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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 7, line 40, after “assess” to insert “and make legally binding determinations on”.

It is such a long time since we last dealt with this Bill that it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of the core issues dealt with by the Bill, and particularly this group of amendments. As Members will know, this legislation arises out of the Mahon tribunal recommendations, specifically with respect to reforming our planning system. This has been a matter of some debate in this Dáil, the last Dáil and the Dáil previous to that.

In support of these amendments, I want to remind the House of what the Mahon tribunal said with respect to the need for an independent planning regulator. In the relevant section of the tribunal findings under planning, Mahon stated:

Finally, 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. However, the Minister for the Environment should continue to play a key role in adopting the NSS [National Spatial Strategy] and NDP [National Development Plan].

Mahon went on to state:

While the Planning Regulator should assume some of the Minister for the Environment’s existing role in relation to enforcement, the Tribunal considers that his or her role should not be confined to this. In particular, the Tribunal is recommending that the Regulator should also be entrusted with the power to investigate possible systemic problems in the planning system, including those raising corruption risks, with the aim of making recommendations to address those problems.

At the heart of the Mahon tribunal recommendations was not simply a call for an office of the planning regulator but for that regulator not only to be fully independent but to have real teeth, and for powers to be transferred from the Department, now the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, and the Minister with responsibility to this regulator.

On Committee Stage we had lengthy debates about how that is not what this legislation contains. While it creates a regulator and it has an office, it is not independent, it does not have teeth and it does not involve transferring powers from the Department or the Minister to its offices. As such, it is not faithful to the core recommendation of Mahon with respect to planning.

Everybody in this House knows, as does the public, the consequences of not having such a regulator. It allows, in certain sets of circumstances, for the possibility of the kind of abuses of planning processes and failure of political oversight that took place in the past to happen again. That is not the intention of the hard-working civil servants who drafted the legislation, it is not the intention of the previous Minister or the current one but it is a fact that will arise if this legislation goes through unamended. To anybody who says that was in the past and it will not happen again, I would say that there has been a legal report on allegations of planning impropriety and corruption in Donegal sitting on the Minister's desk since June or July of last year. None of us knows what is in it, none of us has been able to get access to it, and we are not aware of any imminent action with respect to it. That report did not come out of nowhere. That report relates to allegations by a former planning official in Donegal County Council which were raised directly with the Department over a decade ago and has been subject to court proceedings and other matters of significant public interest.

The Government is asking us in the Bill to trust the Minister of the day, as it does not want to concede too many powers to an independent body. It wants to let the body to conduct its investigations and inquiries and make recommendations to the Minister but trust him or her to then act. My difficulty is that not only did Ministers not act decades ago, but I am also not convinced that on the issue in front of the Minister - allegations of planning corruption and impropriety in County Donegal - he is acting and assisting. That is why the amendments seek to strengthen the power of the regulator not only to conduct investigations but also to make legally binding determinations. I absolutely accept that in drafting the amendments I do not have the expertise of departmental officials. I have no difficulty with the Minister of State in telling me that he can do a better job than this, but when I raised this issue with the former Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney, on Committee Stage, he objected to the principle of the amendments, not the wording. He said: "A judgment call is required here in what we are trying to do as regards where the buck should stop on decisions to intervene to correct an inappropriate decision or to respond to corruption, although if it is a breach of law, it should involve the Garda." He was saying clearly that the intention in this legislation was for that responsibility to lie with the Minister. That is not what the Mahon report stated, which is why I propose the amendments.

As somebody who would desperately like to see an independent planning regulator and be on the side of the Government on the Bill, if that function of the new office is not strengthened, there is no point in us passing the legislation and setting up the office because, ultimately, issues will come back to the Minister, as has happened in the case of the planning corruption allegations in County Donegal. The likelihood is issues could end up sitting on the desk of respective Ministers with no action, public oversight or accountability and we would be no better off than we were when the legislation was introduced. It is on that basis that I propose the group of amendments tabled. I urge Opposition Members and, crucially, the Minister to reconsider his opposition to them.

See this speech in context