Patricia Stephenson
Labour Panel · Social Democrats · Ireland
“A number of us on this side of the House have concerns around what this is opening us up to. We are concerned that we do not have the correct protections and safeguards in place to ensure that the supply will be State-owned and State-led because it is not included in the definitions in the legislation.”
“The world is literally on fire in some places. We have a forest fire in Ireland for the first time in years perhaps. I know we sometimes have them in the Mourne Mountains in the North. This is cause for concern, not just for future generations but for us today.”
“I thank the Minister for coming in. This is a really positive step. I am delighted she is pushing it forward. By and large, the oral contraceptive is incredibly safe. A lot of well-studied medicines are available. Over-the-counter oral contraception has been recommended by the WHO since 2019.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “ “emergency” means a situation where the State is experiencing a significant and protracted physical disruption of gas supply, or other catastrophic deterioration of the supply situation, and where— (a) all relevant market-based measures have been fully…”
“The Department has stated this facility "will provide the resilience required to support our energy transition" and that "the reserve will only be used in genuine emergencies", yet there is no definition in this Bill of what the Government means by an emergency and when that would apply.”
“We also have to be mindful of the burden it will place on pharmacists without the correct resourcing for pharmacies to deliver the scheme to safeguard against them withdrawing from this or any future scheme simply because they feel they do not have the resources to deliver it in a timely manner.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,369 lines we hold for Patricia Stephenson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 28.
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(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.”.”.”
“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 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.”.”.”
“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 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.”.”.”
“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.”
“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).”.”
“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).”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“We need a planning system that delivers housing and infrastructure without eroding public rights or environmental protections. I am deeply disappointed that a whole range of amendments are being brought through. It is a massive number of amendments at this stage. I hope Senators will be sufficiently briefed on those amendments before next week. It is deeply cynical and not remotely in good faith that it is being done in this way. It is bad process and we are not even going to have a Report Stage on this Bill. I want to put it on the record that I hope this is not a sign of things to come with the legislative process during this term.”
“They risk entrenching a system where developers are protected from delay but communities, the environment and the environmental activists are not protected from poor planning decisions. The Social Democrats believe in a planning system that is fair, transparent and focused on the common good. Reforms should be aimed at increasing housing delivery but not undermining accountability, due process, or democratic rights and constitutional rights. True reform means investing in planning capacity, fixing Uisce Éireann and restoring trust in An Coimisiún Pleanála. These amendments do not fix the planning system. They simply shield it from the consequences of its own failings. We need legislation that prioritises integrity over expedience.”
“Instead of fixing a flawed planning system the Government is trying to insulate itself from the consequences of that flawed system. These changes are being framed as essential to increasing housing supply, yet there is no evidence that dormant permissions are expiring due to overregulation or litigation. Most planning permissions never go to judicial review. The real bottlenecks lie in inadequate water and wastewater infrastructure, staff shortages in the planning authorities, the governance crisis that we have seen in An Coimisiún Pleanála, and speculative land practices that delay activation, even when permission is granted. Extending permissions and pausing judicial review clocks may tidy up the legal optics but they do not actually lay a single brick in developing new housing.”
“This planning in reverse serves private timelines over the public interest. The new provision to pause the clock on planning permissions during judicial reviews is being sold as some sort of practical situation to the delays we are seeing but it rests on the dangerous and very much false premise that legal challenges are the problem. Judicial reviews exist because the planning process has failed, often due to procedural errors, poor consultation or breaches of environmental law. Pausing permissions during this period does nothing to prevent bad decisions from being made in the first place. Worse still, it further scapegoats communities and campaigners who are simply exercising their legal rights under the Constitution and the Aarhus Convention.”
“These amendments include new rules on pre-commencement extensions, judicial reviews, time suspensions and the safeguarding of expiring permissions, reflecting a narrow and misleading analysis of Ireland's planning challenges. For the first time, developers will now be able to seek extensions to their planning permissions before any development has even commenced. This fundamentally changes the nature of time-limited planning, which exists to ensure planning permissions reflect current policy, community needs and environmental conditions. Rather than incentivising delivery or discouraging land hoarding, these measures risk enabling speculative behaviour and stagnation. There is no requirement to demonstrate progress, public engagement or a reassessment of circumstances.”
“I am really concerned about the latest amendments to the Planning and Development Act, which further entrench a developer and investor-first approach to our already incredibly shambolic and failed planning system. The 2024 Act has still not been fundamentally implemented and yet here we are pushing through amendments to that Act without any pre-legislative scrutiny. I find that really troubling. The same thing happened with the 2024 Act. That Act's errors are obvious here and I am quite sure there will be many more to come. The amendments fail to address the root causes of delays in housing and infrastructure delivery.”
“We need to think about long-term vision when it comes to public transport. I urge the Minister to be brave and bold in long-term planning, particularly insofar as it relates to rail routes. This country would be such an amazing place if we had reliable, predictable and sustainable transport options.”
“It would be amazing in Ireland to have the option of travelling around the country meaningfully by public transport, or of going on holiday by public transport, but that is just not what we have. I am aware it is not an easy fix but when we talk about vision and what we would love to see in the next 15 or 20 years, we should talk about rail and bus routes that actually help us, make our lives better and allow us to live in a way that is more climate friendly, sustainable and better for everyone. I actually do not believe anyone wants to be sitting on the N7 in bumper-to-bumper traffic for two and a half hours. Public transport should be the future and should be the now. We can look back on the decisions in the past when Ireland thought it was modernising by ripping out all its rail routes. We can all agree that this was not modernisation.”
“On a Tuesday morning, I drive to my local train station, at Bagenalstown, Muine Bheag, park my car, get the train to Houston and then get the bus here. I go back again on a Thursday. That would be a whole lot easier if the train left after 8 p.m. I realise new services have been provided but it would be lovely to be able to see my family for dinner in Dublin and then get home by train instead of having to drive home on such an occasion. This would reduce the awful congestion we see on the M50 and N7. I would love to be able to go directly to Galway or indeed Tullamore by train from where I live, but instead I must get the train to Dublin and then go from Dublin elsewhere.”
“It is a really busy line and is at capacity daily in the morning and evening, with passengers standing. I do not believe it was subject to review in 2024, despite its being an incredibly busy link. We have an issue in Kilkenny at MacDonagh Junction, where the platform is too short. This is what I believe is curtailing the provision of additional carriages on the entire route. An extension is desperately needed to increase capacity on the route. When we talk about transport, we should ask about its purpose. It is so we can go places without being in our cars. Senator Collins talked about vision and having a vision. The starting point entails asking how we use public transport. I am a train user.”
“The NTA points to Local Link, which is a really good resource, is welcome and has resulted in much access for rural communities; however, it is not necessarily sufficiently resourced to fill the widening gap left when a private provider pulls from a public route because it deems it not to be profitable. Without a properly funded national transport strategy, Local Link cannot provide a genuine alternative. While it does not necessarily concern the Minister’s Department, there is an ongoing issue with school transport and children not getting places. Even though they are guaranteed or entitled to spaces, they are just not available. This is an ongoing issue for rural communities. I would like to touch briefly on the issue of the train. I live on the Waterford–Dublin line.”