Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree with much of the debate here. What the Minister is saying finds an echo in my experience as well since I was a councillor for many years.

Many years ago, we were doing a new development plan. As an elected member, I was awaiting the outcome of what the proposed development plan would be. I got a phone call from a developer in Drogheda who said he wanted to see me. I decided to go and see him. He produced for me a copy of the development plan that nobody on the council and no elected member had seen. Being shocked at that, I wrote to the Minister of the day and outlined to him what had happened. The Minister wrote back to me - and it is on the record - saying that he could not intervene because what I had seen was a draft development plan and was not the actual development plan because it was only a proposal.

That goes to the heart of what can happen in local government. A plan which no developer should ever have seen, certainly not before the elected members discussed it, was actually in the domain of people who were out making a profit on it down the road. I am sure other people will hear and know that certain landowners or farmers are approached by some fellow in a car saying, "Come here. Look over the hedge, would you? Sell me those couple of fields in the middle of nowhere." Suddenly, those fields turn out to be very valuable. There are issues there.

I agree there is greater transparency, but one of the problems I find is that if and when elected members state at a meeting that they are not participating in a vote because they have an interest in the issue, the record does not show what that interest is. I have looked at and am still looking at situations around some planning decisions which I believe are fundamentally wrong. If someone is an elected member, that person then takes part in the debate on a development plan. While he or she may then say nothing, having a vested interest and having declared it, the public should know what that interest is. There should be an obligation to say what that interest is. I know there is an obligation to make a declaration of interest anyway, but I would be concerned about that.

I agree with Deputy Casey. There is greater transparency and accountability, but I agree with the Minister that there is not enough. I will go back to the key point. I am very concerned when elected members decide to overrule professional planners on as serious a matter as a development plan. I have noted where decisions have been made which were wrong in my view - and I was not a member of the council. Communities are left with very bad decision-making.

The other point I want to make is on the question of where there are two adjoining authorities. Income is quite often an issue for local authorities. I am referring to income from commercial development. If I am in County Meath and there is a proposed development on the border of Louth, but still in County Meath, suddenly one might find that there is an out-of-town shopping development there, and the reason the council may give permission, apart from the wonderful planning considerations it has in mind, is that it generates an income for a local authority. The adjoining local authority loses a huge benefit to its own income. The reality, and what I am saying here, is that there are problems with adjoining local authorities. The town centre of Drogheda has been destroyed by planning permissions granted by Meath County Council. There is no doubt about it. There is a street in Drogheda which is totally derelict because of bad planning decisions which were made, even if they were made legally. There are other issues which should be taken into consideration for closely adjoining counties when planning applications are made for either, which can implicitly and definitively impact on the other local authority. I know this may not be a debate for today.

I have had a lifetime of planning decisions which went wrong and I welcome this development. I note the powers of the new planning authority and regulator enable the regulator to refer to the Minister and for the Minister to refer to the regulator. That is another point. If a complaint comes to the Minister, the Minister is not going to say that is terrible and he is going to stop that. If the Minister is wise - and the Department will recommend this - it will go to the regulator. I would think that the centre of gravity for investigations and complaints outside of corruption issues will, in fact, rest with the new regulator. If the Minister does not refer to the regulator, how can that Minister say that he or she reached a fair decision? I think that the traffic will be more to the regulator than to the Minister. I would think the Minister would not get away with dealing with an issue without referring to the regulator. The regulator also has other powers. It is not some weak, cocooned individual. It has powers to refer it to the Garda and to the Standards in Public Office Commission. There are many other powers in there that perhaps we could and should go through.

Is it a better country after this legislation, notwithstanding whatever faults people might find? I would say that it definitely will be. Is it more transparent? It is. There is more work to be done, but it is certainly a significant step in the right direction.