Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State has heard the high regard he is held in across the House and I echo much of that but everybody is speaking to and anticipating the positive use he might make of the powers under this Act. My concern is not about persons but about structures. My concerns relate to the legislation in front of us and the fact that the Minister in this legislation is not the Minister of State but the primary Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. That is clear in the briefing note. The reason that matters is nothing about who is in which roles. There is a reason this is in legislation. It is not a technical Bill. If it was a technical matter, it would have been transferred under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, as those other powers often have been.

The reason we are having a debate and need legislation is that our planning architecture has checks and balances within it, including checks on the powers of the Minister for planning and housing. The reasonable provisions in section 30(1), which is being amended here and which is called "Limitation on Ministerial power", state that the Minister responsible for the entire architecture of planning should "not exercise any power or control in relation to any particular case". There is a reason that provision is there in law. It is an appropriate check. There is a reason the Minister is limited. The Minister in charge of An Bord Pleanála or the planning authority should not be able to ask it for things, in terms of planing applications, appeals, or determinations, including a determination of exemption from certain planning obligations.There is a reason that check and balance existed, and there were exceptions to it in previous Bills. There were exceptions in terms of the performance of certain functions, but none of them included the provisions or wide powers being set out in this Bill in regard to planning applications, appeals and determinations. I accept they are performed in regard to certain functions, but the point I am making is it matters who performs them. We should have had a check and balance between Departments previously. That is what the Mulcreevy case tell us. It is not an oversight; the primary legislation intended the division of function between two different Ministries because the Minister with responsibility for planning has particular concerns and thoughts, and the Minister with responsibility for heritage has a different mandate, a different duty of care and a different set of concerns to be mindful of. That is part of the system in regard to many of the important matters with which we deal, including how we deal with appropriate assessment, for example, what may or may not constitute an imperative reason of overriding public interest that allows us to skip over or damage Natura 2000 sites. These are all areas where the Minister with responsibility for planning and housing was required to consult with the Minister with responsibility for heritage for a reason.

I acknowledge that the Minister is doing a great deal of good work in the Department, but if those checks and balances are no longer in existence between departments we need to be clear in this legislation that they will still exist within the Department. It is not simply a matter of who allocates the tasks, it is vitally important that it is the Minister with responsibility for heritage who gives heritage observations on local development plans. I am speaking not about the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, as a person but as the Minister with responsibility for heritage and not the Minister with responsibility for planning and housing. It is the Minister with responsibility for heritage who must be consulted in regard to any decisions on Natura 2000 sites and their protection in a planning imperative measure.

We need to see those measures. The Minister of State will be aware that I have put forward amendments to attempt to insert those safeguards, but I remain concerned. In the briefing note it is explicitly clear that section 30 must be amended to provide for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage as the primary Minister to exercise these functions. We need clarity on whether it will be the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who, under the amended section 30, will perform this function and if it will be him only who can submit planning applications and appeals.

The Bill also provides that certain other remainders of heritage powers and functions may be transferred to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. How can we be sure that these powers will be appropriately delegated and that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will be able to fulfil his mandate in terms of heritage in an appropriate conversation with the Minister with responsibility for planning and housing, and that that check and balance will be intact? I await the Minister of State's closing statement and I look forward to further engagement with him on my amendments on Committee Stage.