In page 71, line 2, to delete "substantial" and susbstitute "sufficient".

This matter has been discussed at some length and the Minister knows the issues involved. It is a question of the difference between substantial and sufficient.

Mr. Coogan: I second the amendment.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey): This amendment seeks to amend the requirement that a person must have substantial grounds for judicial review of a decision and replace it with sufficient grounds. As Senator Norris said, this matter was the subject of a long discussion on Committee Stage. I have not changed my view. This provision was introduced in 1992 to ensure developments would not be held up on weak grounds. One must be able to show to the court from the beginning that one has a strong case and is not applying for judicial review to delay a development. Senator Norris mentioned a number of cases in Dublin between developers. It is my advice that it would not be wise to change the Bill in this way.

Mr. Norris: I accept what the Minister said. I hung myself by referring to that particular case which is mischievous.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach: We now proceed to amendment No. 94. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 are alternatives while amendments Nos. 97 to 99, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 94 to 99, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Mr. Coogan: I move amendment No. 94:

In page 90, to delete lines 25 to 51, and in page 91, to delete lines 1 to 48, and in page 92, to delete lines 1 to 48 and in page 93, to delete lines 1 to 53 and in page 94, to delete lines 1 to 42.

The bottom line is that this measure may be unconstitutional, the proposals are convoluted and confusing and may drive up the price of houses rather than reduce them. Furthermore, if a builder is asked to develop a housing state of 100 houses, 20% of which are allocated to social housing, there is nothing to stop that builder building a wall around the 80 houses, giving that estate a different name and thus excluding the others. Instead of integration we would have segregation. I have examined this issue. I realise the Minister is trying to address social housing need but this is not the way to do it. There are other alternatives and one of them is to finance the local authorities to allow them to purchase land and build a variety of social housing and thus ensure integration. Another point I want to highlight is the fact that there is nothing of any substance in the measure for the homeless.

Ms O'Meara: I second the amendment. I echo what Senator Coogan said about the potential unconstitutionality of the provisions with regard to social housing. Those of us with even slight knowledge of the way our law operates will know that the notion of the State taking anything from anybody by way of this 20% provision is bound to be controversial and is likely to end up in court. I hope the President refers this section to the Supreme Court for adjudication. I support the 20% provision. It was the Labour Party which first floated the idea-----

Mr. Dempsey: It did not.

Ms O'Meara: -----and it is supportive of the Minister's intentions. The problem in relation to social housing is the provision of land. Local authorities would build to their hearts' content if they had land. The Minister is to be applauded for bringing forward this provision.

Our amendment No. 96 focuses on the issue of compensation. The main controversial issue likely to be contested would be the question of any loss of property value or loss of income arising from the State taking 20% of all land. That issue must be addressed and I welcome the Minister's amendment No. 95 in that regard. He has met a number of our concerns. I hope the Bill will have as expeditious a route through the Dáil as it has had through the Seanad, with agreement on all sides. It is our intention to support the Minister in that regard.

Mr. Norris: I agree with Senator Coogan that it would be a good idea if the President referred this to the Supreme Court for a ruling on its constitutionality. That would short-circuit possible problems down the line. I regard the provision of social housing as an admirable idea. The Minister is being imaginative in his proposals. I am not sure they are workable in their current state and some constitutional difficulties may arise. I understand the possibility of the builders making land available at pre-rezoning prices has been considered but ruled out for some reason. That is a pity because it would be a better idea. I would prefer local authorities to build the houses to a uniform standard.

Senator Coogan referred to the question of homeless people, which is a major problem. Yesterday was World AIDS Day. I am aware of people in this society who are rendered homeless by virtue of their AIDS status. That is lamentable. The cases I have come across are of men who, because they are single, have no hope of getting local authority housing. This can be a real disaster. I know it is not within the terms of this Bill but in view of the fact that yesterday was World AIDS Day, perhaps the Minister might mention this to some of his colleagues to see if anything can be done.

I had a case brought to my attention last year of a young man who returned from America at the invitation of his sister, who was fully aware of the fact that he had full blown AIDS, but when he got here his brother did not like the situation and kicked him out. It was virtually impossible to get him in anywhere. We eventually got him into a hostel but he could not continue with his drug regime - he was on the triple therapy. It is awful that a country like Ireland can allow somebody to be put out on the streets with a serious illness. I know this is not within the remit of the Bill and I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to put that matter on record.

Mr. Walsh: I am somewhat confused. We have completed Second and Committee Stages of the Bill and every party and the Independent Members fully supported Part V which deals with social inclusion and empowering local authorities to acquire land or come to an agreement with developers for the acquisition and purchase of affordable houses. Senator Coogan has now outlined three reasons for opposing the section. I am surprised that Senator O'Meara was in agreement because it is my recollection that the Labour Party published a Bill-----

Ms O'Meara: The Senator must not have been listening to what I said.

Mr. Walsh: -----containing almost identical provisions. This section goes to the core of the Bill. It is the most important section and it will have wide-reaching effects. The constitutional issues have been raised. Property rights are enshrined in the Constitution but there are other provisions in the Constitution whereby the common good must be given priority. We were fortunate 60 years ago to have people with vision because our Constitution has provided for a third arm of the Oireachtas, namely, An tUachtarán and the Council of State. I am sure the Bill was not brought before us without having received favourable advice from the Attorney General. Equally, I have no doubt that the President, who is a lawyer, will certainly be well equipped to decide whether it should be referred to the Supreme Court. If there is any doubt I certainly agree that it should be referred to the Supreme Court so we can have an early decision because early implementation of the provisions in this section is essential in terms of the proper working of the Bill and in meeting its objectives. It is preferable that it be referred to the Supreme Court, assuming there is a doubt in relation to the matter. I am not a lawyer and am therefore not qualified to say if there is a doubt, but I would not like to see it being subsequently challenged by sectional interests. Earlier I said that if it is challenged by developers it could have the effect of delaying implementation. The decision may be that the Bill is constitutional, but the delay could be harmful.

Senator Coogan said the section is convoluted. It is very straightforward. If the sections are deleted as proposed in the amendment, local authorities would lose the power to acquire 20% of land. Local authorities would also lose the option of acquiring certain houses by agreement for those who are in need.

The third objection raised by Senator Coogan was that the provisions would drive up the price of houses. The Bill will do nothing for house prices, but the purpose of a planning Bill should not be to address the price of houses or homelessness, both of which should be dealt with elsewhere. This section is pivotal to the Bill and I would hate to think that the removal of any of its provisions would be endorsed. If there is any legal doubt regarding the constitutionality of the provisions one hopes and confidently expects that the Council of State, under the aegis of the President, will exercise its discretion.

Dr. Henry: I think the Minister knows he has full support from this side of the House for his policy regarding social housing. However, concern is expressed, not only by us, regarding the constitutionality of the provisions. Naturally, we all hope the provisions are constitutional, but the woman in the home is also included in the Constitution and her position has been described this morning by the National Women's Council as a nightmare. We must be very sure that what we are providing for will stand up to a constitutional test. I support what was said by Senators O'Meara and Coogan, namely, that the President would refer the Bill to the Supreme Court in order to test its constitutionality.

I spoke about the social importance of this section which is very important from the point of view of social cohesiveness. The homeless are important in this context as I do not see that the Minister's provisions exclude hostels for the homeless. I am delighted to see the Minister nodding, as they are very important. It is with great regret that I see people in some housing developments objecting strongly to hostels for people who have been discharged from mental hospitals and so forth. While Senator Norris is quite right in stressing the situation regarding single men, there are very many women who are also homeless. However, women must be careful to be less obvious as they are far more vulnerable on the streets of the city. There is a very large number of them-----

Mr. Norris: I do not think they are much more vulnerable than people in the terminal stages of AIDS.

Dr. Henry: I hate to get into competition about who has the greatest need. There are also a very large number of homeless children and I am delighted the Minister for Finance provided £2 million, which shows the extent of the problem that exists. I hope local authorities will see fit to include such hostels in line with the Minister's social housing plans.

Mr. Burke: I support Senator Coogan's comments on this section. The section is certainly convoluted and I do not think anybody knows how exactly it will work - I believe it is unworkable. As Senator Coogan said, there is only one way to bring down the price of houses, namely, to extend sewage, roads and other necessary services. There are no guarantees in this regard in the section which is convoluted and open to abuse. Some local authorities will require 20% of all development lands in their jurisdiction while others will not. In this way some developers will be caught under the system while others may not. Therefore, the provisions could well be open to abuse.

It is people who in future buy houses who will have to pay to provide for the 20%. Is this fair and equitable? Everybody should pay if we are to provide for social inclusion, cheap housing and housing for everybody in need, including those on waiting lists. The reality is that under this system the poor person who hopes to buy a house will have to pay. How is this equitable? I have a house and the provision will not affect me unless I buy another. Everybody should have to pay in terms of providing for those on housing lists, not just young married couples who are starting out and trying to buy a house.

There is ambiguity in the Bill regarding size of development and when the 20% provision kicks in. What is the position if a builder decides to apply for planning permission for two houses every year? Will he have to hand over 50% or just 20% of one house? How will local authorities come to terms with such a situation?

I ask the Minister to delete Part V and accept the amendments.

Mr. Dempsey: I respect the position of Senator Coogan. He has raised the possibility of constitutional difficulties with the provision in the Bill. A number of people have done likewise, including builders, auctioneers and some academics who have said that if the provision is not properly enforced there could be constitutional difficulties. I respect people's opinions in this regard. Senator O'Meara and others, including Senators on this side of the House, are concerned to ensure that the provision is constitutional. Senator Coogan suggested that the most effective and efficient way of trying to ensure that implementation of the section is not held up for a long time through court cases taken by builders is for the President to refer it to the Supreme Court once the Bill has been passed. I will not comment on this - it is for the President to make her own decision and, knowing her, I have no doubt this will be given very serious consideration, as is rightly the case with all legislation. I do not want to influence that because it would not be right.

I am satisfied with the legal advice I have obtained on this section which states that it is constitutional provided it is done in the manner we are attempting. For that reason I cannot accept the Labour Party amendment to Part V, because it would not meet the constitutional criteria of being fair, reasonable and proportional.

Leaving that aside and the fact that there is always a possibility that there may be a constitutional challenge to this, I guarantee that, if I were to accept the amendments tabled by Senator Coogan, there would be no constitutional challenge to the Bill because it would not do anything. The Bill would be toothless and a waste of time. To accept the amendments would tear the heart out of the Bill and I am not prepared to do that. Part V is designed to provide social and affordable housing to meet the concerns of Senators about the homeless, be they children, people who cannot afford their own houses, as Senator Burke outlined, various other groups of less well-off people in society and even some reasonably well-off people - middle income earners - who cannot afford houses because of the direction house prices have taken.

I cannot accept the amendments because I cannot tear the heart out of the Bill. The exercise in which we have been constructively engaged over past weeks and the 60 hours we have spent debating the Bill would be set at naught were I to accept the amendments. We would have wasted our time.

It was suggested that the provisions are convoluted, something they are not. They state simply that a local authority will draw up a housing strategy as a result of which local authority members will decide what percentage of land they have zoned is needed to meet the needs of people requiring social and affordable housing. When they decide that, they can request a maximum of 20%. They cannot require more than that; the maximum is 20%. As Senator Burke said, because some local authorities have plenty of land and house prices are not as rampant as in other places, those authorities can say they do not need additional land and that they have sufficient to meet their needs. Others might say they only need 5% or 10%. It is a relatively simple mathematical exercise to make that decision.

I accept that, when that is decided, there is a need for the local authority to ensure builders and developers meet that percentage. There is a need for clarity and uniformity of application throughout the country. It is for that reason we have agreed to put in place guidelines and have asked builders and developers who know about these matters how they would meet the needs of the local authority. It is not a convoluted measure.

As regards the measure causing a rise in house prices, that was dealt with on the previous occasion. This measure must be seen in the context of all the measures the Government has taken, especially regarding those it has put in place to increase densities. Before the guidelines were issued, a person could build 1,000 houses on 100 acres, an average of ten houses per acre. Now, assuming 20 per cent of the land is taken from them, they will still be able to build 1,120 houses. This means they have a bonus of 120 houses and the consequent profit. There is no reason for an increase in prices, except for greed. In other words, a builder may decide to make those who bought houses in the private development pay for the perceived lost profit.

Senator Coogan suggested that builders will construct a wall around their developments so that there is social segregation, not integration. I agree with him that it is a possibility if the local authority does not do its job. However, the authority should do its job by ensuring social integration. The local authority and the builder must come to an agreement on these matters. The authority should ensure we are protected against that.

I do not want to go into great detail about what the Government is doing about housing, such as the highest ever levels of funding of £500 million, the £6 billion over the life of the national development plan, the £5 million announced yesterday for initiatives for the homeless and so forth. All those should be taken into account in the context of the Bill. The issue is wider than the Bill. While I have no difficulty acknowledging the support I have received from all sides of the House, especially that of the Labour Party, I take issue with Senator O'Meara. The Labour Party did not float this idea. I did and it quickly jumped on it. However, I was delighted for the support of its members.

Regarding amendment No. 95, I introduced a number of amendments relating to the clawback of profit on affordable houses by the local authority if a person sold their house within the given period. One of the changes I made was to require the planning authority to consider the cost of any material improvements made to the house or land by the purchaser and to make an allowance for them in the clawback. We had a discussion on that and various Senators from all sides expressed views, especially about disputes concerning the figure. It was suggested that an appeal mechanism would be a good idea and if the matter was referred to a property arbitrator for final determination if there was a dispute. It was felt we should have that appeal mechanism. It is for that reason I have tabled amendment No. 95.

I have covered most of the points made. I respect what Senator Coogan said about the constitutionality of the Bill. His amendments would remove from the Bill the measure we have inserted and, for that reason, I ask him not to press them to a vote. We have had unanimity of purpose in this. It is the best stab I can make at it, and the best legal advice available to me suggests that the measure is constitutional. While fears may be raised about it, the President will have to make a decision on it. If we could leave the House united in the spirit of Part V, it would help the Bill as it enters the other House.

Mr. Coogan: It is the role of the Opposition to examine all legislation for issues of constitutionality or equity. That is our role in this House. If we do not do that, there is no purpose in our being here.

Senator Walsh referred to two constitutional provisions, one in regard to the rights of the individual to private property and the other in regard to the common good. They are only one aspect of what the President may refer to. The other issue which may be referred to is equity, and builders would be more likely to challenge this than anyone else. They may question whether there is equity in regard to a decision about the distribution of the 20% of social housing. What builders will be included and what builders will be excluded? I am aware there may be guidelines in this regard but they are only guidelines. Some builders may feel they are getting a percentage of social housing while other builders down the road are not and may wonder why they are losing out.

The equity I referred to previously relates to the actual application of mortgage figures. One person may pay £150,000 for a house and his neighbour who lives in social housing may have the same house for between £80,000 and £90,000. He will not feel very happy about the equity of that situation, particularly when the houses are exactly the same. The Minister has stated that there will be no difference between houses and that the local authorities will be responsible for ensuring that the quality of work remains the same throughout. However, if the houses are sold in 20 years' time, one fellow will be laughing up his sleeve and the other will wonder why he had to cough up £150,000 over the years.

Another equity issue arises from yesterday's budget. Members of the media clearly tell us this morning that the budget will have the effect of pushing women out of their homes and into the workplace, regardless of whether they like it. However, there is a slight contradiction here. If I am the only breadwinner in a household and earn £30,000 per annum, I am entitled to a £120,000 mortgage whereas if I earn £20,000 and my spouse or partner earns £10,000, we are only entitled to £106,000.

Our role is to examine this issue in detail. If we have concerns, this is the place to express them. If we feel a provision or measure will not serve its intended purpose, we must push the issue to the extreme and then allow the President or the courts to decide on it. It is our right to have these issues examined.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 11.

Tá

Bohan, Eddie.

Callanan, Peter.

Cassidy, Donie.

Chambers, Frank.

Costello, Joe.

Dardis, John.

Farrell, Willie.

Fitzgerald, Liam.

Fitzgerald, Tom.

Gibbons, Jim.

Glynn, Camillus.

Henry, Mary.

Keogh, Helen.

Leonard, Ann.

Moylan, Pat.

Norris, David.

O'Brien, Francis.

O'Donovan, Denis.

O'Meara, Kathleen.

Ó Murchú, Labhrás.

O'Toole, Joe.

Ormonde, Ann.

Quill, Máirín.

Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.

Caffrey, Ernie.

Coghlan, Paul.

Coogan, Fintan.

Cosgrave, Liam T.

Hayes, Tom.

Jackman, Mary.

Manning, Maurice.

McDonagh, Jarlath.

O'Dowd, Fergus.

Quinn, Feargal.

Tellers: Tá, Senators T. Fitzgerald and Keogh; Níl, Senators Burke and T. Hayes

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Government amendment No. 95:

In page 92, to delete lines 37 to 41 and substitute the following:

"(iii) the compensation payable under subsection (5) by a planning authority to the owner of land,

(iv) the sum payable to a planning authority under subsection (10), and

(v) the allowance to be made under section 84(3)(d)(i).".

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 96 to 99, inclusive, not moved.

Mr. Coogan: I move amendment No. 100:

In page 97, to delete lines 18 to 21.

This amendment is tied in with the previous ones and I thought it would have been taken with them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 112 and amendment No. 101 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 101:

In page 97, to delete lines 43 and 44, and in page 98, line 1, to delete "or of an employee of the Board or of a person whose services are availed of by the Board by virtue of section 107,".

This amendment is to ensure the chairman of the board lives up to his or her duties. It is normal practice that the chairman of a board should be the person authenticating the seal of the board and I do not see why we should extend it to employees or any other person.

Ms O'Meara: I second the amendment.

Mr. Walsh: I think Senator Henry raised this issue when we discussed the matter on Committee Stage. I understood from what the Minister said that there was a practical difficulty in that the number of documents sealed was in the order of 5,000.

Therefore, it would be impractical to place the onus on the chairman or a board member. It would not be at variance with what happens with the sealing of many other documents in companies.

Mr. Dempsey: As Senator Walsh has said, we discussed this matter on Committee Stage and I pointed out that we had over 5,000 appeals and referrals to the board, all of which would be signed in the manner that is described here. The seal of the board would be formally witnessed and would be authenticated by a board member. However, the amendment would impose an obligation regarding a range of other things that the board must do. The board would have to go through this procedure. The authentication of documents for court cases would be required as a result of it and this would not be practical. The intent of this amendment was to ensure that this procedure was followed when the board was dealing with appeals and referrals. The seal is authenticated by the Chair or a board member. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Norris: No, I will not push it. I am chairman of a number of boards - not that I get a great deal of remuneration for it because they are mostly charitable boards - but I would regard it as the responsibility of myself as chairman or as a member of the board to make sure that the company's seal was properly stamped on documents. I would be gravely doubtful of a situation where it is broadened to such an extent where any person can do it. This is something to worry about but I accept what the Minister said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 102:

In page 98, line 3, to delete "to".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 103 to 105, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement.

Mr. Coogan: I move amendment No. 103:

In page 101, line 32, to delete "6" and substitute "9".

We have already discussed this amendment on Committee Stage. The first amendment refers to an increase in the number of members from six to nine. The reason is to ensure that the board is large enough to carry out the additional work it has got over the years. Amendment No. 104 refers to the inclusion of the Heritage Council as a nominating body. Amendment No. 105 refers to nominations by the prescribed bodies, the General Council of County Councils, Local Authorities Members Association and the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland. The Minister has already assured me that this is taken care of in the Bill.

Mr. Walsh: I second the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: As the Senator outlined, we discussed this on Committee Stage and we reached an understanding on it. Amendment No. 103 proposes to increase the number of board members from six to nine. The Bill provides for a minimum number of six on the board and that number can be increased if the work pattern so demands. There are nine board members at present. Therefore, my provision is more flexible.

Mr. Coogan: Part of a panel.

Mr. Dempsey: I dealt with the other questions about local authority bodies on Committee Stage and all sides were in agreement. The Heritage Council is also catered for but I would not be prepared to accept that it should constitute one panel. It would not be fair to do that. However, it is part of the other panel and the Senator's concerns are met.

Mr. Coogan: I thank the Minister. Some of these amendments remained because I did not have time to review and to react to the new amendments that were tabled after Committee Stage. I just tabled the same amendments for Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.

Government amendment No. 106:

In page 102, line 14, to delete "must" and substitute "shall".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 107:

In page 102, line 47, to delete "amongst" and substitute "among".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 108:

In page 103, line 2, to delete "amongst" and substitute "among".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 109:

In page 104, line 19, to delete "amongst" and substitute "among".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments No. 110, 111 and 114 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

Mr. O'Meara: I move amendment No. 110:

In page 106, line 2, after "function." to insert "The Board shall arrange to keep a written record of all of its decisions. This minute shall record the names of those present and a record of all votes on any decisions. A board member who disagrees with the content of any decision shall be entitled to supply a note of his or her reasons to the Chairperson of the Board and the Minister and any such note shall be available for public inspection in the relevant appeal or referral file.".

Mr. Coogan: I second the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: I dealt with these amendments on Committee Stage. I tabled my own amendments to deal with some of the points raised. The exercise improved the Bill but I am not prepared to accept any further amendments to it at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 not moved.

Ms O'Meara: I move amendment No. 113:

In page 106, line 35, after "authorisation." to add "The Board member who drafts the order shall only implement the detail of the decision made at the Board meeting.".

Mr. Coogan: I second the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: The intent of this amendment was accepted by me on Committee Stage and is included in the Bill at section 96(6)(b). Therefore, I am not prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 114 not moved.

Government amendment No. 115:

In page 106, line 42, after "Board" to insert "and".

Amendment agreed to.

Ms O'Meara: I move amendment No. 116:

In page 106, line 46, after "divisions" to insert "(which shall consist of not less than 3 Board members)".

Mr. Coogan: I second the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: I accepted this amendment on Committee Stage and it is now included in the Bill at section 96(2). Therefore, there is no need for this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 117:

In page 107, lines 11 and 12, to delete "reference" and substitute "referral".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 118 and 125 are related and may be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 118:

In page 109, line 11, after "appropriate" to insert ", having regard to the need to ensure that an adequate number of staff are competent in the Irish language so as to be able to provide service through Irish as well as English".

Mr. Dempsey: We discussed this amendment already. Senator Coogan raised it. Following the debate on Committee Stage regarding the need for An Bord Pleanála to ensure it can provide its services through the Irish language, including holding oral hearings in Irish, this amendment would require the board to consider the adequacy of its Irish language competency when recruiting staff.

Léiríonn an leasú an béim atá á chur ag an Rialtas ar sheirbhísí dhá-theangacha a chur ar fáil sa chóras poiblí i dtreo is gur féidir le pobal na Gaeilge a gcuid gnó a dhéanamh tré Ghaeilge leis an stát-chóras.

This amendment is based on the similar examples contained in the Court Services Act, 1998, the National Cultural Institutions Act, 1997 and the Heritage Act, 1995. Ensuring the board has sufficient staff to provide a service through Irish will deal with the points that were made and with those raised in the amendment tabled by Senators Ross and O'Meara. As I stated on Committee Stage, the proposed language Bill will deal with all of these matters in a comprehensive manner. Senator Coogan spoke at length about this matter on Committee Stage and Senator O'Meara tabled her amendment then. I have met the concerns of everyone.

Mr. Coogan: I thank the Minister for taking on board so adequately the issues raised by Members.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Coogan: I move amendment No. 119:

In page 111, to delete lines 21 to 36.

The idea of streamlining the system is to ensure that appeals are dealt with within an appropriate period of time. However, this section gives an out clause to the board. If it has an extra workload all it has to do is tell the reasons it cannot make a decision and the board can put it off until later on. Perhaps the Minister will tell me I am wrong about this. One of the best aims of the Bill is to streamline the system to ensure appeals are dealt with in a particular period of time. This seems to be a safety valve which could be used by the board to say, "Sorry, we are a little busy. We will leave this until later." In other words, the board could fall back into the old trap of delaying because of its workload. We intend here that more people are taken on to ensure the time limit is met.

Ms O'Meara: I second the amendment.

Mr. Walsh: I support the sentiments behind this amendment, though it might be impractical to include it in the Bill. We spoke at length on Committee Stage about practices that everyone finds undesirable, such as the attempts by certain elements in society to extract financial payments from developers who are delayed by the planning process. I have always found it incongruous that while a local authority must work according to very specific deadlines on the granting of planning permission, and we have tightened the time procedures in this legislation, the same criteria do not apply to An Bord Pleanála. That body has had staffing difficulties. There has been a huge increase in planning applications and appeals. Those factors have put a strain on the whole planning system. There is an onus on the State to ensure that agencies such as this have the necessary resources. However, they often look for more staff when working more efficiently might obviate the need for increased numbers. I am not saying I am insufficiently informed about the workings of An Bord Pleanála.

Delays by that board have led to successful attempts to extract money, as developers have felt it impossible for them to delay commencement of development any further. This is a real issue. If the Minister is not going to accept the amendment the matter should be addressed outside the Bill. A way must be found to ensure these bodies work within strict time controls. That is essential, as the percentage of cases dealt with in the four month timespan has been slipping, though it may have been corrected recently as a result of the increased staffing. This is an important matter. If it is not dealt with in the Bill it should be addressed elsewhere, as it is undesirable that one arm of the planning process must work to a strict timetable while the other does not.

Ms O'Meara: There is a lot of merit in what Senator Walsh says and in Senator Coogan's amendment. Deadlines concentrate the mind. If one knows one must have something done by a certain time one will have it done by that time. As Senator Walsh rightly said, local authorities are bound by a particular set of rules, though we often complain about lack of resources, particularly in the planning area. It seems only fair to objectors, applicants or anybody who is party to a matter before An Bord Pleanála that they should know within a reasonable timeframe when that matter will be dealt with, particularly as most of these matters are of considerable importance to them.

Mr. Dempsey: I agree with Senators that there should be as much certainty as possible in the planning system, at local or Bord Pleanála level. That is important and Senator Walsh made that case eloquently. The amendment would prevent the board in any circumstance from extending the 18 week period for making decisions. That would not be good for the system because one cannot have every appeal dealt with in that black and white fashion. Even in the local authority system, where there is a two month constraint - or eight weeks when this Bill is in force - the local authority has an out in that it can look for further information, though we do not want to encourage that.

The section is not designed solely to let An Bord Pleanála off the hook. I know Senator Coogan accepts this. Section 111(3)(a) states: "Where it appears to the Board that it would not be possible or appropriate, because of the particular circumstances of the appeal or referral ...". That is one case; another would be where the numbers are very high. We all concur with the sentiment behind this, but to tie the board absolutely to 18 weeks and say there will be no chance to make a decision after that would not be good. The board is to do this only where appropriate or in particular circumstances.

Senators have mentioned the board's staffing difficulties, as have I. The levels for the four month target we are debating had fallen to 42% in May this year. Before the economic boom got going and appeals increased, the figure was as high as 98% at one stage and was at 92% for a considerable time. It fell to 42% mainly due to staffing difficulties. We have put a range of measures in place - extra staff, contract employment and a limited bonus scheme - and from May to October the 42% figure rose to 60%. I expect it to rise considerably in coming months as these measures take effect.

I join Senators in expressing the wish that in all cases and circumstances we get back to the 18 week period as quickly as possible, as I am sure we will. I cannot accept the amendment as it would unduly tie the hands of the board. It might not be able to deal with a very complicated planning application in that period. However, the amendment has been useful in highlighting my wishes and those of the House that we return to the 18 week period.

Mr. Coogan: I thank the Minister. We all share these concerns. Senator Walsh put his finger on this when saying we might have a time limit on an additional period. It is only right that people making planning applications know what is going on. They may be borrowing heavily or have commenced work during an appeal. Builders can be crippled in this way and that is why I put this amendment down. As Senator Walsh said, it should be possible to say perhaps that a decision must be made within an additional period of 18 weeks. As Senator O'Meara said, it helps to focus the mind if there is a time limit.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 120:

In page 111, line 25, after "Board," to insert "unless such further submission is based on information which was not available at the time of the making of the original submission,".'

Ms O'Meara: I second the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: Section 111(3)(a) deals with the notification of parties to an appeal in circumstances where, for example, due to the number of appeals, the board cannot determine a case within the 18 week period set out in subsection (2). Senator Henry's amendment does not seem to fit in here.

Mr. Norris: I think so too. That was why I formally moved it. I was not quite sure. I will withdraw it.

Mr. Dempsey: It seems to be in the wrong place.

Mr. Norris: I think so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 121:

In page 116, line 41, after "referral." to insert "In the event that the Board decides not to hold an oral hearing on a particular appeal or referral it shall refund any oral hearing fee to anybody who requested an oral hearing.".

This amendment is in the right place, at least I hope it is. It relates to the question of fees. I hope the Minister will yield on this one. If the board decides not to hold an oral hearing, it should refund the oral hearing fee. To use a crude American expression, one expects to get a bang for one's buck. In this case one must pay the buck, but one does not get a bang. That seems grossly unfair. There should be no taxation without representation.

Ms O'Meara: I second the amendment. I will not add any words to Senator's Norris's eloquent ones.

Mr. Dempsey: The only bang the Senator will get for £60 is the opportunity to request an oral hearing. If I accept the amendment, it would have the effect of opening the floodgates. People would have nothing to lose. They would pay a £60 fee on the off-chance that they might get an oral hearing and if it they did not get one, they would get a refund and all they would have lost would be the interest on that sum for the period involved. This fee is established. The requirement to pay a £60 fee will concentrate people's minds and ensure they do not frivolously request oral hearings.

Mr. Norris: I am tempted to call a vote, but I gave an undertaking for good behaviour and I do not feel I can break that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 122:

In page 116, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

"(4) The person who requested the hearing shall have a period of one month in which to appeal against this decision to the Minister.".

Ms. O'Meara: I second the amendment.

Mr. Dempsey: I cannot accept this amendment, as it would involve the Minister being brought back into the appeals procedure.

Mr. Norris: I remember the argument the Minister made.

Mr. Dempsey: Given that all Ministers may not be as reasonable as I would be in these cases, Members must guard against that in the future.

Mr. Norris: As Senator Henry's vicar on earth, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 123:

In page 116, line 48, to delete "on" and substitute "to".

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 are alternatives to amendment No. 124 and they can be taken together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 124:

In page 116, to delete lines 50 to 54 and substitute the following subsection:

"(1) An oral hearing of an appeal or referral shall be conducted by a person assigned for that purpose by the Board or by an employee of the Board duly authorised by the Board.".

Mr. Dempsey: The principal amendment in this group of amendments proposes the substitution of section 131 by a redrafted section. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of the new section 131 deal with the availability of documents from An Bord Pleanála and contain provisions similar to section 37 relating to the availability of planning files at local authority level. They provide that board documents on planning appeals, on its decisions on CPOs and on local authority development requiring an EIA would be made available for public inspection and for purchase within three working days of the decision. The documents must be available for over the counter inspection for at least five years and after that period such documents can still be assessed by way of an FOI request. The amendment responds to an amendment tabled by Senators Norris and Ross and to one tabled by the Labour Party.

In making this amendment, subsections (1) and (2) of section 131 have been redrafted to remove references to the Minister in this section. The section as originally drafted allowed the Minister to appoint inspectors for the purposes of reporting on any matter under the Bill. However, as the Minister's remaining planning functions, such as deciding on special amenity area orders, have been transferred to An Bord Pleanála, there is no need to refer to the Minister in this provision.

The redrafting of section 131 has required, in turn, that section 120(1) regarding the appointment of inspectors for an oral hearing be redrafted in order to ensure consistency of language between the two sections.

Mr. Norris: I very much welcome what the Minister is doing in this amendment and his graciousness in acknowledging this amendment is in response to one tabled by this side of the House. This is a good amendment and I am grateful he has adopted the principles we were seeking to address in our amendment.

Ms O'Meara: I welcome these Government amendments and I thank the Minister for tabling them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Norris: I move amendment No. 125:

I leathanach 117, idir línte 11 agus 12, an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach:

"(3) Where an oral hearing relates to a development which is within the Gaeltacht the person conducting the hearing shall:

(a) conduct the hearing through the medium of Irish,

(b) arrange for the provision of translation facilities for the benefit of persons who do not speak or understand Irish."

Yesterday I said that I hoped a provision would be made to provide for the Gaeltacht areas and, at our request, the Minster included an amendment endorsing a positive view of the Irish language. Nobody will be excluded from an oral hearing and translation facilities will be available. I hope the Minister will go some way towards addressing the needs in the area, which would be a practical way of achieving our stated objective of cherishing the Irish language.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I presume the Minister has taken on board what the Senator said.

Mr. Dempsey: I have. I did something about that yesterday.

Mr. Norris: The Minister said he did something yesterday about this.

Mr. Dempsey: An earlier amendment requires that the board has staff who are sufficiently proficient in the Irish language to hear oral hearings, appeals and so on.

Mr. Norris: Thank you, Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment No. 126:

In page 119, line 28, before "made" to insert "is".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 127:

In page 121, line 38, to delete "provisions" and substitute "provision".

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 128: