Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is one of the checks and balances, it is very weak. It is not a sufficient substitution for Oireachtas approval being required in terms of regulations. There will be regulations going through that people are not aware of. They do not manage to get motions seeking annulments in time and so on. These provisions are being used to try to design a system to minimise accountability, transparency, scrutiny and oversight. Whatever about other legislation, there is a problem with using the word "expedient" in planning legislation. Since 2000, when the Act became law, we have had the Final Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, or the Mahon tribunal. It was very clear that the tribunal was concerned about the extent of the Minister’s powers in respect of the planning system as a whole. Since then, the Minister’s powers have grown significantly. In this Bill, it is proposed to expand them even further. Under this section, it is proposed to remove safeguards, oversight and scrutiny. So how can any of the Ministers in government defend that? I do not understand. It goes against everything the Minister of State has stood for over the years. It goes in completely the opposite direction.

The problem is that we have had expediency in respect of the planning process, and we have had improper and immoral behaviours and acts. We are seeking to delete wording that could be construed as allowing for the latter. As Deputy Ó Broin said, it is not necessary. If our amendment was accepted, the Bill would state: "Regulations under this Act ... may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the regulations". That would be a very strong provision. I do not see anything lacking in it. Why the Government feels the word “expedient” is necessary I cannot understand. I urge that our amendment be accepted.

I have said this previously, but we have to draft legislation bearing in mind who might be the officeholder. I am not saying anything about anyone who is in place at present, but we have to draft legislation based on worst-case scenarios. Unfortunately, in the past we have had worst-case scenarios in the area of planning. As a result, we should be tightening and improving scrutiny and limiting or shutting down the ability for expediency. We should not be creating openings for bad actors and bad behaviour in future. What happened in the past has proven far too costly. Ten years on from the Mahon tribunal report and we are going completely against its recommendations.