Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Jun 1993

Vol. 432 No. 2

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1993 — Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, subsection (1), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following definition:

"‘the Minister' means the Minister for the Environment;".

I would like the Minister to consider the inclusion of a definition for the expression "the Minister" which appears quite regularly in the Bill. It also includes expressions such as "a Minister" or "Minister of Government" and others but there is no doubt as to who "the Minister" refers to. As the word "Minister" may be interpreted in a different context it would be appropriate that "the Minister" be defined as the Minister for the Environment.

When I raised this matter on Second Stage yesterday the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, indicated that the definition was included in the 1963 Act, the Principal Act and, as everything refers to that Act, there was no need for this amendment. The 1963 Act defines "the Minister" as the Minister for Local Government, not the Minister for the Environment. It is not a major issue and I do not intend to delay the House on it but for correctness the proper definition of "the Minister" should be included in the Bill.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

This amendment is unnecessary. Under section 7 (4) this Bill when enacted will be construed along with the previous planning Acts. All definitions in these Acts, including the term "Minister" as defined in section 2 of the 1963 Act, are carried through to this Bill. If I were to accept the amendment it would create the same problems with regard to "planning authority", "development" and the words that are used and repeated throughout the Bill. There is no necessity for this amendment.

Mrs. Doyle

I do not wish to quibble with the Minister but he has just made my case for me. The 1963 Act defines "the Minister" as the Minister for Local Government. It is some years since the Minister and his Department were referred to as the Minister for or the Department of Local Government and it requires amending now. I will withdraw my amendment to allow the Minister to reconsider it on Report Stage. The Minister for the Environment is not referred to in the 1963 Act but perhaps the Minister can indicate that in subsequent planning and development Acts over the years up to last year this has been corrected. I will raise this matter again on Report Stage when the Minister will have had time to consider it.

Mr. M. Smith

Once the change was made from Minister for Local Government to Minister for the Environment the appropriate changes were made in the Acts through the necessary orders. That has been the position since.

Mrs. Doyle

Does the Minister consider there is a need for a definition of "the Minister", referring to himself??

Mr. M. Smith

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Gilmore

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—Where it is proposed to make regulations under this Act, a draft of each regulation shall be laid before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and shall not come into effect until such time as a motion approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".

This amendment would require the draft of any regulation which is to be made under this Bill to be brought before the House for approval by the Houses of the Oireachtas before it could have effect. This amendment is critical to this Bill. There are at least four parts of the Bill where the Minister is being empowered to make regulations. First, he is empowered to make regulations under section 2 to exclude any development where public safety, administration of justice, national security or defence is involved and also where the development requires a licence or consent or some other form of authorisation included in any other enactment. Section 2 enables the Minister by regulation to exclude from the remit of the Bill and from the requirement to apply for planning permission a range of activities. The Minister can do that by way of regulation.

Second, the Minister can by way of regulation provide for a range of procedures governing the consultation which will have to be followed by local authorities where they wish to carry out a development. Third, in section 3, the most extraordinary section of the Bill, the Minister can, by regulation, modify or adapt any provision of any of the planning Acts for the purposes of securing or facilitating its application to development by or on behalf of a State authority. This is a very wide ranging power. Effectively it gives the Minister power by regulation to change the planning Acts in so far as they apply to State authorities.

Section 4 refers to regulations dealing with environmental impact assessment. Two issues arise here. First there is the increasing tendency in legislation brought before this House to give to Ministers of Government widespread powers to introduce changes in the law by way of regulation. The theory is that these regulations may be annulled by the Oireachtas, but in practice that does not happen. Deputy Doyle has a motion on the Order Paper seeking to annul the regulations dealing with access to information. I do not know whether we will ever have an opportunity to debate that matter——

Mrs. Doyle

It will be debated next Wednesday during Government time and I thank the Minister for that.

Mr. Gilmore

I am very glad to hear that, but it is very much the exception rather than the rule.

Mr. M. Smith

It is open Government. I cannot be more helpful.

Mr. Gilmore

It is the first occasion that has happened in a long time and I am very glad the matter will be debated. That underlines the need for this amendment, because since the Minister is prepared to allow time to be made available for a motion seeking to annul regulations, the same purpose could be achieved by having a procedure whereby the regulations would be put before the House in the first place and debated.

Virtually all speakers, certainly on this side of the House, on this Bill yesterday drew attention to the many areas in which the Government is seeking exemptions for development, and I spoke about the effect of these exemptions. As the Bill stands there is virtually no State development which would have to apply for planning permission if the Government decided by regulation to exempt it from that requirement. The Minister in his contribution yesterday and the Minister of State in winding up the debate were at pains to assure us these exemptions and regulations would be introduced only in exceptional cases. For example, we were told that the purpose of section 3 is to allow for minor technical adjustments to be made to the planning legislation in order to facilitate State development and that section 2 would apply only in cases of national security, to prevent criminals from having access to plans for prisons, Garda stations and so on. That is very laudible and I am sure everybody would agree with it, but that is not what is stated in the Bill. Under the Bill the Minister has freedom to make regulations to exempt any development he wishes.

If the Minister wants to introduce regulations he should bring them before the Houses of the Oireachtas for debate and we will decide whether they are desirable or necessary. Nobody would argue about not having widely available the detailed plans of Army barracks, Garda stations and so on. However, we would argue that other State development, whether it be a scheme of local authority houses, Government Department buildings or, as has been the subject of controversy in recent times, interpretative centres, should be subject to planning permission and any attempt by the Government to exempt them from that requirement should not be allowed.

If, as the Minister has reminded us, we are in the era of open Government and there is a willingness on the Minister's part to facilitate everybody and have matters debated, there is now a mechanism — the committee system — to deal with secondary legislation. The previous excuse that to bring regulations before the House would clog up the work of the House does not apply now. Yesterday morning we passed without debate a set of regulations governing local government matters. A series of changes which were not controversial were passed here without debate. Regulations would not clog up the working of the House.

This is a necessary democratic measure, particularly in view of the criticisms made yesterday about the Minister's power to exempt all State development from the remit of the Bill. The problem is that while we may receive all the assurances in the world from the Minister and Minister of State that they are not going to do certain things and that measures are introduced only for minor reasons and will be used only in exceptional cases, Ministers' scripts are not legislation. What the Minister says in his script may not be in line with what is laid down in legislation and some amendment must be inserted to reconcile the two matters. This amendment would reconcile what the Minister states is his intention and what he has in practice put into legislation.

Mrs. Doyle

I support the thrust of this amendment. I would not quibble, nor I am sure would Deputy Gilmore, about the specific wording if it is not to the liking of the Minister. A serious problem arises in regard to the amount of legislation introduced by way of regulations. When we talk glibly of a democratic deficit, normally we refer to the lack of communication between national parliaments and what is going on in Brussels. But there is an enormous deficit within this House whereby the democratically elected politicians cannot debate, offer an opinion, or amend legislation introduced here. The enabling mechanism, that is the regulation, needs urgent attention.

I thank the Minister and all the Whips, including Deputy Keogh, for allowing the annulment motion which I tabled on the Order Paper last week to be taken during Government time next week. I do not know when last an annulment resolution was taken in Government time. Perhaps this is the first evidence of letting in the light, but we will reserve judgment in that regard. It is most important not only to debate the access to information regulations within the 21 sitting days as laid down but also that regulations be debated in future during Government time, as is requested by the mover of this amendment. If agreement was given to a debate during Government time annulment resolutions on regulations generally, many of us would be much happier. Much EC legislation is introduced by way of regulation and Deputies increasingly feel precluded from debating such legislation that will impact on people. I ask the Minister to take on board the amendment in the name of Deputy Eamon Gilmore.

The Deputy pointed out that the Bill provides many opportunities for the Minister to introduce various amendments to this Bill by way of regulation. Perhaps the Minister would look at section 3 which causes me most concern in relation to these regulations because, under it, the Minister can regulate, modify or adapt any provision of the Acts. In other words the Minister can use a regulation to repeal or modify legislation enacted in this House. In March this year the High Court judgment on the angel dust case found that we should not repeal enactments of this House by way of regulation. I know there is not a strict parallel in this case but legal opinion is that if a case was taken in relation to legislation through regulations to repeal existing enactments, it would not be in order. The Minister must accept that there is some legal doubt about the regulation procedure, I ask him to accept Deputy Gilmore's amendment, but if he cannot amend the Bill before us to ensure that Deputy Gilmore's substantive point is catered for in this Bill.

Ms Keogh

I support the amendment. Yesterday I pointed out that this Bill is riddled with opportunities for regulation by the Minister. I thank the Minister for consenting to a brief debate on access to information next week. However, we will not have the opportunity to annul those regulations, although we appreciate the opportunity to debate them so that we can make our views known.

I oppose section 3 of this Bill on the principle of regulations. Under the committee system we will perhaps have the opportunity to debate regulations in full but to try to bypass the Oireachtas by giving the Minister such wide discretionary powers is a very bad precedent. Because there is such a huge Government majority we are even more aware of the need for transparency and openness. Whereas the Minister might consent to debate regulations from time to time, that is not good enough. Will the Minister reconsider this amendment and take on board our fears because it is not good enough to have a nod and a wink approach to legislation? We want our approach accepted, and we want the Minister to consider accepting some of the amendments put down.

Mr. McGrath

I too support Deputy Gilmore's amendment which is crucial to the working of this Bill. Many recent Bills have facilitated Ministers to introduce virtually anything they want by regulation.

Secton 3 gives wide-ranging power to the Minister to change anything in legislation from 1963 to date, which is going too far and Deputy Gilmore's amendment will go some way towards sorting that out.

I commend Deputy Avril Doyle for her persistence in relation to the matter which will be debated next week. I thank the Minister for allowing the debate. That is a first step in the right direction and the acceptance of Deputy Gilmore's amendment would be the second.

Mr. M. Smith

I thank Deputies for their comments on the decision about next week. I hope there will be other opportunities to deal with matters like that. The hysteria generated yesterday afternoon, after a night's rest has been replaced with a much more sober approach to the Bill this morning.

Mrs. Doyle

What hysteria?

Mr. M. Smith

Deputies tended to get carried away and anti-developmental proposals were made.

Mrs. Doyle

Do not patronise us, Minister.

Mr. M. Smith

We are now getting down to the more serious aspects of the Bill. At least 20 Acts have similar provisions to this.

Mr. McGrath

That does not make it right.

Mr. M. Smith

It is a long tradition whereby changes to primary legislation are made by regulation. It is not true that this happens without the control of the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas specifies the parameters under which delegated authority is given to the Minister. In the case of this Bill the parameters are extremely well defined. In regulating under this Bill the Minister will work closely to a formula approved by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas also supervises the Minister in using delegated powers through the rights in every legislation to review, annul and, in rare cases to confirm, by the Oireachtas. Deputy Gilmore knows as well as I, that a liberal use of the affirming resolution would bring business in the House to a standstill and would seriously delay orderly public administration. The annulling resolution provision is a discriminating instrument and enables the Oireachtas to exercise judgment and discretion in its supervision of Ministers. The confirming resolution offers no such discretion. The provisions in the Bill are important and for that reason the regulatory powers are very tightly circumscribed by the Bill. The confirming resolution is not necessary or desirable in this case, and I cannot accept the amendment.

Last October when a general election overtook a referendum which was already designated we were fortunate to have legislation, designed in the 1940s, where the most unlikely event was foreseen. Very often in our efforts to develop primary legislation we endeavour to take account of as many as possible of the type of events that will occur. However, at the same time we know very well from experience that we shall not be able to cater for certain types of eventualities.

As I said, changing primary legislation by regulation has been the traditional norm in this House for a very long time. I predict that two things would necessarily happen if we were not to attempt to adopt this practice in a general way. I am not saying that what we have done all along in the past should be carried through into the future. Clearly, the whole planning process is undergoing a much more open examination with greater need for transparency.

In regard to the regulations I am devising in relation to public notice requirements, I can inform the House that they are very forward-looking and will be introduced very soon. Indeed, they will indicate that the time available to me following the passage of the primary legislation to consult and, without necessarily changing the content of previous laws, widen their scope and improve their composition, has been valuable. Whoever might be in my place, I should not like the House to be so constrained at all times to ensure that everything would be on the plate from the very beginning. I think Members across the House would appreciate that such would not be desirable or indeed possible. I have some exciting news for the House in relation to section 3.

Mr. Gilmore

I am very excited, a Cheann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would that help the Deputy to proceed to section 3?

Mr. Gilmore

No, you cannot help me at all, a Cheann Comhairle. Section 2 still occupies my interest here.

I was very interested in the Minister's reasons for rejecting this amendment when he said that this would clog up the workings of the House. If it is going to clog up the workings of the House the Minister must be thinking of making an awful lot of regulations under the provisions of this Bill, and this would arouse my worst fears about it. Certainly, it is a long way from what we were told yesterday the Government intended doing under these various regulations. I am looking at the Minister of State's closing remarks when replying to the debate here yesterday, when he told us:

The only qualifications on the general application of normal planning controls will be those set out in section 2 of the Bill and the one year transitional period provided in section 5. It will be seen that the exclusionary power under subsection (1) of section 2 can be exercised only in limited and clearly defined circumstances, and it is clear also that the power in subsection (2) of that section is of a reserve nature and would be used only in wholly exceptional circumstances.

He continued later to tell us, again about subsection (2):

..... I wish to comment only that it has been made clear that this power is of a reserve character.

I am at a loss to know what constitutes reserve legislation. For example, does it mean that when the Minister was drawing up this Bill he vowed to himself that the Government would never be caught again, as it was in the case of Mullaghmore and Luggala, facing a court decision, having done something it was not permitted to do under existing legislation? Does it mean that he could not anticipate all of the circumstances which might arise in the future and build them into the provisions of the Bill? Does it mean that instead he inserted what is now called a power of a reserve character, which really means: "I have not really thought out where all of this lead us in the future, but in case there is anything. I have not thought of, I am going to stick in a provision in the Bill I can exercise at the time so that I will not be caught again."

It is extraordinary that the Minister should be telling us now that, were we to seek a positive affirmation of these regulations, it would clog up the workings of the House whereas yesterday we were told by the Minister of State that this would be used in exceptional circumstances only, that it was a power of a reserve character, which might mean it might never be used at all and had been incorporated for technical purposes only. It is either one or the other; either it will clog up the workings of the House, in which case the Minister anticipates using it quite a lot, or it will not clog up the workings of the House and is to be used in exceptional circumstances only, in which case I do not see what is the problem in having the House affirm the regulations.

This method of passing law is bad, passing a general type of Bill which then gives all of the power to the Minister. Repeatedly this House is being asked to do so. Repeatedly the Minister comes in here with this new phraseology which is beginning to become very much the buzz word of this Government — that there is going to be consultation. I am all for consultation with the public but I am certainly not for replacing the normal planning process with some kind of a more vague form of consultation. It seems to me the Government is now in danger of turning this country into a nation of consultants; we shall all be consulting about everything.

For example, we shall have two months consultation about Mullaghmore; we shall have further consultation about the Green Paper on Education, on the Roads Bill, on the power of local authorities to implement road motorway schemes, and so on which power is being taken from them. Instead, we are to have a consultation process brought into being. Under the provisions of this Bill henceforth we shall have a consultation process for local authorities who want to carry out works — all very good but in circumstances in which the Minister wants to exclude State authorities from the obligation to apply for planning permission he talks about there being a process of consultation and so on. What he is forgetting to tell us is that, at the end of that process of consultation, he, or the Government Minister responsible for the State authority, will end up taking the decision in any event. By all means, let us have processes of consultation but let us not substitute consultation for the independent planning process we have, which is open to the public and well known to them. That would be going in the wrong direction, and simply dressing up, in some kind of mock democratic cloak, forms of consultation which are intended to be a replacement of public involvement in the decision-making process in the first place. It would not be a substitute for subjecting State authorities to the normal planning process.

What we have in this Bill is a mechanism whereby, at any time, the State can duck out of the obligation to apply for planning permission. We are being told it is being introduced to oblige State authorities to apply for planning permission but stitched into the Bill are four different mechanisms which can be used by the Government to enable any State authority to duck out of the obligation of having to apply for planning permission. That is to be done by way of the Minister making a regulation which in practice — and I take the point that Deputy Doyle's case is the exception — means we shall never be given an opportunity of debating such in this House.

I am pressing this amendment because it is critical to everything that was said yesterday, it is critical to this Bill and to the way in which the provisions of this Bill will be operated in the future. I intend pressing this amendment because I believe these regulations should be brought before the House and debated. We have now four or five Select Committees which have the means of addressing these matters. This assertion of its clogging up the workings of the House is an excuse for not having it brought forward. In any event, it flies in the face of what we were told yesterday, that these would be exceptional measures only.

Ms Keogh

I was amazed at what the Minister said in reply to the brief debate we have had on this amendment. It appears to me that what he wants is to adopt a belt and braces approach in relation to these regulations. If he is worried about its clogging up the workings of the House, I should point out that we have had long debate about a committee system here and its relevance. I, for one, am very unhappy, and have said so in the course of debate in this House, about the format of those committees because, if they are to have any meaningful purposes, they must have subjects to debate. If the Minister insists in introducing regulations I suggest that at the very least the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs should be given an opportunity to debate those regulations. At present the committees are not overloaded and it will be a long time before they are.

Mrs. Doyle

It will come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that I do not agree with him, but his reference to minor changes to be made by way of regulations galled me. If only minor changes were involved the Minister would meet far less opposition and less concern would be expressed about this enabling procedure. I consider that the regulations procedure is used excessively. None of us — I hope I am interpreting what my colleagues had to say correctly — is suggesting that we should do away with the regulations procedure per se, but it should only be used when minor changes have to be made to Acts. I cannot accept the Minister's point that only minor changes are made by way of regulations. If provision was made for affirmative orders which would be dealt with in Government time we would feel far easier and democracy would be protected.

At present greater use is being made of the regulations procedure whereby more and more legislation is being introduced by way of regulations. This is anti-democratic and means that the democratic deficit is being increased. Many members of the thinking public are asking us what we are about, if we have any say or an input into legislation. It amounts to government by diktat if the Government insists on retaining the present procedure whereby a motion must be tabled within 21 sitting days and taken in Private Members' time if the Opposition wants to have an order annulled. The Minister should assure us that an affirmative order will be required, that it will be taken in Government time and that all shades of political opinion in this House will have an input into legislation introduced by way of regulations.

Mr. M. Smith

Once again Deputy Gilmore has attempted to give the impression that we have a sinister intent in relation to certain provisions of the Bill, but I reject this absolutely. During the past year legislation introduced by my Department has taken up about 25 per cent of Dáil time. We are using the limited resources at our disposal to bring forward good social legislation dealing with planning, housing and electoral reform.

We could decide that in all instances the primary legislation should include everything that normally would be prescribed in regulations; but it is well accepted, not just in this House but right across Europe, that that is not the road to take.

Mrs. Doyle

For minor changes.

Mr. M. Smith

As I have already indicated, to provide access to information I am quite prepared to have a good sensible discussion in Government time and will attempt in the context of this legislation to take on board some of the sensible comments made yesterday afternoon. I will not however be able to accept the amendment; but I think we will still achieve the same result in regard to what is proposed, particularly in section 3 of the Bill.

Once again I wish to point out that we have no sinister intent or hidden agenda. Long before the Supreme Court made its decision I had put proposals to the Government in connection with the Bill now before the House. In the context of the planning laws I want the same system to apply in the case of State authorities and the private sector, but there will always be exceptions and these are well established. Within the time available we are doing what we can to provide for this.

On section 3, when the 1963 Planning Act was being drafted it was accepted that State authorities would not have to apply for planning permission. There is no argument however that minor amendments to the corpus of legislation may be required by way of regulations. Nonetheless, I have to indicate in the strongest possible terms, in the context of what I will have to say to the House when we come to deal with section 3 or before then if there is a danger that we will not reach it, that it would be sensible to include these provisions and that when changes are being made I will avail of the wisdom of this House in determining which is the best path to take in the future.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Creed, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan M.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harney, Mary.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Bree, Declan.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Foley, Denis.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Penrose, William.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• McDaid, James.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Ryan, John.
• Smith, Michael.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Upton, Pat.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Rabbitte and McManus; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris.

Amendment declared lost.

SECTION 2.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now proceed to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Avril Doyle. I observe that amendment No. 4 is an alternative and amendments Nos. 10 and 24 are related. I suggest therefore that we discuss amendments Nos. 3, 4, 10 and 24 together. Is that agreed? Agreed. Before Deputy Doyle intervenes, I wish to announce to the House that the heading "Section 3" should appear before amendment No. 26 on page 3 of the green list of amendments dated 10 June 1993. Therefore, section 3 is opposed by Deputies Keogh and Gilmore.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, subsection (1) (a), line 4, to delete "provide that the Acts" and substitute "provide that Part IV of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 and any amendments made to the sections within Part IV by subsequent legislation".

Effectively, Part IV of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, is the critical part of the planning laws enacted to date. It relates to the control of development and makes it necessary to obtain planning permissions, including permission for retention of existing structures built without prior planning permission, as well as the enforcement of planning control. The wider exemption, which appears to be provided for in the Bill, if this amendment is not accepted, could effectively negate section 2 (1) (b) and section 4 which I understand is not the Minister's intention. I am concerned that the broad sweep the Minister appears to be taking will mean that the retention and enforcement procedures could also be affected.

I am trying to focus on what I understand is the Minister's intention in this subsection. I ask the Minister to take my amendment on board which narrows the scope of his intent.

Mr. Gilmore

The inclusion of Part IV of the principal Act effectively requires the State to apply for planning permission for the types of development it is proposed to exempt from planning permission. We are back to the core debate we have been having over the past two days, that State authorities should apply for planning permission for development and that there should not be exemptions. Ideally, it should be stated positively that there is a requirement on the State — as in all other cases — to apply for planning permission for its various developments. However, the Bill provides for a series of exclusions. In this series of amendments we are seeking to exclude from the exclusions Part IV of the principal Act, the part of the principal Act that places an obligation on a person to apply for planning permission. Therefore, with a double exclusion there is an obligation on these bodies to apply for planning permission.

Mr. M. Smith

Amendment No. 3 seeks to amend subsection (1) (a) by substituting a more limited reference to Part IV of the 1963 Act and any subsequent amendments of that Part for the current reference to the planning Acts generally. I do not think that a change of this nature is desirable because it can lead only to confusion and uncertainty in the application of the provisions of the planning Act, apart from Part IV of the 1963 Act, to developments by or for State authorities. It is simpler and clearer to provide that the planning Acts in their entirety will not apply to development which is brought outside the scope of planning control and I cannot, therefore, agree to this amendment.

Amendment No. 10 follows from amendment No. 3 and I have to reject it for the reasons I outlined. However, there is an inconsistency between the two amendments. Amendment No. 10 also includes a refernce to section 4 of the 1963 Act. I am not sure why it does because the question of exempted development status is clearly not relevant if development controls under Part IV of the 1963 Act do not apply to the development. To put it another way, the question of exempted development status is irrelevant if planning permission is not necessary in the first instance.

Amendment No. 24, which seeks to amend section 2 (1) (a) (ii), is similar in content to amendment No. 10 and for the same reason, I cannot accept it.

Deputy Gilmore's amendment No. 4 would have a different effect from the amendments proposed by Deputy Doyle. It would mean that the Minister for the Environment could provide for the non-application of any provision of the planning Acts other than Part IV of the 1963 Act, as amended, to particular categories of State development. It would, therefore, entirely negate the purpose and intent of section 2 (1) (a) which is that there should be a mechanism for removing development from the scope of the planning permission requirement where the nature of the development or the existence of an alternative development consent process makes this necessary. Since the amendment is completely at odds with the section, reluctantly I cannot accept it.

Mrs. Doyle

Will the Minister reconsider the substance of the amendment if he is not inclined to take the wording on board? I understand what the Minister is trying to do in section 2 (1) (a) in allowing certain State development to be exempt from planning permission — we are really talking about new State development. I would have thought that it may be sufficient to exempt them from planning permission. I am not sure why prisons, military airports or any such State developments deemed exempt, should be allowed to ignore the by-laws of an area or be excluded from the enforcement procedures in meeting certain environmental standards in relation to emissions or discharges or other enforcement measures.

In this amendment I am not trying to thwart the Minister's efforts to exempt certain State development that he feels need to be exempt for reasons we will discuss later — even though I do not agree with the full range of development he includes. It might be sufficient to exempt them from planning permission or from seeking permission for retention, but not from the enforcement procedures in the planning Act. Surely they will have to conform generally with environmental and all the other standards applied to any development in the private or public sector?

Amendment No. 3 — the others are consequential — tries to limit the exemption for those certain State developments to planning permission and, perhaps, a retention only but certainly not for general enforcement or a general obligation on these developments to conform with the natural physical standards that would be required of them in the area where they are built.

Mr. M. Smith

I assure Deputy Doyle that requirements in relation to discharges or emissions are adequately covered under the Acts governing air and water pollution and other Acts which are consolidated in the context of how the Environmental Protection Agency will operate. If I were to accept the Deputy's amendment many of the provisions of the Planning Acts — other than Part IV of the 1963 Act — would continue to have effect and would have a notional application to State authority development. For example, the compensation provisions under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1990, would be applicable in principle but meaningless in practice because planning permission would not have been required in the first instance. Because of the confused and complicated nature of that it is much better to leave the position as it is where the remaining part of the Act is in force.

Mr. Gilmore

Many of our worries about the use of this section derive from the way in which it is drafted. Section 2 (1) (a) (i) states:

such development is, in the opinion of the Minister, in connection with or for the purposes of public safety or order, the administration of justice, national security or defence;

Most of us try to understand what these general categories mean. When replying last evening the Minister of State told us what was meant by the term "security". He said the type of development which this embraces is Garda stations, court-houses, prisons and military installations and that there was nothing more wide-ranging than this involved. If that is the case why is it not simply stated in the Bill. Opposition Members are worried about these general statements, for example, public safety or order. What do they mean? If what the Minister intends to exempt from the requirement to apply for planning permission and planning control are Garda stations, court-houses, prisons and military installations why does he not simply say that in the Bill? We would then know what we are talking about and would probably have less to argue about. By insisting on these general categories, which we all understand to mean Garda stations, court-houses and so on but which we fear may include more at some stage in the future, the Bill gives rise to problems and worries which could be alleviated if the Minister addressed himself to what is stated in the script. We are back to the problem we have had during the debate on this Bill where the script says one thing and the Bill says something else.

Mr. M. Smith

No matter how I try I cannot convince Deputy Gilmore that there is nothing sinsister in the Bill. I have dealt with his amendment and indicated that it would run counter to the provisions of the Bill. In the context of Deputy Doyle's view, if no retention of planning permission is required it is difficult to imagine from where the enforcement problems would emerge. I spelt out the security and military nature of the exemptions. Primarily, the application is to deal with those situations but it is not possible to cover every eventuality, and beyond that I do not think I should be expected to go.

Mrs. Doyle

This amendment impinges on other amendments that deal with the same issue. I support the point Deputy Gilmore has made that if Garda stations, court-houses, prisons and military installations are all that is being referred to by the Minister in relation to public safety or order, the administration of justice, national security or defence why can the Bill not state precisely that these are the developments which are exempt? The concerns of many extend to the wider-ranging powers the Minister appears to take on himself in the loose language used in this section. For example, will the construction of a Garda station or a court-house be subject to the county development plan in the functional area in which it is intended to be built? We need some indication as to where it maybe permissible to erect a Garda station or, more important, a military airport. Can the powers that be in Dublin suddenly decide that they will construct a military airport in Carnsore ignoring Wexford county councillors? Is there some reference to the councillors' development plan in their functional area? There should be.

I also suggest in an amendment that outline planning permission or an equivalent system which would elicit the same information which outline planning permission gives, be the maximum requirement for Garda stations, court-houses, prisons and military installations. Outline planning permission deals only with the nature and character of the development and the location. At least it would indicate to the local authority the size of the construction, its intended use and its location. One may not wish to call it outline planning permission because that is not permission in itself but a procedure that would give notice to the local authority and to the planners involving that amount of information which is now included in an outline planning permission. That is the very least we can expect in terms of any exemption from full planning permission. I see no difficulty with that.

Nobody wants to know the internal layout of a prison; it is a security issue and it does not really trouble us where the sanitary facilities or the kitchens are located in the prison. We assume the central authorities will know what they are doing when they are constructing such a development. However, we want to know where it is intended to be located, the size of the structure and the character of the development, all of which are required in outline planning permission. If such a procedure was involved I would be happy to accept exemption from the full planning requirements. Any exemption should only be for the purposes of public safety or order.

In the routine administration of justice — national security or defence — there is plenty of time to plan where a prison or a courthouse will be located. In the normal course the Department will have a policy and a capital programme ranging over several years and in that case I do not think the wide-ranging exemptions are needed. In the case of an emergency or a public safety or order issue special powers are needed but routine administration does not need the wide-ranging exemptions the Minister is proposing to take upon himself.

The other amendments, which are relevant to the amendment before us, seeks to narrow the Minister's powers in regard to section 4. I accept some of the points the Minister made. Perhaps my amendment, and others, do not scientifically meet the points we are trying to express. However, I cannot accept that routine administration of justice, national security and defence planning developments require total secrecy. If the Minister at least accepted that information should be supplied on the nature, character and location of developments similar to that for outline planning permission, I could accept much of what he is trying to achieve.

Mr. Gilmore

I will give the Minister three examples and he might state whether they would be required to apply for planning permission under the provisions of this Bill. First, the LORAN C mast at Loop Head in County Clare has been the subject of controversy recently and has given rise to much local concern in regard to health and safety. It is claimed that the mast will be used mainly for the purposes of navigation at sea and might be classified under the heading of public safety. It has been suggested that it might be used for military and naval purposes, in which case it would be classified under the heading of national security. Would planning permission be required for that mast under those headings? Second, the proposed airport at Clifden in County Galway was also the subject of controversy. If that airport was used as a base for the air, sea and rescue service or the Air Corps used it occasionally, would it be required to apply for planning permission under this legislation? Third, we all know the meaning of a courthouse in the traditional sense, but rooms in buildings which are not courthouses are increasingly being used as rooms for the purposes of hearing court cases.

Mrs. Doyle

Council chambers.

Mr. Gilmore

Would planning permission be required in those circumstances? We all know what we mean by the traditional Garda station, court-house, prison and Army barracks. However, in practice, there is an increasing blurring of those distinctions. For example, Garda stations are not what they used to be. In an era of community policing, buildings other than the traditional Garda station may be used by Garda in their work. For example, a house in a housing estate may be used by the Garda.

Mrs. Doyle

Enniscorthy Garda station is actually a house in a housing estate.

Mr. Gilmore

Will such premises be deemed as Garda stations and require planning permission under this legislation? Will the Minister clarify those matters in his reply?

Mr. M. Smith

If we were to debate this matter for one week I would still be unable to persuade Deputy Gilmore that I have anything other than ulterior motives behind everything I do.

Mr. Gilmore

I am not questioning the Minister's motives.

Mr. M. Smith

It is intended that local authorities, elected members, An Bord Pleanála and everyone in the planning process should adhere as far as possible to county development plans; but there is scope for contravention at all levels — at local level for locally elected members and for An Bord Pleanála in circumstances where it is deemed necessary. For the purposes of this Bill it would not be appropriate to limit that facility to State or private development. The playing field will be level. Of course, contravention is a serious matter and must be dealt with in the appropriate manner.

The question of outline planning permission will be dealt with in a later amendment. Deputy Doyle covered most of the points by saying that such planning permission would not necessary mean that a development could proceed but that there would still be a necessity to submit the detailed plans.

Mrs. Doyle

I suggested that one could be exempt from submitting detailed planning but not from the outline planning permission.

Mr. M. Smith

The option of outline planning permission as it stands requires the submission of the detailed plans.

Mrs. Doyle

Unless the Minister decides otherwise. The Minister is changing it here and I am suggesting that he should make the change I propose rather than the one he proposes.

Mr. M. Smith

I will deal with that shortly. Deputy Gilmore referred to the LORAN C mast at Loop Head. That is a private development, not a State one.

Mr. Gilmore

It was developed on behalf of the State.

Mr. M. Smith

That would be exempt from planning permission for reasons of navigation and safety at sea. The proposed airport in Clifden is also a private development. The change in use of a premises for the purposes of a Garda station would be exempt from planning permission under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Gilmore

It would be exempt.

Mr. M. Smith

Yes. I hope I have dealt adequately with Deputy Gilmore's three examples.

Deputies are losing sight of the fact that most State development will be subject to either the planning process or the consultative process. Therefore, there is no question of any development being exempt, except in exceptional circumstances where the consultative process is not in operation or the local authority is not obliged to indicate publicly the plans or location of the proposed development. In 99.9 per cent of cases either full planning permission or the consultative process applies. In a small number of problematic cases — for example, an Army post along the Border — it may not be deemed necessary or prudent to have a consultative process for security reasons. Deputies will appreciate that in those circumstances a decision may be taken one day and the operation would be in full force the next day.

As I have stated already, we are opening up the majority of State development to the planning process. In cases where full planning permission is not required the consultative process applies and in a minority of exceptional cases this requirement is necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 5.

In page 3, subsection (1) (a) (i), lines 8 and 9, to delete ", in the opinion of the Minister,".

This amendment proposes to delete the words ", in the opinion of the Minister". It appears that we are engaging in tautology because this role is clearly provided for in section 2 (1) (a). As that is the case I would like to refer to the wide powers the Minister is taking on board.

The Minister can provide that Acts do not apply. I listened carefully to his answer on the last two amendments. It may be a small thing to the Minister, but people are concerned about consultative processes. I accept what the Minister says about being open to consultation and so on. However, one can disagree with a consultant's report and one can disagree with consultation. No matter how wide consultation is, there is always the difficulty that people do not believe that their views are being taken on board. It may be that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and people will see that their views are being listened to, but people are sceptical about the whole nature of planning because of the history of planning in this country. Anything that detracts from the transparency of a process should be looked at in a very sceptical way. This is really a technical amendment, but I wanted to refer back to that point.

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Keogh seems to be of the view that the words which her amendment seeks to delete bring an element of subjectivity into the making of regulations, excluding development from planning control on security related grounds. This is not the case. The words are in fact an additional safeguard because they impose on the Minister for the Environment an express legal duty to form an opinion and consequently be satisfied that the development has a security dimension. In effect, Deputy Keogh's amendment would weaken that requirement on the Minister for the Environment.

That there may not be agreement with all consultants is as logical as night follows day. However, there is an inherent presumption that planning problems can be solved when the most open, transparent and acceptable systems are in existence. We all realise that there can be differences of opinion and that sometimes extremes on both sides cannot be accommodated. We have had this argument before. If we think we can satisfy everybody, then we are living in dreamland. There will always be differences. The provision in the legislation which requires the Minister to be legally satisfied that there is a security dimension is a safer and better one. It is not just a matter of the Minister's opinion. He must be legally satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will now move on to amendment No. 6. I note that amendment No. 7 is an alternative and that amendment No. 8 is related. It is therefore proposed to take amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No 6:

In page 3, subsection (1) (a) (i), lines 10 and 11, to delete "the administration of justice, national security or defence; or".

I do not accept that the routine adminstration of justice, national security and defence needs the blanket exemption the Minister is providing. I have made my point on this already. Granting the Minister powers in cases of public safety or order, of emergency and other such critical occasions is all very well, but routine construction of any State development such as prisons, Garda stations, military installations and courthouses should be subject to some type of preliminary planning procedure.

The Minister has already told me that outline planning permission is not permission and that one must go on to get full planning permission. I know that. However, this Bill is providing for exceptions to the normal rules of the planning process. I am asking the Minister to consider an exception along a different line and that routine construction of court-houses, jails, etc., should be notified to the local planning authority, at least providing the amount of information that would be provided in an application for outline planning permission. An outline planning permission covers the nature and character of the development and the location of the development. Basically, it is indicating on a map of an area where it is intended to build a courthouse or Garda station so that the local people will know where it is to be built and the intended usage. I accept that there is a good case for not allowing the internal plans of courthouses and prisons to lie around in planning offices and on files for public inspection, but at the very least the amount of information now required in an outline planning permission application should be furnished for routine capital developments such as Garda stations, courthouses, prisons and military installations.

The Minister instanced the case of an Army Border post where if a problem arose tonight they might have to erect some type of observation structure for use tomorrow. That would be dealt with in my proposed amendment because section 2 (1) (a) (i) would provide that such development, which in the opinion of the Minister is in connection with or for the purpose of public safety or order, would be excluded. That would cover an Army observation post or any other military installation that needed to be constructed instantly to look after public safety or order.

My amendments deal only with routine administration where, for example, Wexford town is to have a new courthouse or Enniscorthy a new Garda station. There is really no reason why we might not know in advance where it is intended to locate such buildings and the nature and character of the development.

If the Minister cannot take my amendments, which may not be to the satisfaction of the parliamentary draftsman in expressing what I am trying to say, I urge him to allow the provison of the equivalent information that is now available in an outline planning permission. The Minister can call it something else if it upsets him to call it an outline planning permission. The Minister has the power to do that because he is making other and greater changes, but for routine administration of the areas the Minister is now completely exempting, I think the equivalent information available in outline planning permissions should be made available to the local authority.

Ms McManus

I would like to support amendment No. 8. The Minister seems unwilling to take on what is a very reasonable amendment and look at it carefully. I would ask that he do so because otherwise this Bill will create the false belief in people's minds that somehow the system has been opened up and that the community at large has some say over development in the way they have at the moment when development is being carried out by private individuals. It would simply be adding to the cynicism if yet again people could wake up one day and discover that there is a Garda station or a courthouse next door to them and have to ask how that happened and why they were not told about it. Amendment No. 8 is a very good one because it does cater for the need for security and caution while at the same time enabling people to have some input into the planning of their area.

It should be noted that nobody is infallible. It may be that Departments decide to put buildings in the wrong place. One of the huge benefits of the planning process we have had in place and enjoyed since 1963 is that there are checks and balances. That was one of the huge considerations in relation to the Luggala development; there were no checks and balances and nobody pointing out the weaknesses and the shortcomings and the fact that the development was in the wrong place. The planning process has that benefit. The Minister should acknowledge that and, in accepting this amendment, allow that the planning process is a good thing in itself because it can actually produce the right decisions which represent an accumulation of knowledge and wisdom on the part of the Department and of the community and the local authority. This amendment has that strength and I ask the Minister to consider it seriously.

Ms Keogh

Initially one might consider that section 2 (1) (a) is reasonable in that developments in relation to the administration of justice, national security and defence should be exempt, but there must be a case for monitoring such developments. For that reason I support amendment No. 8. That amendment alleviates concerns people may have in that regard, even though such concerns might be unnecessary. For example, a Garda station might be built in close proximity to a residential area. Such development may not cause concern initially, but it is important to alleviate potential concerns people may have. Therefore I consider this a reasonable amendment and I would ask the Minister to accept it.

Mr. M. Smith

I would have thought the exclusion of national security and defence from normal planning controls would have been acceptable to all Deputies.

Mrs. Doyle

It is normally.

Mr. M. Smith

The Progressive Democrats' election manifesto for the last election provides that planning Acts should apply to all State bodies except the Garda and Defence Forces.

Ms Keogh

That is what we mean.

Mrs. Doyle

There is no contradiction.

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Doyle has suggested it may be possible to have a new form of outline permission procedure for the development we are discussing which would not be subject to any subsequent approval. While I accept this might overcome the problem of disclosure in respect of sensitive detail, such an arrangement would also give rise to problems. It must be borne in mind that the location of security-related development is often strongly influenced by strategic considerations which extend beyond the normal considerations for planning and development. While it is right and proper that full account should be taken of views of the relevant planning authority and local interests in relation to security-related proposals, I do not consider it would be practical or appropriate to bring about a situation where the final decision on the location of a development would rest with the planning process. It is for those reasons that it is essential to have a mechanism which allows development which raises security issues to be taken outside the scope of planning controls. However, I hope I have made it clear on Second Stage that it will make use of the regulatory power under section 2 (1) (b) to ensure there is as much public information and consultation as possible consistent with bona fide confidentiality requirements for developments of this kind.

Deputy Gilmore referred to the community input in regard to security matters and greater public involvement in such matters is welcome. I am sure the Deputy would accept that the area of security far from accommodating full community involvement may pose a danger to members of the community in respect of the high level of crime today, which must be dealt with in all its facets. Considerations in respect of the national security and defence areas must take priority because of the threat to life, limb and property involved in those areas. Those areas are different and they should not be interpreted as providing an open opportunity for any unnecessary irregular or unacceptable type developments. The consultative process will be used as much as possible, but in the final analysis the strategic decisions that must be taken in the public security area must also be considered and that is accepted by all those with whom I have discussed this matter. Those matters must be considered and security in this area must be guaranteed as far as possible, otherwise the flexibility and ability of the forces to which we designate authority could often be compromised in their genuine efforts to secure the safety of the country.

Mrs. Doyle

I am extremely disappointed the Minister cannot accommodate the reasonable case I have made. The Minister's reply contained a great deal of jargon. Basically, he said that people could not be informed where nuclear bunkers would be located. That was the underlying message in this reply. I accept the Minister will not concede on this amendment or its related amendment and I register my disappointment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. M. Smith

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, subsection (1) (a) (i), lines 10 and 11, to delete "justice," and substitute "justice or".

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, subsection (1) (a), between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following;

"(ii) any developments for the routine administration of justice, national security or defence shall be subject to outline planning permission only with provision for third party appeal to An Bord Pleanála,".

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, subsection (1) (a), lines 12 to 16, to delete subparagraph (ii).

Under section 2 I suggest that subsection 1 (a) (ii) be deleted. I do not understand the need for this subsection and I await with interest the Minister's explanation. Apparently, any development subject to another statutory authorisation process will be exempt from the planning procedure.

It is mind-boggling to contemplate how wideranging this provision could be and perhaps the Minister would indicate the extent of the provision in this subsection. For example, a prospecting licence is now required for mineral extraction and mining; would future mining developments be exempt from planning permission? Would any development on the foreshore requiring a foreshore licence from the Department of the Marine be exempt from the planning process? We can list processes in relation to many areas which take place under other authorisations. The justification for the exemption is that most of those other processes are considered in detail under the present procedures, particularly under the environmental impact statement ment provisions, and that there would be an element of duplication if planning permission was also required. I do not accept that. The fact that environmental impact statements are now required means that a subsequent planning procedure would be efficient because the answers to difficult questions would be contained in the statement. If that was part of the planning application it would be an efficient case to resolve in terms of the planning process. I see no need for this wide-ranging exemption for any development now covered by another authorisation process. In fact, many of these are controversial projects such as foreshore, mineral or ore extraction developments carried out under licence. Because they are of a controversial nature it is necessary that they remain within the planning procedure so that the local planning authority in whose functional area the development will take place will be allowed to lay down certain conditions to conform with the development plan and the environmental requirements of the area in which the development will be constructed. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views and I will return to this matter at a later stage.

Ms. McManus

This is a peculiar section in the Bill which requires full explanation and I will certainly listen to the Minister with interest. In relation to the previous section the Minister argued the point regarding national security and I am sure he acknowledges that we all share his concern about protecting our security forces. We are all agreed on that issue but there must be local and public accountability and it is extraordinary that there is a wide-ranging let-out clause in this Bill covering various contentious developments in which local communities have a right to have their say.

Why should people have a say in whether someone adds an extension to a house but not in relation to whether a marina will be provided or whether mining will take place in the natural landscape bordering their village or town? It makes no sense if one accepts the principle of local accountability and democracy. If we do not accept this principle, we can insert as many sections and clauses as we wish but I understood this to be some flawed attempt to open up the system in regard to the general thrust of the Bill. Quite clearly, if there are so many let-outs that it becomes meaningless people will realise that there is no real change. Local communities want to have a say in contentious issues such as the development of a marina. I have some experience regarding the provision of a marina which caused controversy and genuine concerns. People need to feel they have some say in a proposed development. Obviously, we are all aware of the mining controversy in Mayo.

There was some justification for the previous section although it was overstated. This section does not seem to indicate any clear position regarding the principle undermining the planning process, namely, that people have a right to express their views when it comes to making a planning decision. Why should the people not be heard in relation to these developments?

Ms Keogh

I agree with the previous two speakers on this section of the Bill. The drafting of this section appears to be very wide and I agreed that the Minister should clarify it. It appears to be all-encompassing and I would like clarity on this section before I comment further. I am not sure that "to be authorised by or under any enactment" should be inserted without being sure of the objective of this section.

Mr. M. Smith

This amendment limits the scope of section 2 by removing the power of the Minister for the Environment to make regulations and taking development outside planning control where it already must be authorised through another statutory procedure.

This provision was the subject of totally unfounded suspicion on Second Stage——

Mrs. Doyle

Understandably.

Mr. M. Smith

——and some Deputies went so far as to say there was a sinister intent in this section. I can say without qualification or reservation that the purpose of the provision is quite straightforward. It will be used to prevent the unnecessary duplication which could arise if planning permission had to be obtained for development which is already required to go through some other statutory approval process.

Ms McManus

Where do the people fit into this?

Mr. M. Smith

It is disingenuous for Deputy McManus to say the public should be informed. The only circumstances in which it applies is where there is another statutory procedure obligation to so do and where I must be absolutely satisfied that the provisions in that Act are appropriate as far as public consultation is concerned.

Mrs. Doyle

In all cases?

Ms McManus

They are not infallible either, with all due respect.

Mr. M. Smith

I made it clear on Second Stage — and I reiterate it now — that this power will be used to take development outside the planning control only if the other statutory authorisation process has adequate procedures for public information and involvement. For example, it might be used in relation to arterial drainage works authorised under the Arterial Drainage Act, 1945.

Mrs. Doyle

Where is the public involvement in that?

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Doyle knows that the position in regard to environmental impact assessment has changed since she was in the Department.

Mrs. Doyle

That is right.

Mr. M. Smith

We have now moved on to ensure that environmental impact statements are carried out in relation to major projects. There has been a significant change in terms of public involvement in this regard.

Coast protection works under the Coast Protection Act, 1963, will be carried out only if I am satisfied that there is adequate provision for public notice and participation. It is unreal for Deputy Doyle to suggest that the State or a State Authority will be directly involved in mining.

Mrs. Doyle

One could have a golden share in a company. Let us go back over the history of our mining companies.

Mr. M. Smith

Even allowing for the distance Deputy Doyle can move from reality this is really stretching my patience. In circumstances where the State is involved, it would require full planning permission as in the case of a private developer at present requiring a prospecting licence and then requiring full planning permission before any activity could be undertaken.

The foreshore is outside the jurisdiction of the planning authorities generally and outside the requirements of planning permission. It is regulated by freeshore licences under the Forshore Acts of 1933 and 1962. We cannot de-exempt development to which permission did not apply in the first instance.

I reassure Deputies that the purpose of this section is to avoid unnecessary duplication and to satisfy me that the Acts to which these regulations apply have, in the first instance, adequate public consultative processes. It is not envisaged that these provisions will apply in any other circumstances.

Ms McManus

There seems to be a certain amount of responsibility on the Minister to ensure public accountability. The Minister will not live forever but this Bill will be on the books indefinitely.

Mrs. Doyle

We are shortening his life.

Ms McManus

I would not say that. I think the Minister is enjoying himself. One must always separate the person operating the legislation from the legislation itself. Public accountability is not provided for in the Bill and that is of concern to Opposition Deputies.

So far as I am aware drainage carried out by private individuals is not subject to planning permission — it certainly was not when a controversy arose in my area. There is a very good argument for providing that all drainage be subject to planning permission because it would ensure the survival of wildlife and birdlife.

Mrs. Doyle

Is Coillte Teoranta, and its many developments, exempt under the terms of this Bill? Much of its developments, particularly in regard to commercial coniferous forests, should be strictly controlled by the planning process. I will not develop that point because time does not allow me to do so, but Coillte is a State authority and we are discussing development by State authorities, not by private individuals.

Perhaps the Act dealing with arterial drainage has been amended in the past six or seven years, but the public consultation process was not obvious at that time and I do not think it is now. Even under environmental impact statements there is no public consultation process such as exists under the planning laws. For example, appeal procedures and so on are not as transparent or as easily accessible to the ordinary lay person as they are under the planning procedure. In all State and semi-State developments, even if there exists a statutory authorisation process, there should be no exemption unless the public has a right to participate and object, or at least to be heard, as is the case under the planning process. That area I am concerned about.

Ms Keogh

It appears from the section that authorisation may be given by the Minister for Tourism and Trade, the Minister for Finance——

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister for the Marine.

Ms Keogh

Yes, or any other Minister. If that is the case a conflict of interest may arise in that some Minister's pet project would receive authorisation because it may be expedient at the time. In those circumstances there would be no accountability to the Department of the Environment or to the public. In the unhappy circumstances that the Minister for the Environment is by-passed would it be open to Ministers in other areas to give consent for a development?

Mrs. Doyle

Would a nuclear power station come under this exemption?

Mr. M. Smith

I am trying to keep the debate on the rails and we should not go down that road.

Mrs. Doyle

The county council of which I am a member was faced with a planning application for a nuclear power station. That may not happen again, and I am not saying it was wrong but is that process eliminated?

Mr. M. Smith

The Deputy is going from one extreme to another. Deputy McManus is perfectly happy that I live forever and she puts her full confidence in me as Minister for the Environment to discharge my obligations to the people for all time——

Ms McManus

That is one political promise the Minister will not be able to keep.

Mr. M. Smith

Deputy Doyle is talking about nuclear power stations, that is going from one extreme to another. Those days are gone and will not return.

Ms McManus

The Minister should never say never.

Mrs. Doyle

Did the Minister read the reference in Green 2000 to nuclear power?

Mr. M. Smith

We should try to stay with the business of the day. Coillte is not a State authority within the meaning of this Bill but it is required to obtain planning permission for developments in excess of 200 hectares. There are a number of provisions involved such as distance from the road and distance from a river, but these apply to a greater extent in the context of coniferous plantations, and I accept Deputy's point in that regard. This matter must be considered in the context of the low percentage of land covered by trees, which is much less than the European norm. There is ample scope for development in this area, but it must be done in an environmentally sensitive way——

Mrs. Doyle

That is my point.

Mr. M. Smith

——with greater emphasis on broadleaved trees.

As regards drainage and wildlife conservation, referred to by Deputy McManus, it is important to put this matter in a wider context. It is essential to have wetland and to protect wildlife, but there are parts of the country where drainage is essential. There are two reasons for this; an economic reason in terms of the survival of the people who live on the land and, more important, to prevent flooding of towns and villages. People living on a hill who do not experience flooding problems may suggest that drainage should be subject to planning regulations, but there are wider considerations to be taken into account. When the Deputy is free I will take her to parts of my constituency where some of those problems occur. It would not be fair to make the drastic changes suggested by Deputy McManus such as subjecting all drainage to planning laws. In relation to pet projects, Deputy Keogh from time to time has a slightly suspicious mind——

Ms Keogh

That is why I am in politics.

Mr. M. Smith

It ill becomes a person who represents a very pure party which is not capable of doing wrong to think wrong of others——

Ms Keogh

That is a very bad argument.

Mr. M. Smith

——while thinking very well of themselves. As regards provision in existing Acts for adequate public consultation, if I am satisfied such provision exists I will not duplicate the system by requiring planning permission, and Deputies should have no fears in that regard.

Ms Keogh

I assure the Minister I am not a plaster saint. The Minister did not answer my question.

Mr. M. Smith

On pet projects?

Ms Keogh

Yes, the Minister referred to them but did not answer my question. Can a Minister for Finance, Tourism and Trade, Enterprise and Employment and so on who wishes give authorisation for such a project?

Mr. M. Smith

Yes, provided the statutory obligations in regard to the public consultative process prescribed in the Bill are adhered to.

Ms McManus

I would be more than happy to take up the Minister's kind invitation if I could invite him to visit my constituency. I live nearer to the sea than anybody in this House and I know more about flooding than many TDs. The Minister should visit Wicklow and Wexford to see the problems of coastal erosion. Wildbird protection is a factor in one of the coastal areas to which I referred in relation to drainage. If we want to develop tourism we will need to protect wildbird habitats. In the future farmers will have to look at areas like agri-tourism in order to survive.

Mr. M. Smith

Although it is not particularly relevant to this Bill, Deputy McManus will know that there has been a move in the last number of years to bring lands of scientific interest under State control. The educational process of caring for wildlife generally has been enhanced in the context of the environmental guidelines from ENFO. I accept that there will always be new problems.

Mrs. Doyle

Will the Minister clarify that State authority does not include semi-State bodies? In other words, I take it that the ESB, Coillte and all the rest will not find an "out" under this subsection.

Mr. M. Smith

They will not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 3, subsection (1) (b) (iv), line 43, to delete "or" and substitute "and".

The word "or" in the line should be altered to read "and" to make it conform with the existing EIS regulations in SI 349 of 1989 and SI 25 of 1990. Anyone can purchase a copy of an EIS submitted to a local authority as part of a planning permission. This amendment is really to promote consistency.

Mr. M. Smith

Section 2 (1) (b) (iv) of the Bill provides that regulations establishing the procedure of public notice and consultation in respect of State authority development which is taken outside the planning process can provide for the making available for inspection or purchase of any environment impact statement prepared in respect of any such development. The effect of using the word "or" in the term "inspection or purchase" is not to exclude one form of availability in favour of the other. In fact it is intended that both forms of availability will be provided for. The use of the word "or" relates to the choice which interested members of the public will have between inspecting or purchasing.

Ms Keogh

There appears to be an error in amendment No. 15, which refers to subsection (1) (v).

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

The Deputy is right. It is a printing error. It should read subsection (1) (b) (iv).

Ms Keogh

I agree with the points made by Deputy Doyle and I would like the Minister to accept this minor amendment.

Mrs. Doyle

My advice is that the change I suggest would clarify the point the Minister makes. It could be interpreted that one was entitled to one or the other rather than both. I am sure the Minister is not trying to exclude access to either.

Mr. M. Smith

No, but one could limit the interpretation of "and" as well. My legal advice is that "or" is better from the point of view of choice.

Mrs. Doyle

People could either inspect or purchase but not both, although if one purchased one could inspect.

Mr. M. Smith

Or both.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

We move now to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are alternatives and No. 19 is related, so I propose that we take them together.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 12.

In page 3, subsection (1) (b) (iv), line 44, after "statement" to insert "and such a statement shall be subject to appeal to An Bord Pleanála if required".

This relates to scrutiny. If we are to follow through on our arguments about transparency, the statement should be open to scrutiny by an independent third party. I am not hung up on An Bord Pleanála but there should be scrutiny and public awareness and we should be seen to be open.

Ms McManus

In amendment No. 14 we recognise that EIS procedures are rather new and it is quite hard for professional people to deal with this. Experience is a great teacher. Environmental impact statements I have seen have varied a lot in quality and that gives rise to a concern that there should be some way of assessing the professionalism of the EIS. I have seen good studies and in one instance a very poor one. There is a presumption that once the professionals are brought in and the EIS is done, everything is all right. There is no harm in assessing the professional work to see if it is adequate, if for no other reason than that this is a new area for professionals to be involved in. For example, the EIS in relation to Luggala is now being cited in educational establishments dealing with this field of work as an example of how not to produce an EIS. I worked as an architect. I know people are inclined to underestimate the inadequacies of the professions and it is no harm to have some system of checking to see if the work being carried out is adequate and sufficiently tuned to the problem. Unless at least one of these amendments is accepted, there will not be an automatic assessment of the work.

There is a weakness in the present system. We need to learn from the experience of having environmental impact statements carried out in that there is enormous variation in EISs coming forward, ranging from very good to the less good. We should be conscious of that and ensure that some appropriate system is in place. An Bord Pleanála needs to be opened up and made less secretive, but there is no other form of appeals procedure in place. It can be reformed, but it needs to be brought within the system in relation to environmental impact statements.

Mrs. Doyle

I support what has been said here already. My amendment No. 13 purports to add to section 2 (1) (b) (iv) the provision that in the event of anybody being dissatisfied with the content or adequacy of an EIS provided under this Act, that person may appeal to An Bord Pleanála who will determine whether or not the EIS is adequate and, if it determines it to be inadequate, it may require the compilation of further studies as provided for under existing environmental impact assessment regulations. For the reasons already given by Deputy McManus, I feel my amendment is reasonable, because there is an enormous disparity in the types of environmental impact statements now being produced from different sources.

The Minister might consider examining this whole area of environmental impact analysis regulations. Thankfully, it has spawned a new industry of environmental engineers and environmental professionals with one title or another. But there is no national accreditation of this new professional league. Therefore there is a huge disaparity in standards between self-appointed environmentalists right to the top professionals. We still lack a national environmental data bank, as the Environmental Protection Agency struggles into existence. When it is finally up and running, I hope this will be one of the first tasks it will be properly resourced to undertake. Because of the lack of environmental data, resources play a huge part in determining whether or not a particular EIS is extensive. Given the variety of standards and the disparity between standards of environmental impact statements at present, it is reasonable to expect that from time to time there will be dissatisfaction with a particular EIS.

My amendment No. 13 allows anyone disssatified, particularly with a State development, which normally is of some magnitude, to have recourse to An Bord Pleanála. In the interests of local democracy, of this so-called open Government, in the interests — dare I use the Taoiseach's phrase of some months ago? — of letting in the light, what is the Minister afraid of? Why is he afraid to allow third parties go to An Bord Pleanála if they are unhappy with any EIS? I do not think the Minister has anything to fear in 99.9 per cent of cases. But he is giving rise to the accusation that there is some cloak and dagger exercise being engaged in throughout this Bill because of the lack of transparency in the application of procedures. I would ask the Minister to allow access to An Bord Pleanála by any dissatisfied party in relation to any environmental impact statement.

Similarly my second amendment No. 19, which we are also discussing now, deals with section 2 (1) (b) (vi). That subsection says:

the reference to a specified person of any dispute or disagreement with respect to proposed development between a State authority and the planning authority for the area in which the proposed development is to be carried out,

Whom has the Minister in mind? I presume the Minister for Local Government. Could we have specific reference to An Bord Pleanála, as I have asked here? Why is the Minister afraid of the referral to An Bord Pleánala of any dispute or disagreement with respect to proposed development between a State authority and the planning authority for the area in which a proposed development is to be carried out? I have no difficulty in this respect. Does the Minister not trust An Bord Pleanála with the details of a State development? Is the Minister not satisfied to be said by the board in terms of the outcome of its deliberations, or what is his coyness to refer specifically to An Bord Pleanála at that point? I take it the Minister will not resort to the Environmental Protection Agency, but that would be another option. I am happy with An Bord Pleanála, given that that is the procedure we have in place, warts and all. I agree with Deputy McManus that we shall have another opportunity to discuss the actual functioning of An Bord Pleanála and the lack of openness on the part of that body, but it is there and generally does a very good job.

May I please have my amendment No. 19 accepted by the Minister. All the concerns and suspicions about what the Minister is really at in relation to this Bill could be defused if he would leave that procedure there for any aggrieved third party, a procedure that has been tried and tested over time and which I think most people feel operates reasonably well. I do not need to elaborate my case any more. I feel the Minister merely needs to allow an out for aggrieved objectors on both those amendments.

Mr. M. Smith

I thought that once I had deleted section 3 I did not have to undergo any further tests on the question of the integrity of what I wanted to do. Unfortunately, I am still being subjected to a certain amount of stress on this one.

The effect of the amendments proposed would be to incorporate An Bord Pleanála into the approval process for developments either deemed to be too sensitive to be subject to normal planning controls or where there is an alternative approval system. I must disagree fundamentally with the approach being adopted by Members on the far side of the House on this matter. The overall thrust of this Bill is to apply normal planning controls to the majority of developments by State authorities — a decision, I might add, which the Government took some considerable time before the Supreme Court judgment was given. The Government took that decision at a time when the accepted wisdom was — and supported by one High Court judgment — that the State was exempt from planning controls. The decision was taken in the interest of greater openness in regard to State development.

Our intention was, and still is, to apply the normal planning process to the vast bulk of development by State authorities. However, we must draw the line at certain matters of national security where it would be patently inappropriate to apply the normal planning process, with plans floating about in local authority offices or in the offices of An Bord Pleanála. What the Government is trying to achieve in this Bill is to provide, even in those cases, a system of public consultation, which of necessity falls short of the full planning process but which nonetheless gives full opportunity to the public and public authorities to express their views on developments proposed in this sensitive category.

Frankly, I am disappointed at the approach of Members opposite, who on Second Stage welcomed the principle of the Bill but now seek through these amendments to undermine its fundamental objectives. I want to make it clear to Members opposite that the regulatory powers this section proposes will enable a flexible approach to be taken to the different categories of development, even within the justice, national security or defence envelope. It may well be that in the case of certain categories of development it would be possible to invoke the services of a third party in resolving a dispute, but in particularly sensitive cases it would not. Even where a dispute-resolving mechanism is to be applied, I do not consider it appropriate to tie the arbitration process to An Bord Pleanála as the amendment in the names of Deputies Doyle and Keogh would seek to do.

Section 2 (1) (b) (vi) provides a mechanism which in certain circumstances could be embodied in An Bord Pleanála, but not necessarily or exclusively. Very often when we are having a discussion like this on planning there are derogatory references to our planning system. I should say I have exhaustively examined systems all over Europe and have found quite a number with no third party appeals procedure. In Denmark, where there is no planning appeals procedure whatsoever, planning permission is given by a local authority or their courts. As Members will know, that is a country with a great general environmental policy.

Therefore, we should realise that we have here a very open system which allows people to process their claims, objections or disagreements. That will be the same situation for the vast majority of cases coming under the provisions of this Bill. We are dealing here with the more sensitive developments and the Deputy is asking me to make provision for an appeal to An Bord Pleanála but that brings us back to an earlier argument. I do not want to delay the House, suffice it to say that if there is a dispute I will be prepared, by way of regulations, to ask An Bord Pleanála to become involved in some instances.

Ms Keogh

Section 2 (1) (b) (iv) reads: "the preparation of an environmental impact statement with respect to proposed development, the contents of such a statement and the making available for inspection or purchase by members of the public of such a statement...." This provides for a degree of openness on this matter which will satisfy a number of people. I do not know why, therefore, there should be a difficulty in making provision for an appeals process because this would seem to be a natural extension. It seems that people will have access to information but if they have a problem what can they do? The logical thing is to provide for an appeals mechanism.

I have tabled an amendment to the part of the Bill in which the words "specified person" are used. We should specify which third party we are talking about as the wording is too loose. While a degree of openness is provided for there is not a safeguard when things go wrong. The Minister should go one step further and reassure people on this matter.

Mrs. Doyle

I support the point made by Deputy Keogh. What is the point in making available for inspection or purchase by members of the public an environmental impact statement if all they can do is read it and allow their blood pressure to rise and have no outlet in which to make their views heard? The Minister is causing trouble for himself and he should drop the pretence that the people will be involved if he will not listen to their views on the statement.

We might be able to reach agreement on section 2 (1) (b) (vi) which includes the words "specified person". The Minister said that in some cases he may refer the matter to An Bord Pleanála but that he wants to retain the option of referring it to the Environmental Protection Agency in others. Will the Minister consider including the words "or body"? The wording would then read "the reference to a specified person or body". As it stands, it seems that the Environmental Protection Agency and An Bord Pleanála are excluded, because neither of them is a person. I would be reasonably happy if there was an avenue to An Bord Pleanála, the Environmental Protection Agency or to a Minister who might arbitrate on the matter.

Mr. M. Smith

I can give the Deputy an assurance that from a legal standpoint, the definition of "specified person" includes "a body". That is the reason I was enabled in the first instance to refer to An Bord Pleanála.

Mrs. Doyle

Is there any reason the wording cannot read "a specified person or body"?

Mr. M. Smith

That reference, which covers the two, is also in other legislation.

Mrs. Doyle

The words "specified body" are also used in legislation.

Mr. M. Smith

If there is a need to make that change I will do so——

Mrs. Doyle

It is only a small change.

Mr. M. Smith

——but I am satisfied that there is no need for it. There is no doubt that there are deficiencies in environmental impact statements. In this regard I have sponsored research and hope to be in a position to publish a report shortly which will highlight some of the inadequacies and indeed strengths on which we could build to eliminate some of the difficulties which have arisen in the past. I accept Deputy McManus's point in this regard.

In response to Deputy Keogh, I accept there is a desire to please everybody but, unfortunately, on this side of the House we have to make tough decisions.

Ms Keogh

I have been making tough decisions all my life.

Mr. M. Smith

When one is in Opposition one is provided with an opportunity to bask in the sunshine, to believe we are living in Utopia and that it is possible to satisfy everybody but we have to decide if the full planning process should be followed in respect of sensitive developments. We have decided — for good solid reasons — that it should not. The Deputy is suggesting that I should overturn everything I have agreed to and make provision for an appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

Ms Keogh

I am not.

Mr. M. Smith

The Deputy wants the full planning process to apply in all circumstances but this is not possible in a limited number of cases. The major portion can be dealt with in this way, a small number has to be dealt with through the consultative process while a tiny proportion, although not excluded, cannot be subject to the full planning process.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, not moved.

Acting Chairman

We now come to amendment No. 16 in the name of Deputy Keogh. Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are alternatives and it is proposed, therefore, that amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 3, subsection (1) (b) (v), lines 46 and 47, after "development" to insert "any information or submission pertinent to an EIS shall be made available to the relevant Local Authority and An Bord Pleanála".

I hope the Minister will not lecture me about the need to make harsh decisions. On this amendment, we are not even trying to suggest that a decision should be made. If bodies, such as An Bord Pleanála, will be available or if the EIS has relevance for a local authority why not give them the information? That would seem to be the logical thing to do. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

Ms McManus

If the Minister does not accept this amendment we will have to raise questions about his approach. It is a reasonable request. The Minister should remember that very often local authorities are the human face of bureaucracy and that local councillors have to translate enigmatic decisions made at the top so that they can be easily understood by the public. Very often local authorities feel that they are by-passed when it comes to the making of decisions by central Government. These amendments propose that the information should be given to the relevant local authority and to An Bord Pleanála. The Minister may underestimate the distance which exists between ordinary people and central Government in terms of the giving out of information. Any measure which can bridge that gulf will be beneficial.

Mr. M. Smith

I spent a very pleasant day in Wicklow——

Ms McManus

The Minister is always welcome back.

Mr. M. Smith

——trying to ensure that the Department and the local authority were at one and there was no distance between them. I am one of the first Ministers for the Environment to have sat in a council chamber in an effort to ensure that that distance, which I readily admit can sometimes exist, is removed as quickly as possible.

In so far as the relevant local authority is concerned, section 2(1)(b)(ii) allows regulations to require the State authority proposing a development to give the relevant planning authority any notice, documents, particulars, plans or other information which may be specified in the regulations. For that reason, I do not consider that the specific provision for giving EIS-related submissions to the planning authority, as proposed by the Deputy, is necessary. However, I will give very careful consideration to the intent underlying this amendment when I am designing the regulations.

With regard to the proposal that EIS-related submissions should be given to An Bord Pleanála, I wish to point out that the Board will be involved in the procedure of public notice and involvement to be established under section 2(1)(b) only if it is specified as the body to which disputes between the promoting State authority and the local authority concerned are to be referred. If the Board is so specified the power under section 2 (1) (b) (ii) could in any event be used to ensure that all relevant information, including possibly EIS-related submissions received by the State authority, is made available to it. I think it is clear that the Board will have complete access to the documentation in all the cases in which it is involved. I intend to put this proposal into effect in the regulations; there is no need to do this in primary legislation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments No. 17 and 18 not moved.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 3, subsection (1) (b) (vi), line 48, to delete "a specified person" and substitute "An Bord Pleanála".

I ask the Minister to consider including the word "body" in addition to the word "person" in this section as it would give comfort to people who are concerned about the language he is using as distinct from his intent in the Bill generally.

Mr. M. Smith

As I said, my legal advice is that the Deputy's fears in this regard are groundless. The word "person" adequately covers the word "body".

Ms Keogh

I accept the point made by the Minister in regard to the word "body". I was concerned that the term "a specified person" related to a nameless person. The Environmental Protection Agency may be a specified body, and I accept the Minister's interpretation of the wording.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 4, subsection (1) (b) (vii), lines 5 and 6, after "considerations" to insert ", especially any conservation or preservation designations provided for under the Acts as well as any environmental studies relating to the intended location prepared by the relevant authority; or by any statutory or official body since the Acts came into effect in 1964 even if that body is no longer extant".

The purpose of this amendment is to try to prevent any anticipated environmental conflict in terms of the siting of a proposed development by the State. If the State insists on a particular location for a development which is enviromentally sensitive, these issues should be evaluated from the outset, preferably by means of an environmental impact statement. The intention in this amendment is that a State authority should at the outset have regard to existing planning studies or strategies in terms of site selection criteria which have been adopted by local authorities or to any planning studies produced directly by such bodies or commissioned by them.

It is important to recognise that many of our planning studies were produced by An Foras Forbartha, a body which did much excellent work in its day. These studies are still fundamental in terms of conservation of our natural and manmade heritage. I am referring to studies such as the Inventory of Outstanding Landscapes in Ireland which was published in 1977 and the Areas of Scientific Interest in Ireland which was published in 1981. Neither of these categories enjoys statutory protection, although the Office of Public Works has started to re-survey the areas of scientific interest with a view to including them within the natural heritage areas which were intended to have statutory protection under the Wildlife Bill, whenever we will see that. I am particularly interested in works carried out by bodies which are no longer extant, works which are essential to our understanding, appreciation and proper planning and development of many areas. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.

Mr. M. Smith

Section 2 (1) (b) (vii) provides that regulations establishing a procedure of public notice and consultation for a limited range of developments should be taken outside the planning process by way of regulations under section 2 (1) (a) which may require the promoting State authority to have regard to specified matters or considerations. Deputy Doyle's amendment appears to be designed to spell out what these matters and considerations should include. However, it is not clear to what the Deputy is referring in any conservation or preservation designation and environmental studies prepared by the relevant authority or any statutory or official body since the planning Acts came into force. I think the Deputy will agree that the wording of the amendment is vague and would be open to many different interpretations. The matters raised by the Deputy could be best dealt with by way of regulations as distinct from primary legislation. I will examine these matters in the context of the regulations.

Mrs. Doyle

I accept much of what the Minister has said. However, it brings us back to our concern about the amount of legislation being implemented by way of regulations. We will not have any opportunity to discuss these regulations or have an input into them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Acting Chairman

We now come to amendment No. 22 in the names of Deputies Keogh and Gilmore. Amendment No. 23 is related. I suggest that we take amendments, Nos. 22 and 23 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 4, subsection (2) (a), line 14, to delete "or is otherwise necessary in the public interest".

This amendment proposes to delete the phrase "or is otherwise necessary in the public interest" from section 2 (2) (a). I raised this matter in my Second Stage contribution. This entire section seems to border on the unconstitutional. I am not a constitutional lawyer but this section appears to enable a Minister to make an order which, in effect, is legislation. I have great fears about this. I am seeking to restrict the Minister's powers in this regard by deleting the words "or is otherwise necessary in the public interest" from this section. My advice — I seek the Minister's guidance in this respect — is that the Bill as currently drafted would create a power equivalent to section 84 of the 1963 Planning Act, as it existed prior to the recent Supreme Court decision. I am seeking in my amendment to restrict the scope of this section. I should like to hear the Minister's views on the amendment. Whatever about exercising power for the purpose of public safety or order and the administration of justice why must a Minister be given wide discretionary powers?

Mr. Gilmore

This could be described as a problem of setaside. In this section, the Minister wants to set aside the planning legislation in certain cases where he can make an order allowing certain developments to go ahead irrespective of the planning legislation. I do not have any argument about works of that type going ahead in cases of accidents or emergencies, for example after a bad storm a road, a bridge or a building may be damaged and require certain emergency work. We all understand such work is urgent and the Minister can make an order in those circumstances. However, it is proposed that the Minister will have that power in cases that are described here as "otherwise necessary in the public interest". That is a wide canvass. Virtually any development by or for a State body could be described as being in the public interest. When a nuclear power station was proposed for Carnsore Point it was argued at that time that it was in the public interest. I do not have any difficulty with retaining the provision in regard to accidents and emergencies — that is very obviously necessary — but I do not accept the wider sweep of development deemed necessary in the public interest. In an emergency, it is fair enough that the Minister can make an order as he is subsequently accountable to the House for that but why, in cases which are neither an accident nor emergency, can he not proceed in the normal way as set down in legislation? Will the Minister agree to delete that provision?

Mrs. Doyle

I support the case made by the two previous speakers on this significant section. Again, the expression "in the public interest" causes some concern because I cannot imagine what State development could not be justified as in the public interest. What is in our interest is not often what we like, it is like medicine, you have to take it even if you do not like it but the end result can be to your benefit. If the Minister indicated a development that might not be in the public interest we could begin to try to understand how broad the section is. The scope of this provision is far too wide and if enacted as drafted it would be creating, as Deputy Keogh said, a power equivalent to section 84 of the 1963 Act as understood prior to the latest Supreme Court judgment.

The amendments we are discussing would overcome this difficulty by restricting the impact of the section specifically to the exempt classes in section 2 (1) (a) (i) that we have debated. If the Minister does not accept our amendments his intent must be greater than to provide for national security considerations. If that is so perhaps will he explain it to us? The expression, "in the public interest", is not defined and I cannot understand what State development would not be in the public interest. Will the Minister take our amendment on board?

Mr. M. Smith

This matter was raised on Second Stage. I was worried about its inclusion when we were establishing the parameters within which we wanted to work. I believed the word "emergency" would cover virtually every possible eventuality that I could think of. I was subsequently advised that there could be circumstances which I cannot specify — perhaps tentative security elements where there would be no public involvement and it would have to be carried out on a confidential basis — that the word "emergency" might not cover. I have looked exhaustively at any potential area that might not come under what I understand to be an emergency and I have not been able to satisfy myself that there is one at this stage. I may well be taking a risk in doing this because the strong advice available to me is that I might not be able to cover everything. It was never intended that this would be the wide measure that Deputy Gilmore seeks to impute to it by his amendment. Nonetheless I will take the risk of accepting the amendment.

Mr. Gilmore

I appreciate the Minister agreeing to accept this amendment.

Ms Keogh

There was grave disquiet about that phase. I do not believe the Minister is taking a risk by accepting our amendment and I thank him for that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 4, subsection (2) (a), line 14, after "interest" to insert "as provided for in section 2 (1)(a)(i) of this Act".

Will the Minister clarify the scope of the subsection? Will it apply only to those areas covered by section 2 (1) (a) (i)? If we are talking about an emergency or accident, we are back to national security provisions, or is that what we are to understand?

Mr. M. Smith

We are dealing not only with security problems, as there may be storm damage or other emergency problems.

Mrs. Doyle

Would that be covered by "public safety or order"? I believe it would be covered by that subsection. Am I right in suggesting that the Minister is limiting the scope to section 2 (1) (a) (i), that emergencies, accidents and storm damage would come under public safety or order? There are concerns about the scope of section 2 (1) (a).

Mr. M. Smith

I am advised we are dealing with accidents and emergencies and that has nothing to do with security.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 24 has been discussed with amendment No. 3, which Deputy Doyle withdrew.

Amendment No. 24 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 25 is in the name of Deputies Keogh, Doyle and Gilmore. Amendment No. 26 is related and it is proposed to take amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 4, subsection (3), line 32, to delete "enactment or".

On this side of the House we are at one on this amendment. The reason for our amendment is that legislation should not be amended by means of a statutory instrument and that any change in a section of an Act has fundamental legal implications and thus should require the consent of the Oireachtas. I am told it is doubtful in a legal sense if the Minister can implement changes to an Act by means of a statutory instrument. I refer back to the comments I made yesterday about bypassing the Oireachtas in regard to changing legislation.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister has already circulated his own amendment in relation to section 3 which he is proposing to delete. This is something I welcome. The amendment we are debating now deals with much the same issue in that regulations would modify enactments as opposed to statutory instruments. It would appear to be consistent with the deletion of section 3 that the Minister would also accept this amendment since it relates solely to enactments.

Mr. M. Smith

I propose the deletion of section 3.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must complete section 2. We are dealing with amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Mrs. Doyle

We are straddling two sections.

Mr. M. Smith

Section 2 (3) is a standard provision which has been used in many enactments over the years. I offer, for example, section 52 of the Local Government Act, 1991. It is an essential fail-safe mechanism to enable minor — I stress "minor"— amendments to be made to existing statutes should this be necessary to facilitate the smooth transition to a new system such as the one this Bill is seeking to introduce. In my experience regulations to amend statutes are rarely necessary, but it is essential that the power should be there should it be necessary to facilitate the new system. I have to stress however that the circumstances in which the power may be used are extremely narrow by virtue of the wording of section 2 (3). It most certainly is not a carte blanche for the Minister to amend primary legislation by regulations. Section 2 (3) specifically limits the use of regulatory power to enabling the regulations to have full effect. I am therefore opposing this amendment. I hope however that the decision I have taken in relation to section 3 is taken as absolute proof of the narrowness in which this provision has to operate and also to ensure that the frustrations of the Opposition are compensated for by being able to play a full role in ensuring that the total wisdom of this House is applied to the laws we try to enact.

Mrs. Doyle

I welcome the Minister's decision in relation to section 3, which is even more generous than my amendment was suggesting in that I was allowing the Minister to retain the provisions only in relation to areas of development as outlined in section 2 (1) (a) (i). I welcome the Minister's amendment and wholeheartedly support it. We have rehearsed many times in this House our concerns in relation to legislation by way of delegated authority through the regulation procedure. It is being used to such an excessive extent that we need a full debate on the use of regulations or statutory instruments for legislating. I am concerned, as I know my colleagues on the Opposition benches are, at the number of times in this Bill alone the Minister has made provision by way of regulation at some later stage to make changes or amendments in this legislation. My quibble with the Minister is that many of them are not minor changes. The whole procedure was envisaged for minor changes, and we would not want to thwart a Minister being able to make minor changes without having to come before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The change may have to be made when the Houses are not sitting. However, I am afraid we have gone way past the concept of a minor change in terms of the use of the regulation; but that needs a more extended debate than we can give it today.

Ms Keogh

I accept what the Minister said about amendment No. 25. I thank him for listening to the misgivings voiced yesterday about regulations. I said on Second Stage that I felt this section should not be contained in the Bill. Without going over old territory again I want to reiterate my misgivings about the widespread use of regulations. Already this morning the Minister has given us some reassurance in that regard. By deleting section 3 he is going a little further down that road and I thank him. But, through the Minister, we should put other Ministers on notice about the way people view government by regulation. The Minister's action is some small concession, but it is welcome.

Mr. Gilmore

I join in the welcome and appreciation for the Minister's action in agreeing to delete section 3. I spoke about this yesterday and I congratulate the Minister on agreeing to its deletion. He has on a number of occasions accused me of degrees of scepticism about his intentions — perhaps unwarranted scepticism — I appreciate that he has shown quite a degree of willingness to take on board the concerns expressed by the Opposition.

We are dealing with the whole area of regulations. The regulations cannot take effect until the Bill takes effect. Concern was expressed yesterday about when the Bill would come into operation. Perhaps the Minister would avail of this opportunity to indicate to us whether he has had any thoughts in that area since we discussed it yesterday.

Mr. M. Smith

I want to ensure that the period of time is adequate to enable us to take into account, employment considerations in the State area, involving for instance, the National Gallery, the National Library, social welfare offices and decentralisation programmes. Millions of pounds are involved in very significant employment projects which have gone through the consultative process. It will be necessary for me to bring in those provisions quickly and I intend to do so next week. This would mean that the one year would extend to mid-June 1994. In reference to Deputy Gilmore's amendment, that is close enough in order to have practically no difference between what I want to achieve and what is being sought on the other side. It will come into operation in or about 17 or 18 June 1994.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2, as amended, put and declared carried.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.

Section 3 deleted.

SECTION 4.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are alternatives amd may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 4, line 44, after "planning" to insert "and sanitary".

Mr. M. Smith

This amendment does not extend the scope of the Bill because the planning authorities are also sanitary authorities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 28 not moved.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 5, line 1, after "persons" to insert "and prescribed bodies for the purposes of section 21 (1) (a) of the Principal Act as provided for in S.I. No. 65 of 1977".

Mr. M. Smith

I do not consider that the change suggested by the Deputies is necessary. As it stands, paragraph (a) (ii) of the new subsection (1) which amends section 78 of the Planning Act 1963 allows local authorities to be required to give notice of, or information about, proposed development to any specified persons. Persons in this context would include legal as well as natural citizens and it will be possible to require local authorities to give notice and information to particular groups, organisations and bodies. I will consider whether this requirement should include bodies prescribed for development plan purposes under article 6 of the 1977 planning regulations but, in my view, it would not be appropriate to spell out what is essentially a detailed matter of this nature in primary legislation. This argument has been covered more than adequately and I have nothing further to add.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 30 and 32 are related and No. 33 is an alternative to No. 32. Therefore, all three may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 5, line 6, after "information" to insert "including any report or reports made to the elected members of the local authority".

Mr. M. Smith

Amendment No. 30 envisages the submission of reports to the elected members of local authorities at an earlier stage then the report provided for under subsection (1) (a) (v) of section 78 of the principal Act as amended by section 4 of the Bill. This would run contrary to the new arrangements proposed for development by local authorities. Under these arrangements there would be full public disclosure of proposals for local authority development including the making available of relevant documentation and there will be a full opportunity for making submissions to the local authority about the proposed development. It is only after that procedure has been followed that the report will be prepared and submitted to the elected members. In those circumstances, the Deputies might consider withdrawing the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 would involve making available to the public the reports prepared for them under the new arrangements now being introduced. I have no objection in principle to this but as those reports are prepared by and for local authorities I would prefer to leave it to them to decide the manner in which they should be brought into the public domain. In any event, those reports would be considered at meetings with the elected members and would, therefore, become public knowledge through media reporting and so on. I would prefer to leave it to the local authorities to make arrangements for making such reports public and, therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendments. Deputies will appreciate that in regard to amendment No. 33, what is proposed would be a matter for local authorities. They have the freedom to decide in such matters circumstances might arise where they would not consider it wise to do as suggested but I am unable to give an example of any such instance at present.

Mrs. Doyle

In regard to amendment No. 33, is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that under the freedom of access to environmental information provision the public will have access to the information referred to in amendment No. 33 and that local authorities will not be able to prevent or preclude an outside body or person from access to such information?

Mr. M. Smith

We will be debating those regulations next Wednesday when we will have an opportunity to discuss the relevant details. However, I have specified clearly in those regulations how the system will operate. In most cases local authorities are obliged to provide such information and in no case am I precluding them from doing so. Obviously, democratic decisions will have to be taken at local level but I have no wish to become involved in such matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 5, lines 9 and 10, after "development" to insert "including the right to an oral hearing".

I tabled this amendment because the matter is unclear. Perhaps it was intended that an oral hearing or submission would farm part of the consultative process which is a fundamental right in circumstances where an environmental impact statement is being prepared. Would the Minister accept in the interest of transparency, provision should be made for oral hearings?

Mr. M. Smith

I made it clear during the debate on this Bill that the Government is committed to ensuring that procedures are in place which will allow the public adequate opportunity to be informed about, and to express their views on, development proposals by State authorities and local authorities alike. Regulations relating to local authority development proposals which would be made under section 78 of the 1963 Act, as amended by section 4 of this Bill, will provide for the right to make submissions, or to express observations, to local authorities. Account will have to be taken of those submissions or observations in the report on the proposed development which will be submitted to the elected members of the local authorities and this will enable the elected members to take full account of the public concerns and opinions when deciding whether developments should be allowed to proceed. I am satisfied that those procedures allow ample opportunity for public participation and I do not consider it necessary to make provision for oral hearings. The system of public consultation proposed is full and open and with proper advanced planning of works by local authorities this should not disrupt the programme of works essential to make our country competitive.

Those developments are substantially underpinned by European funds and the Culliton and Moriarty reports which support investment of this type. It is important that local democratically elected members are involved and that is something the Progressive Democrats espouse.

Mr. Molloy

We are still waiting for the Minister's proposals.

Mr. M. Smith

We might not always agree, but in circumstances where submissions are made and public involvement is encouraged we should rely on the balance of wisdom.

Ms Keogh

I agree. The Minister suggested earlier that I might have a slightly suspicious nature. I do not believe I am suspicious but I am certainly not naive. Would the Minister agree that with the best will in the world submissions or observations put to local authorities for consideration by members might not always be examined thoroughly? I accept that such submissions and observations are examined thoroughly in Dún Laoghaire, but we are special. The prospect of an oral hearing would be reassuring for the general public.

Mr. M. Smith

I have just come through a battle relating to the provision of a halting site in my own constituency. The site is delightfully landscaped and beautifully built with good sanitary facilities and lovely people living there. The system the Deputy is advocating would never have allowed that development to take place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 34. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related. It is suggested that amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 36 be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms Keogh

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(vi) the proposal shall then be referred to An Bord Pleanála and/or the Environmental Protection Agency for approval."

I will not comment until I hear the Minister's views.

Mr. M. Smith

Section 4 of the Bill provides for the replacement of subsection (1) of section 78 of the 1963 Planning Act. Under the new subsection the Minister for the Environment will be given power to establish, by way of regulations, a procedure of public notice and participation in respect of certain local authority development. Under these proposals a local authority would be obliged to prepare a report on relevant development for submission to the elected members. It would be open to the councillors at that stage to use their power under section 3 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, to direct the manager that the development should not be carried out.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 envisage the final decision in relation to local authority development being taken out of the hands of the local authority's elected members and passed to either An Bord Pleanála, the Environmental Protection Agency or the Minister for the Environment. Under EC legislation, there is a requirement that major developments by local authorities be subjected to EIA procedures and authorisation by a third party. The Irish regulations implementing this EC Directive vest the authorisation in the Minister for the Environment. I do not accept that an authorisation procedure should apply to all local authority development. This would run counter to the principles of local democracy which suggest that the decision as to whether local authority development is to proceed should rest with the authority's elected members. This will be the position pertaining under the framework to be established under the Bill and I am afraid I cannot agree to any amendments which would alter this position.

In regard to amendment No. 35 I should point out that the new public notice and participation procedures established under the new section 78 (1) of the 1963 Act which section 4 of the Bill will insert, will require a local authority to publish notice of proposed development and at a later stage to prepare a report on the matter for submission to the local authority elected members. The Deputy's amendment seeks to have a further notice published after this report is presented to the elected members. I am at a loss to understand what would be achieved by the publication of a notice at that stage of the process as the councillors will have decided by then whether the development is to proceed.

Ms Keogh

I said yesterday that if there was not an appeals procedure then those who feel offended by the decision of local councillors need to have recourse to the courts. Unfortunately councillors may base decisions on well founded reasons and with the best motives which may not be in keeping with strict planning criteria. An independent third party such as An Bord Pleanála would alleviate this problem.

Mr. M. Smith

We are returning to a debate we had earlier. I do not want it to be thought I was suggesting that Deputy Keogh is naive. That was not my intention. It seems that the Deputy is fundamentally of the view that it is possible to reconcile irreconcilable differences. I have no problem with the principle of trying to do that and the Deputy will appreciate that there is balancing to be done in the context of many developments that have to be carried out. I have sought to ensure that in the case of housing developments the new procedures for a better social mix are put in place. These are already causing stresses in the areas the Deputy speaks of such as housing and the provision of sites for itinerants. In making decisions local councillors must have regard to the county development plan and to submissions. Up to now local authorities proceeded with developments without consultation. That is now being changed. We have to rely on the democratic strength at local level to take sensible decisions and the public will have an opportunity to determine whether their views are fully recognised in decisions at local level.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 37.

In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(vi) the present requirement on local authorities to acquire planning permission for developments outside their functional area shall apply to joint ventures between two or more local authorities for developments in the functional area of one of the said local authorities.".

The amendment is self-explanatory. Let me bring an example to the Minister's notice. At the moment there is a joint venture between Cork Corporation and Cork County Council for sewage treatment works at Little Island in the functional area of Cork County Council. I want to be assured, where there is a joint venture between two or more local authorities for a development in the functional area of one of the said local authorities, that planning permission would be required.

Mr. Allen

There may be a serious loophole in the planning laws. I am concerned that the present laws will allow a local authority to go ahead with a development and that the public will have very little input to the decision making process. My colleague, Deputy Doyle, instanced the joint venture in Little Island, County Cork, where Cork County Council and Cork Corporation will develop a very comprehensive and high-tech sewage treatment plant. I want the Minister's assurances that that project will be subject to the planning laws, in other words, that the authorities will have to apply for planning permission and that the residents of the area will have the right to make their views known. A comprehensive environmental impact statement has been produced but neither the residents nor the businesses in the area was consulted or had any input to that report. Generally speaking, they were ignored. There is a golf course in that area which was recently funded by Structural Funds. It employes 37 local people but it is at risk. Houses in the area will be seriously devalued and, under the present planning laws, the people there will have no right to object. Their only recourse will be through the courts.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the present laws place an obligation on the local authority to apply for planning permission and that the public have the right to submit their views in regard to such developments? If that is not the case will the Minister accept this amendment?

Mr. M. Smith

As I explained on Second Stage local authorities must obtain planning permission for developments, other than road works, which they plan to undertake outside their functional area. This means for example, that an urban district council proposing to build houses or construct a sewage treatment plant in a county council area must obtain planning permission for the works in the same manner as a private developer.

Mrs. Doyle

What about joint ventures?

Mr. M. Smith

This is provided in local government law. Section 59 of the Local Government Act, 1955, permits local authorities to enter into an agreement under which one authority will exercise or perform, powers, functions or duties for the other. This could, for instance, mean that a county council and urban district council might agree that the county council would carry out a particular development for the urban district council in the county council's area. In that event, I do not consider it would be appropriate to require an application for planning permission to be made to the county council. The correct course in those circumstances would be for the county council to engage in public consultation in accordance with the new procedures to be provided under section 78 of the 1963 Act, as amended by section 4 of the Bill.

Mrs. Doyle

That does not cover joint ventures.

Mr. M. Smith

I cannot deal in this legislation with a specific instance other than to say that the public consultative processes which are now being put in place involve informing the public of proposed plans for such developments and their location and so on, as referred to by Deputy Allen.

I had the pleasure of visiting a new plant on the outskirts of Bandon town in County Cork recently. It is important in debates like this that account is taken of advances in technology so that the public are assured that the type of plants being installed meet very high environmental standards and must meet the requirements set down in environmental impact statements.

Mrs. Doyle

Time is running out.

Mr. M. Smith

The public can be assured that in regard to my Department those provisions and the financial provisions included such statements, the best possible treatment plants on a par with the best in the world today will be provided.

Mr. Allen

The Minister has just confirmed that the people of Little Island and surrounding areas will have no rights because he has now confirmed that under the planning laws joint ventures between two local authorities will be exempt from planning permission. The only way people of that area, and elsewhere, who are involved in joint ventures with local authorities can have their problems dealt with is if this amendment is accepted by the Minister. Despite the Minister's assertions about modern sewage treatment plants and high technology in joint ventures with local authorities the rights of the public are being seriously undermined and the only recourse people have is through the courts which is expensive. Most communities are ill-equipped to deal with matters in that way. I appeal to the Minister to be pro-people and allow communities to become involved and to protect their interests and properties. In this case the rights of people and communities may be overridden by bureaucracy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As it is now 2.15 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendment set down by the Minister for the Environment on Committee Stage and not disposed of is hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of that the section or, as appropriate the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in committee; that the title is hereby agreed to in committee; that the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 38.

Tá

• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Bree, Declan.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Costello, Joe.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Eithne.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Hughes, Séamus.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kenny, Seán.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Broughan, Tommy.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Derek.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Penrose, William.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Smith, Michael.
• Spring, Dick.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Upton, Pat.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Ahearn, Theresa.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harney, Mary.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McDowell, Michael.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McManus, Liz.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Dempsey and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Keogh.

Amendment declared carried.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.