Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

If there is a degree of confusion about what is not in this Bill and is in future Bills, it is a bit understandable, because there is a broad discussion going on about necessary reforms of An Bord Pleanála. I am the first to acknowledge that a lot of reforms are necessary. I have written to the Minister on many occasions calling for reforms around the timelines on decisions, in particular. Obviously, if we want faster decisions, we will need more resources, including human resources. I do not have a problem with any of that. However, if we are brining forward a Bill early in the new year that is going to change the planning Acts profoundly, why are we bringing this Bill forward now? I expect this Bill will be passed today. The Minister has the numbers, as he conclusively demonstrated last night. I believe it has already been passed by the Seanad. I accept the need for new members. Are these new members going to be appointed before Christmas, and are they going to be working over Christmas? The Minister is appointing civil servants as members. It is fair to say that most official agencies do not work very much over Christmas, so what is going to be gained by the rush in doing it now?

The concern I have around the loss of independence is that there is a lot of discussion about the judicial reviews that are taking place. The bigger problem is that many of them are successful. If there are a lot of successful judicial reviews of the decisions of any decision-making body or process, then there is a problem with how it makes decisions. The problem is not the fact that people are challenging the decisions. If bodies cannot stand over those decisions, that is a problem. Sometimes bodies make decisions to please the Government, because they want to be seen to be implementing Government policy. If the Minister is appointing more members with less scrutiny in how they are appointed, the fact they are civil servants means they are inherently part of the State apparatus. My fear is it could lead to a greater amount of that.

One thing this Bill does is amend the definition of the foreshore, but it does so retrospectively. Previously, when a foreshore licence was granted, certain matters had to be taken into account. They were taken into account by reference to what the foreshore was and what was being licensed. Now it looks like the Government is effectively going to license something retrospectively when some of the considerations that might accrue to a broader of definition foreshore would not have been taken into account. I would have a slight concern as to whether that would be in accordance with the EIA directive.

See this speech in context