitting on vacant sites for speculative reasons off the hook. There are over 100,000 vacant and derelict houses in this State, whereas this Bill is inserting language that suggests there is a shortage of housing. That is being inserted as if it is a permanent fact, when we also know there is a failure to act on the properties that are there and are part of the mix. This is the crucial part of tackling the ever-rising homelessness figures, but it is worrying and hard to see that the Government is serious about tackling this problem. It has been reluctant to increase penalties for landowners who sit on vacant properties. The vacant price levy started at 3% of the market value of the land.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 10, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “(2) Where there is a demand for the payment of levy under section 15 of the Act of 2015, but that levy has not been collected before the date of the coming into operation of the repeal of section 15 of that Act by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) , the Act of 2015 shall, on and after that date, continue to apply and have effect in relation to the demand for the payment of levy under section 15 of that Act in respect of a vacant site the subject of the recovery of that levy, as if the repeal had not occurred.”. This seeks to ensure that any outstanding payment of the vacant site levy will still be paid when the provisions in this Bill move forward and when the existing vacant site levy is repealed by this Bill.”
“Will we end up with a criminalised vagrancy, as we saw with the vagrancy Acts, where you basically force people to have nowhere to go and then you criminalise them for having nowhere to go? I am deeply concerned and will be opposing all these sections of the Bill.”
“By creating new visible links - this is the last thing I will say - there are questions about how this is going to intersect with the new powers being given to the Garda to force people to enter reception centres.”
“When the Government responded to the far-right push against housing refugees and asylum seekers and forced them to sleep rough on the street just a couple of summers ago, that fuelled more far-right rhetoric because then people were visible, and the visible homelessness problem becomes a problem that particularly affects very vulnerable people such as migrants and others.”
“The key thing is the language we now see is about demographics, as if the housing and homelessness crises we have do not relate to clearly signalled concerns and problems with Government policies, housing supply and other measures where there has been a call for action. It has landed on us somehow with words like "demographics". This contributes to that because it is kind of saying that we are addressing that big problem whereby people who do not have residency are taking accommodation. That is not true.”
“Will they be turned out into the street? I say this because in the recent past there was low-key dog-whistling about the housing crisis. I have heard all of the excuses over the past decade when the Government has completely failed to address the situation. It was all about planning, planning objections, and terrible communities and environmentalists taking judicial reviews, and that is why there was not planning and enough housing for everybody. Then it was all about the councillors - those councillors with their parochial approach, who were refusing to properly engage. They were the problem. It was all of these problems, even though we know there is a lot of land hoarding and planning permissions that are not activated. Those issues are not being addressed but that is a slightly wider issue.”
“There are many other reasons persons may decline in one instance. Doing so will now result in them being denied any of that minimal, night-by-night accommodation for two years. Much of the emergency accommodation being offered to people who are homeless is not suitable for them. That is the kind of thing that a state with resources and revenue could be addressing. To preclude someone who is homeless from any emergency support because they previously declined unsuitable accommodation or accommodation, which they felt to be unsafe, is exclusionary and unfair. What does the Minister envisage happening when people are refused emergency accommodation support and are taken out of the housing support? The numbers involved may not necessarily be large but people become very visible when they have nowhere to go.”
“There are really concerning provisions here that allow - I will come to more of them in a moment - local authorities to refuse to make accommodation arrangements if the person seeking them has refused accommodation even once in the two years previously. If, on one occasion, a person declines emergency accommodation, for two years nobody has to offer that person anything at all. There are many reasonable explanations for why people might refuse accommodation support, particularly where they have experienced trauma, are distressed or are concerned about the implications if they are on a student visa or a short-term work visa. There may be people who may wish to try to find an alternative way of dealing with a situation and may find themselves afraid of the emergency accommodation being provided.”
“This is the language in the Bill. The Minister suggested it was because some people were interpreting "night" as very long. There is almost a suggestion we are trying to make sure people get to come in at 8 a.m. or 8 p.m. As well as it being only that a housing authority "may" make arrangements for that person on the one night, that they only "may" do so between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. on the date immediately following that date. It is saying that a local authority will be in a position to say that it was told not to give homelessness supports to someone and the legislation only provides that it is allowed to give that person support or housing between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. That is as the section is drafted.”
“This new section would mean that housing authorities do not have to provide access to their emergency housing or homelessness supports to applicants under the International Protection Act 2026 who are homeless, to people who are here for short-term work or on student or tourist visas, who may have experienced an issue of any kind, and many other classes of refugees that the Minister deems not to be entitled to that basic level of emergency homelessness support. Instead of providing access to proper homelessness supports, there will now be a potential new mechanism of night-to-night accommodation, for one night at a time, where individuals seek accommodation arrangements. Then, the following night, under subsections (3) and (4) of section 10A, accommodation will only be provided between the hours of 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.”
“That is why we have legal experts, housing charities and homelessness services writing to us expressing very significant and clear concerns about section 7. This section inserts a new section 10A into the Housing Act in relation to the residency requirements for access to emergency homelessness support. This is not the social housing piece and the residency. There are questions marks around how that is applied as well, which I am sure we will come to. This is around emergency homelessness supports and the safety net provided by emergency housing.”
“This is a very concerning provision when we consider, for example, families, mothers and their children and others who may be offered unsuitable rental accommodation as a social housing support and may, for good reason, refuse such an offer. They could now find themselves in a situation where they are no longer even being given emergency accommodation. Again, the provisions of the Bill allow for a family to be removed from emergency accommodation where they have refused offers of rental social housing accommodation. I will go to the core issue, which is the amendments that were added in, thereby avoiding proper scrutiny and the testimony and analysis of experts that should have taken place as part of pre-legislative scrutiny.”
“Rather than having a massive acceleration of supports, and notwithstanding all the "go fast" talk we are hearing from other parts of the Government on different measures - critical infrastructure, data centres and all the rest - it seems that the measures are designed to push down the numbers in the system, not by providing people with safe and secure housing but by messing with the eligibility standards. That is a concerning provision. I will get to my core concern in a moment. There are a few changes to emergency accommodation. For example, one measure will allow housing authorities to require persons to vacate emergency accommodation when they have refused offers of rental social housing accommodation.”
“I echo the point the Senator made about Bessborough. We introduced legislation to try to ensure that the definition of "unsuitable burial place" was widened to include Bessborough. On the same day, the initial planning decision came through. It is a disgrace. Other mechanisms need to be looked at to ensure that a great damage is not done to those who suffered so much in a place with over 70% mortality rates for children, within the grounds of that space. The Minister spoke about social housing but one of the key concerns here is about emergency accommodation. There are very significant changes in terms of emergency accommodation for the very large numbers of homeless people in the State, of whom there are almost 18,000 currently. This figure has grown year on year.”
“They are going to sit there and say that they cannot comment. How useful is that to the body politic if it to tries to deal with problems that arise?”
“They are being gagged and silenced in terms of being able to give honest answers to committees when they seek to respond to issues which may very well arise in an area riddled with high risk or an area that has subcategories of high risk. If there is so much risk, the more information, the better and the more transparency, the better. At the moment, the Minister can tell them do something that is Government policy. They come into a committee to talk about what has happened and they are not allowed to say, "We feel it may have been mistake. This has had an inadvertent consequence. Here is something which has arisen since we changed the policy last June from what we had in May." They are really consequential things and they are not going to be able to speak about it. There is no other word for that other than being gagged.”
“If we look at this combined with section 11 - that is why we opposed section 11 - whereby the Minister in relation to the AI office can "give a direction in writing to the Office requiring it to comply with such policies of the Government relating to AI" and it must comply with it. The Minister can write and say, "Here is the Government policy, you need to do it." However, if that CEO comes into an Oireachtas committee and things go wrong and the committee members are rightly asking what happened and why things are going wrong, they cannot say that they followed a policy and this is the consequence of the policy. The consequence is the problem.”
“(10) In exceptional circumstances, where the Government, for substantial and stated reasons, is unable to accept the recommendation by the Service of a particular person, it shall inform the Service of that fact and the reasons for it and shall request the Service to make another recommendation in respect of the vacancy and, the Service shall— (a) consider the Government’s reasons, and (b) unless the Service disagrees with the reasons and wishes to make representations to the Government on that behalf, make another recommendation for appointment to the Board. (11) In this section, “Service” means the Public Appointments Service.”.”
“(8) The Service shall provide the Government with particulars of experience, training and expertise of the person whom it recommends under this section. (9) Where the Service makes a recommendation for the appointment of a person to the Board, the Government shall accept that recommendation.”
“(5) A vacancy on the Board shall be advertised publicly and shall include details of the agreed selection criteria for the filling of the vacancy and the process to be implemented in respect of the filling of that vacancy. (6) The Service may adopt such procedures as it thinks fit to carry out its functions under this section. (7) A person shall not be recommended for appointment by the Government under this section unless the person is, in the opinion of the Service and the Government agrees, suitably qualified for such appointment by reason of his or her possessing such relevant experience, training or expertise as is appropriate having regard in particular to the functions conferred on the Board by or under this Act.”
“(3) The Service shall appoint the members of the selection panel from amongst persons who, in the opinion of the Service, have relevant experience of, and expertise in relation to, matters connected with at least two or all of the following— (a) human rights matters or human rights law; (b) equality matters or equality law; (c) public sector administration and reform; (d) board management and corporate governance; (e) industrial relations; (f) climate or energy systems; (g) digital rights or technology law; (h) data privacy and the General Data Protection Regulation. (4) The Minister shall agree with the Service the selection criteria and process to be implemented in respect of the filling of any vacancy on the Board.”
“I move amendment No. 11: In page 16, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “Recommendations for appointment of members of Board 13. (1) A member of the Board shall be appointed by the Government. (2) Where a vacancy arises, or is anticipated will arise, on the Board, the Government shall, for the purposes of identifying persons and making recommendations to the Government in respect of those persons for appointment as members of the Board, invite the Service to undertake a selection competition.”
“I move amendment No. 7: In page 14, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: “(b) the work of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Artificial Intelligence, including recommendations made by the Joint Committee in any interim and final reports;”.”
“Is it going to function like Coimisiún na Meán? Is it going to function like any of these other bodies, and have that actual component? Are people still expected to go with their ethical concerns about AI to these other bodies? Why is there not a signal for this? I am actually surprised. I could understand if it had, as an oversight, or poor decision-making within the Department been left out, but I genuinely, fundamentally asked that this be addressed, if not by our amendments, by the functions and powers the Minister has. That is there under section 10, and as for simply saying they will go somewhere else, will they go somewhere else because human rights are not going to be in the mix for this body when it does its job? Can the Minister of State confirm whether section 15 of the climate Act will apply to this body and its operations?”
“I am disappointed that the Minister of State has not indicated her intention in using section 10. That would have been a good signal. It is woefully unacceptable to say “but there are all of these other bodies.” If people go to the Department and say they have concerns in relation to AI ethical or AI sustainable issues, will they have to go to IHREC for that? They will have to go round the houses. They will have to go to the Data Protection Commission only to come back. If the Department is setting up the regulatory authority, the Minister of State has literally told us these bodies should not come to it with their problems. They should go to one of the other authorities which are set up properly. Is it or is it not part of that regulatory authority architecture that the Minister of State has just described?”
“If the Minister of State is not accepting our amendments today, though I will be pressing them, I want to know whether the Minister will be using his powers under conferring of additional functions to add additional functions, and if the Government wants to use that language of human-centred and everything else from the AI Act directly, that it will do so to ensure that from the get-go, this body is serving people and not just money. I say this in absolute honesty and respect. I would like to hear how the Minister of State plans to use section 10 to address the massive lacuna in the functions of the office as it is set out, because I know she is rushing the legislation through.”