Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 19, to delete lines 24 to 29 and substitute the following:“(10) (a) Where the Board has failed to make a decision under this section in relation to the appeal within the period it is required to do so by a provision of this section and becomes aware, whether through notification by the appellant or otherwise, that it has so failed, the Board shall nevertheless proceed to make such decision and the decision so made shall be considered to have been made under this section notwithstanding such failure.

(b) The Board shall, as soon as is practicable after it becomes aware of a failure referred to in paragraph (a)—

(i) give notice in writing of such failure, together with the reasons for such failure, to the appellant and the competent authority and, if the airport authority is not the appellant, the airport authority, and

(ii) publish on its website the reasons for such failure.”.

This largely technical amendment will ensure the process, as set out in the Bill following acceptance of the Committee Stage amendments, is workable in practice and will not have unintended legal consequences. Deputies may recall that on Committee Stage an amendment was passed to require An Bord Pleanála, where it had made a decision after its committee deadline for the making of that decision, to publish a written explanation as to why it was late with its decision. It is a fair and reasonable addition to the Bill and adds another dimension of transparency to the overall process. In moving the amendment I am simply bringing forward a minor rewording of the Committee Stage amendment to make it clear that the board does not have to explain the reasons for its lateness at the same time as it makes the late decision but can do so separately. It is a relatively small point in the scheme of the Bill, but it is procedurally important because it covers a possible scenario where the board unknowingly or unintentionally makes a late decision and, therefore, does not explain at the same time why it is late with its decision. The change of wording simply provides that the reasons for any such delay in its decision can be published as soon as practicable afterwards if the board has not explained itself at the same time it makes the late decision. The scenario is highly unlikely, but we must legislate for it. The provision is important to protect the validity of the final decision and will ensure a late decision will not be invalidated simply because it is not accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for the lateness.

See this speech in context