Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is very interesting. We have had this again and again and we have raised concerns about An Bord Pleanála. One would not think there had been any problem with An Bord Pleanála for the past few years because everybody in the Government has talked constantly about how wonderful it is, how nobody should ever challenge a decision it makes and how terrible it is that people would take judicial reviews against poor An Bord Pleanála. This is despite what were then found to be huge problems with how the board was operating and making its decisions. It is a bit of a contradiction to be told the board could not be any worse having been told for years that there should be no judicial reviews taken and nobody should ever challenge decisions of the board.

We had legislation before the summer that asked us to bounce things directly past the local authorities and have them go straight to An Bord Pleanála because the Government prefers when things go to the board. That is what the policy has been doing. We need to be bit honest. The problem is not simply with some individuals on the board. The problem has been with a joined-up and systemic approach that seeks to fast-track things in a way that skips good decision-making.

The delays in An Bord Pleanála, whatever their source may be, are to be examined and would be worth examining. It is interesting to note where some of the delays have been made in its decision-making and, indeed, in some of the dilution of judicial review powers, which have been floated constantly. Certainly, one of the main issues that is a problem for An Bord Pleanála is the quality of its decision-making. To give just one direct example of how this legislation will make matters worse, the choice has been made not to have an environmental law expert on the board guaranteed. That is a choice that has been made. Again, that is a dilution of what we had before, where there was meant to be somebody with environmental and sustainability expertise on the board. We are not guaranteed that we will have that. That is one of the areas where the decision-making of the board has repeatedly been found to be deeply remiss.

The amendments tabled here are, like my own amendments to which I will come in a minute, very helpful. We are trying to address the confidence in the board by providing that where there are problems, let us ensure they are investigated early and do not drag on as they have previously.

Senator Martin stated there may be different ways to respond. The text already allows the Minister, where he or she considers it appropriate to do so, to investigate the matter. A wide set of actions is covered in the language. The problem is the board “may” take an action. The amendments from Senator Warfield are not being prescriptive around which action must be taken. Rather, they simply prescribe that action should be taken.