Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and Mr. Terry Sheridan from the Department to the House.

The amendments are clustered and I shall touch on a number of recurring issues. I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Senator Fitzpatrick is another member who is present. We did our very best and worked exceptionally hard on a cross-party basis. I want to acknowledge the work done by the Chair of the committee, Deputy Steven Matthews. We did not delay proceedings and entered into the spirit of engagement. To be fair to the committee, whatever differences we may have we reach a consensus when deciding recommendations and get on with the business. We live with that and advocate for that. I have had to do it on occasion but I do not like coming in here and speaking against any of our recommendations. The committee is an exercise in collaboration and consensus building. We do not always get everything we want but that is the nature of politics and pragmatism is a necessity.

I make no apology for being a strong advocate for sitting county councillors. I work exceptionally well with city and county managers or chief executives as they are now called. I am somewhat concerned about the suspension of Part 8 for two years. The Minister of State will be aware of what is meant by a Part 8, and I shall quote some details that I have copied from his Department's website and cross-referenced myself. I shall explain what Part 8 is for the benefit of anyone who does not know and the wider audience outside of this Chamber, particularly the public who are listening to this debate, watching live or watching the video of these debates.

A Part 8 allows the application of a planning permission for projects by local authorities and states, "Where a project is being progressed by the local authority, planning permission is applied for under Part 8 of the Planning Development Regulations 2001-2015, and the procedure is set out in Part 11, section 179 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended. This procedure requires that notice of the proposed development be given in an approved newspaper and that a site notice be erected on the land on which the proposed development would be situated. After the expiration of the period during which submissions or observations may be made, a report is presented to the members of the council", which is the elected members. The report contains, among other items, a list of the persons, members of the public or bodies who made submissions, along with a summary of the issues raised by them and the chief executive's response to each and every one of them. The following lines are important, "This report recommends whether or not the proposed development should be proceeded with as proposed, or should not be proceeded with. Following consideration of the Report, the proposed development may be carried out as recommended in the Report, unless the local authority, by resolution, decides to vary or modify the development, otherwise than as recommended in the Report, or decides not to proceed with the development. The timeframe for the Part 8 process is set out below."

Clearly, 20 weeks is a long time. So one forwards an application and newspaper notice in week one. There is the public display period of not less than four weeks. Next is the submissions period and the provision is, "submissions accepted not less than two weeks after the end of the public display period", so we are up to week 6. Next we are talking about the assessment in the CE's report and the chief executive's report within eight weeks. The chief executives have said this is a tight timeframe already and informed the Department of their view. I have seen correspondence from the County and City Management Association, CCMA, to that effect, which I am happy to share with the Minister of State and Members if necessary. In the end, the council decides within six weeks of the CE's report.

Clearly, the Part 8 process must be reformed. I have always said that one of the anomalies of the Part 8 process is that it is a never ending process and I do not like anything that is never ending because circumstances change. We have city and county development plans every five years and they might now be pushed out to ten years, which is a crazy recommendation. It would be very tight to have a review within seven years but that is an issue for another day and for another debate.

Planning is clearly going to be very much the focus of our debates in these Houses over the next few months as we see so much coming down the track. I have expressed my concerns about the Part 8 process.

More importantly, I am concerned about the role and function of elected members. This week we have heard so much about the engagement of communities and the environmental pillars in the planning process. The Minister of State and I know, as former county councillors, as does everyone here who has been involved in councils, that many people in public life and politics, be it at a local level, in the Dáil or in this House, live in communities. We also have a background in community activism.We have come through Tidy Towns, the GAA, sports, recreation, and from campaigns of all sorts, including for underground electrical cables, for example. In public life many politicians in these Houses have come through that process. They have been politicised through campaigning to make their community a better place through a whole range of issues, some of which are more successful than others. There are many Deputies who make a good job of advocating for their communities in Dáil Éireann and in this Chamber.

I have a genuine concern, however, and this is not to have a bash at anyone, that we have to put in place a system.I am not too sure if it is going to be a temporary suspension. We are told it is a temporary suspension for two years. That will bring us pretty neatly into our next local elections. I can tell the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, that this is going to politicise communities. I am looking forward to that engagement. I look forward to being active in that engagement. I attended two meetings in south Dublin the other day, and I understand that right across this city and county community groups will mobilise into an umbrella group to campaign. They feel they are under threat in the context of their engagement with planning.

The Minister of State may or may not have been at our meeting last week when I said that I had looked at various objections that have been made to An Bord Pleanála. I see that a large number of Deputies, and indeed Deputies who are now Government Ministers, had put in submissions, and rightly so, with concerns about planning in their constituencies. I am not complaining about that as I believe that it is right. We in Ireland pride ourselves on our close connectivity with our electorate and our communities. We all more or less live within our own communities, which is another strong part of the Irish political system. I am concerned that, on the one hand, we are legislating for policies against participation in the process, and yet we are jumping up and down to the independent appeals board with appeals. I hope public representatives continue to advocate strongly, through their planning authorities and through an open and transparent system, and right up into the board. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, may not recall, but Mr. Sheridan will, that we had a very tough campaign in the last Seanad to allow councillors to have a waiver from the €20 fee that had been proposed by the last Fine Gael administration. We fought tough and it was a hard battle. It was touch and go. There was a different dynamic in Seanad Éireann then. There was a confidence and supply agreement and there was a block of Independents here, from the Taoiseach's nominee Independents right across to the Independents who were directly elected by the universities or through the panel system. They formed a very strong, focused and cohesive group. They managed, despite all of the objections, to get to a situation where the councillors would have no fee. I would like to check that there is no proposal to levy local councillors so they would have to pay to engage with the planning authority. It would be outrageous if there was such a proposal. It was a hard battle and I hope we do not go down that road. I hope we do not try to rescind that waiver to councillors.

I will move on now to the other detail in the Bill starting with section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001. The Minister of State will be familiar with this section of the Act and the power it gives to elected members. Sections 138, 139 and 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 empower local authorities to prevent the manager or the chief executive, or the Executive per se, to carry out various issues. It gives power and control to the elected members. The Minister of State, Deputy Burke, got great accolades and support this morning across the Houses for his commitment to local government. Earlier I spoke about maternity leave for councillors, along with the pay for elected members of local authorities. That is not enough. Better reform for councillors and sitting county councillors is important too, but let us remember that we cannot water down the powers for those councillors.

I will not go into a big history lesson here, but the record of the House will show that I made a strong case for keeping councillors' involvement in decisions relating to the disposal of lands to the Land Development Agency. This was resisted by all three sides of the Government. The vote was taken. Some might say that having a few votes is a waste of time but it sets the record of the House when the arguments are going to be debated outside of the House. The Official Report will show what some of us over on this side of the House tried to do.

We had it with the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, and the arrangements around the harbours. A case was made that councillors would be considered. Again, this was resisted. We have it in relation to An Bord Pleanála and the special role the Association of Irish Local Government has with regard to feeding into the nomination for one of the panels. Again, this was resisted.

This Government and the previous Government have centralised more powers. We hear of all the reforms of local government, but somehow there is a strong resistance to set out a series of measures to relinquish certain powers into local government. At best, it is a local administration and it is not local government. This is a pity. I am aware the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, is committed. He has been two and half years in the job and has a lot more to do. It is important. I am conscious of the large number of councillors the Minister of State has in his Fine Gael party, and in Fianna Fáil.These are big blocks of councillors who are also members of the Minister of State's party. I am aware the Minister of State has them engaged in the processes and feeding in and out of them, but one must start to scratch one's head and ask why is it that every time we make a case for these elected members across the board on the local council, they seem disappointed. I spoke with a colleague of the Minister of State who is a councillor. He told me they are powerless. There is the odd councillors' forum and they talk about issues but they cannot do anything with them. It is all part of the system. I just wanted to share this with the Minister of State, for what it is worth.

This relates to the part of the Bill that provides that "Sections 138, 139 and 140 of the Local Government Act 2001 shall not apply in respect of development to which this section applies.". This means those sections that allow councillors to receive prior information about a development and so on. They will have the power to make changes under section 140. Section 140 is very important. I am saying to the Minister of State that I want us to work together to empower local authorities. This is not about further additional powers. I am trying to stop this Bill taking powers away from them. The Government is proposing to take powers away from these elected members. These are Fine Gael party members. The Minister of State, Deputy Burke, has responsibility for local government, and he is doing a really good job, but why leave this legacy after him? The Minister of State will be very familiar with section 140 of the Local Government Act 2001, which states, "...an elected council or joint body may by resolution require any particular act, matter or thing specifically mentioned in the resolution and which the local authority or the manager concerned can lawfully do or effect, to be done or effected in the performance of the executive functions of the local authority." There are reserve functions of local authorities and there are executive functions of local authorities, as the Minister of State is aware. There is a clear mark between those functions. There is no doubt and no issues about them. Members respect the executive functions of the local government executive but by golly they will defend, and rightly so, the reserve functions that are given in law to elected members.

I thank Senator Higgins. She has done a very good job with these amendments. I am, however, concerned in relation to environmental impact assessments and environmental impact statements. We must work in a spirit of co-operation with the environmental panels. They are not against us, they are not against the Minister of State and they are not against the Government. The Aarhus Convention was talked about in great detail and I do not propose to read out a summary of what the Aarhus Convention is. It is clear for anyone to see online. It is important because we live in a community but we also live in an environment. It is about proper planning and sustainable development. It is about consultation with all stakeholders. It is not about supporting the might of developers to do what they want to do. They have a role, and I am supportive of private development and supportive of private enterprise.

I know what the Minister of State is dealing with when he spoke about the amendment that was made in the Dáil. Amendment No. 5 relates to local authority own housing development, and I am concerned about the subsection (d) which states, "...that is not subject to a requirement, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, for an assessment with regard to its effects on the environment...". What an extraordinary statement. The Green Party is in Government.Has it agreed to this?I am shocked by it. Subsection (e) states, "...that is not subject to a requirement, in accordance with the Habitats Directive, for an appropriate assessment...". The Minister of State sometimes asks why environmental groups and residents' associations must take judicial reviews. It should not happen. We need a good, strong, robust planning system. We should not put obstacles in front of people. We live in an environment and it is important. Many of the cases of judicial reviews that have been taken to An Bord Pleanála on planning matters have been successful. Indeed, there is one such case down the road from where I live. The residents gathered thousands of euro through coffee mornings, fund raisers, discos you name it. They were very successful. One can read the judgtments on the Courts Service website. It is clear the process is broken and needs to be mended, but I do not believe we should raise higher bars or raise higher walls to stop people.I remind the House that we live in communities. We were elected by communities. We are advocates and we should not apologise for being advocates for the environment and a better place to live.

I think of Ringaskiddy and the incinerator. I had a look today. The names there and how they lent their support to the campaign are very interesting. I think of a case in County Galway which was on my desk again today. It was very interesting to see the number of elected representatives involved in that and I say "right" to them too.

They are just some general observations and comments. I want to work with the Minister of State, as does the committee. There is no point in a history lesson about what happened with the pre-legislative scrutiny. Let us not have another setback in our committee because it has been challenging and frustrating.

I understand the need and desire of the Minister of State and the Government to reform An Bord Pleanála. Of course there needs to be reform of An Bord Pleanála but one has to ask why it has taken so long. I shared with the Minister last week in this House the fact that I put a freedom of information request to An Bord Pleanála months ago. I was pleasantly surprised to receive all the documentation within two days. What does that tell you? It possibly tells you two things because this is speculation. One is that the board was delighted to get it into the public arena quickly. It certainly put it in a good light. I saw correspondence from the Department. The log should be up to date for An Bord Pleanála, although I had a letter from it this week telling me it was slightly delayed in uploading its latest freedom of information documents. I know it has had a substantial number of freedom of information requests so it is reasonable that it is not up to speed on its log for the past month. The documentation tells me that the board at the most senior level had been in touch with the Department to request additional supports and sanction for additional staff but that was not forthcoming. Qualifying conditions were set down. For every case you made, you had to get back to the Department. This was centralised control by the Custom House over the independent board. We want an independent board. We want able and capable people in planning. We want proper planning and sustainability from a variety of sectors representing a variety of interests in the board. We want to cut the link between the board and the Department. I am concerned and would like to see it changed in time. I know the Minister of State must push things along but I would like to see a change in time so that there is a full disconnect from Ministers or anybody else in respect of the independence and appointment of the board.

It is clear from the correspondence I have that the Department was aware of shortcomings in An Bord Pleanála. It has a strong relationship with the board and the planning regulator. Many of the individuals involved worked in the Custom House. They are not strangers to the Minister of State's people. When I think about the planning mess and why we got here, I wonder who were the architects of the strategic housing planning scheme that the Minister of State and his officials are now rightly saying was inappropriate and a disaster. It was a pity it took so long to wind it down because we are still flushing strategic fast-track projects through the system. Does the word "fast track" not say it all? It was on the Minister of State and Government's watch or part of its watch. It was in government. Who were the architects who spoke about rebuilding Ireland and how there would be nobody in a hotel in six months? We were assured of that. I questioned the chairman of the board and everybody else at every committee meeting. When I asked whether it had resources, I was told it had loads of resources, money and office space and did not need anything as it was handy-dandy and it was going to fast-track all this strategic housing. Now we have all woken up to the fact that it was a disaster. Where did the architects of all those policies end up? The Minister of State knows and I know, and we will leave it at that. We must be careful who we promote and prefer. There is an acceptance across the Houses that it was a disastrous policy that did not work. Now we are on to Housing for All. I wish Housing for All well. I wish for housing for everybody. What is important is security of tenure, decent homes and assisting people to live in communities across this country.

I know I have meandered but I am passionate about it. I am passionate about the engagement of our citizens. I am particularly grateful to the Irish Environmental Network and the pillars associated with it, including An Taisce and other groups. I am very much associated with them and believe they are doing really good work. I acknowledge that the Government supports An Taisce. It supports the environmental networks. I got a print-out of what funding the Government sanctioned for them so let us not make it appear that it is a case of "them and us". There is very much a crossover between the Department and the funding of activities which are legitimate and admirable and should be encouraged.

I thank the Minister of State for his time and for listening. I have been sharing my thoughts. I genuinely wish the reform of An Bord Pleanála well in order that we can get on with housing. I welcome any reform of An Bord Pleanála. I want a faster system. I want a Part 8 system and I want it reformed but I do not want it abolished. I know the Minister of State will not do this but he is only one person in the Government. He and his colleagues must support the city and county councillors to do their job without eroding any of their current powers and functions. I remind the House that the chief executives of local authorities are not bad people. They have a very difficult job to do. Between us all, if we operate in a spirit of co-operation and collaboration, we can make proper planning and sustainable development for our communities and for the environment a top priority and a class act in which everyone will have confidence.