Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Serious concerns about An Bord Pleanála have been flagged for a long time. We have heard a lot about the Government learning from things. I welcome the inclusion of a use it or lose it requirement in the section. We looked for such a requirement when SHDs were going through and we were not given it. We flagged concerns on SHDs back in 2016 and they were not listened to. That is why we should have proper and better Oireachtas engagement. Sometimes Members, even those who are not on the Government benches, make useful points that should be listened to.

Similarly, when it comes to An Bord Pleanála and its decision-making, we had the extraordinary situation just before last summer when we were looking for significant and important decisions, not so much on retention but on brand-new projects on adjoining sites that the Government had successfully fast-tracked to An Bord Pleanála, that there were already serious concerns in the public domain concerning the board and its operation.I have listened repeatedly in recent years to Government representatives saying the problem is everyone who takes a case against An Bord Pleanála rather than that the problem is An Bord Pleanála's failure to properly apply decision making and deliver on it. There have been concerns around the process. It shows in the rulings on how the law has been applied and as to whether there has been proper scrutiny.

There are other concerns. One thing which arose that is slightly addressed here is how two members of An Bord Pleanála, one of whom is now under investigation, signed off on a pile of things all together. We need to be really careful. There is a concern that within An Bord Pleanála and with certain members there appears to have been a somewhat cavalier culture in respect of the application of the fulfilment of responsibilities and the application of scrutiny. We brought forward amendments to improve confidence. When we last looked at it, I brought forward amendments around declaration of interest and strengthening the declaration of interest requirement but the Government chose not to accept those. We brought forward other forms of requirements and scrutiny. These are things that would have genuinely improved public confidence such as measures to improve the panel system. It was a very good system because it was meant to address the idea that you would draw from different parts of society. The problem with the panel system was that entities that no-longer existed were allowed to nominate people and, indeed, their nominees seeming to be chosen in preference. Two of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association nominees were chosen, for example, even though that entity no longer existed. We put forward genuinely constructive amendments to address the confidence issues but instead we have something the Government told us it was planning anyway and it has nothing to do with restoring confidence which is that it wanted to move towards it being all members who were coming through selected by the Government through an unknown process and procedure that will be invented after the fact. The Bill states that it shall be a procedure that shall be created after the fact with functions that may or may not be performed by a committee. It is not the same as with any other body or Ministry.

Our planning structures were designed explicitly because of the lessons learned from years and years of difficulties and from the tribunals and scandals of the past, etc. They were explicitly designed to ensure that too much power was not given to a Minister with responsibility for planning and housing who sets the policy and the laws so that they would not have undue influence on the application and adjudication of those policies. That is why there were lots of safeguards such as how only one third of members could be appointed by the Minister. There were safeguards around section 30 and how the Minister could not have undue influence in respect of an individual application. Those safeguards have been eroded now because not only can the Minister appoint all the members of the board, rather than one third, but if they do not like what the board states, the Minister can add other temporary members and shift the numbers as much as they wish. Those members can be in the difficult position where they may be seconded from a Department where they must then go back and continue to work.

I genuinely believe this Bill will further damage public confidence in An Bord Pleanála and, in that context, we need to ensure at the very minimum that we have safety-net measures. These are two amendments which are very reasonable. There were those who said that I should oppose the remote video or telephone options because of the lack of confidence but I am in favour of remote and hybrid work options and will always support them. What I have proposed are two very simple safety-net clauses that will ensure the new powers in respect of remote meeting are not abused. One is to require that the quorum for a remote meeting shall be five. Given the membership will be at least 14 and could be up into the 20s, as temporary members are appointed, a quorum of five is not unduly onerous.

The Bill refers to sections relating to the local authorities. They are required to have at least one third of their members present for making those important decisions. It is reasonable that you would have five members of a aboard of 14, 20 or whatever it might be for a video meeting. Remote telephone or video conferencing makes it more possible for members to be present.

We should remember that the Bill no longer sets out the requirement that used to exist that there would be one member of An Bord Pleanála who has expertise in environmental law. That is no longer a requirement under this Bill where it was under the previous legislation. Now there is simply 14 members with a balance of skills across them. If we do not have a quorum of five in relation to some of the crucial decisions, we risk that necessary skills that should be applied in relation to a permission or a decision will not be present because we are relying on a diffusion of skills across the board rather than targeted and specialist skills. A quorum of five means there is more chance we get better decisions and a mix of skills, perspectives and expertise applied to those decisions.

It was alarming for the public to hear of two members getting together and making a lot of decisions. We do not want any situation whereby a member or members of the board can say, "Let us meet in half an hour or an hour." It is bad practice that sometimes happens where people might be told of a meeting with an hour's notice or even two minutes after the meeting started. That practice where someone can say they had a meeting and they had sent something around at lunchtime to say they would meet at 3 p.m. is dangerous.