Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. In the interests of clarity, I reiterate that we are dealing with amendments Nos. 1 to 19, inclusive, as well as Nos. 22 to 25, inclusive. I thank the Minister of State for his response. I am always conscious that people may be looking in at the debate.Sometimes, we need to set out the context of what we are doing and what we are about. I will take the amendments in the order the Minister of State has addressed them. On amendment No. 1, he feels it is not appropriate or not required to enshrine the provisions of Article 28A of the Constitution in this Bill. He has made his position clear on that. That is somewhat disappointing. It is true to form that he is not going to accept any amendments to this section because he has not accepted any amendments to this whole Bill. This is a democratic Chamber. The fact that the Government has a majority does not mean it should not accept amendments. However, it is true to form as that seems to have been the message for the past four and a half years. No amendments have been accepted. That is not a personal gripe with the Minister of State. I respect that he is the Minister of State, that he has taken advice and that he has decided that it is not appropriate. I take a different view, hence I believe the amendment is important and that we should vote on it in this House. That is a matter we can deal with later on, however.

On amendment No. 6, in which I talk about a planner, one of the other Ministers previously gave the exact same response, or a variation of it. If the Minister of State recalls, I today asked him whether he believes it is a good idea. That is a very simple question. He does not read the answer off a typed sheet of paper before coming in. I am asking whether he believes in the concept of having a chief planner. I believe that warrants a response. I also said that I did not expect it to be included in this legislation but that I wanted an indication of whether the Minister charged with responsibility in this area believes it is right. Let us be simple and think of a headline. Is it right that a non-planner with no qualifications in planning should be a director of planning in any one of our 31 local authorities? I simply say "No". It is simply not correct. Do I ask a non-doctor to be head of a health clinic? No, I do not. It is as simple as that. I am asking the Minister of State whether he believes that is necessary. I am not too sure whether he does or does not. He does not believe this is the appropriate place for it and I accept that. However, is he supportive of the concept of putting such a position in place and addressing that matter?

There are a number of such positions vacant at the moment. There are vacancies for a director of planning. Are we saying that someone who has no qualifications in planning, architecture, quantity surveying or engineering should be a director of planning and lead a planning department? Are we just going to leave it to the city and county managers who have been running all of our local authorities for years and then, when it is going well, we will say, "~Great", and, when it is going wrong, we will blame them or the elected members of the council? There are councillors who know more about planning than the directors of planning. I will leave that with the Minister of State. I respect and accept his decision not to accept the amendment but it is not a good enough argument. It is a weak argument. He would it find it very hard to defend it in the appointment of planners. I therefore believe it warrants discussion. It is absolutely crazy. I will undertake to this week identify the heads of all 31 of our city and county authorities' planning departments and their qualifications or lack thereof. I will have that information to the Minister of State by Friday. I ask him to commit to looking at the issue because it is simply not good enough for him, as Minister of State, to stand over that. We cannot retrospectively move people on but we should stop filling positions in this way. The Minister of State has the power to direct chief executives in a number of other areas. We need a conversation with the Planning Regulator and with other people because it is important. However, the Minister of State has reflected on the issue and has made a decision.

On my colleague Senator McDowell's amendment in respect of the OPR, I mentioned to the Minister of State the briefing document that was prepared for him in April 2024. I now have the section I was looking for in front of me. It states the "Periodic Critical Review (PCR) of the ... [Office of the Planning Regulator] is due to be undertaken in latter half of this year." Will the Minister of State confirm if that is factually correct? It further states:

The objective of the review process is primarily to secure improvements in accountability [which is what we have been talking about in respect of the OPR], efficiency and effectiveness but also to scrutinise objectively the case for rationalisation and consolidation of public bodies in light of changing requirements, demands and priorities. The review process should also assess the extent to which the governance structure [which we have been talking about over the last few weeks] of each public body and the Department’s oversight of that body (if appropriate) is consistent with its legislative underpinning [which is what we are doing here; this is legislative underpinning as we are dealing with legislation] and is strongly aligned to the business needs of the body.

That is an objective as long as we are here, and I do not know how long more we will be here, but can the Minister of State confirm that is on track? Can he confirm that he will go ahead and there will be a periodic critical review? That will be important before we make a decision on that amendment.

To turn to a number of excellent amendments proposed by Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, from what I have heard from her today - she is consistently talking about this - the kernel of this concerns serious issues about compliance with the Aarhus Convention. Is the Minister of State telling us on the record of this House, the Parliament, that it is fully in compliance? It is the Minister of State's view that the whole of this Bill is fully in compliance? I presume he will stick to that. The compliance committee of the Aarhus Convention has a different view. That is interesting for the record of the House and for when we go back to look at this issue.

The issues Senator Higgins has talked about here today such as access to judicial review have been key points of contention throughout the passage of this Bill. There has been contention throughout the entire passage of this Bill about the Aarhus Convention, judicial review and the right of engagement by the citizens and, indeed, by some of our elected councillors. On should recall that Senators, TDs, Government Ministers and councillors have raised serious concerns, have legitimately objected to and have made appeals to An Bord Pleanála about development they have considered to be unsustainable or incompatible with their city or county development plans. If the Minister of State wants a list of them, I can give him a list I have on my desk downstairs. Of all parties and none, there is a consensus that they want a voice. They should have a voice, and rightly so, but I want that opportunity also to be there for the citizens. It should be there for everyone who has a concern and a view regarding the proper planning and sustainable development of their area. Senator Higgins has stated the judicial review process's restrictions go to the very heart of democracy and will make it more difficult and potentially costly for our citizens, residents' associations, community groups and councillors and politicians who seek to challenge planning decisions that will affect their community and environment. I have three other points on this particular overview of amendments she has tabled.

Senator Higgins raised the rights of access to judicial review in the context of planning and environmental protection. They are rights that should be and are protected, but there is a dispute about that here in respect of the Aarhus Convention of which we are signatories and to which we have signed up. Judicial review is a way for our citizens or groups of citizens to challenge decisions that are made by Government or State agencies to ensure they are lawful, which is important. That is what they are challenging. It is important to remember that a judicial review application is not a big deal. Somehow, there is a witch-hunt about people who want to put their money where their mouth is and take a judicial review. A judicial review application will only be successful if there has been a breach of the process in law. Those are the facts. Let us not frustrate people doing that. That is a reasonable proposition for any citizen, politician or member of this State to make.

I do not necessarily concur with all of this but some citizens would state this proposed Bill is designed to scare citizens and local groups away from potential challenges. The Minister of State and I know that applications for thousands upon thousands of residential units are sitting on the desks of An Bord Pleanála within the defunct SHD process to which the Minister of State's predecessors in government signed up. No witch-hunt happened here. No one paid the price. Some people went on to get better jobs, other people were forced out of their jobs or felt they were forced out of their work but the great architects of the SHD got out and moved on but no one was held accountable. Many of us here cautioned at the time that there were flaws and are saying the same things today that were said then.Our amendments were rubbished and we were not listened to, but nobody is back in here saying we got it wrong. We did not get it wrong and the proof is in the pudding. Thousands of houses are still sitting in these SHDs - I am involved in one as a member of the board - during a housing crisis.

These are very valid amendments but, ultimately, Deputy Dillon is the Minister of State. I am always respectful of the process. He has to take bigger, collective advice from his officials and he has to take the line of the Government to progress the Bill through the House. Nevertheless, as I said, the amendments are reasonable and fair. We will be here today and tomorrow, and I really do not want to have to stand up tomorrow night and say the Minister of State did what I had predicted and did not accept any of our amendments. He has his responses typed up and ready, with nice folders and stickers, but we have to speak about this because we believe it. We have experienced it and we represent people, as the Minister of State does too. The difference is that we do not have to peddle a particular line all the time. We are here, as politicians on the Opposition benches, to scrutinise legislation, hold people to account and make a case. We do not convince people, however; that is ultimately a matter for the House and for the people to vote on. I thank the Minister of State.