Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Once again, we are rushing through important legislation in a busy week during Christmas. We did this two years ago. We have done it many times but one stands out, which is the ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and we saw where that ended up. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan already referred to the change in the quorum, which was rushed through and of course, to the strategic housing developments. Yet here we are again doing the exact same thing.

I have in front of me the digest from the Oireachtas Library, which tells us that given the time between the publication of the Bill and Second Stage, it provides a brief overview and nothing more. The service is not in a position to give us a complete and exhaustive consideration. I am here as a legislator and parliamentarian and, I have tried my best as usual, like my colleagues, to get a handle on what is going on here. I have no idea why the Minister is doing this. I could have put on my conspiratorial hat or paranoid hat but I would prefer to stick to facts. As the Minister knows, we have regular statements on science every year about the importance of facts and evidence. There is no evidence before us at all as to why this is necessary in this manner, other than the appointment of the chair.

We are talking in a vacuum because we do not have the report from the Office of the Planning Regulator. Does the Minister have that report with him today? Is he going to publish it today? Why are we talking in a vacuum without the second report from the planning regulator? I understand that he has complied with his legal obligation on his terms of reference. I do not know why we are shaking heads because this should be here before us. The planning regulator had terms of reference with which he complied. He gave the Minister his second report but there is no sign of it.

The regulator made 11 recommendations in his first report. Recommendation No. 1 was that the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage would initiate a process in relation to the powers available under the existing sections in the existing legislation to appoint a number of ordinary members to the board. Why did the Minister not comply with that? Why has he let a situation arise where we have only four members operating An Bord Pleanála? How come that has happened?

With regard to the narrative and spin that is going out, I am horrified by the comments from the Fianna Fáil Deputy and the Rural Independents, who state on the record that the problem with planning is objectors. I do not know any objectors. I know concerned citizens and residents who make detailed submissions at great cost to themselves. Successive Governments have reduced the process and charge for somebody making a submission and if he or she does not make it at local authority level, he or she is excluded from An Bord Pleanála.

We here today because the vice chair of An Bord Pleanála is the subject of a referral from the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, with regard to a charge and the hugely significant - I will put it as mildly as that - problems that have arisen. We are here today because of that, and the Minister's answer is to allow a narrative to develop both in press releases and debates that the real problem is people on the ground objecting. I am glad the Minister is shaking his head. I will take it back if that is not his message. It is certainly the message emanating from the establishment.

We are being asked to rush this through by tonight to allow the Minister to appoint a chair and increase the number of board members, which I have no problem with him doing, and to give legislative grounding to the idea that a quorum must be higher than two, although that has already been done by resolution by the board. Therefore, there is no need for a rush on that either. To allow for a complaints procedure; that is more of a directive and I have no difficulty with that. However, I have a huge difficulty with the manner in which the three things are put that give the Minister absolute discretion in his power regarding the appointments. The Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage made a comment with regard to the pre-legislative scrutiny being carried out very quickly. Its report states "The Committee is of the opinion that the Minister is afforded undue power over the size and operations of the Board without the appropriate oversight, which may conflict with An Bord Pleanála’s independence." This raises serious questions. The Minister's own colleagues on the cross-party committee said he is getting undue power with regard to the discretion that is being left to him. He has not dealt with that at all.

The Minister gave a speech in which time constraints allowed him to only go through three out of nine pages. While I normally welcome brevity, his speech was reduced because the time for this entire debate was reduced. Our time has been reduced to a ten-minute slot. The Minister went through that and talked about the independence of An Bord Pleanála from 1977. That is not correct. While it was progress to set up An Bord Pleanála, it was later on that the independence was copper-fastened, as already has been noted, by a Minister in the Labour Party. Now, we are going back. As Mr. Mick Clifford said in the Irish Examiner, we are going "back to the future." We are going back because of the failure of An Bord Pleanála and certain individuals in it, and the failure of the processes and procedures and of the Government to act. We have not analysed the problem in the way we should have to get proper solutions. We are going forward with other solutions that are absolutely detrimental. Can the Minister tell me why we are taking out section 104(3)(c) with regard to Dáil oversight? Why is there a necessity? Could I have the Minister's attention about that? Draft orders have to be put before the Dáil. Why has that been taken out? This is in the interest of trying to work with the Minister on bona fides.

The Office of the Planning Regulator has repeatedly pointed out that judicial reviews are not the problem. The regulator said they are small and that they are absolutely related to the strategic housing developments that the previous Government insisted go through An Bord Pleanála. Why is this narrative coming out that the problem is judicial reviews or objectors, as opposed to having a planning system that is robust and fit for purpose with adequate staff? Why has that not happened? I have watched for 17 years at local authority level. Now, in my sixth year as a Deputy, I am seeing the undermining of and removal of powers from local authorities, the absolute absence of resources and the burdening of them with an extra role regarding the strategic housing developments without any recognition of the burdensome role that was. Why are we here today rushing through this legislation? Could the Minister in his last ten minutes tell me why he has not used his existing power to compliment the numbers that are necessary?

Why has that not happened?

See this speech in context