Vol. 136 No. 13
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (1) (b) (iv), line 45, to delete "or" and substitute "and".
The Bill, as drafted, states that an environmental impact statement will be made available for inspection or purchase by members of the public. This amendment asks that the statement should be available for inspection and purchase, and not just one or the other.
The Senator's fear is that one would not have the choice to do either. I am advised there is no question but a person can do both, either purchase or inspect an environmental impact statement. It will be open to the public to exercise the choice to buy, inspect, or both within the existing language and that has been checked with the legal division.
I take it as an assurance that, in the event of the consultation process working to its fullest and there was demand for both, it would be agreed to provide both.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, subsection (1) (b) (iv), line 46, after "statement" to insert "and such a statement shall be subject to appeal to An Bord Pleanála if required".
Several references have been made in this debate about ministerial discretion and the absence of a third party independent body which can adjudicate. The absolute necessity for such a body was demonstrated on Second Stage and by, for example, the opposing views that were expressed about the interpretative centres. The Minister made a relevant point in his reply to the debate when he said that perhaps we dwelt too much on those aspects of the legislation. I realise those cases prompted the legislation but, nevertheless, there are wider implications. Where there are fundamental differences, and communities can take fundamentally opposing positions, it is very difficult even for the Minister to adjudicate in those areas. That is why the amendment states where the statement is prepared it should be subject to appeal to An Bord Pleanála if required.
The effect of this amendment would be to insert An Bord Pleanála into an approval process for State authority developments either deemed too sensitive to be subject to normal planning controls or where there is an alternative approval system. I do not agree with this approach. The overall trust of the Bill is to apply the normal planning controls to the majority of developments. It is necessary, however, to draw the line in certain matters of national security where it would be inappropriate to apply the normal planning process with plans floating about in local authority offices or in the offices of An Bord Pleanála.
In this Bill the Government is trying to provide, even in these cases, a system of public consultation which of necessity falls short of a full planning process but which nonetheless gives every opportunity to the public and the public authorities to express their views on developments proposed in this sensitive category.
I wish to make it clear that the regulatory powers which 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 sphere. It may well be that in the case of certain categories of development, it would be possible to invoke the service of a third party in resolving a dispute. In particularly sensitive cases it would not be possible. Even where a dispute resolving mechanism is to be applied, I do not believe it appropriate to tie the arbitration process to An Bord Pleanála as the amendment seeks.
I understand the Senator's concern about trying to find solutions to disputes but in the final analysis the Government's decision is that matters relating to security and defence cannot be subject to the full rigours of the planning and control systems. I am going as far as I can on the consultative basis where that is possible but, ultimately, decisions have to be taken to proceed in order to safeguard people and property in certain circumstances. To expand the idea in the way suggested by the Senator would not be in the interest of public safety and security.
I appreciate what the Minister has said. I also appreciate that in areas of security, it would be illogical to assume that the State cannot protect its security where there is an urgent need to do so and that vexatious or obstructionist tactics could be used to prevent that happening. A situation could arise where subversives could use the law to their advantage to prevent certain things being done. That is not the intention of the amendment, but it relates to a wider issue: who or what is the court of appeal? Will the Minister adjudicate?
There were certain very offensive things said here today about people who were allegedly élitist and fundamentalist. There was just as much fundamentalism on one side of the argument as there was on the other in respect of the interpretative centres. There is a small number of individuals who are the bulwarks against excesses by the State. I do not always agree with them, but I respect their motives because there are State resources which would have been sacrificed without their vigilance, but this is only a related point. The principal point I wish to make concerns the court of appeal; to whom have we recourse when there is a fundamental difference of opinion between two sides as to what should take place?
This is difficult to answer, beyond saying that in given circumstances, it may not be possible to have recourse to the consultative process because you may have to take certain decisions out of the planning control system altogether where security is involved. We both agree that doing this in certain circumstances would not be welcome, but it could happen. There will be other less severe circumstances where arbitration may be involved. The Bill specifies a person to do that. In certain circumstances, the current Minister for the Environment, An Bord Pleanála or some other person or body could be selected by the Minister of the time to adjudicate.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, line 6, after "development" to insert "including the right to an oral hearing".
This covers the same point and I have an instance where it worked. There was an oral hearing where people could come and express their views on whether the controversial county development plan on the Carton estate in County Kildare should proceed to allow some development to take place with a view to protecting the house. One of the advantages of this process is that if people have access to a forum and believe the consultative process is a proper and full one, the steam tends to be taken out of these situations. A formal procedure where those views can be taken into account would avoid some of the more extreme controversies that have taken place in the past.
It has been made abundantly clear during the debate, in my Second Stage speech and again in my concluding remarks, that the full consultative process and the involvement of the public in the decision making processes of local authorities will be the order of the day, and the regulations to bring that into effect will be put in place. The local authority will be obliged to prepare submissions and then submit them for decision to the locally elected members. I do not believe we should add another layer in the context of oral hearings. We should give what is a new free-flowing, open and transparent system an opportunity to find its place in local authority development. Because of the nature of certain types of local authority development which immediately come not only to my mind but to the minds of Senator Dardis and others, it may not have the beneficial effects he wishes.
Where there are strong differences of opinion on the ground as to whether a certain type of development will take place, those who are locally elected and are answerable for their actions to the local people carry the full responsibility and will be the decision makers. This is local democracy at its best and I believe it will be a good system. Perhaps Senator Dardis is anxious to find a resolution to all problems and solve disputes by giving the public an opportunity to vent their anger, despair, anxiety or whatever, but there will always be cases where decisions will have to be taken by locally elected representatives and there may not be an easier solution. I regret I cannot accept this amendment.
The difference between the Minister's position and that of my party is not a big one, but the problem is the vehicle for achieving the objective both of us seek. During his reply on Second Stage, the Minister talked about reconciling differences and added an important rider "to the extent possible". That is the core of this problem.
We can all think of instances in our own local authority areas — I can think of one involving a proposal to build a bridge across the Liffey in Celbridge at the end of the main street. Many would say that the Castletown Gates, part Castletown House — there are listed buildings at the end of the street — should not be touched under any circumstances. Another group, anxious to travel to Dublin at a quicker rate than they do at present, would regard the flow of traffic as having implications for the centre of Celbridge, which still has a village characteristic which may be eroded by that development. As public representatives within the local authority area, some of us support the measure while others are opposed. Senator Roche claimed the élitists were responsible for him losing his seat in the Dáil. There must be many of them if they got somebody else elected in his place.
We can have this huge local difference of opinion on a matter of that nature, and this is small compared to the greater problems posed by the interpretative centres. I accept the Minister's point about consultation, but I say there must be a formal system of consultation where views are recorded and taken into account.
It would not be necessary to prescribe for it in primary legislation or by way of regulation. The same results may be achieved by the local authorities deciding to debate such an issue in a public forum. Senator Dardis has proved my foresight to be even better than normal, because I do not think I am good at that.
The Minister is too honest.
There is a Utopian view that problems will arise but someone else will provide the solution. The problem with local democracy or central Government is that the buck has to stop somewhere. In this case, it is with the locally elected members; there is no escaping that fact. I know there are controversial areas. When I visited local authorities, many locally elected members told me they wanted more powers. I have always said I am happy to give them those powers but the time will come when a decision has to be taken which, up to now, the Minister took and they were happy for him to do so. Now the local representatives will make that decision. That is the essence of democracy.
Listening to the Minister, it strikes me that what he is doing is giving power with responsibility. While I see the point of Senator Dardis' amendment, the strongest lobby the local people have is the people they elect to represent them. The inclusion of a right to an oral hearing could be used by local representatives to rebuff the genuine concerns of the public and it could be counter-productive. The Minister is saying that elected representatives have responsibility to exercise these powers in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. I support the amendment.
As it is now 4 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the House today: "That the undisposed sections of the Bill are hereby agreed to, that the Title is agreed to and the Bill is reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed, and the motion for earlier signature of the Bill by the President is hereby agreed to."
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit on Tuesday, 15 June 1993 at 2.30 p.m.
The Seanad adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 June 1993.
