I moved this amendment last night and I do not want to spend too long on it. I want to restate very briefly that what we are dealing with here is what I described as the "mission statement" of An Bord Pleanála. Section 2 lays down their duties and objectives. The terms of the section are couched solely on the need for expedition in dealing with planning appeals. I seek to temper that expedition with the exhortation that obviously all such decisions would be subject to proper planning and environmental considerations. The Minister, responding last night, said that this was superfluous verbiage, or words to that effect, that it was understood that the board would be mindful of proper planning and environmental considerations. I strongly emphasise — and I hope the overnight rest will have helped the Minister to come to the same conclusion — that there is a strong view among the general public, particularly among those interest groups and individuals concerned with the environment, that this Bill is being put forward at the behest of the pro-development lobby to get around the checks and balances we put into planning appeals, to stop third parties having their say and to thwart the proper planning and environmental considerations. That is not the intention of the House, nor is the intention of the Minister in my view, but we need to be clear in how we state that. It is in his interest and in the interests of the House that we clearly state in the primary legislation what the Minister states is obvious but is unsaid, that the board should have regard to proper planning and environmental considerations in all their deliberations and that expedition in processing planning appeals should not be an end in itself. If, in the Minister's view, this should be understood from the legislation it is not clearly stated. The Bill would be very much the stronger and the understanding of the people very much the clearer if this was so stated.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Amendment No. 4 is worthwhile and would be of help in underlining the duty of An Bord Pleanála, in making decisions, notwithstanding time pressures, to have regard to proper planning and environmental considerations. There is a danger that they will come under pressure to make decisions on planning appeals speedily and while I can understand the reason for this we should not allow a situation to develop where a decision is made on a planning appeal prematurely and without due regard being had to proper planning and environmental considerations. That is not the kind of legislation that this House should enact. Indeed, it is not the desire of the majority of the Members that such legislation be enacted.
It seems that the section we are dealing with would be improved considerably if the words "subject to proper planning and environmental considerations" were added as it would be made clear to An Bord Pleanála, notwithstanding the time pressures, that these are not superior to proper planning and environment considerations.
I utterly reject the suggestion made by both Deputy Howlin and Deputy Mitchell that decisions on planning appeals are made prematurely and, second, that this Bill has been introduced in response to pro-development groups. As far as I am concerned, the vast majority of Deputies are pro-development and pro-employment and wish to ensure that the best planning rules are adhered to by the local authorities, who make the vast majority of decisions, in coming to a decision. In the context of planning appeals, a balance should be relentlessly sought to give fundamental rights to those who wish to object and those who are afraid that developments will injure their property and at the same time enhance the prospects of realistic development throughout the country.
During the course of the debate on Second Stage Deputies on all sides of the House supported the Bill but on Committee Stage the impression is being given that in some way we are departing from the normal fair and balanced procedures. I reject this suggestion outright. I should say I am disappointed that Deputies are unwilling to accept my assurance that the words put forward in the amendment are unnecessary from either the legal or practical viewpoint. As I explained, the board's general duty in section 2 (1) of the Bill is identical to their existing duty under section 4 of the 1983 planning Act. For the record of the House I wish to read that section:
It shall be the duty of the Board to ensure that appeals, references and other matters with which it is concerned are disposed of as expeditiously as may be and, for that purpose, to take all steps as are open to it to ensure that, in so far as is practicable, there are no avoidable delays at any stage in the consideration of such appeals, references or other matters.
This duty has been in operation for nine years now without compromising the board's duty or ability to deal with appeals in accordance with considerations of proper planning and development.
The board's obligations to decide cases on the basis of criteria of proper planning is already clearly spelled out in planning law. Sections 26 (1) and 26 (5) of the 1963 planning Act lay down that the board's decision must be taken in the light of proper planning and development of the area concerned regard being had, among other things, to the provisions of the development plan and any relevant special amenity area order.
I should say also that I am surprised by the apparent contradiction that the Deputies' contributions on his amendment seem to reveal. On the one hand, there is a fairly general acceptance that there is an important public interest in having expeditious decisions on planning appeals but, on the other, Deputies are seeking to modify a legal duty of efficiency which has been in existence since 1983 and which has clearly posed no problems for the board in terms of dealing with cases in a fair and thorough manner. I do not believe that the Bill would be improved in any way by the amendment and I must, accordingly, decline to accept it.
I am disappointed that the Minister believes we are being unreasonable in some way because the reason we tabled the amendment in the first place was that we wanted to ensure that no other interpretation of this section could be given by anybody, be they pro-development or pro the environmental lobby. We must ensure that no one will be in any doubt in the future about the intentions of this House in regard to the wording of any section in legislation or, for that matter, having regard to the present controversy, a constitutional amendment.
Even this section of the Bill includes the famous words "as far as is practicable". We know where these led us and the Minister admitted this morning on a different subject that their inclusion can lead to misinterpretation, misrepresentation and doors being left open. Deputy Howlin wants to copperfasten the duty of the board or, indeed, any officer of the board in the future to have regard to proper planning and environmental considerations. Given that they have been included in another section, what is wrong with writing them in again to make it clear that even though we want decisions to be made as expeditiously as possible we do not want it to be inferred that a decision was arrived at without proper regard being had to all the matters which are a source of concern for all of us?
While most, if not all, Deputies are pro-development very few do not have regard to environmental considerations. This goes without saying, be they members of the Cabinet or members of the Opposition. People do not want dirty jobs at any price. While we want jobs we also want to ensure that a proper attitude is adopted towards the environment. This is particularly true in the case of the mining industry where at times developers cannot put their case which could lead to thousands of jobs being created in many parts of the country if proper environmental standards were adhered to and impact studies were carried out.
The words proposed are not superfluous; they are definitive. Having regard to the fact some of the officers of the board have made some controversial decisions in the past, we want to leave no stone unturned in ensuring that people, in particular the environmental lobby, are in no doubt that we mean business in putting forward this wording. Even though the Minister is unwilling to include it, I hope that between now and Report Stage he will consider an alternative wording to accommodate the views expressed by Deputy Howlin and Deputy Mitchell in this regard.
This Bill is the product of pressure. The section of the Bill we are now dealing with will expose the board to even further pressure. This Bill has been produced because of a perception on the part of developers that delays at the planning appeals stage were holding up development. The perception was allowed to develop that there were people out there who were, willy nilly, putting in vexatious planning appeals and holding up the whole system. We now have this Bill which proposes to shorten the period of time within which appeals can be made, to shorten the whole procedure with regard to the exchange of documents and the period of time within which An Bord Pleanála has to come to their decision. On top of that we have this general duty imposed on the board that it must ensure that appeals are disposed of as expeditiously as may be.
The amendment seeks to qualify that somewhat by having regard to the need for proper planning and environmental considerations. It is, as the Minister says, what An Bord Pleanála should be taking into account in any event, that is, proper planning and environmental considerations. The only problem is that those requirements are not written into the Bill. All that is written into the Bill is that the board must get the job over and done with as quickly as possible.
That section of the Bill might well be in conflict with other sections of the Bill where the board has been given the right to request additional submissions and so on. We must look forward a little bit to a situation where, if this Bill is enacted in the way proposed, An Bord Pleanála will be exposed to pressure. When an appeal has been submitted developers will start to heap the pressure on to An Bord Pleanála, quoting this section of the Bill and saying that it is the job of An Bord Pleanála, having got all the relevant documents and the replies and so on, to make a decision as quickly as possible. An Bord Pleanála, for their own reasons, might want to slow down the process, might want to get additional expert opinion, submissions or whatever, and might want to exercise that right under other sections of this Bill. What will happen in practice is that the telephones in the offices of An Bord Pleanála will be hopping with the calls from the planning consultants or architects who have been engaged by the developer pressing for immediate decisions. I can guarantee that if this section of the Bill is not qualified, it will be quoted over and over again by developers, claiming that it is in the legislation that An Bord Pleanála must make a decision as expeditiously as possible.
All of the concerns expressed by many Members of this House — and we will come to this at a later stage — about the period of four months within which the board have to make a decision will be justified. It is the opinion of planners themselves, of An Taisce, of many members of the public and Members of this House that that period of four months is too tight, that there are many circumstances where it may be necessary to extend the time particularly where there is a large and complicated planning application involved so that the board can make a proper decision. If this section is not qualified, An Bord Pleanála will come under increasing pressure to make the decision within four months, or to make the decision in a shorter time than four months because it says clearly in the Bill that it is the duty of An Bord Pleanála to make the decision as expeditiously as possible. It needs to be qualified and have regard to proper planning and environmental considerations.
In the interests of expedition we might agree that we have given enough time to this amendment.
I want to make one or two points. Once again Deputy Gilmore seems to imply that this Bill is introduced on the basis that everything was perfect in An Bord Pleanála prior to its introduction. The Deputy knows that everybody on this side and on the other side have been looking for ways to improve the planning appeals system over the years because it is too slow, resulting in many developmental prospects being negatived. Quite a number of procedures not requiring legislation were adopted and gradually fairly vast improvements were made. At the end of the day it was discovered that it would not be possible to improve the position any further through those channels and that there was still room for a system which would have legal status to ensure that planning appeals were dealt with as expeditiously as possible without taking away any fundamental rights.
I can give the Deputy an example of where a tremendous effort was made to get a development going here. When planning permission was granted by the local authority there was an appeal to An Bord Pleanála which took almost 12 months to decide, during which time that project was lost, even though An Bord Pleanála ultimately decided in favour of the original planning application. That resulted in the loss of 30 jobs. If that decision could have been taken within four or five months the project could have been held. I wanted to put these rather crude and raw facts before the House. Deputies on the other side of the House cannot afford to ignore the realities. We are all concerned to ensure that the best possible and most balanced system is developed.
At no stage did anyone in this House take the view that this planning Bill replaces everything else in the Planning Acts up to now. We start with the basic 1963 Act and the amendments of 1983. In the 1963 Act, section 26 (1) provides that the planning authority shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and development of the area. In legal terms the proper planning and development of an area takes account of all the concerns expressed by the Opposition. It is not possible, in the context of every Bill that comes to the Dáil to ignore the brace of legislation already enshrined in legislation and put everything into the new provision whether it existed heretofore or not. That would be superfluous and has never been the practice in this House.
I cannot go any further than that, except to indicate that the existing body of legislation, taking all the Acts together, meets the Deputy's requirements. Adding it in here may not have the effect the Deputies desire. It is unnecessary. I would ask Deputies to accept that what we have already in the total body of planning legislation takes full account of the concerns that have been expressed.
I want to formally record our suggestion that we put this wording in. I do not want to call a vote on it but we feel strongly about it and I was hoping the Minister might have another wording on Report Stage which would deal with the many problems.
Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 5. For discussion purposes we will take amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. Agreed? Agreed.
I move amendent No. 5:
In page 4, between line 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) In the case of appeals lodged in relation to domestic extensions, single dwellings or similarly small developments the Board should make every reasonable endeavour to have the matters decided within two months.".
We must distinguish between major and minor planning applications and appeals. This amendment seeks to speed up appeals in relation to domestic extensions, single dwellings or similarly small developments. Very often appeals in relation to such developments would relate to conditions and they rarely give rise to the same public concerns that arise in major planning applications. People who are trying to improve their homes by building kitchen or bathroom extensions should not have to wait another four months for a planning appeal to be decided. It should be possible to decide on these small matters speedily. The Minister ought to welcome the opportunity to build flexibility into the legislation in relation to different types of planning applications and appeals.
I support the amendment, particularly where local authorities have given planning permission, and appeals are on the basis of a third party objection to An Bord Pleanála. There is a requirement on the local authority to give a decision within two months. It would not be a burden to require An Bord Pleanála to decide on these simple appeals within two months. Often objections at local level to small developments are vexatious ones and would not require an extended period for investigation. Two months should be sufficient.
I do not support this amendment. I take the point that it should not normally take as long for a planning decision or an appeal concerning a domestic extension or a small development to be dealt with, as it does for a large development. The whole area with regard to planning permission for domestic extensions and the way applications are dealt with is something that should be looked at. When a planning permission is being granted for a housing estate, for instance, it should be possible to give a general permission indicating the type of extension which would be permissible for the houses concerned. Most of these extensions are fairly standard, for instance the garage conversion type of development.
This amendment deals with three sets of circumstances. It deals with domestic extensions, single dwellings and similarly small developments, which could be to a shop or some other small business. Some of the most controversial planning applications I have come across have concerned this kind of small development. I know of one porch extension at the moment which is causing controversy, admittedly among a small number of people, but it is going to court because a neighbour claims that the porch is extending onto a common pathway for two adjoining houses. The sort of rows that develop over single dwellings can be quite significant. To reduce the appeal time to two months in those circumstances is too restrictive. This should be left to the discretion of the board. There is no reason why it should take four or six months for a simple application or appeal to be dealt with but to restrict all those to two months is too restrictive. There will be controversy with regard to domestic extensions or single dwellings. There was one famous case in Howth not so long ago in which a single dwelling involved quite an amount of public controversy. There will also be controversy with regard to small developments, for instance a shop, or a change of use. I know of a case where use changed from a domestic extension to a shop, to a dry cleaners and now to a take-away food shop. That sort of change of use development would probably qualify under "similarly small development". To restrict it to two months is overly restrictive and I regret that I cannot support the amendment.
I am broadly sympathetic to what Deputy Mitchell is trying to do. The Green Party will be the last party to increase bureaucracy. There is enough of it already. I realise that sometimes there can be vexatious appeals due to bad neighbourliness and there are many examples of this. I have problems with the Deputy's amendment. I wonder if it is legally watertight? I am not a legal expert but the Deputy talks about similarly small developments. Who decides whether a development is small, medium or large and how is a domestic extension defined? Under the planning laws at the moment there are fairly generous exemptions for domestic extensions. Many small domestic extensions can be built without planning permission and that is as it should be. We do not want to stand in the way of people who want to make simple small changes in their accommodation, by keeping them waiting for months.
I agree that if my amendment No. 7 is passed one could make the case that applications of this nature would be held up for six months. If my amendment is accepted we will have to look again at its implications for single dwellings and domestic extensions. That is another day's work and it should not take away from the validity of my amendment when it comes up.
While a single dwelling might not impinge very much on the community, it can impinge very seriously on the people on either side of it, at the back of it or opposite it. A person who has invested his life's savings in a house must have rights when he finds an unsuitable development, even a single house, going up next door. We are talking only about the difference between two and four months, and a house is built to last a lifetime. The Minister has struck the right balance in prescribing a four month period in respect of these types of development. For that reason I cannot support the amendment.
I can sympathise with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Mitchell. In routine or simple cases a four month timescale might seem to be rather long. However, the appeals submitted must be circulated to other parties and they have one month to respond. Taking that into account, the period available to the board, sticking rigidly to a two month determination time, could be down to a couple of weeks. I take it that is not what the House would want. My intention is that the objective of four months will apply in the case of all appeals and other cases initially. I will keep the matter under review and the question of prescribing a shorter period for more routine types of cases can be considered in the light of experience of the operation of the four month period.
I have been rather lonely on this side of the House. I thought I would never meet a situation where there would be a difference of opinion among Opposition Deputies. For some reason this morning there is a small cleavage.
A green break.
I have a certain sympathy for both views. We are providing a four month period for An Bord Pleanála to determine appeals and we have to give the fullest possible opportunity for the system to work. We will review the position in regard to appeals of the nature outlined by Deputy Mitchell.
I differ somewhat from Deputies in the views expressed about house extensions. Extensions of up to 23 square metres in floor areas are exempt from the requirement to seek planning permission. I have seen house extensions in various parts of the country which I would rather not have seen. Every kind of small extension is not acceptable to us all. It is important in the context of overall planning and environmental considerations that every type of planning application should take account of the landscape, the needs of the applicant and the rights of others. That is the general aim.
The proposed amendment is not workable. In the long run we will have experience of how this provision operates. It may be that there are classes of application for planning permission which could be dealt with according to tighter criteria. The board, once they are in a position to do so, should make their decisions within this timeframe.
This amendment seeks to facilitate people who are trying to improve their homes. We are not trying to bypass proper planning considerations. The Minister makes the point that two months would be too short a time for the board to decide these matters, but the planning authorities are expected in the first instance to decide within two months. The vast majority of local authority planning decisions are not appealed. If the planning authority can make decisions within two months, why not the board, in respect of routine small cases? I accept that larger planning applications for housing estates or industrial developments may need more time, perhaps more than four months in certain circumstances; but that should not be the case in regard to single house extensions.
Deputy Gilmore made the point that some of these applications can be the cause of dissension between neighbours. This amendment does not make it compulsory on the board to decide within two months; it provides that the board should make every reasonable endeavour to decide within two months. Even where there is a division of opinion among neighbours in regard to the original planning application, the planning authority have to decide within two months.
There have been references to bureaucracy. This term conjures up images of local authority officials or civil servants who want to put everything on the long finger. The real bureaucracy manifests itself in this House this morning in our inflexibility of thought. We should try to distinguish between different types of planning application. Certain categories should be easily disposed of by the board within two months. I am disappointed that the Minister, while sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment, has not indicated a readiness to accept it.
Possibly another comfort to the Minister is Deputy John Stafford.
He did not realise he had another good man behind him. I felt there was a danger that we might extend the period beyond four months, which would be ridiculous. It would be impossible to differentiate between various sizes of application. One person might define a small extension as the addition of extra space to the kitchen or the construction of an extra toilet. To somebody else living in another area a small extension could consist of a massive construction of a size similar to that of an inner city house.
Some of the extensions in the Clontarf area are absolutely massive. The neighbours must be protected in these cases. It could happen that a neighbour would be away or ill and might not have the opportunity to object, I am happy to accept the Minister's suggestion that the period allowed should be four months.
I am not a believer in putting provisions into legislation which obviously will not work, no matter how well intentioned. It is a pity Deputy Mitchell interprets that as being inflexible. It would be impossible to legislate for different sizes and classes of extension. With regard to the statutory obligation on local authorities to decide on planning applications within two months, the case to impose a similar obligation to An Bord Pleanála does not stand up.
The local authority may begin the processing of an application for planning permission on the day they recieve it. An Bord Pleanála may not consider an application until such time as the parties to the appeal make their submission, for which they have one month. On that basis alone a comparison of the two bodies in terms of the timescale is not feasible. Second, from information available to me — I do not have the statistics here this morning — the local authority are unable, for one reason or another, to make a decision within the prescribed two months on almost 30 per cent of the total applications submitted to them. Therefore, to presume that local authorities make a decision within two months in all cases is wrong. Clearly there is need for reform to improve the position of local authorities and I am quite sure that can be done. If Deputy Mitchell takes that into account he will understand why it is not possible to meet his very well intentioned amendment. It is neither practical nor feasible and probably ultimately is not fair.
Amendment No. 7 in the names of Deputies Garland and Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 are related and it is proposed, therefore, for discussion purposes, that we take amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, subsection (2) (a), line 1, to delete "four" and substitute "six".
This amendment relates to section 2 of the Bill which prescribes that the board shall determine an appeal within four months of its receipt. This is the nub of the Bill. It puts undue pressure on An Bord Pleanála to make hasty decisions on appeals, even of the most complex nature. Four months is simply not adequate, hence I propose to amend this section by increasing the time to six months. In amendment No. 10 which we are also debating, in cases where environmental impact statements are required I propose that the time be extended to nine months.
In his Second Stage speech, the Minister made the point that we want to streamline the planning process. Everyone would agree with that provided it can be done without a reduction in the quality of the board's work. This Bill does not strike a proper balance. It is pro-industry and pro-development but it provides insufficient protection for the ordinary members of the public who have every right to be concerned about largescale projects on their doorstep, and it is fundamentally undemocratic. I concede that there have been at times considerable delays by An Bord Pleanála, but laterally the position has improved beyond measure. In general, An Bord Pleanála determine most appeals within six months. As the Minister said in his Second Stage speech, in only 2.8 per cent of cases were the appeals on hand for more than six months.
I admit that problems arose in 1985 and 1989 when in excess of 15 per cent of appeals were on hand for over six months, but it should be remembered that there has been a big increase in the number of appeals — there was a 35 per cent increase in 1989 over 1988 — and that An Bord Pleanála had only 58 staff in 1989 compared with 73 in 1988. It is important that decisions are not rushed in order to give preference to quantity over quality as often careful decisions are needed to resolve complex cases.
In this context the board's comments in their 1985 report are particularly relevant. They say:
Many appeals are probably cases that have raised difficult issues at local level arising from the implementation of the provisions of the development plan, the protection of amenities and the need to reconcile proposals with the proper planning and development of the area. A number raise contentious third party issues. These cases by their nature require more time for processing and careful consideration, a factor which is sometimes overlooked in criticisms of the system.
This is an appeal from the heart of An Bord Pleanála who are trying to do their job properly and who have been underfunded and under-staffed. The staff of An Bord Pleanála do not want to delay appeals. They get great satisfaction from clearing their desks. Many of the problems with An Bord Pleanála relate to under-staffing which results from the crazy embargo which was imposed willy nilly on the Civil Service and which is a nonsense in view of the huge numbers unemployed. I call on the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment thereby arriving at the correct balance between the interests of development and the interests of the public.
Deputy Garland is correct in stating that the nub of the Bill is that it limits the period of time within which An Bord Pleanála must make their decisions. The Minister is proposing to move from an open-ended position where there is no statutory time limit within which a decision must be made to a position where the decision must be made within a period of four months. Deputy Garland and I are proposing that the four month limit be extended to six months at the very least. That is not to say that An Bord Pleanála should take six months to make a decision in relation to every planning appeal. Quite clearly, many planning appeals may be decided in a much shorter period but there are appeals and issues which will take longer than four months to decide.
Let us look back at the history of the planning appeals system and the reason for delays in that system. This Bill results from delays in the planning appeals system, but those delays were not due to any legislative defect but to a shortage of staff and resources in An Bord Pleanála. Between 1988 and 1989 the overall staff of An Bord Pleanála was reduced by 20 per cent. The number of staff at inspector grade was down by 50 per cent by 1989-90, the time when pressure was brought to bear to speed up the planning appeals system.
The explanatory memorandum states that the Bill will not entail additional staffing or financial requirements for An Bord Pleanála. The delays that have been occurring in the planning appeals system have not resulted from any legislative defect but from the fact that there was a reduction of staff and resources in An Bord Pleanála. That is where the problem lay, and one does not address a problem of staff and resources by introducing a Bill which provides that appeals must be decided within four months. In effect, that puts additional pressure on limited staff and resources to make decisions within an even shorter period of time and may result in poor decisions being made.
Professionals in the planning system do not believe that four months is a sufficient time limit for planning appeals. The Irish Planning Institute stated that the time framework for determining appeal cases must allow adequate time for the reasonable circulation of documents, as outlined in section 3 (7), and for the proper assessment of the case. It was stated that five months was considered the minimum time necessary to achieve that and that the time period should commence six weeks from the date of the planning authority decision. In other words, the minimum time that the planning professionals themselves reckon to be required is five and a half months. An Taisce made a similar case arguing that the four month time limit was too short.
An appeals system operates in many areas of public life. I find it interesting that it is only in the area of planning appeals, in which developers, development and money are involved, that the Government have chosen to introduce legislation that will provide a statutory limit for the decision of an appeal. I would welcome legislation that provided a statutory limit for decisions on social welfare appeals, employment appeals, appeals on the issue of medical cards and a range of different matters in which the ordinary citizen is concerned. It is strange that it is only in the area of planning appeals that a statutory limit is to be introduced, a limit that is too short.
I am not arguing for the extension of the time limit because it is my opinion or the opinion of individual Members of the House that that should be so but because that is the opinion of the professionals who work in the planning system and the opinion of the most reputable bodies that have contact with the planning system. The proposed four month time limit is too short and should be extended to six months at the very least.
I do not object to the establishment of a statutory limit for determining appeals in general. I would support legislation to establish time frames on all of the appeal mechanisms outlined by Deputy Gilmore. All of the time we deal with disgraceful cases relating to inordinate delays people experience in getting their rights. Justice delayed is justice denied.
It is important to consider the efficacy of the timeframe proposed by the Minister. The statistics provided seem to indicate that a period of four months would cover the vast majority of appeals. For the vast majority of appeals I have no difficulty in accepting a time limit of four months. It is the extraordinary appeals that would require an environmental impact assessment that could present real difficulties. Those appeals are the more controversial appeals, they arouse the most public disquiet and the most public attention and they should be treated in a different fashion from the majority of appeals.
The section in the Bill provides for two categories in the determination of appeals. There is the general provision that appeals shall be decided within four months. Then section 2 (2) (a) gives the Minister the power to prescribe any other such period in respect of a particular class or classes of appeals as he decides. What are the Minister's intentions in relation to the regulations? I would need an answer to that question before I could be content with the provision. The previous Minister for the Environment often referred to what is a hobby horse of mine, that is, that I object to an increasing amount of important legislation being conducted by way of secondary legislation, statutory instrument, rather than by way of enactment in primary legislation. I hope the Minister will not take the approach of saying that a legislative step will be taken by way of regulation rather than by way of enshrinement in a proper statute that is democratically scrutinised before the House. Too many legislative measures are taken by way of statutory instrument and too few are taken in clear terms by way of primary legislation.
One cannot disentangle the issue of staffing from that of the timeframe required for the making of decisions. Even if we were to accept that a period of four months was reasonable for the vast majority of appeals, next year or the year after a Minister or a Government could again squeeze the staffing complement of An Bord Pleanála to make it impossible for the staff to live with that statutory timeframe. In order to try to meet the time limit An Bord Pleanála would have to cut corners. Corner cutting happens already in some local authorities which might be squeezed for personnel and resources. When they come up against a statutory time limit for making initial planning decisions one finds that they have not had time to discuss an issue with the local planning committee made up of democratically elected members. I know of frequent occasions on which an issue was discussed but before the district committee dealing with planning issues had time to meet again the planning decision would have had to be made and often would have had to be made without the full information that would be available for local democratically elected members.
I fear that a timeframe set down in statute without a guarantee of proper resources — in fact, the explanatory memorandum clearly indicates that the resources will not be augmented — will show the Bill to be a mechanism available to a Government or a Minister to allow shortcuts to take place and to require decisions to be made without the necessary resources required for a full and proper consideration of all of the issues involved.
I do not consider that the planning decision process can be extricated from the required staffing complement. The Minister must give firm guarantees that the resources necessary to implement this legislation will be provided to An Bord Pleanála. Obviously, even a guarantee of that kind would not be binding on the Minister's successors were we to take the Minister in good faith.
There are very serious implications in the implementation of the Bill. My own amendment seeks to exclude the small number of planning applications that would require environmental impact statements. If an environmental impact statement were required a planning appeal should be treated in a different way. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that he intends to deal with those appeals separately under the provisions of section 2 (2) (b), but I would much prefer that to be spelt out in unambiguous terms in the Bill.
I shall not go over the ground covered by other speakers who talked about the submissions received from An Taisce and other organisations outlining the statutory difficulties that arose in 1988-89 and that caused delays and the buildup of pressure that probably — although the Minister would be loathe to admit it — initiated the introduction of this legislation. A reasonable compromise would be for the Minister to accept the premise that the vast majority of appeals could be determined within a time limit of four months, which is not unreasonable, but those that required environmental impact statements should be treated separately and could not be determined within a four month appeals system. All the independent advice I have received — which I am sure is available to all Deputies — states quite clearly that it would be quite impossible to provide a proper environmental impact assessment within the timescale suggested. I contend it would not be in the interests of good, proper planning, or of the environment, that we would seek to force decisions to be taken without proper time being allowed for the collection of all the data required for a full, comprehensive environmental impact assessment.
Most of the complaints I hear in relation to An Bord Pleanála focus on the fact that appeals can go on forever. Therefore, I welcome the four months provision in section 2 (2) (a). I disagree with what Deputy Gilmore said with regard to the need for the introduction of legislation setting a timescale in regard to social welfare and other matters. That is a negative aspect or attitude to adopt. I would contend that legislation should be introduced, whenever possible, whenever we perceive a void, as there has been in this case. Perhaps legislation should be introduced to limit the timescale for appeals in relation to social welfare benefits.
If we examine the provisions of this Bill we discover there is a positive and negative aspect to planning appeals. As a member of Dublin Corporation I have complained more frequently about An Bord Pleanála overruling decisions of the relevant local authority. So we must remember that aspect as well. For example, there could be a development proposed within one's local area to which one might be utterly opposed. That may continue and within six months an appeal may have been lodged which was not upheld and the development continues to which one, as an individual and the relevant local authority, may be utterly opposed. Under the provisions of this subsection such an appeal must be terminated within a period of four months, which proposal I totally support.
I might cite the example of an enormously expensive development, say, on the north side of this city, where the profit factor may not be as great as would obtain had the same development taken place on the south side of the city. Let us suppose a builder/developer had proposed a certain amount of funding which expired after four months, that development might never be completed. On the north side of the city, along the quays and so on, there has been rapid development but we must remember there are other parts of the city warranting the expenditure of large sums of money on development. In such cases, if somebody objects, it is possible such development would not go ahead. We must remember that if somebody objects, lodges an appeal with An Bord Pleanála who, in turn, overrule local people's or the local authority's objections, that must take place within four months.
In any serious case necessitating an environmental impact assessment the Minister has power, under the provisions of section 2 (4) (b) to extend that timescale. I am sure the purpose behind that subsection is to cater for unusual decisions. I feel quite happy with the provision. While appreciating that Members table such amendments for very good reasons, at the same time having witnessed what has taken place over the past few years, I contend the provisions of this Bill are crucial and should be implemented at this point.
I welcome the provisions of this section which impose a timescale for the determination of appeals on the part of An Bord Pleanála. Heretofore there had been no such timescale. Most Members here who are also members of local authorities, and have been actively involved in appeals to An Bord Pleanála will probably welcome the fact that henceforth a decision will have to be taken within a given timescale.
In relation to whether that timescale for determination of planning appeals should be four months, five months or six months, it is my belief that if the Minister's intentions are enacted he will make the necessary resources available to ensure that any such decision can be taken within the period specified, that is four months.
Perhaps the Minister would confirm that such resources will be made available to local authorities and to An Bord Pleanála enabling them to meet the four months timescale, particularly since a number of people have made submissions indicating that a four months' timescale may be somewhat too tight within which to have decisions taken. Perhaps the Minister could also indicate how, whenever additional information is sought by either party, or whenever there are proposals for alterations of an application before An Bord Pleanála, that would affect the four months timescale. I look forward to the Minister clarifying his powers within the relevant subsection.
This amendment proposes to extend from four to six months the timescale for determination of planning appeals and other matters by An Bord Pleanála. In selecting that timescale for the determination of cases by the board care was taken to strike a reasonable balance between the need for the appeals process to operate expeditiously and the equally important need to ensure that the board would have adequate time to consider thoroughly the issues arising in any given case. I am satisfied that the four months timescale proposed in the Bill strikes the correct balance, that it will be possible for the board to decide all but the most exceptional cases within that period.
Moreover, section 2 (3) provides for circumstances in which it may not be possible or appropriate to determine cases within that four months period. Accordingly, I cannot agree to the Deputies' proposals to increase this period to six months for cases generally. Equally, I am satisfied that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to allow a nine months minimum period for determination of cases involving an environmental impact statement, or EIS, as is proposed in Deputy Garland's amendment No. 10.
I might add that the effect of Deputy Howlin's amendment would be to exclude any appeal involving an EIS from the four months time objective but would apply to determination of appeals generally, so that effectively, the board would have no timescale in respect of such cases.
The Minister could set regulations.
While appeals involving an EIS will be among the more complex ones with which the board will have to deal I do not consider it would be appropriate to proceed in the manner suggested in the Deputy's amendment. In my view it is preferable to provide that the four months objective should apply to all appeals in the first instance. In the light of experience, if it emerges that meeting that objective is problematical in cases involving an EIS, because of the complexities involved, consideration could be given at that stage to prescribing, by regulations, under the provisions of sectin 2 (2) (b), for a different objective in such cases. However, a longer period would be prescribed only if there was compelling evidence that the four months period was unattainable in a particular category of cases.
Deputy Howlin will appreciate that cases involving an EIA very often are those carrying potential for job creation. I am sure he would agree with me that, in the light of the present unemployment problem, the board should not be given a blank cheque in terms of time in such cases.
In taking into account the overall timescale it is important to incorporate all stages. First and foremost, an application will be made to a local authority who are obliged to reach a decision on it within two months. On average, that timescale appears to be spinning out to two and a half months. When it comes to a question of appeal there is an additional four months after which An Bord Pleanála must take a decision. If we combine this body of procedures and laws in relation to planning, the minimum period between all these eventualities, in the case of an appeal having been lodged, looks like six and a half months.
Deputies appear to be assuming — I do not know on what they base their assumption — that a decision which takes seven or eight months is preferable to one that is taken within six months or six and a half months. In the course of any business in which I have been involved I have never reached the conclusion that somebody who took longer to do a job necessarily did a better job. What we are talking about is efficiency. We are not proposing any restriction in terms of the fundamental rights obtaining but we are seeking efficiency.
There are approximately 300,000 people unemployed in Ireland and there are many developmental projects. I have spoken generally to local authorities and An Bord Pleanála about the need to speed up decisions on projects one way or another. In cases where they grant planning permission a project can proceed, but in cases where they refuse planning permission the possibility is that the developer may go somewhere else and not wait around for something which is not going to happen. I believe there is a broad fairness in such an approach. I reject outright the suggestion that a decision which takes nine or ten months or a year to arrive at is potentially a better decision than one arrived at in half that time. In cases where longer time limits are prescribed I honestly believe that the attention given to that file will go closer to the deadline than the one I am setting — it is normal practice for people not to take action until they have to take it. It is important that we look at the broad parameters of what is involved here and get away from the idea that more time is always necessary.
We should remember that this is 1992. We are talking about a minimum period of six and a half months between the submission of an application and the making of a decision. This seems to be a reasonable period. I am prepared to take into account Deputy Howlin's concerns in the light of experience. I am not trying to ensure that there is not adequate time to make good decisions. I think we are broadly in agreement that we want to ensure there is adequate time to make good decisions.
For some extraordinary reason Deputy Garland and I seem to be at loggerheads on the question of resources. As I said on Second Stage in reply to a question raised in regard to the resources of An Bord Pleanála, the position is entirely different to that presented by Deputies on the other side of the House in their contributions. The annual reports of An Bord Pleanála show that they had 59 employees in 1988 and 61 employees in 1989. To present this as a reduction in resources is not acceptable. Deputy Gilmore referred to a reduction in the inspectorate. An Bord Pleanála had 13 inspectors in 1988 and 16 inspectors in 1989. They also have the power to recruit on a temporary basis, with fee paying arrangements, other inspectors. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the argument being put forward in regard to a reduction in the resources of An Bord Pleanála is unsustainable.
With regard to the new provisions, I should point out that work which may take somewhat longer to conclude will move off the agenda as these procedures start to work. Therefore, it should not be necessary to enhance or improve the resources of An Bord Pleanála. If in the light of experience it is found that provisions in the Bill make it impossible for An Bord Pleanála to make good decisions, I will be the first to have a serious look at what can be done to improve the position.
Deputy Howlin seemed to go out to the corner flag to take a 21 yard free when he had the option of taking it straight in front of the goal when he said that at some future date a Minister may come into the House and say that An Bord Pleanála should be restricted, close them down and expect all the decisions to be made. I know Deputy Howlin is an able man and he does not really believe what he is saying in this context. It is like going off the field of play, having your name taken and expecting to come back into the game at another stage.
Leaving all that aside, to be frank about it there is a certain amount of reasonable opinion on all sides of the House. I do not want my successor to get my job too soon. I intend to stay around for a little while. I am certain that the people who will take our places on these benches will be just as fair and reasonable as we are. I ask Deputy Howlin to accord to public representatives on all sides a little bit of understanding, to accept that they are not largely different, that they have the same kind of philosophies in regard to trying to get the job done and that nobody will curtail and deliberately set out to put in place restrictive measures which will prevent a decent job from being done. I hope the Deputy accepts this point.
I am most disappointed at the Minister's response. Perhaps I did not stress strongly enough when introducing my amendment that I was endeavouring to be consensual in accepting a six month period as against no period, as is the case at present. We have a completely unlimited regime. One could make a very strong case for the continuance of this regime.
I wish to refer to the reality of the situation. If An Bord Pleanála take a long time to reach a decision on an appeal it usually means that they are understaffed and underresourced. This is beyond the control of ordinary people, who have a legitimate right to complain about a particular development. These people have a legitimate right to a proper system of appeal. If An Bord Pleanála are under-staffed appeals cannot be processed within a reasonable time. This is not the fault of An Bord Pleanála or the objector; it is the fault of the Government.
I have no faith whatever in the ability of the Government to use our labour resources properly. The Minister said there are approximately 300,000 people unemployed in the country and suggested that it was very wrong for An Bord Pleanála to unduly delay industrial projects which could create jobs. I agree with him on this point. He said that if An Bord Pleanála took a year to make their decision that the bird would have flown at that stage, even if they came down in favour of the local authority. Apart from exceptional circumstances one would sympathise with any industrialist who has to wait that length of time for a decision. One way of reducing the number of people on the dole queue is to allow An Bord Pleanála to take on more staff. This would put an end to the vicious circle of understaffing in An Bord Pleanála and delays, which in turn mean the cancellation of industrial projects with further job losses.
The Minister referred to the need for us to be businesslike. Of course, we have to be businesslike and efficient. If An Bord Pleanála were being run as a business they would be properly staffed and resourced. If the Government were efficient and businesslike they would ensure that An Bord Pleanála are properly staffed and resourced.
I am anxious to ensure that we arrive at a consensus. I am disappointed at the response of the Labour Party. There has been no response good, bad or indifferent from Fine Gael. It is not clear whether they are in favour of or against the proposal; they are totally mute. Deputy Gilmore and I have made a very eloquent case for a six month period for ordinary appeals. As a compromise, and to avoid a possible waste of time on a vote, would the Minister accept a five month period? My amendment No. 10 deals with environmental impact statements. Deputy Howlin's amendment No. 8 is somewhat similar to my amendment, but he does not propose any time limit. If the Minister was prepared to give a little on this point I would be prepared to consider a time limit of eight months rather than nine months. We are anxious to compromise and to be reasonable, not to be confrontational. However, since the debate started there has been confrontation and stonewalling, there is no "give" from the Minister. His response to the debate on these amendments has been identical; "not an inch" seems to be his motto.
I am trying to work towards a consensus and if the vast bulk of planning appeals are, de facto, within a four month period it is a reasonable yardstick for the majority of appeals. We only need a look at a tiny minority and we need not be concerned about open-ended decisions. Appeals are usually decided within four months. However, I am still concerned about the mechanism for having a proper environmental impact statement drawn up. I have been advised that the four months' timeframe is too tight to do that effectively. As I said, the four months general provision applies to a small category of applications which, generally, arouse most public interest and concern. The Minister should now exclude them from the provisions of the four months term and if he feels he does not want to leave it open-ended — which is the current practice in law — he should put his own timeframe under subsection (b). This would solve the problem as long as the time limit is greater than four months and allows a proper environmental impact statement to be drawn up and processed. That is a very reasonable request, accepting the general thrust of the Bill to apply justice to an appellant from the development side or an appellant from the environmental side, although I do not necessarily juxtapose them as opponents in every case. Both sides need a decision within a reasonable time as long as proper consideration has been given to all the issues. If we include a timeframe of four months for development or appeals which include an environmental impact statement, justice will not be served.
I appeal to the Minister to meet me on this point. If he does he will generate goodwill, not only in this House, but across the country because of his sincerity in having efficiency coupled with proper planning and environmental considerations.
Lest Deputy Garland is under the illusion that this side of the House do not have anything to say in regard to this matter, I must inform him that our proposals are quite different from his. As a Member I am frequently asked to make representations about long delays in regard to planning decisions. If four months is the time laid down in relation to An Bord Pleanála, there will be delays, despite the impression given that this legislation will give rise to greater efficiency. We considered tabling an amendment specifying a shorter period than four months which would be challenging for the Minister. However, on mature reflection, we decided not to.
Environmental impact statements is an area in which more and more expertise will be called on to give judgment in regard to various matters. Laying out what will be required in such statements will determine the time taken. While I appreciate what Deputy Howlin is trying to get the Minister to agree to, to a certain extent the judgment on the efficiency or the output in this case will depend on the guidelines laid down for environmental impact statements and the work done on them.
The Minister did not state what will happen regarding the improvement of environmental impact statements. At present there is great confusion in my constituency regarding the quality of an environmental impact statement commissioned by a Department of State. They laid down comprehensive guidelines, it was carried out efficiently within the timeframe to which Deputy Howlin referred but it has not satisfied the people for or against it. There will always be controversy in this area. A time factor of the order Deputy Garland suggested would give rise to extreme situations being made more extreme.
The Minister has not really made a case for the four months limit, indeed the case made by the Government side on this issue shows how unsure the Minister is about the four months limit. Deputy Callely argued much the same case which I argued, that these limits could not be applied unless sufficient resources were provided. He asked a very interesting question — to which the Minister has not replied — whether he would provide additional resources for An Bord Pleanála to enable them to comply with the time limits in the legislation. I repeat the invitation which Deputy Callely extended to the Minister to comment on that aspect of the legislation, particularly in the light of the statement in the explanatory memorandum that no additional staffing or financial requirements will be provided for An Bord Pleanála as a result of this Bill.
The Minister seems to be a bit unsure as to whether four months is the right period of time. As he pointed out, he has made an additional provision in the Bill that if it does not work out he can change it by way of regulation. He asked us to wait and see how it works out. It is almost 30 years since the Planning Act, 1963, came into force. Surely there is enough experience at this stage in relation to the processing of planning applications for the Minister to know with certainty the position in relation to planning decisions? He should not have to wait for a further period to allow this provision by way of regulations to change the four months if it is not sufficient.
I take the Minister's point that when there is a time limit there is a tendency for all decisions to gravitate towards the limit and that even if the limit is four months, decisions which could be made in two months might not be made until coming up to the expiry of the fourth month. It is a fair point. We had a fairly extensive debate on this and, on reflection, since there does not appear to be a great deal of support in the House for the formula which Deputy Garland and I proposed, to extend the limit from four to six months, I think the House should now support the formula proposed by Deputy Howlin. He suggested that in cases where the appeal includes an environmental impact statement, the board should not be confined to the four months period because it is more likely to be a complex appeal.
Deputy Howlin asked the Minister to accept his amendment or at the very least to give it serious consideration before Report Stage. I support that request and if the Minister is not disposed to acceding to it I will withdraw amendment No. 7 in favour of Deputy Howlin's amendment.
First, on the specific question of delays, I dealt with this matter comprehensively earlier. I refuted the accusations that the board had reduced resources in the year 1988-89. Since then negotiations on staffing levels have always been reviewed on the most generous terms. All the facts available to me indicate that the resources are sufficient for An Bord Pleanála to deal expeditiously and in a fair and balanced way with the appeals before them. Deputy Carey asked about the reasons for delays. When we had introduced improvements in relation to staffing and other matters, we discovered there were cumbersome legal imperatives in the board's existing obligations which made it practically impossible for them to reach decisions in a reasonable time. We set out to eliminate the ping pong circulation of documents. To ensure the appeal could be dealt with more expeditiously, we placed an obligation on appellants to submit all the details within the time prescribed and we allowed an extra week for this.
I dealt with the matter raised in Deputy Howlin's amendment. I am satisfied that the four month period is satisfactory and that it is sufficient to enable the board to make their decision in almost all cases. Section 2 (3) caters for cases when the board are unable to make a decision within the period: they will inform the appellant of the position and indicate the time scale in which they will make their decision. I indicated to Deputy Howlin that if the environmental impact assessment throws up certain complications which make it difficult for An Bord Pleanála to make their decision within the prescribed limits, I am prepared to look at that.
Deputies seem to think that everything about a planning appeal starts the day it reaches An Bord Pleanála. However, in almost all cases the environmental impact statement is available when the application is being processed by the local authority. It has come to my notice that only in a handful of cases are environmental impact statements lodged with the appeal. We must put the matter in context. The planning application is first processed by the local authority, an environmental impact assessment may be carried out and this is submitted when the decision is appealed to An Bord Pleanála. If Deputies take that into account, they will understand that fair and reasonable time is available for the board to make their decision. However, in certain complex cases, I am prepared to look at the time limit. If the board are not in a position to make a decision within the prescribed time they have the facility to inform the applicant, as I outlined.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, subsection (2) (a), line 2, after "matter" to insert "except an appeal which includes an Environmental Impact Statement".
I am not prepared to accept the Minister's reassurances. He is asking me to accept a pig in a poke. In the primary legislation the Minister should allow adequate time for planning applications which involve an environmental impact statement. I will press my amendment.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- McCartan, Pat.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt. Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McDaid, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
We now proceed to amendment No. 8a in the name of Deputy Gilmore. This amendment can be observed on the green list of additional amendments dated 8 April last. I observe that amendments Nos. 11a and 13a are consequential on amendment No. 8a and amendment No. 9 is an alternative to amendment No. 8a. I suggest, therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 8a, 9, 11a and 13a together by agreement. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 8a:
In page 5, subsection (2), lines 3 to 5, to delete paragraph (b).
There are two points I would like to make on this amendment, the first of which is that we have to ask ourselves whether we are wasting our time coming into the House to address key sections of the legislation if we find there is a little clause in the Bill which will enable the Minister to change it if he so wishes. This would seem to undermine the concept behind what the House is doing, that is, legislating. We have had a long debate on whether the time limit should be four months or six months and whether provision should be made for environmental impact assessments and so on. Having had that debate and having confirmed after a vote that the time limit will be four months, we are now dealing with a subsection which states, effectively, that if the Minister is not happy with the limit of four months he can change it in respect of all categories or for particular classes of planning applications only. This flies in the face of the pretence that it is this House that decides on these issues. There is not much point in introducing legislation which states that the time limit will be four months and then allowing the Minister, if he so wishes, to shorten the time limit in respect of particular classes of planning applications. I do not think such a provision should be included because this House should make the legislation.
Reference has been made already to the idea of secondary legislation, that is, regulations. The difficulty about these is that we never get an opportunity to debate the details in this House. Indeed, if we try to raise the issue on the Order of Business we are ruled out of order. Very often the substance of the legislation is contained in the regulations but, as I said, we never get around to debating them. This makes a mockery out of what we are doing. Even though we have just decided that the time limit will be four months, the provision we are now debating states that if the Minister does not like the figure of four months he will be able to change it. If we are going to pass legislation such as that we might as well pass it from the beginning; but let us stop pretending we have decided that the time limit will be four months when what we are actually doing is writing a blank cheque for the Minister who will be able to decide that the figure will be whatever he wants it to be.
While my amendment, amendment No. 9, is along somewhat similar lines to amendment No. 8a it may possibly be better in so far as I am seeking to have the word "longer" inserted before the word "period". Paragraph (b) states "such other period as the Minister may prescribe" either in respect of all classes or a particular class of planning appeal. Deputy Gilmore has stated very eloquently that this paragraph is a sham and a facade as it stands. Therefore we could do one of two things. We could either delete it altogether — I would agree with this — or, better still, the Minister, who may have the best of intentions, may state in reply that what he has in mind is a longer period. About six weeks ago the Minister received representations from An Taisce, which I assume he has read. Even though he has no intention of accepting the amendment, we will give him one last chance to include the word "longer" which, and I am sure Deputy Gilmore would agree, would be acceptable.
I have spoken at some length about my constant difficulties with clauses such as this which allow a Minister to circumvent the intentions of the Oireachtas. I raise this issue each time legislation is discussed. More and more the meat of legislation is decided not by the House but by the civil servants and it is then signed into law by Ministers acting on foot of enabling provisions. This is wrong and anti-democratic. While a series of regulations are usually required on foot of complex legislation, having regard to the rate at which this is being done the democratic authority of this House is being undermined. I have stated many times in the House that this is wrong as a principle, and I think I am well known for this.
In relation to the amendment, I have a slight difficulty with it in the sense that I have sought to ensure the exclusion of certain categories in respect of the four month rule. Having regard to the vote we have just had, this cannot now be done in the primary legislation and I have to fall back on secondary legislation as the only way in which it can be done. I hope the Minister will make provision in regulations for the exclusion of complex appeals, which involve environmental impact statements, from the four month rule. For this reason I am minded to support the amendment in the name of Deputy Garland which would give the Minister the power to alter the time limit; however, he would only be allowed to extend it. That would be a desirable objective and I hope the Minister will accept Deputy Garland's amendment, which I support.
Amendment No. 8a would take away the Minister's power to specify a period other than four months for the determination of appeals or other matters by the board. The period of four months for deciding cases was selected after careful consideration. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for cases generally and that it strikes the necessary balance between the need for speedy decisions and a fair and thorough examination of issues coming before the board. Nevertheless, it may prove appropriate in the light of experience to specify a different period for particular cases.
For example, as Deputy Mitchell and others have suggested in other amendments, a shorter target period might be possible in the case of appeals dealing with a routine development which does not raise complex planning issues. I view section 2 (2) (b) as providing a necessary element of flexibility and consider that it should be retained. I cannot therefore accept the amendment or the related amendments, amendments Nos. 11a and 13a. I can however assure Deputy Gilmore that any change to the four month period would be contemplated only in the light of adequate experience of the operation of that period.
I consider also that amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy Garland, which would limit the Minister to prescribing alternative time objectives of longer than four months for the determination of cases, would be unduly restrictive. It is desirable that the power to prescribe a period other than four months should be framed so as to allow the Minister to provide for both shorter and longer periods. I cannot therefore agree to Deputy Garland's amendment.
I do not accept that there is anything unacceptable in principle in giving the Minister power to set an alternative to the four month period by way of regulations. Even though it is my clear intention at this stage that the four month period will apply to all cases, it may emerge when we have gained experience of the operation of that period that a somewhat different period could appropriately be applied in certain cases. It would not be appropriate to have recourse to primary legislation to make an adjustment to that period. On that basis I consider that there is a very strong case for ministerial power such as that proposed in section 2 (2) (b).
I know Deputy Howlin has a very contentious view about the need to enshrine almost everything in primary legislation. There is much to be said for that ideal but it would not be practical and has never been the practice of this House. We would end up with a very much longer gestation period in terms of what happens in this House, and Heaven knows we are already in great difficulty with regard to the length of time it takes to pass legislation here, even legislation that is extremely urgent.
The answer is law reform.
I take the point with regard to reform. People on all sides of the House have their views about that and the Whips are discussing proposals at the moment which I hope will prove to be acceptable.
The second point is that when there is an emergency the immediate suggestion is to introduce legislation. Very often I have thought, as a politician and not as a Minister, that under the existing legislative framework, which might not be able to deal with a particular situation, we should have the flexibility to deal with situations without all the time returning to primary legislation. I do not see that as negating democracy or as an interference with Deputies' rights to represent the people. I would like to see a situation where we could deal with problems on a regulatory basis and meet the needs of society more quickly. To go the other road and enshrine everything in primary legislation would not be feasible. What we are doing here is creating flexibility so that after a period of time planning applications which are straightforward can be dealt with within the prescribed timelimit and we can adjust for complex cases that cannot be dealt with in a short time.
We are rapidly running out of time on this Committee Stage debate which is a great pity because we are still only on amendment No. 8a and there are about 130 amendments in all. I propose to withdraw my amendment No. 8a in favour of Deputy Garland's amendment and perhaps we might, in the remaining limited time available to us, make a bit more progress on the Bill.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, subsection (2) (b), line 3, after "other" to insert "longer".
Amendment No. 11, in the name of Deputy Garland. Amendment No. 12 is an alternative. It is proposed, therefore, for discussion purposes to take amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, lines 6 to 22, to delete subsection (3).
Subsection (3) (a) provides:
Where it appears to the Board that it would not be possible or appropriate, because of the particular circumstances of an appeal . . . with which the Board is concerned, to determine the appeal . . . within the period referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) . . . the Board shall, by notice in writing served on the parties to the appeal . . . before the expiration of that period, inform those parties of the reasons why it would not be possible or appropriate . . . to determine the appeal or other matter within that period and shall specify the date before which the Board intends that the appeal or other matter shall be determined. For the board to implement such provisions means that they must divert limited resources to functions which are not central to their role in deciding planning appeals and this section should be deleted in view of the duty imposed in subsection (1).
I am a little puzzled by Deputy Garland's amendment. It seems to run counter to his preceding amendment where he was seeking to have the word "longer" inserted. Here we are giving the board the option in difficult cases to take a longer time. If this subsection was deleted it would have the opposite effect to that intended by Deputy Garland. On reflection, Deputy Garland may wish to withdraw the amendment. It seems that in complex planning applications it would be only appropriate that the board would be able to take longer than the four months.
I apologise to Deputy Howlin. I did not realise that amendment No. 12 was in the Deputy's name and he should have been called after Deputy Garland.
You are forgiven, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I see a difficulty with Deputy Garland's amendment. What I seek to do is to extend the time and subsequent times if that is required. The import of my amendment No. 12 is to make the new subsection read:
Where a notice has been served under paragraph (a), the Board shall take all such steps as are open to it to ensure that the appeal or other matter is determined before the date specified in the notice, but if this is not possible the Board may from time to time by notice extend the period concerned".
It would not then simply be a once-off process. If an extremely complex issue was not determined, even in the extended time notified to the parties, the import of what is currently in place would mean that there would be pressure to have it decided within the new timeframe. I am allowing the flexibility to further broaden the timescale in a particularly difficult case where the board is minded to give extra time. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I do not agree with Deputy Garland's proposal to remove subsection (3) of section 2. The subsection is essential as it lays down the procedures which the board must follow if, in a particular case, it is not possible or appropriate for them to meet the time objective under section 2 (2). If the provision was deleted, the procedure in circumstances where the board are unable, for bona fide reasons, to give their decision within four months would be unacceptably uncertain.
A provision along the lines of subsection (3) is essential where there will be a statutory objective, rather than an absolute time limit, for the determination of cases by the board. It could only be dispensed with, if there was an absolute requirement to decide cases within a specified period. However, absolute time limits would be problematical in legal terms, given the board's obligations as a quasi-judicial body to observe the requirements of natural and constitutional justice.
Deputy Howlin's proposal raises the possibility that the board might serve a series of notices indicating dates by which they intend to determine a particular case. I consider that such a situation would be intolerable. The board will be expected to determine all but the most exceptional cases within the four month period indicated in section 2 (2) of the Bill, and to have recourse to the power under section 2 (3) as infrequently as possible.
If the board avail of the power under section 2 (3), the clear expectation is that they will then determine the case in question by the date that they indicate to the parties. To provide for a succession of notices indicating different target dates effectively gives the Board an open cheque in terms of time. This runs totally counter to the whole purpose of this Bill.
I cannot, therefore, agree to these amendments.
I will withdraw amendment No. 11 but I support Deputy Howlin's amendment No. 12.
I am glad that Deputy Garland intends to withdraw his amendment, which is clearly at cross purposes with his earlier amendments and the amendment he is now supporting in the name of Deputy Howlin. I accept the Minister's point, but there is validity in Deputy Howlin's amendment. I can see complex circumstances in which it would be necessary or desirable in the public interest to have a second or subsequent extension as provided for in Deputy Howlin's amendment. On the other hand it would be undesirable for the board to have a carte blanche to extend the time limit. Perhaps we could reach a compromise on Report Stage by taking the substance of Deputy Howlin's amendment and stipulating that the board would only have an extension with the consent of the Minister, in exceptional circumstances. Will the Minister consider that?
It is conceivable that there could be a complex planning appeal going on. The most complex case ever to come before Wexford County Council was in relation to a nuclear power station. One can imagine the process of appeals going through a planning application such as that. It would be wrong if the shutters came down on exceptional planning applications and excluded a movement on the time limit. If at the end of four months An Bord Pleanála are not in a position to make a decision, they then have to set a new date and if they cannot reach a decision on that date, it is `tough cookies" as far as the Minister is concerned. That is not good planning. I accept the caveat being entered by Deputy Mitchell in that an extension might require the support of the Minister. I would not oppose that, but the Minister should consider this on Report Stage.
I do not mind reconsidering this between now and Report Stage. We are setting out to achieve a fairly systematic improvement in the way An Bord Pleanála do their business. We have already had ample discussion on the four month period. We now take the case where they are not able to make a decision within those time specifications. At the end of the four month period what exactly is involved should be fairly clear. The application will have been before the local authority for a couple of months and before An Bord Pleanála for four months. It should be possible to picture what is ahead. We now want to give a precise date by which this application is dealt with.
If it does not work out, what happens?
The Deputy's proposal opens the door which this Bill is setting out to close.
Is the Minister suggesting that An Bord Pleanála want to subvert the Bill.
If the board have had an application for four months they should be in a position to picture what is ahead in terms of determining time. I will reconsider it between now and Report Stage, but my instincts tell me that there is not great room for manoeuvre. Deputy Mitchell will appreciate on reconsidering his proposal for Ministerial intervention, that An Bord Pleanála are a statutory independent authority and the Minister should not be involved in this way. I would rather have a clear picture as to their responsibility. However, I will look at it without giving a commitment on it.
This is a very important point. There will be times when a decision cannot be made after four months and new goal posts will have to be put in place by the appeals board. They might consider that they will have all the technical data assessed in six weeks or two months. However, the Minister is saying that they will not be allowed a further extension, so the board will be inclined to ask for six months rather than two in case they cannot finish the work within two months. To allow flexibility will work towards efficiency in the board. If the Minister accepts the mechanism I am suggesting, the board can agree to try to have the work done within a month, but if it is not completed by then they will be able to extend the time by a further month. This would be efficient and it would only be brought into play in exceptional circumstances. It is disingenuous for the Minister to suggest that if he accepts this, An Bord Pleanála will consider it as a vehicle so as to run a coach and four through the intentions of the Oireachtas. It is unfair to An Bord Pleanála to imply that they will do that. They want to act as expeditiously as they can. My amendment takes into account the view that whatever decisions we make must be mindful of proper planning and environmental considerations. The mechanism I am proposing to the Minister is a very good one to balance the requirements of efficiency, good planning and environmental considerations. The Minister is blind if he cannot see that.
Apart from the sort of case Deputy Howlin has cited, an appeal procedure could be held up by a court case. The parties to the appeal may be in dispute in the courts as to, for instance, the ownership of the property. That may not be resolved within the timescale. It would be sensible to make provision, as suggested by Deputy Howlin, for a further extension, but only in exceptional circumstances.
The Minister is making the point that An Bord Pleanála is a statutory body independent of the Minister. It is provided throughout the Bill that the Minister may make regulations and stipulate requirements. Section 18 (1) (b) provides that the Minister may by regulations make such provisions as regards procedure in respect of other matters with which the board is concerned as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient. Under that section the Minister has power to make such provision. We want a commitment that he will make the provision.
Individual applications to An Bord Pleanála in regard to appeals or objections are the sole prerogative of An Bord Pleanála. In no way am I involved. The areas where I have powers relate to general procedures, not to decisions as to whether applications should be given different treatment or dealt with in a longer time. I indicated that I was prepared to look at this between now and Report Stage, but I was accused of being blind. Deputies may want me to put down in concrete form what I will do about it. I have outlined my difficulties. I do not see Deputy Mitchell's suggestion as a solution. Deputy Howlin has made a fair point in that there are circumstances where a longer time limit might be appropriate. I will consider that matter. How that puts me in the position of being blind I do not know.
The Minister's sight is improving.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, lines 23 to 31, to delete subsection (4).
I feel very strongly that appeals which include environmental impact statements should not be subject to subsection (2) because four months is too short a period if they are to receive detailed consideration by An Bord Pleanála. We have had a debate on this point already. Perhaps we should have taken this amendment in conjunction with previous ones.
The amendment seeks to delete subsection (4) which would allow the Minister for the Environment to suspend or vary the time objective for determination of cases set for the board under subsection (2). The power under section 2 (4) is a reserved one to be used only in exceptional circumstances where disruption of the board's operation, caused, for example, by a postal strike, would make it impossible for the board to comply with the four month objective for determining cases. The subsection itself expressly confines its use to exceptional situations. It is necessary and appropriate for the Minister to have this power and I cannot agree to its deletion.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 5, subsection (6), line 40, to delete "six" and substitute "twelve".
Subsection (6) states:
Subsections (2) to (5) shall apply in relation to appeals and other matters with which the Board is concerned that they are received by the Board on or after the date which is six months after the date of the passing of this Act.
Basically we are talking about the lead-in period and the date from which the four month appeal mechanism will begin. The Minister has decided that it should begin six months after the passing of the Act. I am advised that because of the current staffing position that would not be an appropriate timeframe. I seek to increase the period from six months to 12 months so that there will be a reasonable period before the full impact of the legislation and in order that appeals currently before the board can be properly and adequately dealt with. It is a reasonable request.
What worries me about the transitional arrangement is that the explanatory memorandum states very clearly that this Bill will not entail any extra charge on the Exchequer. That implies that extra staff will not be taken on by An Bord Pleanála to deal with this backlog of work. The workload will remain the same but the period in which that work has to be processed will be changed. The whole timescale of the operation will completely change. Fresh applications will have to be dealt with within the four month period. This will require an immense speed up and there is a real risk that appeals already lodged will be put on the back burner because of the need to deal with current applications. Has the Minister thought this through? There will be quite severe transitional difficulties if the present level of appeals continues. He should not hamstring himself by limiting the transitional period to six months. This is long term legislation. Let us give the board a reasonable time to get their affairs in order. I suggest 12 months. Six months is not long enough. We cannot say what level of appeals there will be over the next few months but that level will decide how quickly the backlog can be cleared. I would ask the Minister to be reasonable occasionally and to give perhaps nine months.
As it stands, section 2 (6) provides that the time objective of four months for the determination of cases will apply to appeals and other matters received by An Bord Pleanála on or after the date which is six months after the date of the passing of the Act. This transitional period of six months will give the board ample time to gear up their operations for the new procedures proposed in the Bill and to meet the new time objective of four months for determining cases. It would also give the board sufficient opportunity to dispose of cases on hands when the Bill is passed. The number of cases on hands in the board has been reduced greatly over the past 18 months, and I am confident that the six months is adequate. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the Deputy's proposal that there be an interval of 12 months before the new time for deciding cases would apply. I would like to add that all stages of this Bill will, hopefully, pass some time in the summer, which will be more than six months from the time the Bill first appeared. Everybody in An Bord Pleanála and in the country as a whole is alerted to and aware of many of the provisions involved in streamlining these procedures because they have been debated in the national news media.
You could not pre-empt the Oireachtas.
The general provisions are well known to the people whom Deputy Howlin and Deputy Garland seek to protect in this amendment. I doubt if people working in An Bord Pleanála are unaware of what is happening in the Oireachtas in terms of streamlining planning procedures, laws and regulations. I am meeting Deputy Garland's proposal by allowing for six months after the passage of the Bill, which will be in a couple of months' time. The very essence of what is involved in the Bill has been well known to An Bord Pleanála for months.
The questions of resources has been raised. Deputy Garland seems to be of the view that there is no way planning appeal procedures can be streamlined and new laws and regulations introduced governing these procedures without providing additional staff. Many of the existing and more cumbersome methods of dealing with applications are being reshaped in a more progressive way. To give one instance, there will be an obligation on the board to request the appellant to submit the appeal and the onus will be on the appellant to complete the deliberations and make the appeal comprehensively. There are other areas in which the work of An Bord Pleanála will be assisted by the new procedures. However, if in the light of experience there is an indication that the resources of An Bord Pleanála are insufficient to meet the number of appeals lodged, as I have said, I will be the first to see to what extent I can deal with that matter.
I find the Minister's contribution quite curious. He says that those of us who are proposing this amendment seek to protect the staff of An Bord Pleanála. He goes on to state that the contents of the Bill have been known to the staff of An Bord Pleanála since last November. I cannot help but get the feeling from this whole debate, particularly from the Minister's last contribution, that he thinks the delays in the planning appeals system are the fault of the staff of An Bord Pleanála. Does he imagine that the staff are waiting for the passage of this legislation to make them perk up and get on with the processing of appeals? That is the message that comes across from the Minister's contribution. I had not expected that this amendment would produce this revelation. The tabling of the amendment had nothing to do with the staff of An Bord Pleanála but was simply to recognise the fact that the whole appeals procedure will change quite significantly with the passage of this legislation. There will be a new method of lodging appeals, a new system for the seeking and processing of observations on appeals and for allowing applicants and third parties an opportunity to rebut the argument of the other side. For the first time ever a time limit will have to be met in relation to planning appeals.
Recently I spoke to a person with many years' experience in working in a local authority planning department who talked about the two month limit, particularly the arrangements in this country whereby if a decision is not made by the expiry of the two months the application is deemed to be approved, whereas in other countries if the decision is not made within the time limit the application is deemed not to be approved. That means that every day there is a crisis because you must see what dates have been met and so on. We are now putting the same obligation on An Bord Pleanála, thereby adding to the pressure on them. I do not believe it will be possible to change over to this new procedure within six months. A longer lead-in period will be necessary because of the major changes in procedure. It is quite wrong of the Minister to convey the impression in this House that the delays in the planning appeals system are the fault of the staff of An Bord Pleanála, and I hope he will clarify the position.
Os rud é go bhfuil deacrachtaí éagsúla agamsa leis an teanga Bhéarla, de réir dealraimh, caithfidh mé athrú anois go dtí an Ghaeilge mar tá sé ráite ag an Teachta——
Táimid go léir sásta.
Tá sé soiléir gur deacrachtaí móra iad. Could I say, a Chathaoirligh, that I clearly have extreme difficulty with the English language and that it seems necessary to speak in Irish. In some extraordinary way, Deputy Gilmore has interpreted what I said as reflecting on the officials and technical staff of An Bord Pleanála. What I clearly said was that there were procedures in the old system which we are streamlining in the context of new laws and regulations. These procedures placed on the board a burden which I am removing. I went into specific detail on just one aspect of the matter to clarify what I was saying. Once the Bill is enacted and the six-month period has expired, An Bord Pleanála will have the best possible opportunity to prepare for the new demands that will be made on them. That should not be interpreted as a reflection on the staff of the Department of the Environment who, as I said in the course of my earlier contribution, have, following discussions with them, been able to make dramatic improvements in the past 18 months in all areas and solve many of the problems that had been raised up to that time. Once they had been removed it was crystal clear that the cumbersome nature of the obligations under planning appeals had to be taken on board, which is what is being done. The highly qualified and motivated people involved had sufficient time to gear themselves to meet new challenges. It is six or seven months since the Bill was presented to the House and a further six months will be available after the enactment of the legislation. That should be sufficient time to prepare to meet the challanges. Following voting today in the British general election, the UK could have a new Government——
There could be one here.
——and I presume the new Government would not ask the public to allow them 12 months to get started.
B'fhéidir go bhfuil an tAire ag éirí beagáinín tuirseach ag an bpointe seo den díospóireacht. Ní dóigh liom go raibh——
Cad mar gheall ar——
——deacracht dá laghad aige labhairt i mBéarla. Cheap mé go raibh sé ag caitheamh anuas ar an mBord Pleanála agus thug mé seans dó é sin a shoiléiriú. Tá mé sásta anois nach bhfuil ach ardmheas ag an Aire ag an mBord Pleanála agus is áthas liom é sin a chloisteáil.
Agus tá sé sin déanta sa chéad teanga oifigiúil agus is amhlaidh is fearr é. Céard anois faoi leasú a 14? An bhfuil sé sin tarraingthe siar? Tá.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 5, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) Where An Bord Pleanála cause an inspector's report to be produced in relation to an application for planning permission, such report shall be published and copies shall be made available at the offices of the local authority in whose functional area the site which is the subject of the application is situated.".
This amendment, in the names of Deputies Carey, Allen and myself, seeks to include a new subsection, which will require the board to publish and make available at the offices of the local authority concerned an inspector's report in relation to any planning application on appeal. Those who have an interest in the appeal should have access to the report. To date the reports are not made generally available and there is no justification, in an open society, for that.
I should like to hear the Minister's response to this amendment. Is there any good reason a report, even a report commissioned in particular circumstances, should not be made available? It is only right that inspector's reports be made available to the general public.
Unless the Minister can convince me that there is a measure in existing legislation that would render this provision unnecessary, I will support the amendment very strongly. The amendment relates to a very important point of freedom of information, something that we are not very good at here. There is little information available in relation to much legislation. That is true in regard to planning.
Members may recall the recent notorious case of the Tara Radio mast, when An Bord Pleanála allowed the retention of a ghastly and unauthorised development. It emerged, accidently, that An Bord Pleanála had acted against the advice contained in the inspector's report. Until that was revealed the general public assumed, naturally, that the inspector had recommended acceptance. In fact, the inspector recommended the exact opposite. We should move away from secretive planning of that kind. It should be open to the public to examine these matters to ensure everything is completely above board, if Members will excuse the unintentional pun. I strongly support the amendment.
Before I address the major question posed in the amendment I wish to say, as a former member of a local authority, that I hope it will always be possible for a county manager to make a planning decision that may be different from the one prescribed in a technical planning officer's recommendation. While a county manager may accept such a recommendation in the vast majority of cases, it is clear he or she must have the discretion to adopt a different approach. From my experience, one should not always have to rigidly adhere to the content of a technical recommendation. No Deputy would wish that.
Under section 23 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, a person appointed by An Bord Pleanála to carry out an inspection or an oral hearing on behalf of the board must make a written report to the board on the inspection or hearing and must include in that report a recommendation relating to the matter with which the inspection or hearing was concerned. The board must in turn consider that report and recommendation before determining the matter to which the report relates. The board are not, however, bound by the inspector's report. Determination of the appeal is a matter for the members of the board, who must do so in accordance with the procedures and by reference to the considerations laid down by the planning acts. While members of the board must obviously give careful consideration to the inspector's report, it will be open to them to arrive at a different conclusion on the basis of the evidence before them. Since the inspector's report is, in the final analysis, only an input into the board's determination of an appeal, I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to require the public availability of such reports.
The Deputies' amendment may reflect the position that pertains in the UK. There the inspector's report must be made available. However, there is an important difference between the appeals system here and that in the UK. In Britain it is the inspector who decides the appeal, except exceptional ones called in by the Environmental Secretary. In Ireland the board make the decision and must incorporte the reasons for it in their decision. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
I am very disappointed at the Minister's response. I do not see why the inspector's report should not be made available. It is not good enough for the Minister to use the UK procedure because our position is somewhat different to theirs.
I do agree with the Minister that in the determination of a planning application a county manager or city manager should not necessarily be bound by the recommendations of his or her technical officials. Of course the manager has to have the ultimate say in deciding planning applications and need not necessarily be bound by technical reports. Likewise, I consider that An Bord Pleanála need not necessarily be bound to the strict recommendations of their own inspectors. If that were the case we would not need a board.
There is an overwhelming case for the public to have the right to know what was contained in the inspector's report, what arguments were made, what considerations appeared in the inspector's report and the conclusions of that report. I really feel there is no good reason that this inspectors' report should not be published. I urge the Minister to reconsider his position.
There is a very important principle involved in this amendment. I take the point that a county manager or the board of An Bord Pleanála need not necessarily act on either the report of the inspector, in the case of An Bord Pleanála, or the planning officials or other technical staff in the case of a local authority. But I feel very strongly that those reports should be publicly available. No matter who may be the official, whether he is an official of An Bord Pleanála, or it is the manager of a local authority, there must be some degree of accountability. At the very least the public are entitled to have access to these technical reports. There obtains within our planning system here two sets of files, one set available to the public in local authorities and another file under the counter. The one under the counter is the one that contains perhaps the most significant information of all, that is the technical reports of the planning officers, the reports of the roads engineers and all the rest, which has never been made available either to the public or to the elected members of local authorities. The same applies here in relation to An Bord Pleanála in that inspectors' reports will not be available. I contend that gives rise to a great deal of public suspicion about some decisions taken by An Bord Pleanála.
It is very late in this debate. I do not want to go into some of the recent difficulties, controversies and so on surrounding An Bord Pleanála. But I contend it invites public suspicion when the basic technical information, the reports of professionals on which decisions are taken, are not made available to the public. That is an important principle to be underscored.
I am very conscious of the time remaining. As this may be the last occasion I shall have an opportunity of contributing to this debate I want to repeat something I said on Second Stage, that is that I consider this Bill is seriously flawed. I had hoped that, on Committee Stage, we would have had an opportunity to amend it in a manner that would have rendered it acceptable to me and my party. Unfortunately, that has not been possible because of the short length of time afforded us, when we are still only on amendment No. 15 to section 2 of a Bill that runs to 22 sections.
For those reasons I regret that, when the question is put at 2.30 p.m. I will be unable to support this Bill on Committee Stage. I will be opposing it.
I did not contribute to this amendment, since I contributed to virtually every other one. I did not want my remarks to be misconstrued. I strongly support this amendment in that I consider there is a compelling case for the information sought by Deputies to be published. I am not at all conviced by the Minister's argument in this regard.
I have been concerned, as we have progressed through Committee Stage, that the overriding principle the Minister wants to enshrine in this Bill is one of "get the planning permissions through as expeditiously as possible". Quite frankly, I am not at all convinced by his attitude here that he is willing to allow the proper planning and environmental considerations to have co-equal status with the need for expedition. I am very fearful that this will be a very bad Bill. I, too, will be opposing it on Committee Stage. Certainly the Minister is not minded to accept a raft of very reasonable amendments which would achieve the purpose the Minister said on Second Stage he wished to bring about, that is the rational handling of planning appeals in an expeditious manner. I strongly share that view, but there is a need for checks and balances to be inserted in the Bill. I greatly regret that these are not being accepted by the Minister.
He has an opportunity to accept this amendment with which we are dealing before the remaining six minutes tick away and before his bona fides in relation to striking the balance required will be brought into question.
Like the two previous speakers, I should like to place on record my opposition to this Bill, indeed my utter disappointment with the Minister's response to our amendments, most of which were extremely reasonable.
We had a long debate on Second Stage and I was very heartened then by the contributions from all sides of the House which clearly indicated general acceptance of the broad principles enshrined in the Bill. To avail of the opportunity now, at the end of Committee Stage, to place on record outright opposition to provisions which have been supported in a general way seems to me to be not the most desirable way to conduct business. However, that is all right. If you like, I can be represented, as somebody who is unwilling to listen or, on the other hand, as somebody who is prepared to enact legislation which is workable and practical and the provisions of which would remedy the position obtaining without tearing apart and rendering worthless some of the provisions contained in it, or having them substituted by new ones which run totally counter to its main provisions. A number of amendments have been tabled which ran directly counter to previous ones tabled by the same Deputies. I did not place that on the record before but I do so now.
The essential matter enshrined in this amendment is that we make provision for the publication of the inspector's report. I have said that the inspector's input is one aspect only of the total arrangements which combine until eventually the point is reached at which An Bord Pleanála take a decision. When An Bord Pleanála have taken a decision, then we are talking about whether an inspector's report should be published. An Bord Pleanála have taken their decision. Nothing that may happen of which I can think will in the normal way change that decision unless, of course, there is a court sequel.
It makes the decision transparent.
Just a moment, unless there is a court sequel in which context, of course, all documents are open to scrutiny. Therefore, the kind of transparency the Deputy seeks takes the matter to a point of pressing for publication of an inspector's report which forms one part only of the combination of different aspects encompassed in a decision of An Bord Pleanála. I do not know how helpful it would be to provide in legislation that an inspector's report should be published subsequent to a decision taken by An Bord Pleanála since it would not change anything at that stage.
Overall, the Minister has been less than forthcoming in his dealing with this Bill. The manner in which he has succeeded in ramming through Committee Stage, without consultation, means that this is the second Bill with which he has dealt within his short time as Minister for the Environment, since the Control of Dogs Bill was dealt with in a similar manner on Second Stage. If the Minister wishes to treat the House like that he will be treated in like manner. However, that is for another day.
It would be my hope that we would have a more constructive debate on Report Stage, with a more forthcoming attitude on the part of the Minister, whose attitude so far as been deplorable. From my experience as a Minister I know there are two types of Ministers: the one who is in charge of his brief, who is confident, who comes into the House with legislation, accepting that its processing through both Houses of the Oireachtas is a process laid down in our Constitution in order to improve and perfect legislation and, on the other hand, there are some Ministers who come into the House determined not to accept any change whatsoever because they believe they know all. The Minister does not know all.
I accept the general principle of this Bill, which is to streamline the timescale within which planning decisions can be taken without taking shortcuts over people's rights. I am worried about any short-cutting. I am also very worried about the lack of accountability on the part of An Bord Pleanála.
My amendment requests that an inspector's report be published, a simple request, which is the practice in the United Kingdom and in many other administrations. Yet the Minister will not accede to that simple request. I am disappointed the Minister has not accepted it but it is something we can discuss at greater length and in greater detail on Report Stage.
I should like to inform the House that there are certain other amendments to which I am favourably disposed. I am referring in particular to amendments Nos. 33 and 65 in the name of Deputy Howlin. I wish to inform Deputies that I intend to give further careful consideration to the issues raised in these amendments between now and Report Stage. I am also considering the changes which may be necessary to section 8 to clarify the start of the period for persons other than parties to make submissions in cases where a number of appeals are made to the board about the one development. I may return to this matter also on Report Stage.
As it is now 2.30 p.m. I am required in accordance with an order of the Dáil on this day to put the following question: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section or, as appropriate, the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to; that the Schedule, as amended, is hereby agreed to; that the Title, as amended, is hereby agreed to and the Committee accordingly reports that it has gone through the Bill and has made amendments thereto and has amended the Title to read as follows: An Act to amend and extend the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1991, in relation to appeals and other matters with which An Bord Pleanála is concerned and in relation to legal proceedings concerned with matters arising under or connected with the said Acts and to provide for related matters".
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dennehy, John.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Garland, Roger.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Yates, Ivan.
When is it intended to take the Report Stage of this Bill?
It will be taken on Tuesday, 28 April 1992, subject to agreement between the Whips.