Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Graham for her opening statement. I do not know what Mr. Gallagher or Ms Murray did wrong in a previous life to warrant having responsibility for An Bord Pleanála but I share their pain, if that is any consolation.

I will make some opening comments before asking some specific questions on the heads. One of the crucial things about any change to the operation of the board is to ensure, protect and maintain its independence. That is historically one of its great strengths and one of the problems we will be dealing with elsewhere in the wider reform of the board. Any legislative changes we are currently dealing with must be put in the context of the desperate need to restore public confidence and the confidence of the wider planning and environmental community in the operations of the board. This is important; it is not just some technical change.

I have concerns with the heads. It is not clear why this specific set of changes to the board has been brought to us separately from the further changes to the operations of the board and the wider planning review. I am interested in hearing the rationale for this being brought forward in its current form.

Specifically, with respect to head 4, I would like to know the rationale for having 14 ordinary board members. On what basis was that decision taken? I am not against it per sebut I would like to understand the reason. I would also like to know why any changes to that number would be by way of ministerial order. This seems to give the Minister undue power over the size and operations of the board, which conflicts with its independence.

On head 5, particularly section 106(2), the skill set is too limited. It does not take into account, for example, the increasing importance of domestic, European and international environmental law or climate change policy. Also, there is no mention of the public interest. It is important to remember that originally An Bord Pleanála was not primarily a technocratic and professional body but a kind of jury of one's peers. While I do not believe that model would work in today's planning and environmental world, some element of it should be in place.

My biggest concern with the general scheme is the committee proposition. I do not understand it at all. It is probably the single biggest interference with the independence of the board. The panel system is not perfect, particularly when organisations that do not exist are making nominations, but that is not a reason to get rid of the panel system per se. Keeping, reforming and improving the panel system and combining it with a public process of interviews and appointments before ministerial selection from shortlists would be a better way of doing it. Not only would I like to see panels be retained and updated annually, there should be a panel of environmental and climate organisations and some kind of panel for the public interest. I am interested to know why there will be a committee, what kind of committee it will be and if there a precedent for this. Why does the mechanism for appointing the chair of the board seem to be unchanged as per the original Act and not here?

On head 7, I would have thought if either the chair of the board or the Minister believed that actions of any board member may bring the board into disrepute, they should be obliged to act rather than providing that they "may" act, which is the language used.

On head 9, the general scheme explanatory note uses the words, "It has come to light". What has come to light and how did it come to light? It is always useful to know why issues emerge so we can get to the reason behind them. We have received submissions from industry, which is concerned that this could delay existing applications that have not been processed or future applications.The more information the witnesses can give on that, the better.

If there is time in this round or the next will Ms Graham give the committee an update on the temporary appointments to the board that the Minister had announced and an update on the timeline for the review of the Planning and Development Act? We are all keen to get that into pre-legislative scrutiny so any information on that would be helpful.