Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Higgins, on her appointment. She was a valuable member of this committee and I wish her well in her new role. I take it that a replacement member will be appointed to the committee without delay. In fairness, the Minister of State played an active role in the committee and I wish her my best.

I thank the Deputies for the amendments. Going right the way back to the introduction of this Bill, one of the key points was about transparency. This section is about transparency and clarity as to who can bring forward further observations and how they can do so. I will answer the Deputies' questions directly but let us first look at section 99(1)(a) and (b). It is important to note that while the Deputies opposite might talk about there being restrictions, underpinning all of this is the fact that any applicant for a permission can appeal and any person, other than a prescribed body, is eligible to appeal. We are not restricting third-party rights in any way, shape or form. That is the first point.

My second point relates to the prescribed bodies themselves. It is only fair, proper and right that organisations such as these are properly constituted. A time period is set so that an organisation is not set up specifically for the purpose of lodging an observation as a prescribed body. It is only right and proper to include the reference to NGO groups and other prescribed bodies, which play an important role in our planning process and which I welcome. Those which are established would very much welcome the clarity around how they are formed and that is detailed well. An organisation must be formed and registered "not later than one year before the bringing of the appeal". The EU requires such organisations to be in existence for 24 months but we are saying 12 months in that regard. I am not sure if members are aware of that.

There is absolutely no issue. We have engaged with genuine environmental NGOs. This would pose them no difficulties. What we are talking about here is trying to set the parameters for new NGOs that would come into play. They would have to be in existence, properly constituted and have a minimum number of members. The resolution that would be passed, to answer Deputy Ó Broin, would be in accordance with the constitution of that body. I am not setting a minimum threshold. It is whatever a body's quorum would be set at under its own articles and memorandum. It has to be clear about what the resolution is, that the resolution is passed, and that the body is properly established. The one-year period is very reasonable. The EU requires an existence of 24 months, so we have not gone that far.

Environmental NGOs rightly enjoy a special privilege in the planning system and we are protecting that. We are making sure of this with those that are exercising their duties properly and have clearly stated why they are in existence, which is clearly addressed in the Bill, which covers verifiable parameters relating to the establishment of and operation of a company with the objective relating to the promotion of environmental protection and its relevance. It is important that this is there and the NGO is established for that reason. We have struck a reasonable balance. We are protecting existing environmental NGOs, which do a really good job, and I welcome their interaction with the planning process. They are central to this legislation. We have to look at other bodies that may be set up on an arbitrary basis. It could be to lodge observations against community groups for community infrastructure. We are not just talking about housing developments or anything like that. It is fair and proper that it be set out clearly that if a body is to become one that can make observations such as this, it is clear how it is established, how long it is established, what the minimum number of members is and that a proper resolution will be passed.

I could speak more on this today but I will not, and will instead conclude on this. We have seen bodies and groups that have been set for the sole purpose of delaying or obstructing developments. I mean that in the broader sense, whether that is community development or infrastructural development. We only have to look at recent television coverage in that regard. I have seen it in my constituency. I will not mention the specific case either. People have been able to obstruct good developments when they have not had skin in the game. This details clearly how one would establish a group. We would welcome that. For those reasons, while I know this will not come as a big surprise to Deputy Ó Broin, I appreciate the amendments being tabled because it allows us to discuss them, but I will not be accepting them as tabled. It flows from what the Chair said about the timeframe of 12 months versus six months. The 12-month period is appropriate, particularly when compared with EU requirements. This is fully compliant with the Aarhus Convention too.