Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This amendment is not grouped with any others, but I believe that one of the later amendments proposes something similar.

Amendment No. 20 relates to the panel system. The reason the panel system exists is because it was recognised, as a point of principle, that the planning system is meant to be independent and separate from the Department. The function of the Department is in respect of putting forward legislation, regulations and so forth. The making of planning decisions and the discussion and examination of planning policy was set by An Bord Pleanála. It does not write the rules. It does not set the laws or regulations; it simply adjudicates on them. This separation is there for a reason. The panel system was designed in such a way as to ensure that the planning system would reflect civil society, that An Bord Pleanála would reflect specific areas of expertise and that the planning system would be owned by the public and would be reflect their democratic voice. That is why we have local development plans that communities write together. This is done through our local authority system but the public has the right to engage in the process. That is why we have various ways to allow people to engage and make objections or give their views or observations. Part of that was about ensuring that there would be a jury of their peers to ensure that the expertise would come through. That is why there are nominating bodies whose members have expertise in various fields.

The problem is that the panel system was not properly monitored or administered. Specifically, we had a situation whereby the Irish Rural Dwellers Association formally ceased to be incorporated and now no longer exists. A later amendment in my name deals with the situation where an organisation is no longer incorporated or constituted. Such an entity should automatically be ineligible to nominate anybody under the panel system. That would address the specific issues that have arisen. We are aware the Irish Rural Dwellers Association did not have a legitimate standing at the time when it nominated two members. There are questions regarding why two members were nominated by that body, which was one of the many organisations involved in that panel. It seems strange that two candidates from that one organisations would be selected when there were multiple potential nominating bodies within that subsection of the panel system. That has been problematic. As we know, there have been serious concerns not just in respect of the process of nomination but also with regard to at least one of the nominees.

If we are fixing an issue, that is the one we should be fixing. It is striking that parties right across the Opposition are attempting to address that issue. If we fixed the issue to which I refer, it would show that the Bill is being used to respond to people's concerns. I used the word “opportunistic”. I do regard the Bill as opportunistic. We have been told that the plans to get rid of the panel system predated thingsThere are lots of provisions the Government have wanted but what is not in the Bill, especially as this is meant to be urgent legislation, is a response to the crisis in public confidence in An Bord Pleanála. There is no sign that this has been considered. We will come to this matter later. There is nothing to strengthen the conflict-of-interest measures. There is nothing that addresses the problem with the panel system around inappropriate nominations. There is simply a new system dreamt up in the Department, which was only shared with us last week, that is being rammed through before Christmas. I do mean it in this regard. Not only is it opportunistic but it is unfortunate and poor. As well not addressing the issue of public confidence and showing that where we see bad practice, we address it, which our amendment does, the Government is simply pushing forward the thing we wanted to do anyway and is not addressing, in any way, the specific areas of bad practice that have been identified.