Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

In this group of amendments Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, I propose to speak on amendments Nos. 1, 6 and 16, which are in my name and that of Senator McDowell.

Amendment No. 1 relates to the Title section of the Bill. I raised this previously. At the outset, I will say that I want to work as efficiently as I possibly can with all of our colleagues in the House and with the Minister and his staff. It is not my intention to go over at great length any of the amendments we have dealt with. We are conscious that we have of 775 amendments before us and very limited time. We simply will not get through 775 amendments. Let us be realistic here. That is where we are.

Amendment No. 1 is simply about the Bill and suggests that we would include the following words in the Title: "including recognition and empowerment of the constitutional role of elected members of local authorities as provided for in Article 28A of Bunreacht na hÉireann". The Minister of State with responsibility for local government, Deputy Dillon, will be aware that Bunreacht na hÉireann gives special mention in Article 28A to local government. It is very important but more important is that we acknowledge the significance, as our Constitution provides for, of the article. Article 28A states: "The State recognises the role of local government in providing a forum for the democratic representation of local communities, in exercising and performing at local level powers and functions conferred by law and in promoting by its initiatives the interests of such communities."That is a very noble and reasonable aspiration and objective. It is important for a number of reasons, and it should be at the very beginning of this Bill because we know, without pointing them out in great detail, of the executive and reserved functions. The reserved functions are those of elected members, our city and county councillors, who are the guardians of their city and county development plans, who clearly are defenders of those plans and who are instrumental in their formation of them, although this Bill proposes to push that out to a ten-year period. Ultimately, councillors are at the very heart of local planning, be it area planning or designation of protected structures and the gamut of issues concerning sustainable and proper planning and development and, indeed, the economic development of their cities, towns, village and counties. I therefore believe this amendment is right and proper. I spoke to LAMA and the AILG, the representative bodies, and they are committed to and wish to see the strengthening of local government and its councillors in this process. I do not think it is a big or unreasonable ask but I believe it is an important one. For that reason, I am making this proposal. I have made enough of a case. It is clear, it is in our Constitution, and we want it transposed into this legislation. If the Minister is against it, I would like him to clearly state the reasons for that, because people need to know and understand those reasons.

Regarding amendment No. 6, which refers to the chief planning officer, again I have gone to great lengths in discussing this and have been contacted by a number of heads of Departments and local authorities. First and foremost, I have spoken to members of the Irish Planning Institute who have said I have a very valid concern. Under Better Local Government and reform of local government, we brought in parallel strands of the professionals, be they engineers, planners or architects, and the administrative side. I do not want to denigrate either side in any way and it is right that there should be reasonable career prospects for everyone who works in local government. You do not, however, appoint a non-financial person to head up the financial services of a local authority. It is important we would have the expertise of disciplines such as civil engineering, quantity surveying, architecture or planning heading up planning departments, but that is not the case now. I do not want to name anyone because it would not be right or proper to do so, but there are issues of concern about that. We are where we are, but going forward, given this is a new and consolidated planning and development Bill, it is only right and proper we should aspire to have professional people with the necessary skill sets heading up these departments.

I am aware, and it was previously set out to me, that the Government, the Department or the legislation cannot interfere with the functions of local government. The Minister has oversight of many functions. That is very interesting because I had a look at a document dated April 2024, which was a briefing note to the Minister of State when he had taken up his position. It is the best document about local government I have read in eight or nine years as a Member of the House, and what is extraordinary is that as well as setting out the parameters of the Minister of State's responsibilities as well as issues and areas of competence, it also proposes possible legislative changes and flags a number of concerns. It is a very constructive document. I am amazed such a thing exists. I never had it until yesterday or the day before. It has opened my eyes to the great possibilities the Minister of State has in this great Ministry.

I do not see any reason the Minister of State, within the scope and gambit of all of that, could not issue some direction of support for this. The problem, as the Minister of State and everyone present will know, is that the planner operates under the hierarchy of the chief executive of the local authority, which is the planning authority, the housing authority and the authority for a number of issues. Planning is so important, as we have learned from the tribunals, from the investigations and from issues concerning other bodies relating to planning. The chief planner for the county, who has the functions, training and qualifications, should therefore be parallel to the chief executive instead of being under that role. This is how it is in Scotland, which is where I came across this - it is not my idea. We met with Scottish planners as part of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, of which I am a member, and they set out how well this system is working.A county chief planner has the functions, training and qualifications. Instead of running under the chief executive, it would run parallel to that role. For too often and too long we have chief executives directing our planners to make decisions which our chief planner or head of planning has not been comfortable with. That is an unsatisfactory situation and, as the Minister of State and the Department say, we want things to be planning led. The top of the hierarchy has to be focused and planning led, has got to make planning sense and be sustainable. There is a role here for a planner to the Department.

The Minister of State may say to me that it is not possible here but I would be happy if he even told me that he was committed to the idea and that he would bring the necessary regulations or proposals or that he would get into negotiations with the relevant city and county managers about it. I would like to hear from the Minister of State today, if possible, the acknowledgement that it makes sense. The vehicle by which that happens may not present itself today and we may not have a pathway for that but it makes sense and should happen. I ask that the Minister of State be supportive of that because it is worthy of being pursued and it has been successful in other jurisdictions.

Finally, amendment No. 16 - these are the three amendments I have chosen to speak about out of this group of amendments - relates to the amendment in the name of Senator McDowell where he again talks about the Planning Regulator and issues around that which are important. I would be interested in hearing the Minister of State's response and I do not want to comment on that until I hear his response other than to say that in the briefing he received that was drawn up in April 2024, there is mention of the Office of the Planning Regulator and mention of a review. Many people talk about the governance. I wish to make clear that I have no personal axe to grind about this with the Office of the Planning Regulator. He does a very good job in his brief, particularly around education and training. I do not always like the decisions he makes but they are not for me to like or dislike. One has to be above board and it all must be transparent and I believe it is but there needs to be a governance review of the office itself. I am glad to see mention of scope for a peer review in this document, as there is for other bodies, but that office is one of them. That may very well address it if, and that is the caveat, there are shortcomings.

Let us never be afraid to improve the governance, accountability and transparency of organisations like the OPR. Clearly, the OPR is here to stay but let us look at the issues. There are also suggestions that perhaps the OPR should have a board. Who is ultimately responsible for the OPR, the office and not the personality, because the personality will change? That is important. I will leave it at that and am interested to hear the responses of the Minister of State. As I am the proposer of the first amendment here, I, of course, have the opportunity to come back and comment.