Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I very much welcome this debate. It is timely and important. An Bord Pleanála is a critical arm of the State. Since it was established, it has, by and large, served this country and its citizens well. My party, namely, the Labour Party, has been a strong supporter of the principles of An Bord Pleanála when it is acting at its best. We believe in the organisation and its importance. We believe in robust, transparent decision making and adjudication systems and third-party statutory independent appeals processes to vindicate citizens’ rights. What is also vital to the functioning of a robust appeals system, especially one dealing with important planning matters - issues that have massive impact on our personal lives, how we develop and plan our communities, our economy and our society and how we protect our environment - is the question of integrity and public trust. We know only too well, and experience in relatively recent history tells us, how the greed and avarice of some politicians and some public officials over the years destroyed confidence in the political system, local government and some other important institutions of State.

An Bord Pleanála has, by and large, commanded the confidence of the public. It was seen as a body that was fiercely and correctly independent, that protected its independence from local authorities, the Department and central government for good reason, and was the last bastion and form of protection outside recourse of the courts for the vindication of the rights of citizens on planning matters. While one may have, from time to time, quibbled with individual decisions it made or policy positions it may have taken, it was with a degree of confidence that we could follow the logic of a decision or adjudication. We understood, largely, how decisions were made in compliance with the law, regulations, local development plans and other national obligations and requirements.

For many years, it seemed to be a body that was almost above criticism or, at least, saw itself as being above and beyond criticism. It was beyond reproach. We were not advised and it was never suggested that we were permitted to publicly criticise An Bord Pleanála. I recall the - I was going to say "veiled" - less-than-veiled criticism from some quarters that was levelled at one of the Minister's predecessors, namely, Deputy Alan Kelly, when he initiated a review into An Bord Pleanála in 2016. Frankly, there was hostility from the Department, An Bord Pleanála and some other actors in the planning and development community to that initiative - one that we can now conclude was very important. I will return to that initiative. In truth, no public body is beyond criticism. That should always have been the case, especially for a body as omnipotent, almost, as An Bord Pleanála. Informed criticism and regular review are crucial to the proper functioning of all public services and no public body should be immune from that.

Recent events have rocked public confidence in An Bord Pleanála. By any stretch, it is extraordinary that the alleged actions of a former deputy chair of the board were considered to be so serious that a senior counsel had to be put on the job and undertake a review into those actions in the context of alleged conflicts of interest. I note that, as the Minister put on the record in August and now in the House, the report has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. That suggests the report was provided to An Garda Síochána in the first instance. It is advisable, of course, that we do not comment any further on the substance of that but, rather, allow the independent DPP to come to a conclusion. I understand why the Minister is unable to publish the Remy Farrell report, although I would like it to be otherwise. It is clear there are matters contained in the report that are of ongoing interest to other authorities. We will allow that process to conclude uninterrupted.

There is also an internal review that is being undertaken by An Bord Pleanála on its rules and procedures. We do not know exactly what it is considering because, as far as I can establish, the terms of reference are not available. This is all somewhat opaque and I would prefer if that were not the case. As the Minister said, there is a review ongoing with the Office of the Planning Regulator, and that is to be welcomed.

I return to the 2016 review. Arguably, if the bulk of the key recommendations of the 2016 review initiated by Deputy Alan Kelly had been implemented, we would not be here today discussing these issues. Although the independent review chaired by Gregory Jones noted "a well-deserved high reputation for its integrity and professionalism" at the time, it listed 101 recommendations that were needed to reform An Bord Pleanála. Earlier this year, Deputy Kelly highlighted that only a miserable 36 of the 101 recommendations made in 2016 had been implemented in the six years since the independent review was commissioned and the report published. It seems that another 23 non-completed recommendations are now going to be examined again under different reviews. Six years on from the Jones review, much of this seems to be a rinse-and-repeat job. The reality is that many of the issues that were identified then are long-standing issues. They are still issues now and they cannot be ignored. As my colleague, Deputy Kelly, said, this has been going on way too long. Six years have been wasted, quite frankly, due to the lack of political will to deal with the scale of some of the challenges and changes required.

It is worth putting some of these recommendations on the record, especially in the context of the Government's housing crisis. They include giving the board legally binding timelines of 12 weeks to process general cases, giving the body the power to award costs against any party that has acted unreasonably in its planning appeal to the board and the reform of outdated processes for appointing members of the board of An Bord Pleanálaby recruiting two members through open competition. All these issues feed into this debate and the situation the board finds itself in at the moment. I recall well the resistance to the initiation of the Jones review in 2016 and, quite frankly, attempts to bury some of the more important recommendations contained in that report. If many of the recommendations in the report had been implemented, there would be more transparency in terms of how An Bord Pleanála does its business. There would be much more clarity and accountability. There would, for example, have been reform in respect of how long a board member can serve. That would have promoted new thinking and fresh perspectives, as well as more rotation and fewer potential conflicts of interest, with strict rotation in the context of who is making decisions on what kinds of cases. There would have been measures to widen the definitions and scope of what constitutes a conflict of interest.

I am interested in the view of the Minister on this because it is an issue that also impacts on the ongoing review of ethics legislation more generally. The broader definition of what may constitute a conflict of interest needs to change and be modernised and updated. There would have been changes to make more transparent the appointment of board members. There would have been provision, for example, for greater support in internally reviewing decisions. We have had six wasted years and that has allowed issues such as these to emerge and a controversy such as this to fester. For trust and confidence in the board to be built up, we need to act quickly and the Minister needs to act expeditiously. What has been going on and come to public attention is really damaging but it is important that those matters came to public attention. If this Government and the previous one had acted, there is a good chance we would not be here discussing these issues today.

In essence, the earlier remarks of the Minister covered my final remarks. I suspect that morale in An Bord Pleanála is very low at the moment and that should be an issue of concern for us. All Members know there are good, professional and dedicated public servants who work there. They work there for the right reasons and they discharge their responsibilities in a professional, efficient, open and transparent fashion but there is a cloud hanging over them now and that cloud should be lifted from them. The Minister needs to move quickly and decisively to restore trust and confidence. I will elaborate on a remark made by my colleague, Deputy Ó Broin, earlier. If the Minister is taking this reform in the right direction, the Opposition will support him. This is a matter on which we can unite if the Minister gets it right. We in the Labour Party are happy to work with him to get this matter of serious public interest resolved once and for all.

See this speech in context