Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this very important legislation arising from the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal. Despite its rather anodyne title, the tribunal report dealt with issues of corruption in the planning process. It is disappointing that it is taken so long for Government to implement some aspects of its recommendations. It is even more disappointing that many aspects of the report's key recommendations remain unimplemented. It is also important to point out that given the length of time since the Mahon tribunal was established, the debate on how best to tackle corruption in public life has moved on and Government action on these issues and the issues raised in the tribunal report should not be limited just to its own recommendations.

One of the areas dealt with by the tribunal and worst affected by politicians trading cash for votes was in my constituency Dublin Mid-West. The zoning and planning decisions that led to the development of Liffey Valley continue to have a profound negative consequence for the communities of Clondalkin and Lucan. In exchange for bribes, politicians named in the Mahon tribunal report disregarded a long-standing proposal for a town centre in Clonburris to serve the social, economic and cultural needs of the local community. In its place, they facilitated an out-of-town shopping centre in Liffey Valley which served neither the needs nor the interests of the people who lived at that time in Dublin Mid-West. Politicians made the decision in exchange for donations to their election campaigns, printing of leaflets and posters, trips to Cork to meet Seanad election voters and expensive meals and fancy hotels. Today, communities in Bawnogue, North Clondalkin and south-east Lucan live without a viable town centre, without adequate amenities, services or infrastructure. It is important to keep in mind the real human cost of the planning decisions that the Mahon tribunal examined.

When this House sets about the task of implementing the planning-related recommendations of the tribunal report, we need to make sure that we do a job in a way that ensures communities such as those in Clondalkin and Lucan are never treated in this way again, and that those who are responsible for the decisions do not go unpunished. Before I comment on the substantive proposal in Bill, the office of the planning regulator, I want to raise several issues about other aspects of it. I would like the Minister to clarify some matters in the Bill and omissions from it. I am conscious that many of us who are not members of the Thirty-first Dáil did not have the benefit of the very extensive engagement at the then environment committee preceding the drafting of the Bill. Some of my questions may have been dealt with at that stage. Those of us who are new are keen to get clarification on them. Section 8 relates to publication of documents on council websites. I welcome this move and many councils already do this as a matter of course. The issue does arise, however, of those without access to the Internet and how they can be assured of equal access to the information. I would be interested to hear at the end of the debate the Minister’s views on how we can ensure this access.

Section 9 facilitates the making of planning opinions available electronically, which is also very welcome. Can the Minister assure us that this will not result in reduced access to non-electronic facilities as has been the case, for example, with motor tax registration as we are seeing in some parts of the country and library services? I am not clear on the purpose and intentions of sections 11 and 15 and would like the Minister, if possible, to provide more background to these changes. With respect to section 14, was consideration given at drafting stage to including other categories of premises, for example, fast food restaurants and takeaways? If not, would the Minister be open to considering the inclusion of these on Committee Stage? I am also concerned about the proposed exemption from publication of certain documents as outlined in the amendments to sections 9, 11, 12 and 13 and in particular exemptions arising from legal opinions or ministerial interventions. Could the Minister give more detail of the kinds of documents that he or the drafters of the legislation think will be covered by these exemptions?

I am also concerned by the absence of several key recommendations from the Mahon tribunal. While the issue of directly electing members of regional authorities has been deferred, does the Government have any proposals for improving the accountability or transparency of this body in planning related matters, which is a key concern of Mahon? Why has the Government ruled out using an independent appointments process for appointments to what was the National Transport Authority, NTA, and Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII? I listened with interest to Deputy Cowen during the previous session of this debate and I share his broad concerns at the omission of these transport bodies from the broader remit of the Bill and, like him, I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter.

Contrary to claims made previously, the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal on increasing transparency in the planning process have not been fully implemented in the Bill before us, which does not address some key proposals. I would like the Minister to say why this is the case and if we can return to these matters. Measures relating to decisions by councillors in contravention of the advice of officials and declarations of political donations by planning applicants remain unaddressed. These are key recommendations of Mahon. I urge the Minister to reconsider these important issues and either table his own amendments on Committee Stage or be open to those from Opposition parties. This is not a criticism of the current Minister but a point about how some of these issues were reported during previous Dáil. It is not good enough to produce progress reports as has been previously the case, stating that recommendations are supported in principle or being progressed to some degree. I urge the Minister, now that he has taken responsibility for this Bill, to bring forward to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, at whatever stage is appropriate, more detailed progress reports on the implementation of the planning related aspects of the Mahon tribunal, stating very clearly what has and has not been done so that members are very clear about that aspect.

The real substance of the Bill is the creation of a planning regulator. It is not unjust to say that this is the most important recommendation that Mahon made in planning terms arising out of the report. It is important to read the key wording of that recommendation in chapter 18 1.14 he states

...with regard to enforcement, the Tribunal is concerned that recent changes in the planning system have resulted in an over-centralisation of power in the hands of the Minister for the Environment which is not subject to sufficient checks and balances. Consequently, the Tribunal is recommending that the Minister for the Environment’s ability to give directions to Regional Authorities and Local Planning Authorities should be entrusted to a Planning Regulator.

It goes on to state that the Minister’s responsibility in terms of adopting the spatial strategies and development plans should continue. The specific wording of the tribunal is really important. The intentions of that recommendation are not contained in the Bill before us; in short, it simply does not create a planning regulator. The language used in section 31P of the Bill before us has been chosen very carefully and deliberately. This new body is being given powers only to evaluate, review, assess and observe specific aspects of the planning process. Crucially, and this is the big difference between what is at the heart of this Bill and the Mahon report, its only power is to make recommendations to the Minister, which he or she can disregard if he or she so wishes.

While the training and research functions are without doubt welcome in the Bill, it cannot in any way be described as an independent body with the powers of regulation and enforcement as recommended by the Mahon tribunal. It is arguable that rather than enforcement powers being transferred from the Minister to the independent regulator, we actually end up with the contrary of what Mahon requested, which is increased powers being given to the Minister. That is against both the letter and the spirit of the tribunal's recommendations.

The language in section 31AU dealing with complaints about specific planning matters is similarly weak. It refers to examinations not investigations. The powers to compel witnesses to secure relevant documentation and to make findings are not clear. This is something we will have to return to on Committee Stage. How any of this would have stopped the kinds of planning corruption that left the people of Clonburris and Lucan without a town centre is not clear. If the Bill before us cannot prevent such corruption in the future, we would be better to return to pre-legislative scrutiny after drafting a Bill that does what Mahon recommended and what people across the country deserve. In addition to these legislative weaknesses, I am also concerned about the issue of resourcing. Whatever powers are eventually given to this new office, without adequate staff and funding these powers will be of limited value.

I raise these issues because I am genuinely interested in the passage of this Bill. Sinn Féin is not going to stand in its way on Second Stage and will engage very constructively on Committee Stage by proposing amendments in the spirit of the tribunal’s recommendations. Having listened to the debate and the Minister’s comments at the start, all of us in this House want to have a fair, transparent and accountable planning system with a robust and independent system of regulation and enforcement. If we can do additional work on this Bill on Committee and Report Stages, we could end up with an Act that not only could we all support, but do so enthusiastically.

See this speech in context