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

Gutted as I am that the Minister of State cannot accept the amendments, let me at least make the case on the record for the spirit behind both of them. A chief executive or director of service might have a very different view on whether implementation on any individual aspect of a development plan is progressing compared to elected members, prescribed bodies or the wider public. Therefore, allowing some level of consultation on that implementation report as set out in amendment No. 477, to which I was speaking, is a good idea. It does not have to be overburdensome or too complicated. I am more than happy if there is better wording than the wording here. It is more the principle, particularly given the fact, as many of us will have experienced - indeed the Minister of State might have experienced it also - that specific local objectives were often inserted into our county development plans following significant effort by local communities or elected members. Very little progress was ever made on their implementation because the executive was never really keen on them, but they were still inserted. Therefore, having some public consultation on the implementation report is valuable.

Separately, a five-year review is a very formalised process. However, earlier than that, the need not so much to undertake a full review, but to have some kind of process of looking at implementation is really valuable, because if we wait five years until the review process occurs, in some senses a fair amount of time is lost. Whereas, if lack of progress on the implementation of some aspects of the plan was identified, following a two-year mark, after the 20 months, that would be quite useful.

It seems that where the Government wants to place onerous reporting responsibilities to ensure consistency of approach across the plan-making process, there is never any issue in terms of the impact on the capacity or that wonderful word that is used, "balance". However, where it is with respect to the involvement of elected members, or the public, or implementation of aspects of plans, there seems always to be a problem. If we suggest something additional, then it is a resourcing issue or a balance issue, which I do not accept. It is a challenge for the Minister of State, because this is not his responsibility, but I am really making the case to the officials as much as to the Minister of State, that there really should be something by way of assessing implementation, separately from a full-blown review. Waiting for five years means too much ground is lost. I will press the amendments nonetheless. I hope someone at least hears the intention behind the amendments, notwithstanding the fact the Minister of State cannot accept the text of them.