Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am convinced. That is even more disappointing. Let me reiterate the point. Why do we have votes at the end of anything? The Minister of State is saying that there is such a great volume of consultation and involvement of various Members, although there is no structure involved in the Oireachtas whatsoever. Why do we have a vote at the end of anything? One reason is to ensure that it has the democratic imprimatur of the elected Parliament of the State. That is the function of this body, above almost anything else that we do, in order that when laws that have material impacts on people every single day, are made, it is obvious that a group of people took a clear decision and that they are responsible for that decision. There is a world of difference between a consultative process and a closed-door decision of Cabinet and a consultative process and an open-door debate by and decision of the Oireachtas. They are worlds apart. I am genuinely taken aback by the fact that the Minister of State cannot see that crucial difference.

Governments do not always maintain their majorities. The last two general elections were precipitated by the collapse of Government majorities or working majorities. We will have a debate tomorrow when we deal with the subsequent amendments on planning policy statements. This is a statutory plan. The SPPRs have the force of law. We can have a debate about how they are applied when we get into the national planning policy statements, the expedited retrospective and the many procedures for the various levels of plans, but there is something so fundamental about a democracy where things in law that impact on people's lives are voted on and a group of people are held to account for those decisions.

Here is the problem. Right across the country, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael backbenchers rail against the Planning Regulator. We see this regularly. Members of this Oireachtas from Government parties rail against the Planning Regulator. In fact, I have heard some people call him a Marxist and others refer to him as a fascist. For doing what? For implementing the NPF. When the Office of the Planning Regulator issues draft directives on zoning, it is implementing the legally binding provisions of the NPF. The Office of the Planning Regulator does not make that policy and did not debate that policy, although the individual involved was obviously involved in the Department. How is it that a plan agreed by a Government can then be attacked and criticised publicly by members of that same party, including Members of the Oireachtas and members of councils? The reason is because there was never a vote on it, which then absolves those individuals of any responsibility for a plan that the Government of which they were a part implemented.

For no other reason than making it crystal clear that a national planning framework is the decision of a Government, or the decision of a Government and Opposition if there is consensus, individual members of the Government and-or Opposition should take responsibility for the plan they approve. This is the way democracy works. One of the negative consequences of the very expedient – let us use this word in another context - decision not to have a vote of the Oireachtas on the last national planning framework is that it allows a whole bunch of people off the hook and they can all go off reservation and make all sorts of claims about important elements of our planning system that simply are not true.

What the Minister of State has not answered is why there should not be a vote. He has told us about great consultation. That is fine and we are all for great consultation. What he has not said is what the value is of not having the vote. This legislation proposes a change to the existing planning and development Acts, which did require a vote. Why is the Minister of State taking out the vote? What is he scared of? What does he not want? What does he gain from not having a vote on this fundamental Statewide plan that will have statutory effect and impact the lives of millions of people for generations?