It will. It will be cross-referenced to this by the board itself.
I will deal with specific references because I have strayed somewhat from them. The amendments would change the requirements on the question of what information is available to the public on both pre-planning applications and mediation meetings. It is important that minuted meetings be kept, and as I have mentioned, this is specifically required.
I am satisfied that the transparency flows from section 37C, which provides that all such meetings must be recorded in detail by the board, and that these records will be available on the planning files. These give greater transparency than one might find in many planning decisions from local authorities around the country. I am also happy that 37F(3) similarly requires the board to make a record of any mediation meetings. Both of the types of meeting Deputies are concerned about are dealt with.
Amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 84, which I cannot accept, would change what the board must keep on public files with regard to pre-application consultations. The current requirements in the Bill, that the board must keep a record of any consultations held, are broader than these amendments. I am sure it is not the intention of the people moving the amendments to limit the process. However, the current arrangements are broader than what the amendments would bring about. We had this discussion in the Seanad and on Committee Stage. I want the full record of consultations to be public, and that process is provided for in the Bill.
With regard to amendment No. 39 to section 37C, that would require information to be provided within certain timeframes in advance of pre-application discussion. It is vital that the board be given sufficient time to consider information. The unintentional effect is to put a straitjacket on the board with the issue of timeframes. As it currently stands, the board has the right to regulate itself and make good rules for its own operation. It is more prudent to leave it to the board to determine issues relating to timeframes.
The concerns expressed by Deputies, which are not unreasonable, are well addressed in sections 37C and 37F(3), and by reference to the good practice which has grown as a result of the 2000 Act. For those reasons I do not accept the amendments.