Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

This is the most important Bill to come before the Dáil this year, particularly in terms of planning development. What will happen in the communities in north County Dublin, where there is a serious problem, and in Wicklow, Drogheda and all around the country which must face these issues? The only way to face them is by putting the argument here and on Committee Stage to make the Bill fair and equitable. While we allow and accept the principle of the Bill, it is not balanced.

In his speech to the Seanad the Minister spoke of giving a scholarship, or something of that kind, as a form of community gain. Community gain is part of Fine Gael policy and I am delighted that the Minister read our policy document and included that idea in the Bill. He obviously did so because we published our document long before the Minister published this Bill. He has not mentioned this in his speech to this House. A scholarship is far too little. On the one hand, the Minister says there will be community gain but, on the other hand, he says it cannot be much. The Minister does not set out what the community gain will be from this multi-million euro expenditure, and I am not saying he should, but there should be some weighting. While the principle as stated in the Bill is good, it does not go far enough. We ought to work together, on all sides of the House, to ensure substantial but not prohibitive community gain.

The Bill endows An Bord Pleanála with that power as part of the conditions of planning. The board ought to be required to consult the local authority which, in turn, should consult the people in the area. This will not be as easy as one might like it to be but the views of the community on what form the community gain ought to take, as expressed to the local authority, should be expressed in some form to An Bord Pleanála, which will decide on it. While the Minister presents this idea in the Bill there is no clarity on its extent. If I was in An Bord Pleanála I would say a scholarship is nothing compared to community gain.

Community gain should include recreational amenities and An Bord Pleanála should be required to consult county councils on those needs in their areas. I would not leave it only to the county councils, however, because that might be the manager's or chairman's pet project. Proper and real exchange of need and views across the board would make a significant difference.

The Bill covers to some extent how the Minister will define NGOs by regulation but he has the power to add to that definition. They must exist for 12 months, have a wide membership and be genuine. This will eventually include organisations such as An Taisce, not that I have a problem with that. If something new is proposed and a group is formed it cannot be recognised as an NGO because it has not existed for 12 months. In other words, I would like further reflection on this on Committee Stage when the Minister might itemise what additions or qualifications he intends to add to the definition of NGOs which would gain this recognition under the terms of the Aarhus Convention. This would be useful and informative.

As a modern society and economy we need real change and we need to balance it. While I am convinced of the principle the substance is not right. I am not happy with the new role for An Bord Pleanála, or that there is sufficient equality before the board between the applicant and the objector, who are entitled to equal treatment, or the restrictions on the judicial review process in respect of who can apply for it and when an NGO may or may not do so. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate on this.

I am concerned that the Minister may rush this Bill through. Committee Stage is scheduled for 13 June and while that is not too soon, I wish to ensure that the Minister does not guillotine our amendments. Constructive and productive work will depend on full and adequate debate on these issues. Other Ministers have guillotined pages of amendments which have never been discussed. We will kick up one hell of a row if we do not have proper discussion on Committee Stage of all our amendments because that will be critical to the future of this Bill. We approach it in a spirit of agreement but with a desire to get it right. We are prepared to put in the time that is required on Committee Stage and I ask that the Minister leave that Stage completely open. We will work on it. We are not here to delay the Bill but to ensure it is right.

See this speech in context