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

In the context of a development plan, a democratic process involves public consultation where everyone can put in their views, councillors tabling amendments, debates and votes on all of those amendments and full scrutiny of every aspect of the development plan. This would happen across multiple stages over the course of more than a year. Having a consultation process whereby the only provision is that someone shall have regard to something is not robust. It means it cannot be ignored and needs to be taken into consideration. That is along with not having votes, debates or the ability to put forward amendments for scrutiny, etc., specifically in respect of the plan. A committee can meet, pass resolutions and so on and the Minister shall have regard to that, but that is as far as it goes.

The Minister of State said that a four-hour debate would not be not of use because the Government will have a majority and win the vote anyway. We have the tightest Whip system in the western world. Even under our system, however, things sometimes change democratically through the process because if Government backbenchers say they absolutely cannot vote for something, the Government sometimes shifts its position and things can be changed and evolve. It does not happen as often as I would like, but it does happen. Even a four-hour debate with a vote has some democratic basis beyond not having such a process. It would mean that if the NPF was very weak on biodiversity or embodied carbon and if Government backbenchers felt really strongly about that, a vote would give them some leverage to say that biodiversity or embodied carbon are not mentioned and that the Government has to do something in order that they could vote in favour. It would provide some ability for the democratic process to respond to matters and would avoid all the control effectively lying with the Minister.

There is a problem with Cabinet approval on these longer documents. I have seen situations where 100-page documents have been approved by Cabinet and when one questions Minister about the relevant document, it emerges that they do not know the detail of what they signed off on. There are major implications for the public in this regard. I will not go through the different instances now. They do not necessarily relate to planning. I have seen it happen in respect of transport matters. There are only things to be gained from the democratic process. A consultation process in legislation, the end result of which is that someone shall have regard to something, is not a substitute for this. A full democratic process involves votes, debates, elected representatives, the ability to put forward amendments and so on, and consultation. A consultation process alone or where it is all controlled by one stream is not a substitute for a proper democratic process at all. That is my strong view on the consultation process. Used on a stand-alone basis and without the necessary mechanisms, such a process can sometimes give the appearance of involving democratic input but there is an absence of full scrutiny and of an ability to reject or accept things by means of democratic votes.