Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Most of the issues were general. It is about giving confidence in the planning system. Senator Boyhan is absolutely right on that. The work we do in bringing forward a planning amendment like this, reflecting the Mahon tribunal's recommendations, is to give confidence in the system. It is to give people a guarantee they can trust the planning system. They have been let down by that system in the past through a combination of faults. There is no use in us trying to debate who, what, where and why. It is about correcting it and putting in place a new culture and system to protect that. I believe there have been great improvements when it comes to planning decisions over recent years. However, this is to reinforce that.

In respect of commentary about suggested changes coming through Cabinet restricting people's ability to object, that is not the intention. It is to bring some clarity to the timelines. EU law and our own laws reflect people's right to object. There is no issue with that whatsoever. However, it is how long that process can take. Anyone wanting to make investment plans needs certainty around the timelines of planning, whether it is community groups or a company.We are currently not getting that with planning decisions. That uncertainty leads to a lack of investment in some cases, which can have a knock-on effect in a community in terms of job creation. With this Bill we are trying to bring more clarity and certainty to the timelines involved. That is what it is about. It is not to restrict anyone's ability to object or to raise a concern, as that is important. There must be the ability to do that in any proper planning system. We respect and acknowledge that.

Senator Reilly suggested a proposed amendment in which there is a great deal of merit. We had a similar discussion on the recognition of accountants when I dealt with the Companies Bill. We have also had a discussion on the recognition of architects. Having such a register can cause difficulty for people in the business. However, having a register of planners is worth examining and we will do so. I will not give the Senator an answer to his suggestion today but we will debate the matter when we deal with that amendment next week. Any amendments to the Bill will be welcomed and we will tease them out. In general, I understand the necessity to have a register of the various qualifications that people have. This is also an issue in the medical profession. It brings complications and it is never straightforward. I have had to deal with the situation with respect to architects, which has left people with good qualifications shut out of the system. Any such amendment would have to be examined and teased out properly but we will certainly do that.

The national planning framework is about prioritising investment and making sure the work we do is having an impact. That is what we are trying to do here. Decisions will be made, with which not everybody will be happy, but that will prove the planning system is right in that regard.

Senator Grace O'Sullivan raised the issue of the maintenance of rights of way. I would be very interested to examine that. We had a discussion on that issue in the Dáil. The Senator's legal advice was not raised there because I think Deputy Eamon Ryan missed getting to do that. He might have raised it if he had the chance to do so at the time. I know there was some consideration of that and we would willing to tease out that issue with the Senator to make sure we get that right. We can only protect them if they are mentioned in the plan. Other amendments were proposed when we debated the Bill in the Dáil but they did not deal with rights of way. Rights of way are not referenced in a development plan. Such provision is easier said than done. They have to be in that plan. I would interested to see the Senator's advice on that issue.

On building control and regulations, we have very strong building control regulations in place. The changes made by previous Ministers in the previous Government are right. We have a very strong building control system that gives people greater protection. We want to keep it as strong as it is. Part of my job is dealing with defective properties. I am looking at situations in Mayo in regard to pyrite and mica. We cannot have defective properties continuing to be built and builders turning their back on regulations. However, I do not believe they are doing that. The certification process that is in place catches and deals with that. We have a higher quality coming through the system. That issue is not included in this Bill but we are dealing with it and the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 is a very strong measure in that space. We are always looking to see how we can improve matters.

Rather than responding to other matters Senators raised, on which I can come back to them individually, I recommend that Bill proceeds to Committee Stage.