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

I thank the witnesses for their presentations and comments. There is much I agree with, particularly on the under-resourcing of both organisations, not just historically but contemporaneously and the need for significant increases in resourcing to manage the new plan-led approach of this legislation and the other tasks they have been given, particularly maritime area planning.

I have questions for both organisations. If we do not get through them in this time I will come back in the second and third rounds. Regarding resourcing, assuming that the Bill broadly as outlined passes, whatever the deliberations of our committee, there is a report from the Department which indicates that on foot of a business case for resources for the planning and functioning of local authorities prepared by the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, in Q2 last year, it needed an extra 541 posts at that stage to fulfil the functions it currently has. I am not going to ask the witnesses to name a figure for what their organisations need. From both organisations' perspectives, what level of engagement has there been to try to at least estimate what additional level of resources would be required to meet the kind of challenges we are talking about?

I am glad Ms Buckley raised the issue of fines because some of us are uncomfortable with the idea of the applicant receiving the benefit of the fine. Some of those applicants are on record publicly saying they do not want or need the money and it is not a significant factor for them. However, I note that neither of the presentations suggests what alternatives could be put in place. In addition to resources, are there other systems in other jurisdictions or other considerations to suggest what would be an appropriate sanction?

I have a question specifically for An Bord Pleanála. I am glad the witnesses mentioned that it is not just recently that the missing of the 18-week deadline had been an issue. We all know that. My question is not a criticism of the board. The witnesses told us that they have not had 100%. Has there been an internal analysis in the board to give us an indication, both for complex and non-complex cases, what percentage of applications do not meet that deadline and other patterns? I am aware of often minor applications or appeals that do not get decided for long periods. It is not because they are complex, so I assume it is because they are not being prioritised, but that is just an assumption. Can the witnesses give us visibility of the track record on decisions? That is important for us. I have other questions but will deal with them in subsequent rounds.