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 6 of 38.
“Maybe the idea of that committee was that it was meant to be a place where everybody says AI is amazing and it did this and that and it is so great and wonderful and look at all the money somebody is making, but actually, what is happening is that people are coming with really serious environmental, social, financial, regulatory and employment concerns. If this new body the Department is setting up is meant to be for the people, it needs to send a signal that it is going to care about those things and not just about driving innovation. The last thing I will say is the Minister has the power under section 10 to confer additional functions.”
“This is provided for in its functions and goes back to our earlier point on biometric identification because it would immediately have on its desk a first problem. It has regard to the objective of providing a coherent, harmonised approach to the implementation of the AI regulation in the State by competent authorities, as well as the need to ensure consistent and effective governance and implementation of the AI regulation in the State. However, as we have just told the Minister of State, the Department of justice is not planning to be coherent or consistent so that will be something on the desk of this body as soon as it starts. The Minister of State has to hear the concern - and I have sat in the AI committee on numerous occasions.”
“Presumably, the assumption is that sustainable in the functions of the office would be done in a way that reflects the way it is spoken about in the AI Act. The point is, there are things which have been chosen to be placed as front and centre that are not just about the enforcement and transposition but are specific responsibilities and the choice was made not to include human-centred or sustainability and not to place that within the functions of the body and the office; an office which already has a torn double-function. I want to establish two other points. It is notable in the section on performing its functions that the office "shall have regard to ... the objective of providing a coherent, harmonised and effective approach".”
“It is not actually okay that we just manage to be sustainable for the next generation in Ireland if people in Malawi and elsewhere are getting completely hit by the bad decisions we make. I have argued for a stronger definition of sustainable. However, my point is, even using the existing definition of sustainable, there are multiple precedents. I have spent hours in the definitions sections of Bills talking about this because I would like to strengthen that definition. I do not accept there is not a definition and we do not know what we would mean by it. The Minister of State said sustainable AI is in the AI Act. As there is a reference to sustainable there, what is the problem in putting it here?”
“I think we could probably risk letting that be defined and letting the body define it and look to it. At least it would be looked at. We do have precedents in how it is defined. On "sustainable" we certainly have precedents in how that is defined in other legislation. In fact, there are a couple of definitions. I have argued with this definition because I do not think it is strong enough. A lot of recent legislation goes back to a definition of sustainable as being the idea that this is something which can be managed in such a way that the resources are not depleted for the next generation. I have argued for a version of sustainable in which the current generation should not be using more than our fair share.”
“The Government should have put in the other language as well or else leave that out and just have the functions of the office being information sharing between relevant offices, enhancing public awareness about the AI Act, dealing with competent authorities, and performing the functions and all of that. If you pick out one of the things, however, and say that the office has got to do this and then not add the other language, then there is a problem. There is a perception, matched up by the kind of language we have seen from the AI unit within the Department with its language of overarching national imperative - which is wild language - that because you put that in and because section (9)(1)(c) exists, you need to put in something else, but the Government does not want to put in "ethical".”
“If the Government did not like the language that Senator Stephenson and I suggested to put in, a very obvious solution would be to put in the language that is in the AI Act. It must be seen as a signal that you have an AI Act that applies and you choose to pick out one aspect of it such as "innovation" and copper-fasten it under a section listed as "Functions of Office". Arguably, it is a promotion and fostering role of AI innovation. This is a complicated thing: a promotional role while at the same time the office is meant to have a regulatory role.”
“With respect, the language the Minister of State was using from AI Act such as "human-centric" and "high level of protection" and all of that, is not in here either. The Government has taken the innovation piece and chose to put that in. The Government could have just said "a body to comply with the AI Act" but it has chosen to specify "promote and foster AI innovation" and to say it as something without the caveats that were in it. It is interesting that even within the AI Act they insert "human-centric and trustworthy ... AI, while ensuring a high level of protection" and all of that language. They did not just say "innovation": they put caveats on it but the Government is choosing to put the innovation language in without the human-centred bit.”
“While the committee makes its recommendations to Government, this amendment would ensure the artificial intelligence office would also be paying due regard directly to those, rather than solely if the Minister chooses to draw its attention to what the committee may recommend. It is important because it is a diverse committee. It is a cross-party committee. It allows for a nuanced approach in what might be put forward. There is a value in the office considering the policies of the Government. The office is not there to serve the Government and it will have a responsibility that is wider than any one particular government at one particular time. It should, therefore, be drawing on the widest possible expertise from civil society, from academia and from right across our Parliament.”
“When substituting for my colleague on that committee, Senator Ruane, on a number of occasions, very important issues and concerns were brought to light from a wide range of sources. These are concerns from young people affected by artificial intelligence, older people affected by artificial intelligence, from the very serious lacuna and gap we have in terms of security, defence and military uses such as autonomous weapons in relation to artificial intelligence and from the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence. There is a wide range of in-depth concerns that have been flagged and have been teased out by experts speaking at that committee. I suggest that office should look to engage with the work of that committee and the interim reports to date. My colleague may come back further on this.”
“If the Minister of State will not accept the amendment, will she outline how the strong regulatory framework will be established while pursuing that overarching national imperative frame and using that language of innovation at all costs, effectively? Amendment No. 7, in this same grouping, proposes that the new artificial intelligence office should have due regard in the performance of its functions to the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Artificial Intelligence. My colleague, Senator Ruane, may come back in on this in a reply. As drafted, the Bill proposes that the office should have due regard to the policies and objectives of the Government and any Minister of the Government, but the Minister of State will be aware that a special committee has been established and a number of interim reports have already been produced.”
“When the Minister, Deputy Calleary, held a related role to the one the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, currently holds, I engaged with him about the idea of digital empowerment funds that would come from the State rather than companies. Those funds would be related to giving people control on the future and a voice in shaping it. When the AI office has this driver piece, it makes it critically important that such promotion is done ethically and sustainably. I would like the Minister of State to accept our amendment. I think she should. She will find future issues that arise in relation to the operations of this body easier is she is able to point to a mandate it may have in terms of ethics and sustainability.”
“That was the sector’s philosophy. We know that a lot of things have been broken. The same body is being given the job of making AI innovation move fast while trying to ensure it does not break things. In essence, that is what is being asked of this AI body. It must regulate so that things are not broken, but it must also move fast so there is quicker innovation. That will result in tension. We cannot simply say that there is no doubt that the intention in this regard is for good innovation and literacy that is empowering, rather than it simply being a matter of pawning it off to people who will have to expect their data to be used. I am passionate about digital empowerment and that literacy piece.”
“We know Ireland is one of the jurisdictions internationally that are trying to make AI happen. There are a lot of people trying to make AI happen. On a straightforward financial perspective, however, it is not. There is a huge drive to make AI delivery happen. That drive could, in fact, lead to the neglect of ethical and sustainability concerns, as well as other imperatives. If this new AI office will be picking up where the AI and digital regulation unit has left off, what will the balance and trade-offs be? This is a question regarding the AI office’s role in the promotion of innovation and its role in enforcing safeguards that may curb dangerous excesses of that innovation. We must also bear in mind that the sector we are talking about very proudly had the credo for many years of, “Move fast and break things”.”
“We are far outstripping anyone in terms of the amount of our national and collective resources we are allowing to be absorbed by data centres. There is concern regarding that regulatory function. The Minister will understand that is why we need to see some kind of countervailing language. The current AI regulation unit, which will become this new body, stated that this is a national imperative. It also stated that encouraging and incentivising AI companies to locate here is a comprehensive, all-encompassing and critical aim. Essentially, with this language, especially the term “national imperative”, it is saying that it is essential to the survival of the State. Therefore, we are a bit worried that this new body will forget to focus on ethics and sustainability but, rather, solely focus on making AI happen.”
“In that unit’s correspondence to the enterprise committee on the general scheme of this Bill, when outlining the importance of the legislation and looking for it to be pushed through in that speedy way we have spoken about, the unit stated, "Maintaining Ireland’s position as the location of choice for technology companies in the EU is an overarching national imperative." To say that it is an overarching national imperative is huge language. What does it arch over? Does it arch over our social responsibilities? Is it overarching our environmental responsibilities or climate obligations? Does it surpass everything? That seems to be the case at the moment when we see ourselves as wild outliers when it comes to data centres and their consumption of electricity.”
“Concerns have been expressed in respect of areas like data protection, where Ireland has been perceived internationally as having failed to always act solely in the context of the regulatory imperative. There has been concern that Ireland’s economic interests may have influenced the context of Ireland’s data protection. That concern was publicly and widely expressed across Europe. The establishment of the AI office will replace the AI and digital regulation unit that currently sits within the Department of enterprise.”
“On the one hand, it is to function as the regulator of AI while, on the other, it is supposed to promote AI innovation. That is not the standard or the norm. Coimisiún na Meán does not promote or push media production; it is there to regulate. The position is the same in any of these areas. There is no drive on the part of the Data Protection Commissioner to push data products or commercial innovation in the area of data. The commissioner does not have that remit. There is, therefore, real tension in this regard that has the potential to cause dysfunction because two very different roles are being given to the same body. If we look at how the current regulatory approach is framed, there is significant concern about how this conflict might manifest.”
“We tabled a similar amendment. I definitely support the ethical and responsible approach set out by Senator Stephenson. We put forward an amendment with a slightly different wording. The Minister of State spoke in the Dáil about terms being undefined, but the term "ethical" should be a standard that can be operated. The term "sustainable" is defined across multiple items of legislation. That is why our amendment, that is, amendment No. 4, seeks to amend section 9 and ensure that the functions of the AI office promote AI innovation that is ethical and sustainable. There is an unusual disjoint, one we have never seen before, with this legislation that is very concerning. The AI office is being given two potentially conflicting briefs.”
“We have always been told that, unfortunately, the Government cannot take on amendments because we are moving at this pace. It is not unique to the Minister of State, but as a Government practice, it needs improvement. We may disagree on some of the amendments but that is fine. We can proceed to the vote and so forth.”
“I will be brief on that same point. The Seanad has the EU scrutiny committee to try to ensure that statutory instruments are published six months in advance so that there can be an input process. Similarly, we should be looking at this legislation many more months in advance so that we can have the best process. When we are putting in place something so new, it is extra important to have that done. There is a level of poor timing, whereby it is coming at such a late stage. I appreciate that the Minister of State is dealing with a new area but it is a pattern, unfortunately. I spoke earlier about how ten out of the previous 11 Planning and Development Acts have arrived in the last two weeks of July or the last week of December.”
“When a prospective board member has a commercial, financial or professional holding that is a conflict of interest, and where there is a risk that those decisions made at board level could be influenced or even perceived to have been influenced by those interests over the public good, that is a concern. Even the appearance of undue influence reduces and undermines public confidence in this new regulator in this crucial area. By explicitly legislating in respect of a person who has a material conflict of interest that compromises their ability to act or can be seen as compromising their ability to act independently and impartiality, the amendment establishes an important safeguard against regulatory capture, ensuring those with important roles in the governance of the oversight of AI regulation do so free from competing interests.”
“Our amendments seek to ensure the selection processes are applied from the first instances, approaching the appointment of the first CEO and board with more transparency from a governance perspective. Amendment No. 15 also inserts a new provision that would preclude an individual from becoming a member of the board of the AI office or disqualify them from acting as a member of the board in circumstances where that person has a material conflict of interest that undermines his or her ability to perform the functions expected of board members. This amendment seeks to strengthen the independence, integrity and public credibility of a key part of Ireland's AI governance framework. AI regulation will involve oversight of very powerful commercial actors whose financial interest may be impacted directly by regulatory decisions.”
“We are facing into a period when we know that AI has considerable question marks over its viability, financial viability and environmental impacts. The speed at which it is moving and the level of risk associated with it at every level - social, environmental, financial, fiscal, economic and ever other level - is so high that this first CEO and board matter. The Minister of State might say that, down the line, we can apply selection criteria and procedures for any new CEOs and board members, and will reference the tight timeline. The issue remains that the first CEO and board will not be appointed through the procedures outlined in the Bill. There is a lack of transparency about those appointments as CEO and to the board. They will be making such crucial early decisions.”
“An important feature of our amendments is the requirement that the prospective candidates appointed to the PAS for involvement in the selection process to recommend an appointment would also have relevant expertise in areas that are important to ensure that appropriate appointments are made. Those areas include human rights, equality matters, climate, digital rights and digital privacy. We want persons with understanding of those issues to be the persons in a position to oversee the selection process and make recommendations to the Government. AI is rippling through many facets of our lives. It is an extraordinarily impactful, volatile and, in many senses, dangerous edifice. Even this first CEO and board matter.”
“As such, we do not know what selection criteria and procedures were followed in this process and the provisions of the Bill as drafted in section 13(3), that "the Minister shall agree with the Public Appointments Service the selection criteria", is, presumably, not implemented, given that the section is not in effect. The Minister of State might clarify the criteria and procedures in place for the selection process for the first CEO and board. We have been told they are going to come into effect immediately but this is putting the cart before the horse. We have been told that their selection is already under way even though the Bill has not passed.”
“I am going to speak to amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 15 in this group. Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 seek to remove the provisions in the Bill regarding the establishment of the board, and appointments to the board, of the AI office and replace them with more suitable provisions. As was outlined by Senator Stephenson, they are in place for other statutory bodies. The amendments take the format from the IHREC and adapt it for appropriate use in the case of the AI office. This is an established way of working and operating. We know it can work. It also addresses some of the concerns we have around the provisions in the Bill. The Minister of State has said that both the first CEO and the first board members are being recruited through open PAS competitions, but those appointments are not happening under the provisions of this Bill.”
“She is the Minister of State in this area, and if this law is to be the foundational law in respect of how this is implemented and enacted in Ireland, it needs solidity from the beginning and cannot have a contradiction at its starting point.”
“Inserting names as a filter to narrow the application of the biometric identification piece is a significant step that is directly at odds with the EU AI Act. It cannot be left like that. I would, with absolute respect, suggest that a path needs to be made for inserting a correct definition, ideally including the word "notwithstanding". The definition that was inserted into the recording devices Act must be amended because it is inaccurate and directly flouts the AI Act before we even begin monitoring and supervision. I thank the Minister of State for her engagement. I cannot emphasise enough that this is not a matter that should be left to discretion.”
“I am glad that the Minister of State will engage because, with respect, this cannot be left to that Minister. She is the Minister of State with responsibility for this. This is the AI Act. That definition should be included and made explicit in this legislation. If it is not in this national legislation, it shall be interpreted as matching the EU definition except for where there is another context, then we have the diluted idea about if the context has been that the Minister for justice does not want to. We will come to other issues relating to public confidence later, but for public confidence in the regulation of AI, it is vital that Government Departments do not appear to be taking an à la carte approach to it. Under the definition, names are not biometric data.”
“A garda can ask any other garda and then it is ready to go. There is such a wild disparity between that and the language on safeguarding, obligations and recognition of high risk, yet the same actions are being described. I ask the Minister of State to address both of those issues.”
“in the framework of an investigation for the targeted search of a person suspected or convicted of having committed a criminal offence, the deployer of a high-risk AI system for post-remote biometric identification shall request an authorisation ... without undue delay and no later than 48 hours, by a judicial authority or an administrative authority ... In the AI Act, we are doing these exact same kinds of thing. It recognises the need of urgency. It can say within 48 hours. It gives that 48-hour window that one can act in and ensure that one has the proper paperwork to authorise that. In the Minister for justice's Bill, the use of biometric analysis simply requires the approval of any two gardaí, not two qualified gardaí or not a senior garda. Any two gardaí can use biometric analysis.”
“This is the novel concept introduced by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, but its description and the actions within it include recognition of physical, physiological and behavioural features matching those with data from other sources. They match the same activities. They are clearly high risk for the same reasons, and they also fall into that area of law enforcement. My two questions to the Minister of State are on the definition and on how biometric analysis is going to be properly captured and administered. I can come back on some additional points. I can go into further detail, but perhaps it is not useful. The safeguards contained in the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill are significantly less secure than those contained in the AI Act. There is a difference. For example, Article 26.10 states: ...”
“This Bill contains some provisions to enforce obligations that are outlined in the AI Act regarding high-risk AI systems. I wish to ask the Minister of State two things. The first is on the question of getting a correct definition of biometric identification, but the second is on biometric analysis. Biometric analysis is clearly a high-risk system. The description of it matches what is defined as high-risk systems in law enforcement where the Minister of State has stated the importance of having proper safeguards and obligations, given the impact on people's rights, opportunities and life chances. The Minister of State talked about the importance of those stringent requirements. Will biometric analysis be captured under those stringent conditions and proper scrutiny and enforcement?”
“She notes that providers must meet stringent requirements related to risk management, data quality, transparency, human oversight, accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity. These are the Minister of State's words. I take her bona fides in relation to this intent. She was correctly naming and identifying law enforcement and the administration of justice as high-risk AI systems that were clearly defined as creating obligations for very good reasons due to how impactful they could be. Alongside that, we have a Minister saying on the same issue that we are perfectly entitled to use our own definitions and interpretation and that is what we are doing. It does not align. Biometric identification and biometric categorisation are described as high-risk AI systems in the AI Act. Biometric analysis does not feature in that Act.”
“I hope that we can move towards there being a correct definition and operation of biometric identification so that we can ensure that Ireland delivers on what she has said is her goal, which is a Bill, mechanism, and natural supervisory and enforcement framework that monitors and enforces compliance with the obligations of the AI Act. This is in the Minister of State's correspondence engaging with us. I thank her for her engagement with Second Stage concerns. She noted that the Act imposed extensive obligations on defined high-risk AI systems, including law enforcement and the administration of justice, and that these systems were considered high risk precisely because of their potential impact on people's rights, opportunities and life chances.”
“That is not an appropriate filter and by putting in the requirement that it can only be biometric identification when it is being compared with a database of named individuals, many of the clearly planned for, anticipated and proper applications and understandings of biometric identification under the AI Act, along with the safeguards that are attached to that issue in the Act, do not come into effect. There is a bit of a crisis in terms of this issue. The Minister of State has stated very clearly her intentions.”
“Biometric identification under the AI Act just means the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, psychological, human features for the purposes of establishing the identity of a natural person by comparing biometric data of that individual with biometric of individuals stored in a database. What the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, has proposed to do in his definition is to take that obligation under the AI Act, where the definition would seem to make sense, and refer to comparing biometric data of an individual to biometric data of named individuals in a database. Names are not biometric.”
“We were consistently told not to worry because they are there in the AI Act, and this Bill is simply a mechanism for enforcing and applying the AI Act. However, that does not deal with the fact that there are different interpretations that directly conflict. I should clarify what the clash is in that regard as well. In the case of the Minister for justice, his new definition of biometric identification completely changes what it means. The AI Act is what we have here, which is why at a minimum we should ensure that this legislation has the correct definition of biometric identification so that we can point to that and that at least it is clearly identified here.”
“During the Committee Stage debate of the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 2025, where the novel term of biometric analysis was introduced, the Minister for justice stated, "When it comes to domestic Irish legislation we are perfectly entitled to use our own definitions and our own interpretations or interpretation and that is what has been done in this legislation." We clearly have concerns as to how that legislation is going to interact with the enforcement provisions that are in the AI Act. We have one Minister saying we can do as we wish with our concept of it and then another Minister of State who has acknowledged our points in her engagement on Second Stage. We pointed to many of the safeguards we would like to see in national legislation.”
“The Minister of State has outlined that the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that we have the supervisory and enforcement framework to ensure compliance with the obligations that already exist under the AI Act, but we have a definition of biometric identification going into a separate item of Government legislation which does not match the AI Act. We are concerned that the use of the novel terms like biometric analysis and a direct difference in definitions could allow concerned technologies to escape proper enforcement mechanisms that are in this Bill, and the safeguards that are provided for under the AI Act.”
“Despite labelling it by using a different term, it is clear that the processes which are described in biometric analysis do in fact involve biometric identification and they match the description of biometric identification in the AI Act. In the definition of biometric analysis, they include the line "this is not biometric identification", which by the way is not a way to clarify something – it is to simply say it is not that thing that it obviously looks like it is. The Minister for justice introduced his own definition of "biometric identification". As well as the novel, newly made up concept of biometric analysis, he has also introduced his own definition of biometric identification, which does not match the definition of biometric identification in the AI Act.”
“The Minister has stated that the purpose of the Bill was to establish the national supervisory and enforcement framework through which compliance with obligations contained in the AI Act can be monitored and enforced. Our intention is to ensure that this is done effectively. We also need effective harmonisation between the AI Act and our national legislation. That means we need to be working off the same definitions. However, this has been utterly and unnecessarily complicated by the recent legislation introduced by the Minister for justice, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, who introduced legislation outlining the practice of "biometric analysis", which is a novel term not reflected in the AI Act.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 10, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: “ “biometric identification” means the automated recognition of physical, physiological, behavioural, or psychological human features for the purpose of establishing the identity of a natural person by comparing biometric data of that individual to biometric data of individuals stored in a database;”. This amendment seeks to insert a definition of biometric identification in the Bill, using the same language that is used in the AI Act. The use and deployment of biometric identification is very relevant to this legislation. Again, it is a high-risk activity and identified as such within the AI Act.”
“That is why we have all of these planning permissions that have not commenced. We have all listened to the extensive demonising of anybody who takes a judicial review, including communities and residents. From the other side, I want to acknowledge something that everybody is concerned about, which is the erosion of the powers of city councils and county councils. Councillors’ powers have been chipped away. We are told that they are the problem or that others are the problem. There is the occasional dog whistle that tries to use demographics as the problem. At some point, we need to think that maybe Fine Gael's approach to housing is the problem, and that it needs to try to listen to some of the better ideas that are coming through, not just bring us back every single July, with the same story writ again.”
“I also have questions about some of the removals with regard to the vacant sites Act. We need to ensure that any existing liabilities of those who should have paid but did not pay, or who should have been fined but were not fined, would still stand. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State elaborated on that. We have a massive problem with vacancy. Back in 2017, with Civil Engagement Group colleagues, including Grace O'Sullivan from the Green Party, we tried to get the Government to clamp down on vacant sites. That was almost nine years ago. It has been slow, slow, slow crawling towards doing anything meaningful in terms of a hard measure against vacancy. Similarly, we asked the Government to put “use it or lose it” on planning permissions for these large and mega projects, but it did not.”
“I would like to get the figures from the Minister of State on the number of planning permissions for apartments and other large residential developments that have not been commenced. We should be putting that on the record. I also note that in those statements, the rise in homelessness, the rise in the cost to the State and the acute shortage of residential accommodation in the State are seen as core assumptions, and they are treated as fact in this Bill. There is actually a question mark about some of that. We know there are hundreds of thousands of unused spaces. Reports show that up to 75% of short-term lets are lying empty most of the time. There are 17,000 people in emergency accommodation, and there were 4.2 million bed spaces available last January, with fewer than 200,000 of them being used. Therefore, we have unused spaces.”
“Often, people just keep selling it on because it is now a planning permission that is worth more. With some of these planning permissions, the Government is creating things that can be sold as speculative products without ever being built. Why would developers build when they know that if they wait just one year until the following July, the Government will come along again and give them something else? Wait another year and it will lower the standards more. Wait another year and it will remove another piece of that process. Wait another year and it will chip away at something else and give developers another little percentage of profit. That is what happens every July.”
“In the 2025 Act, passed a year ago and in which apartment sizes were first reduced, the language used was that the relevant section was "to facilitate and encourage expedited construction of greater numbers of dwellings in apartment complexes than permitted under permissions already granted". Now, the language in this Bill is that the purpose is "to enable the construction of greater numbers of dwellings". The word “expedited” is gone. That is because it does not expedite it. The Government’s lowering of the standards has, in fact, encouraged delays in the system. If somebody had planning permission for 40 apartments and the standards were lowered, and then there is a new planning process for maybe 55 one-bedroom apartments with a single aspect, or for studios, the person would be able to squeeze that bit more in.”
“The fact is that they are not delayed because of planning issues or because of judicial reviews. The fact is that there is a huge amount of residential development and apartment construction with planning permission that has not commenced. Those developments are under no pressure to proceed because the Government has, again and again, declined to insert use-it-or-lose-it clauses into planning law and to ensure that the many fast-track processes actually result in delivery. That is what we looked for when strategic housing developments were permitted but were not getting built.”