Vol. 499 No. 2
6 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government when he will publish proposals for the amendment and improvement of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts; if he will hold consultations on these proposals before publishing a Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2134/99]
On 19 January the Government approved my proposals for the reform, modernisation and consolidation of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts and the parliamentary draftsman has commenced work on the drafting of a major revision Bill based on these proposals. My proposals represent the outcome of a major review of the planning code, which I initiated in August 1997 and which involved a very comprehensive consultation process, including a national planning convention.
In view of this and as I am anxious to publish the text of the Bill as quickly as possible, I do not intend to hold further consultations as this would only serve to delay publication of the Bill. I will, however, welcome views from the public, interest groups and public representatives on the Bill after it is published and I intend then to make arrangements to promote debate and the putting forward of views.
I thank the Minister for that response. I assure him I do not propose that we should have a consultation period that would last anything like as long as, for example, the Dublin transportation consultation. However, I urge the Minister, when he publishes the Bill, to allow it to be in circulation for a reasonable length of time so that there can be a debate with concerned bodies, particularly local authorities, before the Bill is debated in this House. What period would the Minister consider reasonable between publication of the Bill and initiation of Second Stage debate in the House?
I took office on 26 June 1997 and I initiated the consultation process in August 1997. Submissions were made and on 27 November 1997 we had the national planning convention, at which the Deputy, or his representative, was present. That was the consultation period at that time and I do not think it was unduly long. It was very productive. We have spent recent months drafting as much as possible of the Bill. It will be a lengthy Bill because approximately half of it will include existing legislation, which we will not be changing, including eight planning Acts, four sets of European Communities Environmental Impact Assessment regulations and the planning Bill on architectural heritage. We also intend to consolidate this legislation. When the Deputies on the other side of the House and the interest groups see the Bill, I will be willing to agree with them a reasonable time for consideration and consultation. Second Stage will then be taken and amendments can be considered on Committee Stage. I am anxious to facilitate because of the importance of the legislation for everybody.
I join Deputy Dukes in welcoming that the Bill is at an advanced stage of preparation. Will it provide for any reform of the present system of land rezoning?
The question deals with the introduction of the legislation. The Deputy should not broaden the scope of the question by addressing the content of the Bill.
If you hear me out, Sir, you will see the relevance of this. Does the Minister intend that the Bill be published and in circulation in advance of the local elections, where the issue of land rezoning is likely to be the subject matter of public debate? It would be helpful to have the Bill published in advance so that the Government's intentions are known, the debate is facilitated and the likely future functions of members of local authorities regarding planning and zoning are known at that point.
That approach is in order but the contents of the Bill should not be pursued at this stage.
I intend to have the Bill published as quickly as possible. Deputies on all sides of the House are aware of the timetables in the office of the Attorney General. The best estimate for publication is the middle of the year. I am advised by some that this is optimistic, however, the Government has made this priority legislation and it is being treated as such in the parliamentary draftsman's office. I do not know on what side of 11 June it will be published. I am mindful of your ruling, Sir, but if the Deputy looks at the speech I made on the opening of the planning convention in Dublin Castle on 27 November he will have an idea of the thrust of my proposals and what I wanted to be considered with regard development plans, which is basically more public participation at an earlier stage in the process.
During the Christmas recess a report appeared in the Irish Independent to the effect that developers were now being forced to pay money to groups who were objecting to proposals. In the article the Minister was quoted as saying this showed the need for new legislation. Could the Minister explain his remarks? Could it not equally be said that these developers were paying off individuals, which could be seen as a bribe?
The Deputy is not being relevant to the question before us.
I have no doubt the Minister has been lobbied by groups, especially environmental groups regarding the question of the division between environmental and planning issues. I have also no doubt that many NGOs are dissatisfied that one cannot raise environmental issues at planning inquiries.
The Deputy is imparting information. He should confine himself to asking a question.
The Minister knows what I am talking about. Does he believe this is a vital issue that must be addressed in this legislation?
If the Deputy consults the article in the Irish Independent to which he refers he will find I did not say anything about groups. The activities of certain individuals was brought to my attention. More recently I heard of another case where attempts were made to blackmail developers to pay money to prevent the lodging of objections. If somebody lodges a legitimate objection and a developer attempts, by means of financial inducements or otherwise, to get that person to withdraw the objection that amounts to corruption under the planning laws.
How can one tell the difference?
The difference is simple. When someone telephones a developer advising that an objection has been lodged but that if the developer makes it worth the caller's while the objection will be withdrawn it is clear to the developer who is doing the blackmailing. Both practices are equally reprehensible and I condemn both equally.
The Deputy will be aware from our sojourn on the Waste Management Bill that I have strong views on what can be perceived by the public to be an artificial division between environmental considerations, etc. That is something I wish to address in the Bill also.
I look forward to that.
When I hear the Minister say the Bill will be published in the middle of the year I know that will be after 11 June.
I would prefer it were published before 11 June.
It is nice of the Minister to say that and there are many logical reasons why it should be so, but when he says it will be the middle of the year it will be after 11 June. In the interests of being helpful and constructive, when the Bill is published, will the Minister undertake to consult with the Opposition spokespersons about how we may handle it because it will be very important legislation. In the interests of all of us and of the local government system it would be useful to approach it as constructively as we can.
I have no difficulty with that. As soon as the Bill is finalised I will refer it directly to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government to have that aspect discussed and perhaps agree a timetable. I ask Deputies on all sides of the House to be mindful that this is important legislation. It is designed to get rid of some of the bottlenecks in the planning system. I am anxious – others will verify this – to have it published before 11 June. I would like it to be published in May. It is such a signal Bill it is bound to have a good effect on the system and will be of benefit to the Government in the local elections.
I am glad the definition of the middle of the year would appear to be around the first round of the football championship rather than the All-Ireland final. The Bill is important and I hope the Minister will publish it before the local elections. I urge him to do so.
The Minister's remark about his wish to eliminate bottlenecks reminds me of the recent comments by IBEC. Will the legislation facilitate speculators and developers and not the communities and the individual?
We are not discussing the content of the Bill.
The Deputy can interpret messages as he wishes and if he holds a certain attitude he can interpret matters in that way. Those of us with a responsibility to ensure that balanced solutions are proposed to the very difficult problems the country faces will know what is meant when we say there will be a balanced approach to the issue. I am sure the Deputy will change his mind.
Has the Government any proposals to enhance the role of regional authorities in the planning and development system? I do not want the Minister to comment on the Bill, but perhaps he might indicate, in the context of the increase in population and good planning and development, whether he is at least considering this?
That should be the subject of a separate question.
I will be delighted to answer if the Deputy puts it down for 5 March which is the next day for oral questions to my Department.
