I move amendment No. 177c:
In page 60, subsection (2) (c), line 27, to delete "where relevant,".
I will not delay matters. What is the Minister's view of the amendment?
SECTION 42.
The Deputy will probably agree to withdraw the amendment. The notion of "where relevant" in this case is that the applicant could be the local authority itself. It would not be necessary to notify the local authority where it is the applicant. The requirement to notify the local authority applies where it is relevant. I suggest the words should remain and not be deleted, as proposed by the Deputy.
It was important to put down the amendment. Is the Minister saying the only situation where it would not be relevant is if the local authority was writing to itself to tell it the position? Local authorities are in charge of all areas of the country in one form or another and I did not foresee that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 177d:
In page 61, lines 12 to 23, to delete subsections (7) and (8).
The subsections effectively gag people from making objections. Perhaps the Minister could clarify his views.
I have simply transposed the procedure laid down in the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, and the 1992 planning Acts into this Bill. It is a procedure of appeal which appears to work well. We should travel a well worn, well used and acceptable path.
Difficulties arise in relation to An Bord Pleanála. We have all had experience of the submission of ongoing tit for tat matters. I had an experience recently with regard to An Bord Pleanála where circumstances changed substantially after the month expired regarding the provision of a sewerage scheme for a particular area. The application was originally refused by the county council on the basis that the sewerage facilities did not exist. This was the main reason among others and I wrote to An Bord Pleanála about it. Perhaps the Minister could consider the difficulties arising in this area in the context of the regulations.
I will have regard to it and reflect on it between now and Report Stage.
I support Deputy Dempsey. The Minister could consider a provision regarding other information which is ascertainable after submissions have been made. This might be appropriate in this instance. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsman could come up with an amendment to that effect which would incorporate the thrust of the matter.
The comments of
Deputies Dempsey and Penrose are helpful if the Minister is prepared to consider further what he might do by way of regulations.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 177e and 189b are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 177e:
In page 61, subsection (9)b, lines 27 to 34, to delete all words from and including "and shall" in line 27 down to and including "Agency" in line 34.
The Minister mentioned that fees can be prohibitive to certain courses of action de facto, simply because they exist. I am anxious that we do not take the road of blocking by stealth the public right to request an oral hearing, etc. I put down the amendment to urge that there should not be progress by stealth against public accountability.
Will the regulations setting the fees come before the Houses of the Oireachtas before they are implemented?
There should be a fee, otherwise people who have nothing else to do will treat it as a hobby. The fee should be set at a rate which will facilitate genuine objections and concerns, not discourage them. I intend to do this by regulation.
Regarding the general regulations, I have already given a commitment to the committee that I will come back about all the regulations and place them in their proper categories. Where appropriate, there will a formal opportunity for Deputies to approve or disapprove of them in the House. I will come back to the Deputies with detail in that regard once Committee Stage is complete.
I will withdraw the amendment given that the Minister will not operate by stealth.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 177f and 177g and related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 177f:
In page 61, subsection (10) (b), line 44, to delete "principal" and substitute "any prescribed".
The amendments deal with procedural matters relating to objections and oral hearings. I have considered the amendments but they would not expedite the licensing process, which I presume is their intention. Amendment 177f proposes to allow certain notifications to be left at any prescribed office of the agency rather than the principal office of the agency. That would be a recipe for disaster. The agency has laboratories but it does not have clerical staff everywhere.
These are statutory appeals and if they could be handed in anywhere there is a great likelihood that some would go astray. They do not have to be handed in personally, they can be posted but there should be one cental repository. I am not attempting to discourage anybody from handing them in personally to the headquarters of the agency. A visit to Wexford would do people untold good. However, there should be one central location, to which appeals can be posted or handed in. This would avoid mistakes and ensure clarity in relation to objectors, etc.
Amendment No. 177g proposes to add a new subsection to impose a time limit of five days within which the agency must adjudicate on the admissibility — presumably not the substance — of an objection. That would be very difficult since clear timeframes have been set out for decisions. I do not want to place a burden on the agency to decide something is admissible within five days. I ask the Deputy not to press both amendments.
I am not entirely surprised by the Minister's response. However, it is worth putting forward the other side of the argument. The first amendment does not mean Wexford would not be the prescribed office. However, people should be assured that they do not have to go to or post it to Wexford. Some of the objections might be quite weighty in terms of postage. The amendment does not contain anything which would weaken the Bill and it is not a recipe for disaster as the Minister suggested.
I think there is more flexibility, and we mentioned flexibility before, in not simply stating the principal office there.
You merely need to register a letter or get a certificate of posting. Any post office in the country will provide that.
I am sure the Minister's office will be helpful.
I do not think the Minister wants to offer his help to everybody with this. Realistically, I do not see why this has to be a problem. If it can be any post office, why not any part of the agency? Surely the agency is an integrated unit and people ought to be encouraged to visit and make use of their local Environmental Protection Agency outlet.
If the Deputy was applying for a particular classification of social welfare pension, there would be a designated office for applications. One cannot apply to every office, otherwise post would be going all over the place. The more capacity for mistakes one puts into the system, the more likely it is that there will be a mistake. A postal service, which works efficiently and well, with a designated office, which handles applications, knows how to record them and can process them, is preferable to posting or hand delivering applications to offices to be forwarded for processing. That is unnecessary and cumbersome and ultimately will not serve the purpose of an appeal, which is to facilitate and adjudicate on people's legitimate objections.
I am not sure the Minister would be so enthusiastic if the office was not based in Wexford. I take the Minister's point and I will not force the issue. It seems as if the Minister is requiring people to visit Wexford. That would be nice for them if they have the time.
Will the Deputy do everything he can to speed up the process?
I tabled two amendments. On the second one, the experience of people who make objections is that they are left wondering and waiting. Obviously, they are quite concerned. If they bothered to put in an objection, they will be pretty concerned about its outcome. Is there any way in which an interim acknowledgement could indicate that their objections are receiving attention? Is a simple acknowledgement as much as the Minister would like to see there?
There is a requirement that all such appeals or requests be dealt with expeditiously. The ultimate concern is for a decision, not an acknowledgement. In due course, there may well be a time when we need to prescribe time limits and we mentioned this previously. I want to see how the agency works in that regard to make an appropriate determination of the appropriate time limit. The Minister will have powers to make regulations under section 45 (2) to achieve that objective.
If somebody sends off an objection in the post to Wexford in good faith, they are left with the doubt in the meantime as to whether it arrived.
They would be sent an acknowledgement, of course.
Is the Minister saying there will be an acknowledgement?
They will be acknowledged. That is a matter of routine administration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 177g not moved.
Amendment No. 177i is related to amendment No. 177h and both may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 177h:
In page 62, subsection (11) (b), line 14, after "decision" to insert "and reason or reasons".
I am not sure whether amendment No. 177h addresses an oversight. I think it is standard in all refusals of planning permission that reasons be given. People should know they have overlooked something and reasons should be given for a decision. That sounds reasonable in other aspects of planning. Is that an oversight?
The content of amendment No. 177i may already be in place. Somebody may already be able to appeal a decision by way of an application for judicial review.
There can only be one reason for refusing to hold an oral hearing, that they feel they have adequate information to make the determination without it. That is a simple fact. It is not a matter of making an adjudication. The reasons for a particular adjudication are one thing, but whether to have an oral hearing is simply about whether one is needed. It is not necessary to have that provision and I ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
Amendment No. 177i seeks to provide a right of appeal by way of an application for a judicial review of a decision of the agency not to hold an oral hearing. There is a right of judicial review on any point of law, matter of justice or procedure so that is extant already and would not be required to be explicitly stated.
On amendment No. 177h, if the reason was there, people would know. The Minister is familiar with the matter but he must realise it will be of major concern to people who are intrepidly trying to grapple with the system. The courtesy of saying "Sorry. No, but you will understand we have the information . . .", as the Minister says, would be the minimum courtesy, whatever about legal requirements. Is the Minister able to say that will be part of people's notification?
We do not normally legislate for courtesy.
Does the Minister want to legislate for discourtesy?
No. That is a procedural matter. It is not necessary to put into law that one need specify why an oral hearing is not needed. An oral hearing is not needed because sufficient evidence is available in written form to the agency to make the determination.
Will that be clear to the person receiving the decision?
I think it will be.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 177i not moved.
Sections 42 and 43 agreed to.
At the commencement of business we agreed to suspend business at 10.30 a.m. for the Order of Business in the Dáil until 11.15 a.m. We have fallen far short of the work programme which we set ourselves in the first hour of business today. I remind Members that we must bring the proceedings to a close at 1 p.m.
Will the Minister indicate when we resume whether he is prepared to accept any of the tabled amendments to the sections from section 45 to section 50?
Sitting suspended at 10.30 a.m. and resumed at 11.15 a.m.
I have an announcement to make. I can no longer chair this meeting as I have an appointment at 11.30 a.m. I would like the committee to elect another acting chairman to conclude the business. Deputy Connaughton has been proposed and seconded.
Have we completed sections 41 to 50?
We had agreed to deal with section 41 to 50 by 10.30 a.m., but we will continue on section 44 where we left off.
I thank Deputy Connor for chairing the meeting in a businesslike manner and for his courtesy.