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

I again put on record our party's strong opposition to these sections of the Bill, dealing with changes to An Bord Pleanála. One of the most significant proposals the Minister brought forward this week is not actually an emergency measure at all. I fully accept there is urgency regarding an interim chair. I would not have proposed the interim chair in the manner that the Minister has, but I accept that it is urgent. Amendment No. 1 relates to the Minister's changes to the appointment process of ordinary board members. There is nothing urgent in that. That is something that could have been and should be in the planning and development Bill the Minister will introduce next year.

In understanding this very sensible amendment that Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, I and others will speak to, it is important to understand what is wrong with the proposition the Minister has tabled. Currently ordinary board members are appointed through a panel system. The panel list is very outdated. As we now know, some organisations listed in the legislation simply do not exist and there have been problems with that. However, the principle of the panel system is not a bad one because it ensures that organisations of good standing with professional expertise and knowledge of this sector can nominate people for the panel. The problem is that the panel system of itself is not good enough. I have argued for quite some time that we should have a hybrid system where we take the benefits of an annually updated panel, combine it with the benefits of an open competition through the Public Appointments System, PAS, and merge those into a hybrid so we get the benefits of both. Therefore, it would be updated and modernised but without losing the benefits of the panel.

That is not just my view. If the Minister had not effectively cut short the committee's pre-legislative scrutiny he would have benefited from the eminent wisdom of the unanimous view of that committee. If he has looked at that report, as I am sure he has, albeit unfortunately after he published the Bill, in the first instance he will have seen five separate recommendations we had for him on this issue. We recommended that the existing panel system be reformed, reviewed and updated rather than abolished and we set out the reasons why. The committee recommended an annual review of the panel system to ensure we do not have the difficulties we had with the nomination of individuals, including Paul Hyde.

It then made a set of other proposals. If the combined cross-party Opposition and Government members of the committee could reach that conclusion, it is hard to understand why the Minister has proposed what he has. I just want to read into the record what he is asking the Oireachtas to support. He has not set out in legislation how he intends to appoint order members the board. He has not set out what is that process. He is simply asking us, on trust, to allow him to put in place a process. He has not even detailed what it is. The Bill states a "procedure (which may include the establishment of a committee)", but it may not. In all of the last-minute planning changes that I have dealt with in my six years as a Deputy never has a Minister asked for so much on such trust with so little detail as what is in front of us today.

We have other amendments trying to reinstate the substance of what our committee report proposed. However, as Deputy Cian O'Callaghan outlined, amendment No. 1 is really sensible. My understanding is the Minister has not even decided what this process or procedure will look like at this stage. However, when he has decided what to do, the amendment would oblige the Minister to engage with us and seek our support for such a proposition. I think that is a pretty fair quid pro quofor what he is asking of us.

This amendment is probably not the strongest of our amendments because some subsequent amendments would actually create that hybrid system of a revised panel and an open public competition, a kind of PAS plus, as I call it. Assuming the Minister will not support the amendment, at a very minimum he should be willing to come back into this House, set out that process and seek our approval for it because without that he is asking us to take something on trust.

Even with the most generous interpretation of the Minister's intentions, the public no longer have confidence in the board and in the operation of one of the most important planning authorities in the State. It is vital, if we are going to pass legislation, that the public can have confidence in the changes the Minister is bringing forward in terms of the reform of that board. I, therefore, urge the Minister consider amendment No. 1.

See this speech in context