Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I always think that the language we use when we discuss planning is incredibly important. There is often commentary that labels people objectors when in fact there is no such thing. There are people who make observations, be they negative or positive, or maybe request conditions to be attached to decisions. Similarly, in the debate that has surrounded this, some of the language has been unhelpful. I have heard many people describe it as a power grab. That is not fair at all. I do not see it as a power grab.

Let us look at where we have come from and the 2000 Act, specifically the appointments procedure under section 106, whereby "The Minister shall appoint 7 ordinary members to the Board as follows". I ask the House to listen to the vagueness of the language in the Act of 2000. It states that "one member shall be appointed from among persons selected by prescribed organisations which in the Minister's opinion are representative of persons ...". It is so vague and open. It goes through all the different categories. Then, in 2006, we upped the number to nine but we still had that vagueness in the language. We know some of the difficulty with or some of the commentary on certain appointees to An Bord Pleanála recently from certain organisations. We have never been clear and there has never been a clear reporting process on these panel organisations, to the best of my knowledge - certainly, for some of them anyway. Then, in 2010, we went a little further. The Minister could appoint three ordinary members under the strategic infrastructure development amendment, I think, so it was limited. Then there was the flexibility to appoint one member, someone with satisfactory experience, competence and qualifications as regards issues relating to the environment and sustainability.

There has therefore been incremental improvement from the Act of 2000 up to what we have today. Let us look at it in that regard and at what is actually stated in this amendment to section 106. First, we set out much more clearly the type of experience and competencies we are looking for from members of the board: knowledge of infrastructure delivery, housing and physical planning. Sustainable development is listed. There are often inventive interpretations of sustainable development, but I would suggest that with sustainable development the situation relates to equality for our economy, our society and our environment. It is a matter of architectural heritage, community affairs, social affairs, planning and the environment, the marine, climate change law and corporate governance and an equal balance among them. To me, it is an improvement in that part of the Act to state that out. I did not get an amendment in on this, but I ask the Minister, if possible, to include knowledge of ecology and marine ecology there. It will be an incredibly important part of An Bord Pleanála's work to make decisions on a lot of marine planning applications that will come in shortly, so it would be important to include that there. Paragraph (b) of section 6, which is what is being debated, states that "the Minister shall establish a suitable, independent, objective, and transparent procedure".

All the way up to this point, we have had a panel system from which the Minister appoints. It has been very vague and I think people have agreed it has not been an ideal system, and it is not an ideal system at all. It does need improvement. On the selection that the committee that may or shall be set up, and it would be helpful if the Minister took some of the ambiguity out of that and clarified it, although he may have made a comment that I missed, there is nothing excluding all the existing panels from participating in this process. How and ever, the committee is set up by the Minster. It may be a committee but it also says "The Minister shall establish a suitable, independent, objective, and transparent procedure". That may be a committee, or a panel system or it may be a panel committee. We are not exactly sure on it, but what we are sure on is that it would have to meet that description.

See this speech in context