I welcome Ms Graham and the team from the Custom House. They are clearly very able and full of expertise. At the outset, I welcome the review of the Planning and Development Act. It is important people are able to read it. Clearly, there have been so many amendments and changes that it makes this complex. This possibly gives us an amazing opportunity if we collaborate and genuinely work together.
I am mindful that, this week alone, there are four or five cases for judicial review down in the courts and in the Custom House. I acknowledge the bravery and courage of our citizens who have had to put their money where their mouth is and challenge the planning system. I had a look today at the number of successes and the many times the board gave way and did not contest. Clearly, the courts are saying something and we are at odds somewhere. Many of these people have been vindicated but at great personal stress and cost to them. I am very familiar with a number in my own area who have literally had crowdfunding or where they have literally had their houses on the line to vindicate and make a case. They are our heroes, they are our citizens, and I will never apologise for defending them.
I have been associated with a number of these very successful judicial reviews. It is very rewarding when you have beaten the system but it is a tough and hard system and, many times, it is against the citizen. Let us not demonise the citizen, let us not demonise An Taisce, and let us not demonise those in the environmental pillar, who have every right to make a case for their communities and in regard to the environment. I want to say that because it is important.
On another point, where are the architects of the strategic housing development, SHD, process? I do not want to personalise anything but the witnesses know where they are and they know the positions they hold in planning and in local government. What does that say to those of us who have been Members of these Houses for the past five or six years and who time and time again cautioned the Department, the officials and the planning experts that we had serious concerns? There was a midterm review of the SHD and they did not listen to us. I took it down today to have another read but that is yesterday and we have to move on. I genuinely say that but let us learn the lessons and learn from people who took the time to engage in that process.
I hope this is a new start for us all, and I say that genuinely. We have to learn from the Mahon tribunal but let us not have a lecture about that. We recognise this has to be planning led and I acknowledge that the national planning framework, NPF, is the height of the hierarchy, so let us accept that. Let us put things out there that are correct, let us not apologise for them and let us work down from them. It is planning led.
We need confidence and openness. If ever we needed confidence and openness in the planning process, we needed it in recent weeks. I am not going to comment any further but I will just say that the public does not have the confidence it should have in the planning process and the procedures that deal with the issues that may arise and that will be, it is hoped, addressed.
I acknowledge the work of An Taisce. I acknowledge there are challenges around the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, and there are particular challenges around local government. There is daily commentary around the OPR, and while it is not all justified, we have to look at the relationship between the OPR and others. It is a new office and it is bedding down. My experience has always been an extremely positive one, and I want to put that on the record. We in the Houses would be very familiar with the OPR. That is important.
I do not want to see this legislation used in any way to dampen down on the prescribed bodies. I do not want there to be a significant additional cost for the citizens and prescribed bodies to engage in amazing work. I live in an area where people have fought strongly and hard to protect the built and natural environment, with great success, and I acknowledge that work.
I also acknowledge the work of the environmental pillar. I echo Deputy Ó Broin in that there will be litigation if people feel they are somehow being dumbed down in regard to their own right to engage as citizens in the planning process. I want to flag the issue of the Aarhus Convention. We have international obligations in regard to the convention and we need to remind ourselves of that, although I am not saying we are not doing that.
I come back to Ms Graham's opening statement, which is positive. I want to be positive but I want to get these things off my chest and I want to keep saying them because they are important. There were five or six issues. I agree with the point on the completeness of the transposition of the EU directive. Ms Graham referred to respect for the role of the public and I agree with her 100%. We must respect the role of the public in engaging in our planning process and respect their representative bodies and their community bodies. We must see this as part of our overall reform of local government in terms of empowering the citizen. We are talking about directly elected mayors as a policy for government and, therefore, they have to have confidence in this system and confidence in the regional authorities.
That is important and she is dead right to point it out.
I want to acknowledge the advisory forum, on which the AILG and LAMA sit. I would like to have more of their members on it. Other groups such as the CCMA are part of other consultative bodies, but at least there are two members on the advisory forum. I ask that the Department continues to engage through education and advice in the annual conferences, and to keep upskilling members and keep them abreast of developments. They are the stakeholders and the ambassadors for this policy. They are the ones who explain it to the public. They meet people at the coalface of planning decisions. That is important, and was echoed by Ms Graham.
The statement refers to embedding the role of the elected members of our councils in a meaningful public participation and plan-making process. There is work to be done there. I was a councillor for many years and councillors have told me that something is not really our plan any more and it is not the OPR but rather the managers, chief executives or developers who are involved. There is a bit of work to be done there. We need to be clear and honest with people about their function and power.
On county development plans, I agree with the witnesses. I have had three or four county development plans through my hands. A period of six to seven years is not long enough; ten years might be too long. The cycle of local government is five years, which means that there could be someone in a council who would never have dealt with a development plan. Continuity, public participation and engagement with councillors are important. Perhaps it should be a period of eight years, but it should be reviewed. The current reviews are a joke and are not meaningful to any great extent. The time should be extended to eight years, possibly, but there should be a meaningful review.
I wish the witnesses well. I want to be positive about this. I see it as a journey and opportunity to engage with our elected councillors and all our stakeholders and, more importantly, the witnesses who are driving this policy, which is basically Government policy. I hope after all of this we can have greater empathy for one another and greater understanding of where we are coming from. We live in an economy as well as a society and face challenges. I have no questions. I want to work constructively with the witnesses to get a comprehensive and fair, equitable and open policy going forward.
