Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I also thank the officials for the briefing they provided yesterday.

I begin by expressing again my deep concern and unease, as many others have done, about the introduction of legislation in this last-minute fashion. Like others, I wish to place on record the fact that is not a good way to make law. There have been far too many instances of last-minute rushed legislation from both this Government and that which preceded it. This has resulted in a range of unintended consequences and measures.

Planning legislation is particularly complex and must be dealt with in a thorough, considered and comprehensive manner. It should be adequately scrutinised, discussed and debated over a sufficient period of time. The manner in which the Minister has chosen to introduce this legislation has eroded and undermined much of this crucial consideration. While I acknowledge Senator Doherty’s refusal to concede to the Minister’s request to have all Stages of the Bill taken in one day, I nonetheless continue to have grave concerns about this process.

I am particularly concerned by the Minister’s disregard for the pre-legislative scrutiny process and the work that was undertaken by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Time-honoured procedure and best practice require a committee to complete pre-legislative scrutiny, send the report to the Minister, the Minister and their officials then consider the report and either publish or perhaps make changes to the legislation on the back of the report. The joint committee only met this morning to finalise its report and to address amendments. The gazumping of the pre-legislative scrutiny process makes a mockery of the significant work undertaken by the committee to date and prevented my colleagues in the Seanad and I from considering this report before the deadline for amendments fell due this morning. Prior to 11 a.m. was the only point at which we could avail of the opportunity to submit Committee Stage amendments.

It is crucial that we get this legislation right. An Bord Pleanála is an institution in crisis. If is affected by bad management and bad decisions. Bad underlying legislation has led to a collapse in public confidence in the work of the board. The board is repeatedly making legally questionable decisions on SHDs that are then being challenged successfully in the courts. These challenges not only cost the taxpayer millions of euros but result in undue delays to developments. They also fundamentally undermine public confidence in the board. The board is also delaying decisions on controversial SHDs, which costs the taxpayer through fines. More than €1 million has been paid out to developers in this regard. There is no doubt that reform is needed. However, given that the more substantive changes to the board are to be included in the Bill, can the Minister clarify why these aspects have been detached from it?

The reform proposed in the Bill is rushed and does not adequately address the public concerns about the board. We need a clear, open and transparent process that is independent of the Department and the Minister. The proposed reforms do not provide for this. The proposals in the Bill are too general and do not provide sufficient clarity as to what the procedures for appointment would be. As the old saying goes, justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. I propose that the board must not only be independent, it must also be seen to be independent.

The proposed method of appointment that has been put forward does not guarantee sufficient independence from the Minister and his Department. Appointment of a member of the Civil Service to a position such as that of interim chairperson is entirely unsatisfactory. In order for the board to be independent of the Government, this role must be filled by someone with appropriate professional expertise and not by someone coming from within a Department. We do not need to reinvent the wheel, however. Retaining and improving the panel system would provide more effective reform and would address the actual issues that have resulted in the lack of public confidence that exists.However, the board should be extended to include environmental organisations and organisations representing citizen and community interests. This combined with an open and transparent interview process of public competition would create a hybrid system that takes the best of both the panel system and the open, transparent and competitive public application process.

We welcome the fact the Government has removed air space from the definition of foreshore. Nonetheless, serious problems remain with the Foreshore Act 1933, specifically the licensing regime that is not fit for purpose. However, I will raise these concerns and provide more technical comments when tabling amendments on Committee Stage.

The Minister said he will bring forward an amendment to the Cabinet that would introduce other amendments to the Bill that are related to social housing. We will look favourably on anything that accelerates the delivery of social and affordable housing, however, Members have not seen nor been briefed on these amendments. Given the extent of the emergency we are facing, I urge him to publish the amendments on social housing either today or tomorrow and to provide a briefing on them by tomorrow at the latest.

We want to work with the Government and the Minister to provide social and affordable homes, but introducing complex last-minute legislation intended to amend planning and procurement processes is a huge cause for concern. It disrespects the Legislature and the Houses of the Oireachtas.