Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It will come as no surprise to my colleagues that this is the element on which I wish to concentrate. I have been involved in three county development plans. I am sure most of those present have been involved in a development plan at some point. I am very unhappy with this amendment. I will focus on section 2 of the Bill which relates to section 11 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the county development plans issue because although there has been reference today to this being done by consensus, these things do not happen by consensus. The reality of my experience tells me otherwise. One must remember this is the earliest stage of a development plan and is exclusively an executive function. It is not a reserved function at that point of a county development plan. There is no reserved function at that stage. I have engaged with councillors across the 31 councils in the past two weeks and I heard the same story from them.

I wish to acknowledge the enormous work of the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. It prepared an amazing digest of the Bill that clearly sets out and addresses this issue. I will be asking the officials to confirm that analysis. The Bill has not been passed through the Houses, so, as of today, it is obligatory to have a public meeting. One could call them town hall meetings for these purposes. I do not have any difficulty embracing technology, which is marvellous. I think we can have both. That is where we are losing this argument slightly. One can have the public town-hall type meetings. While I would argue that they are beneficial, this should be a matter of negotiation. That is what happened in the past on numerous occasions. The public arrive at meetings and the council officials go through the various plans and infographics and tease out the issues. That is good and positive. I think online meetings are also good. It is possible to have both. However, I am advised that the situation as of today is that under the currently operating legislation it is obligatory to have a public meeting. I ask the officials to confirm whether that is the case. Let us have no ambiguity about this issue.

Mr. Kelly made the valid point that nowhere else in the legislation is there reference to a public meeting. There is reference to it in this section, although I see that it relates to the reserved aspects of the matter in terms of the early stage of development. Could a reference to an obligatory public meeting be inserted elsewhere in the legislation, possibly that relating to another part of the development plan process? It is an important issue.

We want ownership of this plan and for people to engage with it. We do not want a situation whereby the decision to hold a public meeting is made at the discretion of the unelected chief executives of local authorities. Many committee members have spoken for years about giving greater powers to local people and local communities, yet this provision is going to be taken out of the legislation and that will make it the right solely of chief executives and their executive in each local authority to decide whether to hold a public meeting. I do not have a difficulty with any other aspect of the Bill. It is important that we have public participation and engagement and that people are encouraged to take part in the process.

I do not like terms such as "troublemakers" or "difficult people". There was a suggestion in the Seanad during the passage of the Bill through that House that some difficult people were turning up at public meetings. So what if they are? Most Oireachtas Members are difficult people. We were politicised by issues and we became difficult and challenged people and got ourselves in here. Are we going to shut it down now? I want to facilitate people in engagement. I am old enough to have been involved in the Wood Quay protests. People, particularly young people, mobilised on that issue, as did environmentalists. Why should people not be mobilised and have public rallies or robust debates about our towns, communities, future, the planning of our future, challenging environmental issues such as water, and all the diverse elements that form part of a county development plan?

I thank Mr. Lemass, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Hogan for their engagement. I feel strongly on this point. I am not hung up on the point in the process at which a public meeting is facilitated, but it should take place at a point when it is important that it be held.

There is no point having public meetings if people cannot effect change. They must be held according to a timeline where people can feed into it.

It has come to my attention that some of the sitting county managers lobbied strongly to have this element changed. I have prepared a series of detailed freedom of information requests which will go into the Department tomorrow. It is important to flush that out. It only makes me more concerned if chief executives have been lobbying for its removal. That is the kernel of the problem. There has to be shift to empower the elected members. I do not want it to be a choice between political members and the executive. It should be in legislation that there must be a public town hall type meeting. I am interested in the officials' response.