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

As the Minister knows, the background to this is the report from the CCMA of two years ago which identified more than 500 posts that needed to be filled in our planning authorities but which were not at that time. When the CCMA came before the committee on pre-legislative scrutiny, it made clear that the additional 530 posts were required to do the work it had at that time, not including all of the additional work that now exists.

Notwithstanding that there has been a significant increased sanction for staff at the board and recruitment has taken place, only last week it was reported that the board still faces a significant backlog in its decisions due to the recruitment challenge. Therefore, any discussion or consideration of direct fines or repayment of what are already inadequate fees has to be taken against the backdrop of the ability of our planning authorities to make decisions within the appropriate amount of time.

When Oonagh Buckley was the interim chair of the board, she made the most compelling case as to why the board should not be subject to any form of fines or penalties. She indicated that it would be an incentive for bad decision-making and there were much better ways to ensure compliance with statutory timelines of any kind.

I see no justification or reason we would require the planning authority, as set out in section 98, to return fees. In many cases, it may not be the fault of the planning authority that it cannot make a decision within the original timeline. It may go to a developer to seek a reasonable extension of time and that extension may not be approved by the developer. Despite the fact the planning authority may have done everything within its power and resources to comply with the timelines, it would be penalised financially. It makes no sense.

We had quite an interesting conversation with Ms Buckley. It was not just the fact that the proposal was inappropriate and improper. She was quite clear that she felt it would result in decisions being made to avoid fines or loss of income. The Minister appointed her to oversee the transformation of the board. Even though I was sceptical about the appointment of somebody from the Civil Service, she did an outstanding job. I am on the public record as having said that, notwithstanding the fact that she has gone to a very important position. It would have been great if she could have stayed for a longer time because she was making real progress. I hope her interim successor does likewise.

She made a compelling case, when we consider that she had extensive knowledge of the original Planning and Development Act and the planning process due to her background in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Having these kinds of financial penalties will perversely incentivise decision-making based on the avoidance of fines rather than the best possible outcome.

I am keen for the Minister to explain or justify why this is a good provision. What does it achieve other than putting a calculus into the considerations of the planning authority that it should not have to include in its decision-making, which is whether it suffers a financial penalty? Part of the purpose of planning fees is to compensate the planning authority for the work it has done. The planning authority will have done a lot of work on a planning application. It might not be able to meet a decision within the statutory timeline, but it will not have sat on its hands doing nothing. Therefore, the money will have been spent and will now have to come from somewhere else.

Notwithstanding the fact that very few of our amendments have been accepted to date, there needs to be a rethink on this. At the very least, the Minister needs to provide a better rationale on the record than the one he outlined in response to Deputy O'Callaghan at the start of this.