Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, to delete lines 18 to 30.

This amendment deletes section 3(d) of the Bill, which states that:

... where the Minister is of the opinion that one, or more than one, additional ordinary member should be appointed as a matter of urgency due to the number of applications, appeals, referrals or other matters ... the Minister may, ... appoint, from persons who are, or were formerly, established civil servants for the purposes of the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005, established public servants in state agencies or employees of the Board, one, or more than one person, who is, in the opinion of the Minister, a suitably qualified person on a temporary basis,

The idea staff from the Minister of State's Department would be appointed directly to the board is at its core unacceptable. This does not just fly in the face of section 30, which I have spoken to a great deal because it is important, but it also goes against the proper independence of our planning process and against the recognition we had, and had really early on, that that planning is part of democracy. We even had it in the 1922 Constitution, let alone the 1937 Constitution. We have in our planning laws the recognition that planning is part of democracy and that checks and balances are needed. It is not simply that planning is a function of a Department. Planning is treated separately because it is recognised to be fundamentally the decisions we make about how we live together and the public having their say in the decisions we make about how we live together. Those decisions, that process, is a part of democracy. It is not something that should be subsumed solely into a Department.

Again, there was a huge effort previously in the entire architecture of our planning structures to try to ensure we did not have undue capturing of that space and not just in section 30 but in various other measures such as the measure with the one third limitation around ordinary member appointments in the past. We will have a Minister effectively able to hand-pick appointees to the board on an entirely discretionary basis and alter the numbers of the board to ensure any vote will be won. We will see as members persons who will, in many cases, be returning to work for the Department whose career tracks are within the public service and potentially within that Department. We will have them in the situation of supposedly independently adjudicating and determining decisions. Again, I note the context of the number and the volume of applications, appeals and referrals but what we have heard on the other side of the House and, indeed, in the briefings is there is this intention to have certain categories and certain kinds of things such as, for example, whether we have mining, decisions on data centres and decisions in those regards. The concern is we can have a person or, indeed, a number of persons hand-picked by a Minister and put on the board to affect the decision. We must bear in mind there are plenty of opportunities already for the setting of regulations, the setting of the legal context in which the board makes its decision. The Government has many powers in relation to setting the legislative and regulatory contexts for the board in its decisions but it is not enough it is setting those contexts. It now wants to have the people in the room and that is a serious concern. I make absolutely no apologies for using the term "power grab" because that is what this constitutes.

Amendment No. 10 operates to avoid the Minister hand-picking civil servants and appointing them to the board and avoiding the obvious concern over the independence of civil servants. I again note there have been former civil servants on the previous board that all the concerns are about and that did not serve to alleviate those concerns. Thus, there is nothing in appointing former civil servants that will serve to alleviate the public confidence issues in An Bord Pleanála. It was already the case that there was persons who had been appointed from such a context.

Amendment No. 11 would provide that where the Minister is of the opinion that one person or more should be appointed, he may appoint members from the Civil Service but he may not appoint employees of the board to fill such positions. Again, we know in many cases the inspectors have played an important role in challenging the board.

Amendment No. 16 has the effect of ensuring the chair of An Bord Pleanála cannot be drawn from the Civil Service. This may be crucial. Even if the Minister of State will not agree with me on the appointees from the Civil Service, I ask that he strongly consider this amendment both in this House and in the Dáil. This is absolutely crucial to ensure we have an independent chair and one who has public confidence and is seen to be independent. Again, this is fundamental to the functioning of an independent planning system, which is vital to our democracy and to the confidence of the public in the planning system. Whether or not the Minister of State accepts my other amendments in respect of civil servants, I urge him to reflect. It seems, and has been very clear from the meetings we have had with the Department, that public confidence is not something that is a concern whatsoever with this legislation. We were told the plan to get rid of the panel system pre-dated any of the stuff with An Bord Pleanála, so there is nothing that is responding to the public confidence crisis in the board. I urge the Minister of State not to worsen the public confidence crisis and to give at least a signal of independence in the role of the chair of An Bord Pleanála. That is a very reasonable change and one the Minister of State should be able to make in this House, or if not here then in the Dáil.

Last of all, amendment No. 17 provides that in the proposed section 105 regarding the nomination of a temporary chair, that the individual appointed as temporary chair would not be an employee of the board.