Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to give an overview of the Bill we are discussing. The publication of the long-awaited final report of the Mahon tribunal brought to an end the longest running and most expensive public inquiry in Irish history. The Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments, which was the tribunal’s official title, was established by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in November 1997 and held 917 days of public hearings with 400 witnesses. The tribunal’s terms of reference were soon expanded to allow for the investigation of all suspect payments to politicians and local authority officials in connection with a spate of rezonings in Dublin city. The tribunal cost the public in or around €250 million, taking into account third party costs, so it was a high price to pay for the grubby actions of certain people - politicians, developers and planners - involved in the planning process.

That brings me to certain points I will make on the regulator. The Mahon report was issued in 2012. The process involved many witnesses and the investigation of politicians and planners and I am very concerned that parts of the report’s recommendations are not being implemented. I would like more of an explanation as to why the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal are not being implemented to the letter.

The Liffey Valley shopping centre was built in an area where it should not have been built, as people did not have access to it. The shops in the centre are a bit more expensive than shops in other areas. Houses that were built on the flood plains in the Blanchardstown area and likewise in Athboy were flooded two or three times because they were built on flood plains. Many people suffered because of that and could not subsequently get home insurance, for example. The follow-up response to the bad zoning decisions, bad planning and bad building was to put in flood barriers, which also cost the taxpayer money.

The man and woman in the street saw the tribunals as more of a fig leaf to allow the politicians to say: "Carry on, there is nothing to see here and we will get back to our business of being in the Dáil and getting paid our wages". Nobody was brought to account following the tribunals. The only person who went to prison did so because he did not respond to an instruction from the tribunal rather than due to the tribunal’s findings. The then Taoiseach, Mr. Bertie Ahern, resigned in 2008 due to the controversy surrounding the tribunals. People were very angry about what happened and rightly so.

Four judges were involved in the course of the tribunal. To my knowledge, 64 recommendations were put forward for further consideration on a range of policy areas including planning, conflicts of interest, political finance, lobbying, bribery, corruption in office, money laundering and the misuse of confidential information, asset recovery and miscellaneous matters.

The tribunal made a total of ten planning recommendations, all of which I will read out. The first was to place the national development plan and the national spatial strategy on a statutory footing. The second was to directly elect members of regional authorities. The third was to facilitate documentation of regional authority considerations in making draft regional planning guidelines. The fourth was to have an independent appointments board to appoint members of the National Transport Authority. The fifth was to increase transparency in the planning process. The sixth was to provide for advance notice of material contravention of development plans. The seventh was to restrict the use of the procedure set out in section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001. The eight was to provide for documentation of submissions and interventions made by elected members on applications for planning permission. The ninth was to introduce a requirement to identify relevant political donations when making a planning application for planning permission. The tenth was to transfer the Minister’s enforcement powers to an independent planning regulator.

They were the ten key recommendations made by the Mahon tribunal. As far as I am aware – Members can correct me – recommendations 1, 3 and 5 have been partly implemented. It is not proposed to implement the recommendation on the independent appointments board. It is considered that recommendation 2 on having directly-elected members of regional authorities, would be incorporated as part of a broader local government reform programme in the future. The outstanding recommendations are from 6 through to 10. They include the provision for advance notice of a material contravention of development plans and restriction of procedures set out in section 140 of the Local Government Act. It was felt that they would result in additional responsibilities for An Bord Pleanála and could be achieved by way of legislative amendment, according to the Department of the environment. I would like to know what those amendments are.

The tribunal also recommended that interventions made by elected members in respect of specific planning applications should be noted on the file and that the file should be made available for inspection on the relevant planning authority’s website. That is currently practiced by some planning authorities. However, the Department, in its analysis of the tribunal’s recommendations, stated that a circular or amendment to regulations could make the process more transparent in that it could clarify that any form of contact by an elected representative, be it by phone, e-mail or other means, should be recorded on the planning file of all planning authorities. I fully support that approach.

The Department’s analysis also stated that recommendation 9, while logical, is difficult to implement in that reliance on accurate declarations would be required and would be difficult to verify. That was the recommendation to introduce a requirement to identify relevant political donations when making a planning application for planning permission. I do not think we can accept that. We must find a way, if we can, to determine if anyone has received a political donation from anybody in relation to a planning application.

The final recommendation relates to the establishment of an independent planning regulator, which would require the amendment of planning legislation. The tribunal recommended that the Minister for the environment's enforcement powers should be transferred to an independent planning regulator who should also be charged with carrying out investigations into systematic problems in the planning system as well as being conferred with education and research functions.

There is a question over the required staffing levels for an independent regulator.

What is the reason for the change in the provision that the regulator may also advise the Minister to reject or overturn part or all of a plan when it is not deemed acceptable? The advice will be published and the final decision to act will rest with the Minister of the day who will be accountable to the Oireachtas for his or decision. That is not an independent regulator. If the independent regulator deems that he or she must reject or overturn part or all of a plan because it is not acceptable, it should be brought to the Dáil to be debated. It should not be the decision of the Minister. It should be brought to the Chamber to be debated. That is proper accountability. It should go back to the public representatives again after going through the councils. It should be brought through for the regulator to adjudicate over and decide it is all above board and that all planning regulations have been adhered to. It should then come back to the Dáil if there is a problem with it. If the Minister does not disagree with it, he or she should bring it back to the Dáil to elected public representatives for discussion and debate. I will table amendments of that nature to the legislation.

Regarding the staffing levels of An Bord Pleanála at the moment, as a result of the cuts over the past number of years to An Bord Pleanála, it has reduced staff and resource levels. The regulator, whoever it is, will have to be fully resourced on these matters because at present An Bord Pleanála has reduced the capacity with which it can process planning appeals. In order to cope with a growing backlog of cases, in recent years the board made a decision to focus on strategic infrastructure cases, in other words applications of national or regional significance. It then makes decisions on regular planning cases in chronological order. It was a decision An Bord Pleanála had to make because of the cutbacks. This contributed to the delay of new developments, including a delay in residential units being delivered into communities. If the regulator is set up, which it should be, it should be independent and able to make a recommendation to the Minister. The Minister should come back to the Dáil to debate it and it should not be a decision of the Minister. It should be independent and accountable.

See this speech in context