Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it agreed to take the two items of business before us together? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy O'Sullivan, and her officials, Mr. Philip Nugent, Ms Aileen Doyle, Mr. Niall Cussen and Mr. Aidan Culhane, to the meeting. I draw their attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise them that any opening statements or documents submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website following this meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome the establishment of an independent planning regulator and hope that the Minister of State will in her contribution this afternoon outline the precise functions of that regulator. Members will be aware that this recommendation arose out of the Mahon tribunal and is one of the steps necessary to restore public confidence not alone in the planning process but in politicians and the body politic. The integrity and independence of the planning system in Ireland is of fundamental importance to how local government and the body politic operates. The perception of this is as critical as the integrity around how the system works. We are all aware of the disrepute to the system down through the years. Since the foundation of the State there have been approximately 1,120 Deputies. While the appearance of any number of Deputies before a tribunal is unwelcome there were only a handful of them involved. In any event, the fall-out from the tribunal has been huge and has left a huge black mark and stain on Irish political life. It is hoped that the creation of this regulator will go a good way towards repairing some, if not all, of the damage done by those handful of individuals.

I now invite the Minister of State to make her presentation.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to engage with the committee on this important issue of the Government's response to the final report of the Mahon planning tribunal, in particular its recommendation that the Government establish an independent planning regulator. While I propose to engage with Members in terms of their views on the role of that regulator I will first provide some background information.

We must never forget that the work of the tribunal opened a window to a time when the greed and profit motive of developers and land speculators, rather than the wishes of the community, were the drivers of our planning process. It must also be remembered that the reason we are faced with severe fiscal and economic challenges is past obsessions with property and property development rather than the type of economic and spatial planning that secures lasting and sustainable economic and social development.

While much has changed since those times, we owe it to the people of Ireland to ensure that those dark days cast under the spotlight of the tribunal are consigned fully and finally to the history books. Accordingly, the challenge facing us as elected representatives of the Oireachtas is to fashion a comprehensive and appropriate response that demonstrates that the political system has learned from the tribunal's work and is determined to apply that learning to the planning process.

I am confident that the members of this committee will agree with me that the overriding goal must be to restore trust by the public in their democratic institutions. The Government gave a commitment to embark on this path after the publication of the Mahon tribunal report, the recommendations of which were far-reaching. As regards the planning process, as Minister of State with responsibility for planning, I am determined to deliver meaningful reforms of our planning system that will act on the tribunal's recommendations, while continuing with further changes and other measures to ensure the absolute integrity of the system and that planning is in a position to contribute fully to economic recovery.

The establishment of an independent planning regulator is one of the most fundamental recommendations in the tribunal report. I am determined to see this recommendation comprehensively considered and appropriately acted on.

Not only is it important that we address this crucial issue, but that we do so in the right way. With this in mind, I am consulting committee members as elected Members of the Oireachtas before I introduce proposals to the Government.

In this recommendation, the Mahon tribunal is essentially telling the Legislature that, despite improvements made since the tribunal commenced its work, the exercise of the forward planning process needs independent oversight with a legal mandate and resources to determine whether plans are in compliance with legal requirements and, if not, to determine what intervention may be necessary where serious policy departures have taken place or where there is strong evidence of bad practice or systemic failure. Also required is the authority to overturn the decisions and will of locally and nationally democratically elected representatives. This is a key point to which we will return in our discussions. In other words, the tribunal's assessment is that Ireland needs to introduce an element of independent review of forward planning and planning administration practice in the manner that An Bord Pleanála delivers in overseeing our independent planning application appeals system.

I circulated an orientation paper to the joint committee - I hope everyone received it - that sets out the wider context of the consideration of options for a regulator. Before I set out some views on possible options, it would be helpful to remind ourselves of the workings of the existing planning system.

As currently structured, the system has three main components. First, I as the Minister of State for housing and planning, set the overall legislative and policy framework for planning. This includes powers to oversee the forward plan making process and, where necessary, to take such steps to ensure local authority forward plans are strategies for proper planning and sustainable development within the hierarchy of regional and national plans.

Second, a system of regional and local plan making is overseen by locally elected and democratically accountable members of the county councils, whose actions must be consistent with national planning policy and must address my views as the Minister of State as communicated through the statutory observations of my Department.

Third, there is a system of development management through planning applications to and decisions by local authorities, including independent assessment of appeals of such decisions, including by third parties, by An Bord Pleanála, which has an impeccable track record of fairness and impartiality over many years. Local enforcement of the decisions of local authorities or the board is a vital part of the system and must be implemented in full to demonstrate to the public that the planning laws are to be upheld and to be seen to be upheld. We will return to the issue of planning enforcement when considering the draft ministerial policy directive. The Chairman intends to discuss both elements together.

In a wider context and as with all other arms of the State, the planning process is also subject to various processes to ensure transparency, lawful action and administrative fairness through the criminal justice system as implemented through An Garda Síochána, the courts, the Ombudsman's office, the Freedom of Information Act, access to environmental information and parliamentary questions, not to mention representations and correspondence to Ministers.

Ireland's planning process is designed to achieve a balance between democratically accountable policy making and executive implementation of that policy by public officials. The introduction of the core strategy for each plan is aimed at decreasing the need for ministerial intervention in development plans and local area plans by providing clarity in the legal responsibilities of planning authorities to have reasonable and evidence-based plans instead of relying on the Minister's intervention in the plan process. The concept of the core strategy model took account of a previous report by this committee into the section 31 process.

On my watch, local authorities have all but completed a process of introducing evidence-based core strategies in local development plans outlining the location, quantum and phasing of future development in a way that is nationally and regionally consistent. I commend local authority members across the country who have demonstrated a real commitment to engage with this process, making difficult decisions, abandoning past fixations with zoning and enabling careful management of and prudent investment in infrastructure provision at a time of acute pressure on the public finances.

Despite the additional discipline imposed on local decision makers by the core strategy process, I closely monitor the plan making process at local level and I have made clear that I am prepared to act where the process is not working or is being abused. To that end, I used my powers under section 31 of the Act twice last year and will not fail to act as necessary in 2013 and beyond. It was a lack of willingness in the past to use the powers available under section 31 that provided a major impetus for the tribunal to recommend the establishment of an independent regulator. Had all deficient plans been tackled proactively in this way, we would not have ended up with the problematic overzonings and inappropriate zonings now being tackled through the core strategy process. The core strategy model is a highly effective tool, but it is one that needed to be devised to fix a problem of our own creation.

I will move ahead to set out some important considerations in framing the most appropriate response to the tribunal's recommendations concerning the need for a regulator. When one stands back from the tribunal's report and considers its key message on planning, one sees its call for further oversight of plan making to ensure that each plan is in accordance with other plans. One also sees its call for further independent input into the planning system in terms of investigation, education and research. In responding to these messages, there are two options for further consideration, those being, establish a new or modified planning regulation body as an independent planning regulator, fully relinquishing political ownership and accountability, or adapt existing arrangements to provide for additional oversight, perhaps including a new and specific role for the Oireachtas while maintaining political ownership and accountability.

We must remain focused on the fundamental implications, be they positive or negative, when giving these two broad options the necessary consideration. We must also understand the fundamental implications for our existing planning system. As members know, planning functions are either reserved to elected members, are executive or are independent. The balance between these is central to an open and transparent planning system because it ensures that democratic accountability resides appropriately across and within the responsible planning institutions of the State.

The Mahon recommendation proposes to alter this system fundamentally. However, it is important to recall that there have been important changes to the planning system since the tribunal began its work. We will also need to be mindful of the implications for planning under the reform of local government structures under the Action Programme for Effective Local Government and the twin objectives of operational efficiency and democratic leadership and accountability. Significantly, the establishment of a regulator brings with it serious issues of accountability and democratic control that must be fully analysed if we are to get this important reform right.

To assist and provide a focus for the proceedings today, I have already outlined my view on two broad options that are available. Regardless of what the final response to the question of an independent planning regulator is, important questions must be addressed, including, for example, whether the Minister's powers should be fully transferred to an independent regulator or whether the final forward planning decisions should remain political in nature, that is, to be taken by the Minister, the Government or the Oireachtas, with a regulator providing an independent advisory or supervisory role. If power is to be fully transferred, how can we ensure accountability by an independent regulator? What would be the limits of the regulator's powers vis-à-visthe planning process and elected members? Is the regulator's decision final? Should the role of a regulator be confined only to situations where a dispute arises over a plan? What is the most suitable institutional arrangement for delivery on the recommendation? For example, should it be a new authority or some type of recast of an existing framework? If a new authority is to be established, how would it interface with the existing institutional framework, those being planning authorities, regional authorities and An Bord Pleanála? If existing structures are to be used, what entity can take on the function and how can the new function be taken on without eroding capacity to discharge existing roles or without being detrimental to well established and publically accepted independent roles? For example, if the plan making regulatory function is to reside in an existing body such as An Bord Pleanála, might that affect the other functions of the board, creating an inherent tension between the board's decisions on forward planning, development plans and local area plans as well as individual planning cases? Is there a case for the regulator to be the person who conducts the fundamental assessment of the performance of the planning system, including an assessment of the effectiveness of the Minister, local authorities and so on, rather than becoming a super unaccountable national planning body?

We must ask ourselves these questions before making final decisions. They are important questions about efficiency, democracy and transparency for the committee, for myself as the Minister of State and for the Government. We will take this ultimate decision relatively soon, but I want to get a sense of members' views on the matter. This is an issue of balance and the system's democratic accountability. To what extent should an independent regulator make final decisions and how should a balance be achieved?

This is both at local level, where it is also a question for discussion, and a national level.

I am in no doubt that we can and must further enhance our country's planning system in light of the findings and recommendations of the Mahon tribunal report. I am determined that we will have a fairer, more open and transparent planning system in which people can be confident and depend on to deliver the sustainable communities and quality of life which we all strive for and deserve. We must remain keenly aware that an effective planning system can play an important part in overcoming our economic difficulties and preparing for our country's economic recovery. Planning is essential for coherent, sustainable and healthy communities and we are united in the view that what happened in the past can never occur again, although our vision for planning must go beyond that. By placing the values of community, sustainability and the common good at the heart of our planning system we can fashion a mechanism that delivers a thriving Ireland for the decades ahead. That is my vision for planning and it is one that I am committed to delivering.

I also circulated to the Oireachtas for consideration today by this committee a draft ministerial policy directive on planning enforcement. A fully effective planning system requires rigorous implementation of policy and legislation throughout the forward planning, development management and enforcement stages. Ireland's performance in planning enforcement has been patchy and we need to address that. Those responsible for breaching planning legislation need to know that they will face the consequences. We want to see the law upheld and we need to know the system has teeth. The policy directive I am proposing will not on its own change the world and it must be viewed as part of a wider range of actions being pursued to ensure full and effective implementation of the enforcement provisions set out under planning legislation. This second element before the committee today will ensure that enforcement is taken seriously. The directive is before the committee having been referred to it for decision on recommendation back to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I thank the committee members. With the main issue being discussed today, there are a number of ways in which we can implement the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal report with regard to a planning regulator. I am very interested to hear the views of the committee in that regard.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for the absence of Deputy Barry Cowen, who is indisposed, and I welcome the Minister of State and her officials in setting out their stall with regard to possible legislation arising from the findings of the Mahon tribunal. Today is an interesting exercise and the Minister of State has posed wide-ranging and pertinent questions. We are used to draft legislation, which is very helpful, and in many ways we all endorse the findings and recommendations of the Mahon tribunal. One of the most important measures put forward by the tribunal was the idea of a planning regulator. The tribunal indicated that centralising all the powers under the Minister was unhealthy, and the tribunal's finding possibly related to the happenings being investigated by it.

The Minister of State has posed questions and I am sure she has done some advance work on the issue. Does she see this as a quasi-judicial planning regulator with the power to compel witnesses? The Irish Planning Institute favours this idea, along with the idea that it should be based with An Bord Pleanála. I note the comments of the Minister of State in that regard. She is right to state that the position is never black and white and one must consider the impact on the work of An Bord Pleanála. It would be helpful to hear the Minister of State's views nonetheless.

Planning is a very complex area and councillors play a very central role. We must ask whether they are really equipped to handle the role they have. The idea of training courses for councillors seems to be almost essential at this stage. If the Minister of State is contemplating this, does she see such courses as being mandatory? That would be important in order to restore any confidence that may have been lost with the planning code, and every level should be examined from the ground up to ministerial level.

The idea of transparency was examined by the tribunal very closely as the issue only came to the fore in the tribunal process. We must now ensure that transparency is evident at all stages. Will the Minister of State elaborate on that idea? No matter how good a job we do with the structure put in place, if we are left with a void in transparency, it will be very damaging in the long run. Bringing that transparency about will require much deliberation as we should accept it is a complex area that is difficult to embrace.

These are my main concerns but I am very appreciative of the exercise being conducted by the Minister of State by raising questions in advance with us. I thank her for the effort.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the committee and the Minister of State are agreeable, I might take a couple of contributions together before the Minister of State replies.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and her officials and thank her for the presentation and documentation sent to us. They were very informative. I agree with the Chairman's comments at the outset regarding the small number of people elected to the Dáil who have been found guilty of any form of corruption during that period. Since the foundation of the State, a great number of local representatives have been elected and very few of those tens of thousands of people have been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Having served on two local authorities, I see it as a great shame that all councillors and Deputies are labelled with the brown envelope culture. It is right for the media to highlight this issue where it has been found but we should not be slow to argue that the culture does not affect most councillors or Deputies. That is my experience of people across the political divide.

With regard to the transfer of powers, tens of thousands of people have served at a local authority level, with a handful found guilty of corruption. I wonder if there had been tens of thousands of planning officials since the foundation of the State, how many would have been found guilty of corruption if investigated? That is not to take from the great work done by planning officials around the country. They have always been honest and sincere, doing the job to the best of their ability. Nevertheless, any area like banking or planning could have people looking to gain improperly.

I have concerns about setting up a new planning regulator. We can have a discussion with the Minister of State, who must answer to the Dáil. As a Deputy I could find it difficult to contact somebody in An Bord Pleanála. I have made submissions in the past but the level of accountability does not compare with that of Ministers. With the current planning process, there is a development plan and the Minister of State mentioned there are over 400 of these. With the newly reformed local authorities, there will not be as many plans and the workload for the Department will diminish. I understand that it is currently quite cumbersome.

There is the development management level which has an executive function and the local authorities make decisions on individual planning applications. Elected members can make representations, as can the public, and they can be discarded or accepted depending on whether they stand up to scrutiny. There is the planning appeals process to An Bord Pleanála which again is independent. That is as it should be and I have no argument with that. There is also planning enforcement, which is part of the executive function. A resource issue arises in that regard with local authorities currently because we are at the other end of the madness that was the boom. Most of us would agree with that. There is a fairly comprehensive planning system in place. We are one of the few member states of the European Union to have an independent third party such as An Bord Pleanála to which matters can be referred. We should not beat ourselves up too much. We have a good planning system but we should improve it.

My concern is that with an independent body we are handing over huge powers to another agency. We are outsourcing government. The previous Government did a good deal of outsourcing and look where that led us. We must be careful when we outsource functions of government.

There are solutions, and the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, mentioned her greater input into setting out criteria for local authorities and that local authorities members are complying with that core strategy, as she called it. I believe it comes under section 31 of the Planning and Development Act. Is that correct?

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the model for the way forward and in that regard I would make some suggestions. The first is that we would have greater notification of county development plans. Currently, they go on public display but the notification often does not reach the public. Members of the public will often come to see one as a councillor and say that he or she did not see the advertisement in the newspaper. We could have greater notification of that. Second, we could have a clearer set of criteria on rezoning - that it must be justified. The Minister of State has gone some way with that in terms of her core strategy, that it must be justified on the basis of population and to take account of whether the services are in place, is there a need for the rezoning, and such planning would not be done on flood plains.

In terms of the putting through of a material contravention, the current position is that two thirds of the council members present must vote in favour of it. I suggest that in the case of rezoning we would seek to introduce a similar system. In a council with 25 members, two thirds of the members would number 17; I am familiar with those numbers as there were 25 members on the council on which I served. I suggest that the vote of two thirds of the members of the council would be required for a rezoning. In other words, the vast bulk of councillors would have to be in favour of it and it could not be done late in the evening when half of them have gone home, as happened in Kerry County Council the other day in regard to a different matter.

In terms of the standards in public office that have been in place for about the past ten years, most of the scandals pre-date that time. We have strict standards in public office and the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, with which we and councillors must comply, has been a very positive development. We have done some of the work on this area. We are setting about reforming local authorities but we must not kill them altogether and we must not kill the power of the Oireachtas. We need to be careful about that. The Minister of State might respond to me on that matter.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Catherine Murphy and then will have heard three Opposition speakers. I will then get a response from the Minister of State and then call other speakers.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Deputy not speak on it now?

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first three contributions were interesting. What has come across is the importance of, on the one hand, balancing the independent role of a regulator but, on the other, ensuring accountability. Deputy Stanley, in particular, referred to the accountability of the Minister answering questions and similar accountability at local level and we must get that balance right. Transparency is an element of this. There must be transparency in the system in order that the public knows the basis on which decisions are being made. A number of the recommendations in the Mahon report relate to transparency, for example, giving reasons a Minister makes a decision, publishing advice he or she receives and ensuring where councillors engage with the planning process and comment on planning applications and so on, they do so in a transparent way. Other actions have been taken and more will be taken and they are aimed at ensuring that whatever decisions are made, the public knows the basis for them. If somebody is doing something that does not appear to be in accord with advice given, the public should know that and know what was the advice. Transparency, therefore, is hugely important in that regard.

The issue of evidence-based plans and making decisions on the basis of core strategies was raised. Whether that relates to, for example, flood plains or projected population growth when deciding on zoning for housing, everything should be done on the basis of the evidence available. We want that to be a core element of forward planning at every level.

Senator Ó Murchú raised the question of whether the regulator would have a quasi-judicial role. I do not see that as the way this office will operate. It is not about individual decisions; it is about ensuring the forward planning process is pursued in the way it should be on the basis of evidence. However, the Senator raised the issue of education and that will be part of the role. He asked whether the regulator was likely to come under the remit of An Bord Pleanála or an independent body. Deputy Murphy specifically stated it should not be An Bord Pleanála. If it is to be An Bord Pleanála, it will have to be done in a way that there would be a clear separation from its current role in individual planning applications, including those appealed or referred to it. There would have to be a clear differentiation between the roles. The downside of having a separate, new, independent body is that we could be setting up what might be described as another quango. We have to make a decision on that and I value the opinions of the committee members in this regard. The Ombudsman's office is another possibility but, again, there would have to be a clear division between the roles and there could not be confusion about straying into the role of the body we opt for, if we go down that route.

Deputy Stanley raised a number of accountability issues and he referred to the fact that the vast majority of public representatives at local and national level are not in any way corrupt and they want to do a good job. I agree with him but it is in their interests that we have a system that is clear in how it operates and that is based on a strategic system of forward planning, which takes into account the needs of the various areas. It must done at the right level and, therefore, the local area plan must be in accordance with the county development plan, which, in turn, must be in accordance with regional planning and the national spatial strategy in order that they are all in synch with each other. On that basis, public representatives will be able to do a good job. They will know what are the parameters and they will have clear information as to the basis of the decisions they make. They want to play their role using clear information and the core strategies are very much part of that. As the Deputy said, much of the basis for the Mahon report recommendations was a long time ago. Many changes have taken place and the planning process has been developed considerably since then.

With regard to communication with the public, there are clear requirements for consultation on the drafting of plans and prior to the final adoption of plan but I take the point that we should ensure that this is notified. Perhaps we should use social media, for example, and ensure information is clearly conveyed to the public. I will take that on board.

Deputy Catherine Murphy stated that Kildare County Council adopted the core strategy model at a much earlier stage whereby councillors examined what the planning needs were and what were the limitations of land and so on and organising its planning in that way. That is what we want all local authorities to do now and that is why the various measures have been put in place. The regional authorities have a significant role and under the reform of local and regional government planned by the Minister, it is intended that they will have an even broader role in spatial planning and economic planning for regions. They have the capacity to significantly engage in this area.

I agree with the Deputy that checks and balances are required. She referred to local area plans and pointed out that people understand these but we have to make sure they are required to be in accordance with the entire hierarchy of planning.

One of the roles of the regulator might be to have a watching brief to ensure the various plans at the different levels are in accordance with each other. I do not know whether annual reviews could be conducted or whether the regulator should address queries when somebody says a plan is not in accordance and brings that to this attention but these are some of the areas in which the regulator could operate.

We are trying to work out what would be a positive and proactive role for such a regulator and, in the case of the drafting of local area plans, whether somebody should be able to say his or her local area plan is not in accordance with the way it should have been drafted and could take it to the independent regulator. Those are the type of questions we want to settle in defining how the role would be performed and what we would ask the regulator to do. I note the Deputy's point that she would favour an independent body. However, a decision will have to be made given the various factors to be considered.

With regard to enforcement activity, I feel strongly about the issue. Anybody who has been a public representative for a long period would be frustrated at times given the difficulty having decisions enforced. That is the reason I bring the document before the committee. We are insisting that senior officials in the planning office have a role in regard to enforcement, that there are regular updates to the manager and the director of planning, that annual reports are made available to public representatives, and also that public awareness is raised. We are trying to enhance awareness of enforcement and to ensure it is taken seriously within the planning departments of local authorities.

Appropriate attention must be given to large-scale developments where an environmental impact assessment is required. I accept the Deputy's point that the smaller developments should be ignored. We want to ensure the large-scale developments are dealt with because they can have a significant impact in the area but also possibly where European Union fines are concerned. Therefore we have to ensure the large-scale developments receive appropriate attention.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Philip Nugent from the planning section has just advised me that we have written to the Courts Service on two occasions offering to organise educational seminars on the planning system. In other words, we could offer it information on planning but we have to be careful about the spade we use.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and her officials. This is D-Day for planning in Ireland given that the Minister of State is here with the recommendation to implement the policy of the Mahon tribunal which is accepted by the Government as a whole. We have to call the Mahon tribunal what it was: the planning matters, payments and corrupt payments to politicians tribunal. Given that it took it 15 years to deliberate at a cost of €300 million to the taxpayer, the people want to see an outcome and responsibility. Some people wanted politicians taken out tarred and feathered and are disappointed that did not happen. What the Government can do is implement its recommendations and that is what we are about today. In regard to payments to politicians, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, has brought new proposals to Government on that. As the two are interlinked, I had to mention them.

In regard to the fixation with zoning, I was a member of Dublin County Council at the time. Deputy Brian Stanley said it all when he said not all politicians had a fixation with zoning. Not every elected councillor or Deputy had a fixation with zoning. There are bad apples in some carts. There are other politicians who strive at all times to do their best and we should not tar them all with the same brush. We are all aware of zoning that has been driven by developers and speculators. In all the planning Acts the phrase used was "have regard to" whereas the new Act provides that it must be responsible and must have "heed to". Whatever system is put in place, it must be accountable and a methodology must be put in place for imposing sanctions on those who do not carry out their functions because we do not want to spend 15 years asking what to do if something goes wrong. There must be accountability, openness and transparency. Independent oversight of all development is important but it is not always the panacea and the be-all and end-all of everything. We had an independent regulator who was supposed to regulate the banks and it did not regulate them in the way it should have done. The Mahon tribunal cost €300 million and the bank crisis has cost €36 billion. Independent oversight does not always bring about a responsible outcome.

Politicians are elected to be responsible to their communities. Participation by citizens is an important part of planning. It is important that citizens' input is available at local area level in respect of local plans and local development. While issues may be decided that are in the best interest, there is, however, a great deal of the NIMBY - not in my back yard - syndrome in planning. If there is a reason to deviate from an agreed plan, at whatever level, the reasons must be written down and explanations given. That is important because sometimes an issue may come to light that was not on the plate when the area plan was drawn up or it might conflict with another.

The regional authorities have a huge role to play in regional planning, as I witnessed in Dublin and Kildare. However, what is in the interest of Dublin may not be in the interest of Kildare or vice versa. The regulator will also have to oversee the regional spatial output and input in respect of Dublin and Kildare.

The Minister asked if the power should be fully transferred. Who is accountable and how does one get accountability? One can be sacked, de-selected and unelected but one should be accountable. How is a regulator to be made accountable? I ask the Minister to reconsider the removal of all powers from politicians in this respect because democratic accountability is important. Section 140 of the Local Government Act has been amended as there was an abuse of the section.

The issue of enforcement is probably one of the most important elements. I spent a long time as a member of a council, as did many others present. The question often asked was whether funding was available for enforcement. A table should be drawn up in each local authority showing the costs and what has been done rather than an excuse being offered that the authority does not have the funds or the staffing.

Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to my question on the directive. I do not think it changes any of the planning enforcement issues but is merely seeking the enforcement already provided for and stating that one has to be accountable. I ask the Minister to include the executive of the council given that she has required the senior officer to provide regular updates on enforcement activity and outcomes to the director of planning and the manager.

Nobody needs to know that more than the local councillor because if it is not being enforced, they need to know it straightaway. The executive councillors should also be included in that.

Seán Kenny (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am substituting for Deputy Gerald Nash, who cannot be here. I welcome the Minister of State and I welcome this extremely important report, arising from the Mahon tribunal. I was a member of Dublin City Council when some of the events covered by that tribunal took place. In particular, I am thinking about the Quarryvale module. It was not a planning matter - it related to the sale of lands, but nevertheless it was of concern and was included in the tribunal's recommendations. My constituency, Dublin North-East, includes the Baldoyle, Portmarnock and Cloughran areas where substantial rezonings occurred as a result of the 1993 Dublin County Council development plan. The Mahon report made strong comments about those decisions and payments made at that time to some councillors in Baldoyle and Drumnigh. The report also commented on the Cloughran rezoning, which did not proceed although that was not for the want of trying on the part of those who wanted it to happen.

It has also been said that the property bubble of the Celtic tiger stemmed from the inappropriate zonings in Dublin in the 1990s. Today, with negative equity and unfinished estates, we are living with some of the fallout from that.

The Minister of State asked whether the independent regulator should be An Bord Pleanála or a new body. I take the point that we should not rush into establishing a new quango. We need to bear in mind that some of these planning decisions were made during the making of city and county development plans, which is an open, accountable and democratic procedure. We need to bear in mind the need for a level of democratic accountability in creating city and county development plans. I would favour having An Bord Pleanála as the regulator. In recent decades An Bord Pleanála has been demonstrated to be an independent and competent body. Its decisions have been broadly welcomed. I agreed with An Bord Pleanála overturning Dublin City Council's decision on Ballsbridge on the basis that it felt the council was not adhering to its own development plan.

Deputy Stanley talked about the brown envelopes which definitely went on and was mentioned in the Mahon tribunal. I understand that is being addressed by an anti-corruption Bill, about which the Minister for Justice and Equality recently brought a report to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. The brown envelope stuff will be covered in that. Action needs to be taken. We cannot overlook and sweep under the carpet some of the things that happened there. I take the point that it was only a small number, but that small number was able to bring about majority decisions and some people in negative equity are living with the consequences today.

I also want to talk about the important issue of planning enforcement. Priory Hall is probably the worst example of the lack of planning enforcement. If proper planning controls and enforcement had been in place, that fiasco would not have happened. Local authorities need to give greater priority and more resources for planning enforcement. For example, during the property boom Dublin City Council was supposed to inspect 15% of all developments. I do not believe it was even inspecting 5% of them. Many things were let slip and the matter needs greater priority and resources. While I accept we are not in a property boom now, nor is it likely that we will be in one, these things come in cycles and in ten or 15 years we do not want to repeat all the mistakes that were made as often tends to happen.

I welcome the report and I would tend to favour An Bord Pleanála as the independent regulator rather than setting up a new quango.

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for her attendance this afternoon. She has a very important task ahead in dealing with the fallout from the Mahon tribunal. We need to get this right because we have had a history of poor planning decisions with which many of our people are now living as a result of the corrupt activities of some people. It is critical that we weed out that type of thing from our planning systems.

I will not mention again the concerns a number of people have raised on enforcement, transparency, etc. When a person makes a planning application to a local authority, will there be any means, possibly through a register, for determining if that person has made a donation to any political party?

Regarding a material contravention of a development plan-----

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any chance of a bit of peace so that I can ask my question?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we have some ciúnas for the Deputy, please?

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The interruption will be noted.

Marcella Corcoran Kennedy (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What evidence will be required to justify a material contravention? Should it be brought further than the local authority? Should there be another agency to rubberstamp it?

Training is very important for the elected member. However, it is also important in enforcement. When we received submissions and presentations on pyrite, many of the people who were evaluating that substance had not necessarily received the training to recognise its impacts or even to recognise what it could possibly do. Is the Minister of State considering providing training for elected members?

Much of the work on planning applications takes place in the early stages when a developer is investigating the potential for a planning application. Perhaps all of this should be required to be documented on the full file even if it does not result in a planning application so that there is some record that can be referred to in the future regardless of whether it continues to a full planning application. People should be aware of the planning that takes place prior to the submission of the application.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a general point first of all, mainly in response to what Deputy Seán Kenny said about the ethics area. The Mahon tribunal made 64 recommendations and only ten of them relate to planning. Much of the corruption-related issues are being dealt with in other ways and do not relate to my responsibilities on planning. Today, we are specifically focusing on the forward planning area, but many other actions are being taken as a result of the Mahon report that will restore confidence in the political system.

Senator Keane spoke about the importance of transparency and ensuring the public know what decisions are made and why. She also referred to ensuring that where there were material contraventions the information was publicly known.

Deputy Corcoran Kennedy referred to that as well. There is a specific recommendation in the Mahon report, planning recommendation No. 6, which specifically addresses that area. We intend to address it by way of legislation so that there would be publication specifically in the case of anything to do with material contravention. Also, the requirement to provide a rationale for departure from the manager's recommendation will be in primary legislation. It is recommended that all proposed grants of permission in material contravention would automatically go to An Bord Pleanála for final determination. That would involve a public notice process and it would have to be provided for in legislation. It is a separate recommendation to the one about the regulator, but it is also one on which the Government intends to act. That addresses one of Deputy Corcoran Kennedy's questions as well.

The other question that Senator Keane raised was on the planning enforcement directive. She suggested that the councillors, as well as the management, should be made aware of the report. We can certainly ensure that the report concerned would go to councillors. I will certainly take that on board.

Deputy Seán Kenny, from personal experience, would have been aware of much of the background to the issues in the Mahon tribunal report. I have referred to the fact that the anti-corruption and other measures are being dealt with by other Ministers in other ways.

On enforcement, it is interesting to note from statistics available to me that in the boom times, 80% of planning time in local authorities went into managing applications, only 15% went into forward planning and 5% went into enforcement. We want to change that. We want to ensure that enforcement and forward planning get their proper place. If that had been the case in the past, perhaps there would not have been so many of the decisions that were made. We must learn from that. I am particularly keen to get enforcement its proper place in the hierarchy of priorities for planning authorities, and that is why we are doing this.

Planning recommendation No. 9 - I apologise for mixing up the different recommendations - is the one on political donations which Deputy Corcoran Kennedy raised. There is a recommendation that information on relevant political donations should be made public. We intend to implement that recommendation. We merely must work out how to do it. The figure that was given was any donation in excess of €55. I am loathe to give examples but it is a matter of figuring out, if one played in a golf classic that was being organised to fund a political party, for example, whether would one need to declare that in applying for planning permission. We merely need to figure out how exactly we would do this but, in principle, I would be fully supportive of the recommendation that political donations, where they exist, are known and declared in the planning process. That is also a specific recommendation of the Mahon report. I hope I answered the specific questions on both enforcement and the Mahon report.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for her presentation. The issue of training seems to arise repeatedly. I am sure anybody who has been a member of a local authority will be aware that there is training provided, but the problem is the quality of it. When I first became a member of the local authority, I did not know a great deal about planning but I went to one planning conference and discovered I knew a great deal more than those conducting the conference. Is there any way to guarantee it will be legitimate, proper and good quality training, not merely a trip to the Ring of Kerry?

Will the matters I came across as a county councillor happen again? If one is a building developer and a county councillor, the first problem is how one defines who is a building developer. I have my definition of it. In my experience, those who could be defined as building developers have been chairmen of planning strategic policy committees. In one situation when the development plan was being voted on, two of the three councillors in an area were developers or, depending on the results they came up with at the end of it, destroyers. What will be done to prevent that happening again?

The Minister of State may be aware that in a local authority there are councillors to whom one would go to get planning and there are councillors to whom one would go to guarantee one would not get it. By the end of my term on the local authority, it was quite clear - I had to tell constituents this - that a person would have to keep away from me if he or she wanted to get planning because they would not give it to him or her. As a county councillor, I took up the role of enforcer, reporter, complainer and pointing out if something went wrong. As to my reward, even my brother said they would not go to me for planning but they knew to whom they would go. Whatever system the Government puts in place, and while it is a difficult matter, it should ensure these practices are not repeated. I found it frustrating that one could get punished for doing right. That is my tuppence worth.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan that we would want to ensure that these practices do not happen again and that his experience is not the experience in future. That is why we want to put as much transparency as possible into the system. For example, there are ethics declarations required of councillors, as well as of representatives in the Dáil, in the context of declarations of interest.

The other element is that there is a recommendation that comments which councillors make on planning applications should be recorded appropriately. Most councillors would welcome that because at times they are quite confused about what they can and cannot do. They look at the kind of councillors to whom the Deputy referred getting things done and wonder whether they are supposed to do likewise.

I would be interested in the Deputy's views on the following. Councillors, like members of the public, must pay when making a comment on a planning application. We are looking to possibly waive that fee, but the balance on the other side is that their comments would be fully recorded on the planning file. I certainly would favour that kind of a relationship of councillors with planning so that they are entitled to an opinion but that the opinion would be publicly known. Perhaps that would address some of the Deputy's concerns.

Obviously, there are the issues we have already addressed with regard to transparency and giving reasons where one deviates from a plan, etc. All of that would also address some of the issues he raised.

On the training area, the Irish Planning Institute has offered to assist with the training of councillors in particular. I would be minded to accept its offer. It is a body of professional planners and that would help the quality of the training. Obviously, there are other bodies which provide training but that would address that issue.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one final question. The Minister of State raised a point about how county councillors and Deputies must register their interests. How rigorous is that system? In the past month, I made a complaint to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges about a Member of the Dáil which was investigated, and the conclusion was more or less that the Member forgot to put it in. When I sent the report to the Standards in Public Office Commission, it told me that as the person is not an officeholder, the matter does not concern the commission. I am a little confused about it.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is straying off the point.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not. It is with regard to the register of interests not being taken seriously.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For elected Members of Dáil Éireann. It does not refer directly to the issue at hand. I will not ask the Minister of State to reply to it.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fair enough. If we cannot get it right at this level, how can we get it right at local authority level?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has made his point.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have indeed.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is not the forum. The joint committee has completed its consideration of the Planning and Development (Planning Enforcement) General Policy Directive 2013 and the clerk to the committee shall send a message to that effect to the Clerk of the Dáil and the Clerk of the Seanad. Under Standing Order 86(2) of Dáil Éireann and Standing Order 75(2) of Seanad Éireann, the message is deemed to be the report of the committee. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit agus na hoifigigh as cabhrú linn.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are finished.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State would not be averse to a parliamentary question along those lines.