Seanad debates

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

2:30 pm

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

A planning regulator's office is to be set up. As I have said in both Houses, at the moment the process would be that any directives or changes would come through officials in the Department and through me, as Minister of State. The regulator will assume that responsibility and will make recommendations to the Minister. There will be a formal process, which is removed from politics, to do that. The final decision will then come before the Houses. If the Minister of the day does not take on board that advice or does not follow the direction the planning regulator, who will be independent of these Houses, suggests, then he or she - it is me at present - will be obliged to explain to both Houses why a different route is being taken.

That is a very democratic process and it could not be much clearer. We believe it absolutely honours the spirit of the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal. If the Senator disagrees, I would be happy to sit down with him and the officials and go through it word for word. We believe we are doing that because we want to do it. This legislation was drafted by planners who are outside politics and who recognise the importance of having a transparent and clear planning system. Through the Bill, we are trying to achieve good quality planning. We have good quality planners who might not always have been allowed to do their job properly. This legislation allows them to do their job properly. They are very much behind that and the Bill respects that. If the Senator doubts that, I am happy to tease it out with him. We have had many debates in both Houses and I know he cannot attend them all. I am very confident that it honours the spirit of the Mahon tribunal recommendations. If he does not want to take my word for it, we can sit down with officials and talk him through it.

Senator Murnane O'Connor is asking for Members to have the opportunity to vote and amend. In other words, she is telling all the Members of both Houses that they can become planners and can suggest having houses here, there and everywhere. There would be the opportunity for all sorts of complicating things to come in, which could lead to delays. That is fine; we can go through them all without a problem. However, it is a three-year consultation document. If she wants to try to repeat that on the floor of the Houses, that is what she will get and God knows how long that could take. I do not believe that is a good way to develop a planning document on behalf of the country.That is what I am saying, namely, the process proposed by Senator Murnane O'Connor is not ideal. One of the recommendations was to give a statutory footing and I have explained that it has got statutory footing. On the other complications around the EU directives, I am happy that the Senator would spend time with our officials to tease through all of those. While I do not think it will enhance the process, if the Senator believes it will, I am happy for her to sit down with us to tease it through. If she convinces us we are wrong, we will look at changes. I am happy to make a compromise with her in regard to the review, if that makes it easier for her. I accept she might feel that six years is a long time away. We all thought we would be aligned with these two processes. I am happy to engage with her, although this does get into very technical planning and environmental law, which is not really the job of the Members of the Houses but of the planning Department. That is all we are saying. If the Senator thinks differently, that is fine, and if she wants to talk it through with the experts who have to deal with this on a daily basis as their job, they will be happy to explain that to her as best they can.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.