Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 May 1992

Vol. 419 No. 10

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991: Report Stage.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

"'Council Directive' means Council Directive of 27th June, 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC);'.".

I am most anxious that we reach sections with which we did not have the opportunity to deal on Committee Stage, although we had a reasonable debate at that time. I hope the Minister has availed of the opportunity between Committee Stage and Report Stage to look at the amendments, all of which have been put forward in a spirit of being constructive, in the hope of having the best possible Bill and to strike the balance we require between efficient and fair planning mechanisms in which everyone has confidence.

I hope the Minister will look at later amendments which may not be formally reached between now and the conclusion of the debate this evening and will be willing to accept reasonable amendments.

We had a short discussion on this amendment on Committee Stage which simply seeks to define the term of "Council Directive". Although reference is made to the Council directive in the Bill it does not specify which Council directive the Minister has in mind. It is important to ensure that there is a degree of clarity in all legislation which goes through this House. We should spell out which Council directive the Minister has in mind so that people and, in particular, lawyers who read legislation will be easily able to equate the wording in the Bill with the legislation or directive the Minister has in mind.

The Minister said previously that it would be self-evident which directive he had in mind. It is important that we do not just assume that things are self-evident. We need to ensure that, in so far as possible, the legislation we put on the Statute Book is clear. It is for that reason I retabled this amendment on Report Stage.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Smith)

I wish to assure Deputy Howlin that my approach to this Bill is the same as his approach and that of all Deputies in the House, I want to put through the best possible legislation which is fair and, at the same time, takes account of all the various considerations. Deputy Howlin said he was anxious that we would reach sections with which we did not deal on Committee Stage. I hope Deputy Howlin will facilitate the House in this respect by not pressing his amendment. I have double-checked the position from a legal point of view and I have nothing more to add to what I said on Committee Stage. The Deputy's proposal is incorporated in the main body of legislation and there is no legal need for it in this instance. I have looked at the issue on that basis and I can assure the Deputy that that is the position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

"'prescribe' means prescribe by regulations;".

This is a technical drafting amendment which will insert a definition of the word "prescribe" in section 2. It will clarify that where a provision of the Bill says that "the Minister may prescribe a particular matter" it means that he must do so by way of regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Eamon Gilmore. I observe that amendment No. 4 is an alternative and I seek the approval of the House to discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

"`publication' means a notice published in a newspaper which has general circulation in the area of the proposed development.".

Like Deputy Howlin, I am anxious that we proceed to deal with those sections of the Bill with which we did not deal on Committee Stage. The House will recall that on Committee Stage Members on this side of the House were most unhappy that a guillotine was introduced which resulted in our dealing with only two of the 22 sections in the Bill.

Having re-read the Bill in the intervening period in preparation for Report Stage, I have to confess that it has not grown on me. I remain adamant that this Bill is horrific legislation which will greatly limit the rights of the public in the making of planning appeals and will tilt the balance of advantage in the area of planning appeals in favour of the developer to the disadvantage of third parties which includes individual citizens and local communities.

My amendment was discussed on Committee Stage. On that occasion the Minister accepted that there was a difficulty in relation to the formula in the Bill for the notification of planning decisions, particularly to third parties, and the period of time allowed for people to put in appeals. The Bill provides that in the case of the planning applicant there will be a period of one month from the date on which the applicant receives notification of the decision and in the case of a third party there will be a period of one month running from the date on which the decision is made by the planning authority, in other words the planning decision.

I note that the Minister has tabled an amendment which proposes that the same one month period should apply in the case of the applicant as in the case of any other party; in other words, it would run from the date on which the planning decision is made by the planning authority. While this would be an improvement, it does not deal with the situation whereby many members of the public may not be aware that a planning decision has been made. The normal method for notifying the public of a planning decision is through the publication by the local authority of planning lists which are circulated through the post to members of local authorities and residents' associations who have requested that they be sent to them. The first problem which may arise is a delay in the issuing of the planning lists. On Committee Stage I instanced complaints which had been made by, for example, An Taisce, who point out that in the case of some local authorities it can take two or three weeks after the planning decision is made before the planning lists are circulated. This effectively leaves only a period of about one or two weeks within which the resident's associations or individual citizens can make their appeal. Under the provisions of the Bill, they will be required to state the full terms of their appeal. That period of time is clearly too short.

It is probably appropriate in the middle of a postal strike to point out that if this Bill were already in force the reality is that people would not be in a position to know whether a planning decision had been made as the entire system is dependent on the postal system. I am proposing in my amendment that that system be replaced by a system which would require the local authority to publish in a newspaper circulated in their area a notice listing the planning decisions they have made. There is precedent for this. In the first case, the planning applicant has to advertise in a newspaper giving notice of his intention to make a planning application.

Local authorities, for a variety of reasons, regularly use public notices to inform the public about some course of action they propose to take. For example, if the local authority have to carry out essential repair work on water supplies or some other essential service, it is normal that they place a public notice either in the local newspaper circulating in the area or, in some cases, in the national newspaper to notify the public of what they are doing. I am proposing that the local authority be required to publish in the local newspapers a list of the planning decisions made so that the public will know that decisions have been made and will not be dependent on the archaic system whereby notices are posted on a small noticeboard outside the offices of the planning authority or dependent on the postal service which, as we know at present, to our cost, does not always function or perhaps in which notices may get lost.

This legislation provides very restricted means by which people can make their appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The appeal, together with a full statement, must be received within a month and people will not be allowed to add to that subsequently. If they miss the month deadline there is no provision whereby they can have a second chance to appeal.

The problem arises in that members of the public and residents' associations in particular may not know that a planning decision has been made and, therefore, may not be in a position to make an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. We cannot rely on the system that operates at present whereby, first, planning lists are often delayed in being issued, second, they may be delayed in the post and, third, members of the public may not see the notices. The only way to avoid that is to require the planning authority to publish notices in the newspaper. If we are to have a planning appeals system which is very restrictive, allowing very little time for people to appeal, and which will not allow the public an opportunity of a second chance to appeal, at the very least there should be a very open and transparent system of notification that a planning decision has been made.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I would very much like to support the amendment in the name of Deputy Gilmore. The onus is on the Minister for the Environment, in trying to speed up the planning process, to facilitate the public by providing information speedily. I would go further than Deputy Gilmore because notices about planning decisions, planning applications and planning appeals may appear in different parts of newspapers at various times and, therefore, people might not observe them. The local authority should be required to publish all planning applications within a week of their receipt, all planning decisions within a week of their being made, and all planning appeals within a week of their being lodged. Those notices should be, as far as is possible, on the same page of the same paper each week.

At present it is much too easy to make a planning application without it being brought to the attention of the public. There is not a general practice in relation to lodging a notice in newspapers about planning applications. There is no requirement, as far as I know, to put notices in the paper to the effect that a planning appeal has been lodged. Only this week in my constituency I spotted a planning appeal two days before the deadline and the people who would be very much affected by the appeal and may have wished to put forward the opposite point of view almost lost the opportunity to lodge a counter appeal.

There is also the ruse of publishing notices, as required, in the Irish language. It is extraordinary that Irish place names are, in many cases, variable. For instance, there are some incredible translations of street names to be seen in Dublin. On one end of a street one version of a street name may appear while a few hundred yards away a different version is to be seen. People can be easily confused by planning notices which appear in obscure parts of papers, sometimes in the Irish language. That is why I would go further than what is proposed in Deputy Gilmore's amendment. First, notices not only of planning applications but also of planning decisions and planning appeals should be published within a week of the event in the same part of the newspaper that has wide circulation in the local authority area concerned. There should also be a requirement that where an application is lodged in the Irish language an English language summary should accompany it. We must be realistic: many people do not have a working knowledge of the Irish language and place names in Irish can be very different from the English version. For example, Church Street in my constituency appears in two different Irish names on each side of the street, one is Sráid an Teampaill and the other is Sráid na hEaglaise.

Mr. Gilmore

There are two different denominations.

Mr. Smith

Not necessarily.

Mr. J. Mitchell

There are more incredible translations to be seen such as Bessborough Road, which is translated at one point to read Bothar Beasbra, whereas at another point it reads Bóthar Besbra. I am sure the same is the case in ancient townlands around the country.

For instance, the town where my wife comes from, Newbridge, County Galway, is indicated on some road signs as Droichead Nua while others give the ancient Irish name of Gort an Iomaire. Therefore, these are valid points and the Minister should go further than is proposed by Deputy Gilmore.

I would also go further than publishing notices in newspapers. It is incumbent on those making planning applications to ensure that there is a highly visible sign with, in some cases, depending on size and location of the site or building for which the application is made, a clear colour, design, lay-out and size which people understand as a planning notice, giving notice to people living in the vicinity of the site that there is a planning application or appeal in process in relation to that site. A greater effort must be made to give the public who may be affected by the planning application or appeal more notice so that their interests are protected and their rights are not forfeited merely because they missed the new and tighter deadlines. I would urge the Minister to accept Deputy Gilmore's proposal and perhaps to go further.

Mr. Howlin

I also support the amendment. It is one of the issues that is important enough for us to focus in on, although we did so on Committee Stage. The general thrust of the Bill is to strike a balance between the rights of individual or community objectors and the rights of developers. The developer will continue to have the advantage if this Bill is enacted. One small measure that could be taken by the Minister to redress the imbalance would be to accept the amendment before him. I thought we reached consensus on Committee Stage that the scrappy way notification is given is not in the best interest of the public's right to know and that if we established in a local newspaper a page every week listing planning decisions, people would readily know where to go for the information, would read it as a matter of course and would be clued in to what is happening in thier own area.

We talk about empowering communities. Surely the essence of empowerment in relation to controlling the environment one lives in, is to have a say in the built environment around one. The right of individuals and community groups to impact on the environment will be greatly circumscribed by this legislation. A mechanism can be used to tilt the balance more correctly if the Minister accepted the amendment. Although the amendment does not specifically state it, there should be one page in a recognised newspaper where all planning decisions are detailed. This amendment is important enough for the Minister to give serious consideration to it. We have kneejerk reactions from many Ministers rejecting suggestions from the Opposition and then constructing an argument to defeat them. That was the approach on many Bills and we made very little progress on them, while we made progress on Bills when the Minister was forthcoming and accepted good ideas, even if they came from the Opposition. A positive response to amendments would be in the best interests of the people and the legislative process.

The publication of notices as Gaeilge, is sometimes seen as a ruse to allow as few people as possible understand what is happening. It would be desirable if notices as Gaeilge had to be translated into English. As previous speakers said, there are peculiar name places and peculiar Irish translations of them. Coimisiún na Logainmeacha could look into some of them. There is a big development area in Wexford called Coolcotts which is an anglicisation of an Irish name but, rather than using the Irish derivative what has happened is that Coolcotts was translated literally into Gaeilge so it is now Na Botha Fuaire. That is the sort of peculiar situation that arises. There are such examples up and down the country. This should be looked at.

In relation to the net point of this amendment, to make the public aware of what is happening, we should facilitate that as much as possible. It would be one way of addressing the imbalance that will be in place if this legislation is enacted.

Mr. Garland

I did not wish to challenge the Chair's ruling or interrupt Deputy Mitchell, but I should have been called after Deputy Gilmore, as my amendment No. 4 is also being discussed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is correct. I did not observe him offering.

Mr. Garland

Thank you. With regard to what Deputy Howlin said on amendment No. 1, we are again being self indulgent here and going off on all sorts of tangents.

Mr. Howlin

Is the Deputy going to do it?

Mr. Garland

No, but it is time someone said it here. We must make a real effort to get through this Bill today, and not finish the debate on amendment No. 15 or No. 20, as occurred before. It is all very well to complain about Bills being guillotined, and I agree that sometimes they are guillotined, but there is too much repetition in this House and rehashing of a debate which we had a few weeks previously. I will not waste the time of the House in rehashing the arguments I put forward the last time. No Deputy has referred to my amendment which, perhaps indicates that people think one newspaper is enough. The only difference between the two amendments is that I proposed two newspapers. The balance of advantage lies with two rather one because every possible effort must be made to inform local people of what is going on.

With regard to advertisements as Gaeilge, while all Members would wish to encourage the use of the Irish language, advertisements as Gaeilge are seen as a cyncial exercise by developers to put people off the scent. A case could be made for requiring all planning advertisements as Gaeilge to be repeated in English. If that was the situation there would be very few advertisements as Gaeilge. The reality that a large number of people are not very fluent in the Irish language must be faced and those people are being done a grave disservice by this trick being pulled by developers.

Mr. Smith

I appreciate Deputy Garland's comments about wanting to deal with all sections. That is what we all wish and I will try to facilitate the House by confining my remarks as much as possible, even though I have been taunted a little by the continuing reference to this tilting the balance in favour of the developer. In one area we are increasing the appeal time from three to four weeks. Last night we had a debate about urban renewal and we could have up to £100 million of such projects in different stages of planning. What is planning and development about? It is about jobs, renewal and development. In the course of the debate on Second Stage Deputies on all sides accepted that.

It is important in our approach to this Bill that we do not slavishly say it is in favour of the developer and against somebody who has a legitimate right to object. Having looked at appeals systems throughout Europe, I have concluded that by any stretch of the imagination, we have a very fair and balanced system. The definitions which these amendments seek to insert in section 1 are for the purposes of a reformulation of the definition of the appeal period set out in section 3. However, I do not consider it would be appropriate to relate the commencement of the appeal period to publication of notice of the planning authority's decision. I will be proposing an amendment to section 3, the effect of which will be that the appeal period would run for all, from the day of the planning authority's decision.

Matters relating to notice have always been dealt with by way of regulations. It is not the practice of this House to deal with these matters by way of primary legislation. I am well aware of the need for good public notice requirements and I will take account of the matters raised by Deputies when we are preparing the regulations. It may be necessary not only to have a public notice in a newspaper but to have a notice displayed on the site. We must also take account of the fact that a huge number of people do not buy newspapers. We have to find a way to make communication, and the system, as transparent as possible.

Deputies have made good solid points. I have no real argument against the need to have the system as transparent as possible. We have to work at this through regulations. It is not a matter for primary legislation. I hope the regulations will ensure that the public see the system as fair and as transparent as possible. I have to reject the amendments as they are not essential and it has not been the practice of this House to deal with matters of this specific nature in primary legislation.

Mr. Gilmore

I do not accept the Minister's argument that the appropriate place to deal with this point is not in primary legislation but in regulations. The types of thing that regulations can deal with relate to the mechanism for making appeals, the type of forms to be used and so on. This is a critical issue. The whole Bill hinges on two things, first, the publication of the decision and then that everybody must lodge an appeal within a month, together with all evidence, documents and requests for an oral hearing. Then An Bord Pleanála must make a decision, except in certain exceptional cases, within four months. The period of one month starts the process. If an appeal is not lodged within that time, it will not be taken into account.

Reference has been made to getting on with the debate. Our purpose is to ensure that whatever legislation is passed is good legislation and we must protect the public against bad legislation. This is bad legislation in that it limits the rights of the public. If it takes me a couple of minutes to reinforce the point I have been making about this period of one month and the need for public notice, so be it. I have come across cases in the course of my work as a public representative where the public have missed out on making appeals. Under this legislation that will be compounded. I have come across a case where a person went on holidays and by the time he returned the planning authority had made a decision to allow a factory to put a 12-foot wall, effectively the equivalent of a handball alley, at the back of his house, but it was too late to make an appeal. I have also come across cases of what I call the Christmas and the August trap. Planning applications are submitted on 24 December in the knowledge that meetings of the local authority will not take place during the Christmas recess. The same thing happens in August. Applications are lodged on the Friday before the bank holiday weekend. The applicants know that people will be on holidays and that there will not be meetings of the local authorities. A clever applicant will submit his application so that the decision will coincide with a holiday period and people will not be aware of the decision. They will thus be prevented from making an appeal within the required one-month period.

The Minister has said he is prepared to consider my proposal in the context of regulations but we never debate regulations in this House. Very often it takes quite some time before regulations are drawn up. The publication of the local authority's decision on a planning issue is central to this Bill. Everything else hinges on the public being aware of that information. I appreciate that the Minister in providing the same month for the applicant as for third parties is levelling the playing pitch to some extent. It must be borne in mind, however, that the applicant will be watching for the notification of the decision from the local authority. A member of the public might not be aware that the application had been made in the first place. Most members of the public never see the lists published by local authorities. Many residents associations do not get them, while in other areas residents are not organised. The publication of the notice is critical to allow people a democratic opportunity to make an appeal. It is an issue of principle. It is not something that can be dealt with by way of regulation. It is a matter for primary legislation.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 71.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Byrne and McCartan; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 40, after "may be" to insert "subject to proper planning and environmental considerations".

Section 2 (1) sets out, as it were, the mission statement, — what we want An Bord Pleanála to do. The statement in that subsection is a little short in relation to the environmental responsibilities of the board. Subsection (1) states:

It shall be the duty of the Board to ensure that appeals and other matters with which it is concerned are disposed of as expeditiously as may be and, for that purpose, to take all such steps as are open to it to ensure that in so far as is practicable, there are no avoidable delays at any stage in the determination of appeals and other matters.

That bold statement should be tempered and I propose to insert after "may be" the words "subject to proper planning and environmental considerations". I know the Minister will say this is self-evident, that the board have to have regard to environmental matters. It is essential that we actually state that we are subjugating everything to the notion that it is environmentally sound and we should not seek in a bold sense a decision as expeditiously as may be, regardless of the consequences. That seems to be the implication of what is contained in that subsection. We had a discussion on Committee Stage in relation to this matter. It is important, so that people will feel confident, that proper environmental considerations are taken into account as a matter of routine and as a matter of legislative priority and that we put this new phrase into this subsection. I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr. Garland

I wish to state that I will be supporting Deputy Howlin's amendment.

Mr. Smith

I hope the Deputies will accept the assurance I gave on the last occasion and again to the House today, that the words in the amendment are entirely unnecessary from either a legal or a practical viewpoint. The board's general duty in section 2 (1) of the Bill is identical to their existing duty under section 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1983. That duty has been in operation for nine years without compromising the board's duty or ability to deal with appeals in accordance with considerations of proper planning and development. Besides, the board's obligation to decide cases on the basis of criteria of proper planning is already clearly spelled out in planning law. Section 26 (1) and (5) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, laid down that the board's decision must be taken in the light of proper planning and development of the area concerned, regard being had, among other things, to the provisions of the development plan and any relevant special amenity area order.

I am surprised at the apparent contradiction that Deputies' contributions seem to reveal. On the one hand, there is a fairly general acceptance that there is an important public interest in having expeditious decisions on planning appeals and, on the other hand, Deputies are seeking to modify a legal duty of efficiency which has been in existence since 1983 and which has clearly posed no problems for the board in terms of dealing with cases in a fair and thorough manner. I do not believe the Bill would be improved in any way by that amendment and accordingly I must decline to accept it.

Mr. Howlin

I am taken aback by the attitude of the Minister to this amendment. Rather than suggesting that Members on this side of the House are contradictory in their stances I think what the Minister said was contradictory in itself. He said there is no necessity for the amendment because it is already embodied in legislation as a whole and that these considerations are taken into account by An Bord Pleanála as a matter of routine on foot of legislation already in place.

Mr. Smith

They have to be.

Mr. Howlin

At the same time he suggested that the amendment seeks to modify the legal duty to efficiency. It either has an effect or it has not. If it has no effect then why is the Minister resisting it? If it has the effect that the Minister now suggests, that it modifies the legal duty of efficiency of the board, and if that modification is a requirement to take proper planning and development and environmental considerations into account it is one that would be supported by the majority in this House and, indeed, by the majority of people. I have said consistently I am fearful of sections of this Bill although I have no objection to the general principle. I have no objection, neither do I think many people in this House would object, to the principle of making the planning and appeal procedures more efficient. There is no problem in building a consensus around that.

The nub of the difficulties between the Government side and the Opposition in relation to this Bill is the balance between the rights of developers and people who want to create jobs, put buildings in place and continue the ongoing development of the built environment. That is good, but sometimes their rights are in conflict with the rights of neighbourhood groups and individuals who also have rights that have to be vindicated by legislation. In trying to strike a balance between the two we are running into difficulties with the Minister. I do not think there is any contradiction in striving to seek that balance. It is not a contradiction to state that we want efficiency but we do not want to completely deprive individuals, groups and environmentally concerned people of their rights to scrutinise and object, where necessary, to any development. For that reason I am dismayed by the Minister's response to this amendment and I would like to push it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Stafford)

We come now to amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 10 is related. For discussion purposes I suggest we take amendments Nos. 6 and 10 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, line 1, to delete "four" and substitute "six".

This amendment deals with the period within which An Bord Pleanála are required to give their decision on the appeal. Under the provisions of the Bill the proposal is that An Bord Pleanála would give their decision within a period of four months, beginning on the date of receipt of the appeal. The amendment seeks to delete "four" and substitute "six", in other words, that An Bord Pleanála would have to make their decision within six months. I do not think anybody in the House wants to argue that An Bord Pleanála should take a long time to decide appeals. We would all like to see appeals dealt with expeditiously. However, there are two considerations. First, as was stated on a number of occasions on Second and Committee Stages the delays by An Bord Pleanála are not caused by the absence of a time limit in legislation but due to a lack of resources in An Bord Pleanála. It does not seem appropriate to deal with this by simply putting down a time limit and then not providing resources to back that up. That will create circumstances where bad decisions will be made by An Bord Pleanála. The board, with their limited resources, will be told they must make a decision within four months whether they have the time and the resources to seriously examine the appeal. Where An Bord Pleanála are under pressure bad decisions will be made.

Second, we know there are circumstances where, because an environment impact statement or some other complicated factor will be necessary, An Bord Pleanála will take longer than four months to determine an appeal. In the normal course of events an appeal in relation to the building of a house or a small development should not take a great deal of time to decide. However, there are complex, controversial planning applications with major implications for local communities and the local environment which, of necessity, will take longer than four months to determine on appeal. The argument here is that four months is too short. If there must be a time limit, we suggest it should be six months. That does not mean that every appeal must take six months to determine; if it is possible to determine an appeal within one to two months, let it be determined in that period. The limit of four months is too short and should be extended to six months.

Mr. Garland

I do not wish to repeat what Deputy Gilmore said nor to repeat what those on this side of the House said on Committee Stage. This is a very important provision, probably the key provision in the Bill, and there seems to be no sign of any give by the Minister which I find very disappointing.

Amendment No. 10 in my name seeks to extend the time limit to nine months in cases where an environment impact statement has been submitted because, whereas, six months is probably a reasonable period for the average planning appeal very complex planning appeals regarding major schemes where environment impact statements are required will require further consideration by the board. Therefore, nine months is appropriate. One can argue about whether it should be eight months, ten months or one year but the balance would be struck by setting the time limit at nine months.

Mr. Allen

No matter how the Government and Opposition differ on how to create employment, we all agreed that we must remove some of the present barriers. If I supported the amendment I would be supporting an attempt to wipe out one of the major keystones of the Bill, that is, the speedy, effective and efficient processing of appeals against the planning process. I cannot see the sense in extending the period to nine months, as Deputy Garland suggested and cannot support the proposed extension to six months either. I hope the Minister will ensure that An Bord Pleanála get the resources to deal with planning appeals speedily and fairly. If we were to support this amendment we would be eliminating one of the key factors in grappling with unemployment. From now all decisions in this House must relate to our attempts to get rid of this scourge on our society.

Mr. Kavanagh

I agree with the Minister's proposals that a four months limitation be applied to the appeals procedure of An Bord Pleanála because of the inordinate delays on the part of the board in dealing with appeals. We can point to the fact that the resources have not been available to the board to deal more speedily with planning appeals. I assume that if the Minister imposes this limit on the board he will ensure that there will be no lack of resources. Those of us who are members of local authorities and on planning committees of local authorities know that investigations of plans take place mostly at local level and that time extensions are granted regularly so that the procedures can be gone through. The time limits are rarely adhered to if there are complications in the plans. An extension is granted when there is a reasonable request and it is usually a further two months.

At the moment it can take up to one year to get planning permission on foot of fairly innocuous plans for a bungalow or some such structure if there are objections. My county has the most difficult planning section of any county council and that is because we are concerned about the environment and we have a development plan. There are often applications concerning areas that are environmentally sensitive and the council examine these thoroughly. Some appeals could be described as frivolous and that means not only a delay in dealing with the planning application but extra expense for the person who has submitted the application due to changing rates and increases in the cost of building materials and so on.

All of us accept that every plan submitted should be thoroughly investigated to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Planning Act and the development plan adopted by the council. Given the resources available to An Bord Pleanála, it should be possible for the board to do this and make a decision within the period of four months. As I said, the work is being done and certain members of the staff have been assigned to carry out various tasks. If the workload in a particular area is heavy it is up to chairman of An Bord Pleanála to assign additional staff to meet the deadlines imposed on them.

The Minister, has however, given them a way out in section 2. This is a source of concern to me. While it may not be used, given the time limit imposed on the board, the section states that appeals should be disposed of "as expeditiously as may be". Does this mean that there will be exceptions to the rule in relation to the period of four months? On occasion there may be. I am aware of one scheme costing £46 million which may come before the board — I do not want to name it here because with a bit of wisdom at local level they will ensure that it will not and which could not be dealt with within the period of four months. While there will be exceptions to the rule I hope they will not become the rule and the board will not claim that they do not have the staff or the expertise to deal with a complicated plan and that this will not filter down, as I said, to even the most innocuous of plans in respect of which the decision is appealed to An Bord Pleanála.

An Bord Pleanála should have no difficulty in meeting the deadline of four months. If we were to propose a figure of two months somebody else would suggest eight months. It is only right, therefore, that the Minister should lay down a rigid timescale which, as far as possible, should be adhered to.

Mr. Smith

Man is a gregarious being and sometimes, having been on ones's own for a long time, one is shocked when one receives support from unsuspecting quarters.

Mr. Kavanagh

I was there before you.

Mr. Smith

I am grateful to the Deputies for their support because this amounts to the nuts and bolts of what we are trying to achieve. Let me say to Deputy Gilmore and others who are worried about the figure of four months that it defies logic to suggest that time is always a factor in making good decisions. During a period of four to six months one could have negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty, five or six general elections——

Mr. Kavanagh

I would not use that example.

Mr. Smith

One would have enough time in four months to do a lot of work.

Mr. Kavanagh

My support will disappear when the Minister reaches that one.

Mr. Smith

I wish to dispel the belief that it is not possible to do within four months what can only be done right in six months. I do not think that argument stands up.

We have to address the questions of efficiency, fairness, tolerance and systems. Deputy Gilmore hinted again today that it comes down to a question of staff. Much of what is proposed in this Bill is aimed at reducing the workload of An Bord Pleanála. I hope it will also lead to the system being streamlined to enable the staff at An Bord Pleanála to meet these new conditions. I can also tell the House that there has been a radical improvement during the past year and a half in terms of the amount of time it takes An Bord Pleanála to deal with applications. Indeed, if we were to accept this amendment An Bord Pleanála would be required to make decisions within a longer time frame. At present decisions are made long before the six month period expires.

I should say to Deputy Kavanagh, who raised the question of exceptional cases that sometimes agreement is reached in respect of a complex planning application between the applicant and the local authority to extend the time. That is a practical way of dealing with a very complex question in the first instance within the local authority. Following on from this, provision is made in section 2 (3) for an extension in exceptional cases — I hope they will be exceptional cases — while An Bord Pleanála will be required to say that they will make a decision within the prescribed time. This provision will apply only in the case of a minor number of applications. Given the need to make sure that the system is streamlined, efficient, fair and thorough I think we have struck the right balance and put a lot of thought into selecting that time limit, taking into account our experience during the past year and a half in relation to what is achievable within An Bord Pleanála as presently constituted.

Mr. Gilmore

I should say, first of all, that I am not arguing that An Bord Pleanála should take a long time to make decisions. I am very much in favour of An Bord Pleanála making their decisions as quickly as possible. In the case of many appeals placed before An Bord Pleanála the figure of four months would be too long. These are straightforward appeals dealing with small developments and it should be possible to deal with them quite quickly. Therefore I am not making the case that An Bord Pleanála should string on and on the period of time in which they have to make a decision. Two of the points that have been raised here should be replied to, the first of which is that this is about streamlining the planning process to create the circumstances where projects could go ahead and unemployment could be resolved.

Mr. Smith

Or to be refused.

Mr. Gilmore

This country is remarkable in finding some new excuse as to why employment is not being created. The latest is that there are delays at An Bord Pleanála. If we look at the facts this does not hold up. Only 7 per cent of planning decisions made by local authorities are appealed to An Bord Pleanála. Of these, 70 per cent, or the vast majority, of appeals are made by the applicant and not by third parties. Ninety per cent of the appeals made by third parties are upheld or substantially upheld. In other words, the argument that there are people banging in frivolous appeals to An Bord Pleanála——

Mr. Allen

Does the Deputy want me to name a few of them?

Mr. Gilmore

Of course there are a few. The question of frivolous appeals is dealt with in another section of the Bill. Where there is an appeals system one will always get frivolous appeals but the fact is that, first, the vast majority of appeals are made by the applicant and not the third parties and, second that 90 per cent of the appeals made by third parties are upheld so they can hardly be regarded as frivolous.

The second point I want to make relates to the period of four months. A number of speakers have said that this figure is fine but I do not know where that figure came from. I have a document in front of me which was produced by the Irish Planning Institute which represents the professional planners who operate the system and they are quite clear in what they have to say about the figure of four months. They say that a four month period for deciding appeals is not feasible for a number of reasons. These include the length of time that it takes to exchange documents. They also argue, for example, that the figure of four months could become three months. Sometimes a number of appeals are submitted on the same issue. If one appeal is lodged the day after the planning decision is made and the next one is not made until the month is up, the decision will be made on the first appeal. This in effect reduces the period of time to three months. Therefore, I am not the only person who has argued that the four month period is not feasible; it has also been made by the professionals themselves.

I do not appear to have support for the amendment, nevertheless I should like it to be put.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Acting Chairman

We now come to amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 12 and 15 are consequential and, therefore, amendments Nos. 8, 12 and 15 may be taken together by agreement.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, to delete lines 3 to 5.

This amendment is an "out" clause because it is decided on the issue of four months. However, the Bill also states: "Such other period as the Minister may prescribe, either generally or in respect of a particular class or classes of appeals or other matters." Therefore, the period could be less than four months. The Minister could prescribe a period of time which would be less than four months, either generally or for certain classes of applications. It is a very dangerous power to give the Minister in the context of this Bill and it should not be one of its provisions. I know Deputy Garland tabled a similar amendment and he wants the phrase "other period of time" replaced by "longer period of time". I would be happy to support that formula and if it is not acceptable to the Minister, then, clearly, he could reduce the period of four months.

Mr. Smith

The effect of the amendment would be to take away the Minister's power to specify a period other than four months for the determination of appeals or other matters by the board. I pointed out on earlier Stages that the period of four months for deciding cases was carefully selected. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for cases generally and that it strikes the right balance between the need for quicker decisions and a fair and thorough examination of issues by the board. Nevertheless, it may prove appropriate, in the light of experience, to specify a different period for specific cases. For example, as Deputy Jim Mitchell suggested on Committee Stage, a shorter target period might be considered in the case of appeals dealing with routine developments which do not raise complex planning issues. Section 2 (2) (b) contains a desirable element of flexibility and should be retained. I cannot, therefore, accept this amendment, or amendments Nos. 12 and 15 which are related. Any change in the four months period will, of course, be contemplated only in the light of adequate experience of the operation of that period.

Mr. Garland

I was a little confused because amendment No. 9 was ruled out of order. However, it is related and was discussed on Committee Stage. It dealt with a similar subject matter to Deputy Gilmore's amendment which we are now discussing. I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment and I am very disappointed that there has not been a response from other Opposition Deputies.

Mr. Kavanagh

During the debate on the previous amendment we heard a very forceful argument in favour of extending the period to six months. That was not accepted and the period of four months is included in the Bill. If the amendment means that there cannot be a longer period than four months I cannot understand how, on the one hand, you can argue for a longer period and on the other suddenly agree that the period of four months is adequate. If you fail in relation to the period of six months you must surely agree that there should be an "out" in the case of complicated appeals which would require a longer period. There is no logic in the Deputy's argument, I did not want to say that but since he wanted to hear the views of Opposition Members I had to say it.

Mr. Allen

I made my views known when Deputy Garland was not present in the House and I do not intend to repeat them. The Deputy's argument is not consistent.

Mr. Gilmore

I am surprised that Deputy Garland's amendment was ruled out of order. It means that the only vehicle for dealing with this is my amendment. My problem is not with the longer period of time — which we would all like to have — it is the possibility that the Minister will introduce a shorter period of time. His reply indicated to me that he is contemplating a shorter period of time, certainly for some classes of appeals. If the Minister can give an assurance that he will not introduce a shorter period of time than four months, I will happily withdraw the amendment. It would be perfectly consistent with what Deputy Kavanagh said, in that it allows the Minister to extend the period of time. However, if the Minister cannot assure us that he does not intend introducing shorter periods of time for some classes of appeals, I will have to put the amendment, otherwise we are leaving the legislation open to the period of time being reduced by regulation by the Minister, without further recourse to debate in this House.

Acting Chairman

The Minister has already spoken so it is impossible for him to come in now.

Mr. Gilmore

Perhaps he could send a signal?

Mr. Allen

Smoke or otherwise.

Mr. Gilmore

It is inflexibile not to allow the Minister to reply.

Acting Chairman

Perhaps the Minister would like to clarify the situation.

Mr. Smith

On Committee Stage a very strong case was made by Members of Fine Gael that a two month period should be prescribed for minor, routine cases. This legislation will be put in place and we will clearly monitor how it develops. It may well be that, in the course of time, routine minor appeal cases may well be decided in a period less than four months. The flexibility provides for dealing with cases in that way and to extend the period for more difficult cases in the light of experience. I have indicated that in cases where there has been an environmental impact assessment or major development cases, it can prove, in the light of experience, that the period of four months would create difficulties. We will see whether categories of cases will emerge which require a specified longer or shorter period. Such flexibility is clearly logical because applications vary enormously.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Kavanagh

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 5, line 22, after "notice" to insert ", but if this is not possible the Board may from time to time by notice extend the period concerned."

I should like the Minister to comment on Deputy Howlin's amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to give a little more latitude, which might be required, to this section.

Mr. Smith

The proposal raises the possibility that the board might serve a series of notices indicating dates by which they intend to determine a particular case. I do not consider that such a move would be satisfactory. The board would have to determine all but the most exceptional cases within the four month period indicated in section 2 (2) and would have recourse to the power contained in section 2 (3) as infrequently as possible. If the board avail of the power contained in section 2 (3) the clear expectation is that they will determine the case in question by the date that they indicated to the parties. To provide for a succession of notices indicating different target dates would in effect give the board an open cheque in terms of time and would be completely at odds with the whole purpose of the Bill.

I am aware that Deputy Howlin expressed the view on Committee Stage that being limited to one further period might tempt the board to specify a far off date by which they would determine a case. I do not accept, however, that that is a real possibility and I have every confidence that the board will act responsibly in availing of the power that section 2 (3) gives them.

I touched on this matter in an earlier contribution. It will be clear that if we were to provide this kind of flexibility and give the freedom to specify several dates that would in many ways act against the whole principle enshrined in the Bill. I therefore ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 5, to delete lines 23 to 31.

This amendment seeks the deletion of the subsection that deals with the Minister making regulations in relation to section 2 (2) and the period of time within which An Bord Pleanála have to make a decision. This amendment was consequential to the formula I proposed earlier in relation to the time period. I withdraw the amendment because it would be illogical not to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 16

In page 5, line 40, to delete "six" and substitute "twelve".

This amendment, standing in the names of myself, Deputy Garland and Deputy Howlin, deals with the changeover from the existing system of appeals to An Bord Pleanála to the new system. It is proposed that the procedure provided by the Bill in relation to the period of time within which an appeal has to be determined be implemented six months after the date of enactment of the legislation. As we all know, it is usual for quite some time to pass after the passage of primary legislation before the Minister is in a position to make regulations. In relation to the making of regulations concerning the classes of appeal which might attract either shorter or longer periods of time than the four months laid down in the Bill, the Minister has already committed himself. Quite honestly, I do not foresee the Minister being in a position to make those regulations within a period of six months. If he does do so, he will certainly set a new record. I feel that it would be preferable to have a more realistic period of 12 months. There needs to be a lead in period to the changed system in order to alert the public to the change in the procedure for planning appeals, the introduction of time limits, and so on. For that reason it would be desirable to provide a longer time period before this section comes into effect.

Mr. Howlin

In relation to the lead-in time for the application of the new four-month decision-making period that will be brought in, the one thing I want to stress is the staffing implications for An Bord Pleanála. It is quite clear that the Minister is not of the view that the four-month period could apply immediately. I wonder why he feels that can be done in six months. There are very serious shortcomings in relation to the staffing of An Bord Pleanála which has proved a problem for several particularly complex appeals in the past. It is clear that it is not anticipated to provide An Bord Pleanála with additional resources following the enactment of this legislation. Therefore, the Minister expects a new regime to operate, with a statutory period for decision making, without being prepared to provide extra resources, particularly staff resources, in order that the necessary work is carried out.

On Committee Stage we talked specifically about the numbers of staff and so on. There was disagreement between ourselves and the Minister in relation to the exact number. However, it is clear that at present there is an inadequate number operating the existing appeals system. The Minister now intends to establish a tighter appeals system without providing a single extra body to carry out the new requirements. Such a position is intolerable. I fear that because of the imposition of a deadline upon the board decisions might not be as well researched as they should be. Unless resources are put in place the quality of decisions may well suffer. For that reason we have sought to allow a 12-month lead in period for implementation. It is hoped that within that period we will be able to persuade the Minister to resource An Bord Pleanála adequately. It would be a reasonable expectation for the board to have that length of time in order to address themselves to the requirements of this Bill.

I hope the Minister will accept these arguments and allow the measure to be implemented in an orderly way so that the quality of decisions and the proper adjudication of all information that might be submitted, even the restricted information that will be available to An Bord Pleanála under these regulations and this legislation, can be maintained.

Mr. Garland

I do not wish to add to what has been said by the two previous speakers or to what I said on Committee Stage on this amendment.

Mr. Smith

When we discussed this on Committee Stage Deputy Gilmore emphasised very trenchantly that there was a staffing problem in An Bord Pleanála. I tried then — unsuccessfully as it turns out — because Deputy Howlin has gone back on that old track to convince him otherwise. But I appreciate that at least Deputy Gilmore took account of what I said on that occasion, in that clearly there has been an improvement in the position but that matters relating to staffing are subject to review depending on circumstances prevailing. I have absolutely no evidence to suggest other than that the board are in a position to discharge their duties very comprehensively.

Mr. Howlin

Why not immediately?

Mr. Smith

Deputy Gilmore did throw down a challenge to me. He said he did not think it would be possible to have the regulations which would be necessary in the context of this Bill in place for its enactment. I am delighted to tell Deputy Gilmore that I will break all records; I will not be waiting six months after the passage of the Bill, that it will be a matter of some weeks only. That should meet his argument.

Then I must revert to Deputy Howlin. I think the Deputy is approaching the transitional period on the basis that all of this has happened in isolation from the discussion on this Bill at national level, its discussion within An Bord Pleanála, bearing in mind that in recent years a number of efforts were made internally, without the necessity for the legislative process, to ascertain what could be done to improve and streamline the system. Many great improvements were implemented, following on which bottlenecks began to emerge. These were discussed thoroughly and advice taken from people who work within the system daily. Therefore, everybody is aware that this Bill will be enacted, that it constitutes a streamlining of the system and is not hitting An Bord Pleanála without fair notice. I am satisfied that the timescale is adequate. Indeed if one takes into account the fact that since this Bill first appeared in this House almost six months have elapsed, it will be seen that we do not get work done here as expeditiously as we might like. Even within that context there has been a further opportunity afforded to streamline and develop the system in anticipation of the legislative changes widely publicised.

Mr. Gilmore

Since it falls to me to reply to this debate may I begin by defending my colleague, Deputy Howlin——

Mr. Smith

He needs it badly.

Mr. Gilmore

——and agree with what he said about the staffing and resources of An Bord Pleanála. I might tell the Minister that, far from having been convinced by his argument on the previous occasion, I refrained from advancing the argument again on this occasion because I could see it fall on such infertile ground on Committee Stage. In passing may I welcome Deputy Howlin back into the House and say how glad I am to find myself back in harmony with the Labour Party on planning policy after a brief interlude.

Mr. Smith

It was a neat exit on the part of Deputy Howlin.

Mr. Gilmore

I am delighted to hear the Minister say he will break all records in relation to the making of regulations. I hope he will persist in that but there does remain the question of the resources of An Bord Pleanála. There also remains the issue of the adjustment in the public mind about what is taking place here. The Minister made the point that everybody knows what is taking place here. I contend that, unfortunately, everybody does not know what is taking place here. I cannot recall what degree of press coverage we got of our deliberations on Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. Howlin

Not a lot.

Mr. Gilmore

But I cannot recall too many people drawing it to my attention subsequently.

Mr. Howlin

Or the crowd in the Press Gallery now.

Mr. Gilmore

It does not appear we will receive a great deal of attention for what we are doing here now. As in the case of our debate on the earth summit no doubt we will find that some time subsequently feature articles will appear in newspapers about the dreadful mess the Oireachtas made of our planning laws without any reference to the debate that took place here. I do not think it is a case of the public being aware of what is taking place here with regard to their planning laws. It would be appropriate to allow for a longer period than six months, if for no other reason than to allow the writers of feature articles catch up with what is actually taking place in this House.

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Allen

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 5, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(7) Where An Bord Pleanála cause an inspector's report to be produced in relation to an application for planning permission, such report shall be published and copies shall be made available at the offices of the local authority in whose functional area the site which is the subject of the application is situated.".

We are now reaching the stage at which the planning permission process, except in exceptional cases, will be reduced to four months. From experience I believe that the public facility of receiving information on what takes place within the duration of an appeal should be improved and any documentation in relation to an appeal should be made available. I have had the unique experience of having been refused information in regard to the names and addresses of objectors in the case of specific objections. I believe that all relevant information in relation to an appeal, and in relation to reports undertaken by An Bord Pleanála, should be made available publicly for examination, if necessary allowing a response on the part of interested parties.

Mr. Smith

We had a reasonably long discussion on this matter on Committee Stage. I reconsidered it to ascertain whether I could be more helpful in this regard. First and foremost it is important to realise that An Bord Pleanála are responsible for decisions and must take account of all of the planning considerations. The inspector's report is one component only of that exercise. The board need not necessarily agree to the inspector's report; they have a wider remit. Finally, in regard to the report itself — even if it were to be made available — the amendment seeks to have it made available after decisions have been taken, at which time it cannot have a bearing on the outcome. I really cannot see there is anything to be gained from travelling down that road. Indeed I would foresee specific difficulties arising in certain circumstances.

Mr. Allen

Such as?

Mr. Smith

——if the inspector's report were to be published. I understand there is the general belief — which may well have emanated from the system in the United Kingdom — that the inspector actually takes the decision, except in exceptional cases where the Secretary of State would do so. There may be the public view that decisions taken by An Bord Pleanála are and have to be absolutely in accordance with the inspector's report, but the remit is a wider one. While I am quite sure that the inspector's report in the great majority of cases forms the basis of the decision, it may not in all cases, and, as I have said already, what is sought in the amendment could arise subsequent to decisions already taken.

Mr. Garland

I support this amendment.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 69.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Calleary, Seán.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Willace, Mary.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Allen

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 5, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:

"(8) (a) No extension of time for the hearing of appeals of any class or type or kind shall be sought or accepted by the Board or imposed by the Minister under this section or any other enactment arising from staff shortages.

(b) The Minister is required to ensure that the Board has sufficient staff and ancillary resources to meet, save in exceptional circumstances, the time limits set out in this section.".

The reason this amendment has been put down is that too often in the past legislation and regulations have not been implemented. We are concerned that, having reduced the period to four months, there may be an opt out for the Minister in that An Bord Pleanála may give as the reason for an extension of time that the staff are not available. We have our doubts that the resources will be available within An Bord Pleanála to conform with the four month deadline. Not only are we anxious that the four month clause be complied with in as many cases as possible but that, more importantly, cases will be dealt with efficiently, effectively and fairly. We do not want to see opt out clauses implemented due to a lack of resources or a shortage of staff.

Mr. Garland

I am a little puzzled by this amendment which clearly shows where Fine Gael loyalties lie — with expedition as opposed to making the correct decision.

Mr. Allen

We have already qualified what we said by adding that we hope cases will be dealt with efficiently and fairly. The Deputy should not put words in our mouths.

Mr. Garland

I accept paragraph (b) of the amendment which states: "The Minister is required to ensure that the Board has sufficient staff and ancillary resources to meet, save in exceptional circumstances, the time limits set out in this section." I think everybody would agree that, even in times of great financial stringency, as is the case at present due to a succession of extremely improvident Governments, bodies such as An Bord Pleanála, who are not seen as glamour boys or as very high profile or important bodies, tend to be starved of staff and resources. Getting back to the question of time limits, I and the Green Party do not wish that appeals be dragged out interminably. The issue has to be grasped; sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. In any event, the time comes when a decision has to be made.

What concerns me — similar problems arose with the Environmental Protection Agency — is that if this amendment is accepted it could be very dangerous. I have no problem with paragraph (b) but I have a great problem with paragraph (a). If it is accepted some future Government could decide to run down An Bord Pleanála and deliberately starve them of staff at the behest, perhaps, of the chemical lobby or some other vested interest group who are not as concerned as they should be about the environment. If this amendment is accepted there is no way that the board could operate with an extension of the time limit. For those reasons I do not support the amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

Like Deputy Garland, I have no difficulty with the second part of the amendment. It is an excellent proposal which provides that the Minister would be required to ensure that An Bord Pleanála would have sufficient staff and resources to meet the time limits agreed by the House earlier today.

I am concerned about having a situation whereby no extension of time could be given by the board or by the Minister in cases where there is a shortage of staff. Deputy Garland indicated one situation which could arise in the case of a shortage of staff, where a Government through their recruitment policy decide to have a further ban on the recruitment of staff into certain public bodies, and as a result there is a gradual reduction in the number of staff in, for instance, An Bord Pleanála. We now have a four month time limit within which appeals have to be decided. What would happen if there was a strike within An Bord Pleanála within that four months? Given the way in which industrial relations are going that is something which cannot be entirely discounted. If there was an industrial dispute in An Bord Pleanála and critical sections of staff were on strike, does that mean that the chairman or the members of the board would be required to make the decision within four months irrespective of whether they had the professional staff and the secretarial staff to provide the back-up? Deputy Allen would want to explain that because if that were to arise and if there was not some provision to allow for an extension of time in those circumstances, it would make a nonsense of the whole thing.

Mr. Smith

The statutory provision governing An Bord Pleanála staffing is section 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976. It is a standard form to make provision for the staffing of a body such as the board. I cannot accept that any special provisions along the lines suggested by the Deputies would be the way forward. In practical terms, any application for additional staffing by An Bord Pleanála has always been considered sympathetically and having regard to resources available. At the moment we provide about £1.5 million which covers about 80 per cent of their total costs. That is a clear indication of the Government's commitment to ensuring that they have the resources of personnel and ancillary services required to discharge their duties. I cannot think of any other legislation which has a provision on the lines suggested by the Deputy.

Deputy Gilmore touched on the question of industrial relations. It would be a new departure in this House if each time we made decision with regard to streamlining a system, we also made a decision along with that to provide——

Mr. Carey

The lads can go on strike.

Mr. Smith

——new resources. It has been the experience in public and in commercial life that it is possible to streamline systems and reduce costs. I am not saying that it is possible here.

Mr. Howlin

What about quality?

Mr. Smith

It is also possible to improve quality. The Deputy is as familiar with as many of these areas as I and he knows that is true. What we are talking about is how we apply management systems and use the resources we have more intelligently. Much of what is involved here, it must be admitted, reduces the workload of An Bord Pleanála. Up to now it was possible for a person to submit a full appeal at any stage after his first lodgment of the appeal, and in many cases the board were obliged under existing law to communicate with the appellant and seek the final submission from him. That is an additional workload which we are now taking away. We are obliging the appellant to deal with that in a different way. Having said that, clearly any changes bring new obligations and stresses. We should not just say that additional resources are required. Is there evidence on my desk that there are serious problems with regard to dealing with the new system which necessitates additional staff? I will look at that in the light of experience. I have the same interest as Deputies in making sure that this system works. As the responsible Minister, I have an even greater interest. On that basis, I would ask Deputy Allen to withdraw the amendment and to be satisfied that the resources available to An Bord Pleanála are adequate. If that turns out not to be the position we will give them a sympathetic hearing.

With regard to the comments by Deputy Garland, I know it is often said that policies will be dictated to a Minister by chemical companies or some other companies, but this is a democratic House and everyone has the right to speak. In most cases, regardless of which parties form the Government, Ministers have not drifted too far from the realities of life and from being fair. I would like the Deputy to accord the same attribute to me and my successors. It is not a question of satisfying any particular interest. It is a question of putting in place a fair balanced system which takes account of special needs and gets good decisions. There will be decisions refusing applications. It is important that these cases, too, are streamlined because often a person who wants to pursue a development will invest in some other project if the application is refused fairly readily. The faster a decision is taken on one application the more quickly a person can move on to look at another option. It seems to be inherent in some of the contributions that it is always a question of letting something through. We are talking about a system that is fair. If a system is fair, not everything that goes before it will be considered proper and these will be refused in the normal way.

Mr. Howlin

Notwithstanding anything the Minister said I am not reassured on the staffing requirements of An Bord Pleanála. Not only am I fearful in relation to the new requirements that this legislation will impose on An Bord Pleanála but I am concerned that they have no adequate staff to deal properly with the appeals currently before them. There have been inordinate delays in one or two cases. I am concerned that if we put a legal imperative in place, that a decision must be made within a certain time, the quality of a decision must inevitably suffer. We can have an efficient process, if our definition of efficiency means that the decision will be made on the date prescribed, but that is not the definition of efficiency that I would accept. There must be a proper decision. Proper planning and the environmental impact assessment must be taken into account. I am not convinced that that can be done with the staff complement currently employed. I would like the Minister to look at that.

I am fearful in relation to the future. I am reassured somewhat by the Minister's commitment to personally interest himself in the operation of this Act. I do not for a minute question the bona fides of the Minister in this regard. However, with a very crowded agenda and a very cluttered desk, with new issues arriving daily, it is understandable that when legislation is enacted it might simply go out of sight and out of mind. I hope the Minister will make sure that not only are the decisions made in the timeform set out, but that the quality of the decision is also maintained for the better development of our country.

With regard to the whole area of staffing, one issue of great concern to me with which I am familiar is the level of staffing available to the initial planning decision makers, the planning authorities in each county. It is quite clear that inadequate staffing levels currently exist in many planning authorities where the initial decisions are made. I hope the Minister will be mindful of this when speaking about adequate staffing for the appeals mechanism. Adequate staffing and adequate technical expertise should be available to the initial decision-makers at planning authority level. There would be fewer appeals if adequate resources were available in the first instance.

Like other speakers, I have a certain difficulty in relation to the amendment. I fully accept the thrust of its second part, but I am somewhat jaundiced in my approach to the initial part. There could be situations where the requirements of this subsection would be impossible. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the points made on this side of the House.

Mr. Carey

When we discussed this Bill in Committee some people on this side of the House said four months was not adequate. The Minister said that the Department arrived at an average. He did not know exactly whether this four months would work or not.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy is a holy terror.

Mr. Carey

We felt that four months was too generous and that An Bord Pleanála were being given soft terms of reference. That is still the case. People are still concerned about delays in An Bord Pleanála. Complaints of this kind are often made to public representatives. Since four months is specified, we are seeking to copperfasten this provision. Inordinate delays have an adverse effect on the prospects of job creation. Investors need to know. Our amendment requires greater efficiency and seeks to prevent the excuse that delays arise because of staff shortages. The Minister should have given stronger assurances about the matter. In accepting the period of four months, he knew he was not setting an impossible task for An Bord Pleanála and that there was some room for manoeuvre. The Minister should be setting higher targets. He indicated that he would be keeping an eye on the board. He will be reminded every day.

Mr. Smith

In no uncertain terms.

Mr. Carey

I like to do that. Major investment is needed to create jobs and we require An Bord Pleanála to be more efficient.

Mr. Allen

I want to clarify one or two points. Deputy Garland in a throw away remark implied that Ministers, former Ministers and spokespersons are in the pocket of the chemical industry. Any proposal we put forward as a party is put forward because we believe it is right for the country. A few of us were talking about environmental issues before Deputy Garland discovered them as political issues. The discussions I have had with the chemical industry indicates that their worst fears are about legislation, conditions and standards. The major problem is not what we are imposing on them but what we are not saying. They are afraid because of the lack of regulations and policy, especially in the area of waste. They want us to get our act together as legislators so that they will know where they stand. I know a number of industrialists who did not invest here because of the uncertainty. The Minister is concerned about this also. Anything that defines a regulation in a firmer way is to be welcomed.

The fear has been expressed that in the event of a strike the Fine Gael amendment would be hard to apply. If we were to cease considering proposals and amendments because of the fear of strikes, we would get nowhere. I hope that industrial development will not be held up because of strikes within a Government agency and that there are inbuilt mechanisms within that agency to make decisions that would allow job creating developments to go ahead. It should not be the case that everything is held up by a strike which lasts for five or six months. That sort of thing is the ruination of the country, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the disputes. We would be prepared to drop the first part of the amendment if the Minister would show some goodwill to our proposals and accept the second part.

Mr. Gilmore

That is very reasonable.

Mr. Allen

The Minister should show we are not wasting our time in putting forward amendments.

Mr. Howlin

I am sure the House would indulge the Minister in making a response.

Mr. Smith

I have already made my position quite clear. We have debated issues like this before. I have indicated already the specific legislation that governs these matters. I have assured the House that I will be monitoring developments arising from the passage of this Bill to see whether in the light of experience something further is required. I have also told the House that in many ways the specific provisions of this Bill reduce existing staff loads as well as creating new ones. It would be very unfair to commit ourselves to unknown quantities in the light of not having any experience of the operation of the Bill and of its effect on the board. Deputies will have to accept my assurance that I will take account of these matters in the light of experience. To ask me to take that on as an obligation would be unfair and unreasonable. It has not happened in the past in relation to regulations of this kind.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.