Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 10, line 35, after “protected” to insert the following: “and the views of any Minister with heritage responsibility and the Minister for the Environment have been sought”.

Unless we do not have time to speak to it there is a similar amendment in respect of section 12.

My amendment is very reasonable. Again, this my attempt to insert the safeguards that were intended in the primary legislation, which are part of the architecture in respect of safeguards, checks and balances in the planning system to ensure good practice, ensuring that we address things as early and as well as possible and consider the relevant issues in a way that is appropriate.Simply, it is to suggest that the views of any Minister with responsibility for heritage and the views of the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications have been sought. This is the problem. At the moment these powers are consolidated with a single Minister who would previously have been required to check with the Minister with responsibility for heritage. Under several other provisions and sections the Minister would have been required to speak to the Minister in charge of the environment and other Ministers. Now we have a situation whereby the Minister has the power and may or may not consult with other Ministers as he or she sees fit. We are removing checks and balances internally in terms of heritage. This is the fundamental concern I have.

This does not have to be a problem. It is not a problem that the functions are going to the same Department but it is a problem if appropriate measures are not taken. We talk about this with companies all the time, including with the idea of the firewall. If a person is undertaking one function, then we do not have the same people in the same company performing the same function. It is a normal practice to put in place measures and appropriate division of powers internally.

There were several points relevant to amendment No. 1. I understand from the grouping that amendments Nos. 6 to 15, inclusive, are also included. There were points with these amendments whereby the Minister was required to consult with the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. Several of those sections have been truncated. I understand that the titles in such sections may have been outdated but the principle of consultation was important. I have several amendments in which I suggest that rather than saying "such Ministers as the Minister considers should be notified", we say that the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications and such Ministers as the Minister considers should be consulted. I think that is appropriate.

This relates to the Wildlife Act and other measures relating to habitats and wildlife. Section 14 relates to the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2011. These are all areas where it is appropriate that the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications would be consulted. I have framed the reference to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications in my amendments in a way to allow it to be flexible. This means if the environment functions get moved to another brief and combined in a different title, then the Minister with responsibility for the environment would be consulted. Similarly, whatever Minister or Minister of State has responsibility specifically for heritage might be consulted.

These are safeguards that I am putting in place. I say as much respectfully to the Minister of State because I really admire his work. However, I need to be confident that we are putting in place good legislation. If I was hearing an interpretation of the legislation that gave us assurance that would be something, but I am not even hearing an interpretation of the legislation that indicates an understanding of the needs for checks and balances or consultation.