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

I oppose amendments Nos. 18, 23 and 28. I have a couple of contextual points. I will repeat my central criticism of the Bill that I have been making since we first debated it almost two years ago, that the way in which the planning regulator is designed and would be set up in this Bill is absolutely contrary to the spirit and to the letter of the Mahon tribunal recommendation.

Mahon was crystal clear that he wanted to see an end to the over concentration and over centralisation of planning powers, particularly within the Department and in the hands of the Minister. He wanted to see a range of those powers transferred to an independent regulator, whose office would not just be responsible for investigating but also then responding and enforcing. The fact that this Bill is such a departure from Mahon confirms what one other Deputy said, that we are creating another regulator which while providing a variety of valuable functions will not have the core power and responsibilities that Mahon recommended.

I was very disappointed to see a number of very substantial changes to planning legislation introduced on Report Stage in the Seanad. These are amendments that we will come to later on but they also relate to these three in front of us. These were amendments that have nothing to do with the core functions of the Bill as originally proposed. They make a series of profound changes in a number of ways to planning powers. We will debate them as we go through them. Once again, they run contrary to the letter and spirit of the Mahon tribunal recommendation in that they further concentrate and centralise power in the hands of the Minister.

This is said with no disrespect to the hard working staff in the planning section of the Department but I wonder if there is a competition between the rental section and the planning section of the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government as to which one can keep us here latest into the night at the very end of Dáil sessions, dealing with very significant complex legislation without giving us adequate time to respond. Some of the things we are going to be dealing with here should have been dealt with on Committee Stage or Report Stage in the Dáil. Failing that, they should have been dealt with on Committee Stage in the Seanad but they were not. They were dropped in at a very late stage to the Seanad, namely, on Report Stage. They are not central to the core of the Bill. I think that is unfortunate and I just want to put it on record.

I have one big fear in terms of these three specific amendments. I accept that local authorities and elected members must have due regard to national policy. There is no question about that, but first, rather than an independent planning regulator ensuring that that is adhered to, this power is given to the Minister. I do not accept that is an appropriate location for that power. There is also no appeal mechanism for the elected members who might take a different view of the Minister's interpretation of the interaction between central Government planning policy and the democratic rights of elected members, in particular in terms of the debate on whether local authorities can exceed minimum standards or improve on the standards that are provided. I think these three amendments - Nos. 18, 23 and 28 - are very poor. They give far too much power to the Minister. They undermine local democracy. There is no appeals mechanism. They are the grounds on which I oppose the three amendments.

See this speech in context