Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

To clarify, I am withdrawing amendment No. 41. I will press amendment No. 42, however, which does, in fact, agree with the removal of the possibility of a quorum of two. Amendment No. 42 removes subsections (1A), (1B), and (1D) but does not remove section (1C), which requires a higher quorum in respect of changes or proposals that materially contravene it. To be very clear, I am pressing amendment No. 42 and withdrawing amendments Nos. 41 and 43. Amendment No. 42 is important, however, in that it ensures there is a recognition of that higher level of responsibility.

I am genuinely asking the Minister of State this question regarding amendments Nos. 47 and 48 because I would like to know and it would assist me. With regard to amendment No. 47, the Minister of State mentioned there is already a specification that a higher quorum may be required in terms of certain categories or classes of decision. That is what I am proposing in this amendment. I am setting out a number of categories or classes of decision I believe should require a higher quorum. The Minister of State indicated he believes there is already provision. I genuinely want to understand that. I would like him to specify where that provision is. I say that genuinely as it would be useful to know where that is. Will he clarify where that provision is and what exactly the text of that provision is that would allow for a higher quorum with regard to certain categories?

I will have to press amendment No. 48 because, of course, the decisions should take into account the local development plans. The point is that it is in the checks and balances, however. It is a very serious thing when a development is in material contravention of a relevant development plan. It should have a higher level of scrutiny. It is reasonable and appropriate, especially given how much power has been transferred away from local authorities to the Department over recent years. We have had multiple amendments around the power of local authorities to attach conditions to certain things and with regard to different kinds of category of decision. I am not saying a development may sometimes need to come into play that does contravene a plan. It is not saying that cannot be the case. It is not a ban on developments that contravene a relevant development plan. It is saying we need to have a lot of scrutiny on that and we need to be confident on that decision. That is why there should be balance on a board. At least five people should be bringing a range of skills to look at and examine such a development from a number of perspectives.