We have seen today Fianna Fáil blocking a measure introduced to this House to bring in the nonpolitical selection of members of the Planning Board. When the Planning Board were originally established it was precisely to achieve that sort of independence. There was a feeling that in the interpretation of who should have permission in specific cases it was necessary that independence be guaranteed. It is regrettable to see Fianna Fáil blocking a measure to bring a greater independence to planning decisions and to restore public confidence in the decision-making process in regard to planning appeals.
Deputy Molloy argued earlier that there was an organised campaign to depoliticise the planning process. He argued that the reason for this organised campaign was to undermine the role of local public representatives who decide on development plans. I would argue precisely the opposite. This Bill is in no way designed to interfere with local public representatives in their role in setting development plans. Rather the purpose of this Bill is to see that in the observance of those development plans as published by the elected representatives there is entire independence. It is copper-fastening the democracy of our planning process.
It would be a political ostrich who did not recognise that public confidence has been undermined in the operation of the planning system during the past couple of years. Much of this has been due to the method in existing law of selecting the members of the Planning Board. The board proposed in this Bill is a tremendous step forward in the area of independence in the planning process.
I fail to see the argument advanced earlier by Deputy Lenihan that the change-over from the present structure of the board could be construed as bringing in a board whose decisions might not be beyond reproach. Far from this, the fact that the selection procedure for the chairman is to be based on the procedure used for the selection of the Director of Public Prosecutions will increase public confidence and ensure beyond all doubt that the position will be beyond reproach.
Equally I cannot see the argument against the method of selection of members of that board. The Bill will give a role to competent and experienced persons with a long-established record of working in the area of planning and brings in on a statutory basis all the interests affected. This will bring greater independence to the operations of the Planning Board and ensure that in the public eye it is entirely beyond reproach. I cannot see how the argument could be put forward that the present system would be better.
Another important aspect of the Opposition's blocking of this Bill is that in doing so they are blocking important reforms that would speed up the procedure in planning appeals. The sort of provisions contained in the Bill which have not yet got much attention in the comments coming from the other side are that the chairman of the board will be given explicit responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of the board, and the board are to be required to review their operations and put through reforms to shorten the period which it takes to settle appeals. The board will also bring in a system to deal with vexatious appeals and recommendations generally to speed up the process.
I cannot understand how Fianna Fáil can express concern for the needs of the building and construction industry, as they have on several occasions in this Dáil session, and at the same time block one of the single unanimous demands of the building industry in the past two years to do something about An Bord Pleanála and the way they have been operating. Contained in the Bill are many important provisions that have been welcomed by the building industry.
I will now turn to some of the substantive issues in the Bill. In section 16 it is very welcome that the board are being given new power to dismiss vexatious appeals. In the past the board have had to proceed to ultimate determination of such appeals even if they believe that the reason for putting in the appeal was groundless. It is welcome that that is being changed. However, there will be a problem about deciding what is vexatious, and I am concerned that because of the way the provision is framed that the board will be empowered to dismiss appeals, it may mean in practice that very few vexatious appeals will be turned out. In reality it is easy to put in some minor objection that could be construed as substantive in some way to cloud over what would otherwise be vexatious. Either there will be a need for the Minister to publish some sort of guidelines as to what will be regarded as vexatious or without foundation, or it might be possible to rephrase this section in order to enable the board to satisfy themselves before proceeding that an appeal is not vexatious. That may appear to be only a change of words, but it would change the emphasis significantly so that the board would proceed only with cases when they believe there is good ground. That could probably mean that this important power would be used more often.
Section 17 is very welcome because the Minister is giving the board power to put a time limit on the submission of evidence by various parties to the appeal. It is well known that it has been difficult for the board to get compliance with requests for information within a reasonable time, and appeals have dragged on. However, I submit that the Minister should give attention to one matter when all the parties are agreed, that is, that the board themselves should operate within a time limit. Because of their judicial function the board cannot be given quite as stringent a time limit as the local authorities, who have two months. I would suggest a limit of six months for the board's operations. If that would be too stringent in some cases, the Minister could provide for extensions, on application to him, when the board could state their reasons for being unable to reach a decision before six months. Perhaps it could be extended beyond the six months if agreement is arrived at between the parties. In a Bill that puts the onus on the parties to the appeal to present their evidence within a period, equally there should be an onus on the board to come to an end of their deliberations in a certain time.
In section 19 it is welcome to note that the board will be given the authority to confine themselves to conditions when an appeal is brought before them contesting just one of the conditions. The board are now enabled to confine themselves to that restricted area rather than reopening the whole appeal.
Having welcomed that, I can see a problem in the operation of the board generally, that is, in the balance between the political and judicial roles. Under our present system we have a decision on a development plan which is undoubtedly democratic because the councillors decide upon it, it is laid open to the public and objections are heard and discussed by the councillors before final adoption. It seems that under present law the board have a somewhat wider role than simply interpreting the provisions of a specific development plan, and it is right that there should be a possibility to look at a certain application in a wider planning horizon than would be considered by a single local authority, certainly in Dublin where you have a number of authorities very close together. There is no doubt the planning authority should have an over-seeing role so that they could look at the implications of certain development plans not just for their immediate area but outside.
In the exercise of this wider authority the board will have, it is important, if we are to ensure openness of the procedure, that some reforms should be made in the way the board will operate. In particular, I should like the Minister to consider whether the inspectors' reports in the case of planning applications decided by the board should be published. For a long time the board have given their reasons for refusing permissions but not for granting them. A board that hold that authority should comply with the need to give the public full access to the reasons for their decisions. That is especially important in cases in which the board might decide to act contrary to the reports of the inspectors. The opportunity should be taken to consider more openness in the manner in which An Bord Pleanála will conduct their procedure, namely, in the publishing of the reports. I suggest also that more publicity should be given to oral hearings. At present oral hearings conducted by the board are notified to the parties but there is not a general onus on the board to make it known to persons affected that the hearing will take place. I have seen many cases in which interested parties discovered only too late that there would be an oral hearing and they did not get the chance to attend.
Returning to the question of the political role in the planning process, it is regrettable that at the moment the Minister can intervene in planning decisions only by giving directives of a general nature. He can lay down broad principles on which planning authorities and the planning board should make their decisions. In some cases where a planning application would have a bearing on national policy I can see the need for the Minister to have power to call in that application and issue advice to the board. That power is not in our present law. I can visualise cases where it would be necessary.
In my own constituency there is a planning application of major importance. Many of the points raised in the application are not purely of a planning nature. It is regrettable that the consideration given to that planning application at all stages was confined to purely planning matters and the broader issues of national policy were not taken into account. I urge the Minister to consider taking power to call in a planning application in special circumstances and to consider it on grounds of national policy. Of course it would be a requirement that, if he gives advice to the board, he will also arrange full publication of the grounds for his advice. That would be a significant improvement on the present position.
I should like to express concern over a recent decision which may not be entirely relevant to this Bill. I refer to a decision made recently on the right of a person to have services provided in a case where a sewerage pipe or a service line is running through his land. There are many green belts around development areas such as the green belts around the city of Dublin. Inevitably, they must have sewerage services and water services running through people's land. It is worrying that the continuing existence of green belts may be threatened if such decisions are upheld. Planning authorities could be required to give permission to applications on green belts by virtue of the fact that a sewerage pipe ran through the green belt. It might be worth our while to consider that issue when a Planning Bill is being considered.
I welcome the Bill. It will go a long distance towards restoring public confidence in planning. It will also go a long way towards allaying many of the justifiable concerns of all involved about the very lengthy delays in the procedures of the planning board.