Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 May 1980

Vol. 321 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Draft Development Plans: Motion.

Mr. B. Desmond

I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment to amend section 33 (2), of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, to provide that where a member of a planning authority has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest in the zoning, acquisition or disposal of land by the authority the member of the authority shall attend the meeting of the authority and shall disclose the nature of his or her interest and shall then withdraw from the meeting for so long as the matter is being discussed or considered, and further calls on the Minister for the Environment to introduce amending legislation to ensure that any member of a planning authority who wishes to make any proposal relating to the zoning of any lands which are the subject of periodic review under draft development plans shall be obliged to give 14 days notice of motion in relation to any such proposed changes.

The purpose of the motion is to seek to extend the current statutory obligation on local authority members to declare their interests during their deliberations, on draft development plans in particular. We have tabled the motion because it has become evident to us, and I am quite sure to a number of Members on all sides of the House, that when a member of a local authority or a group of members acting together may determine, or may be determined to effect undesirable changes in draft development plans, they may in certain circumstances succeed in doing so.

Our motion is designed to close a loophole in the procedure of local authority deliberations. This House will recall that in 1974-75 one of the most important and effective Acts in the history of local government in Ireland was piloted through the Oireachtas by Deputy Tully, then Minister for Local Government. The importance of that Act, since enacted in 1976, has been underestimated consistently.

The motion is quite specific in its import, and in moving it I want to assure the House, and the Minister of State particularly, that I do not in any way wish to cast aspersions on the vast majority of the 1,500 elected local authority members who throughout the country, in one way or another, determine the development plans for their areas. It has been my personal experience in 25 years as a political activist, before I went into public life, as a trade union official, and since 1974 as a member of one of the largest local authorities in the country, that the overwhelming majority of local authority members give dedicated service to their local communities and in doing so display, in my personal experience, the highest degree of personal integrity.

In a debate of this nature which could be controversial—I have no desire that it should—it is necessary at the outset to dispel some of the public misapprehensions and misconceptions which can surround the zoning or re-zoning of land. It is not a criminal act for local authority members to re-zone land from agricultural to residential use. There have been numerous instances when the pressures of economic and social development, demands for new roads, for public and private housing, for amenity areas, for new institutional structures within local authorities, clearly have warranted changes of zoning during development plan discussions. I would even say there have been occasions when after adoption of such plans it has happened that there has been clear need, after due notice, for statutory contravention of such plans after the adoption of the plans. Sometimes these decisions may become extremely controversial. They can be very unpopular, but we as members of local authorities are elected by the people to take these decisions in the common good. It is our function to ensure the proper planning and development of our own areas, and in doing this we may have to take decisions to re-zone land even subsequent to the adoption of development plans.

This motion is not so much concerned with that situation as with circumstances where a member or members of a local authority have a clear direct, or indeed as under the Act they may have, an indirect pecuniary or beneficial interest in the zoning or re-zoning of land or property within the local authority area they represent, and our motion is concerned with the democratic procedures that should be followed in the letter and the spirit of the law.

There is no need for me to outline the provisions of the 1974 Act. The provision regarding declaration of interest is well known. We know that all members of local authorities must register their interest in land holdings and property companies and in certain shareholdings following their election to a local authority. In the event of a matter concerning such an interest of a member coming before a local authority meeting, he or she is obliged to declare his or her interest provided that he or she is present at such a meeting. The member concerned, as we know under the Act, must leave the council meeting while the matter is under discussion and decision. There is no statutory obligation on any member to be actually present or to declare his or her interest at the meeting. Furthermore, there is no statutory obligation on the member to notify the chairman of the meeting in advance of his or her interest and there is no obligation in certain circumstances to table a motion of intention on the part of other members of a local authority in advance of the meeting.

It is important to stress that there is not, at this stage of our legislative development, any statutory obligations on members of local authorities in relation to their discussions on draft development plans to give advance notice of motions where they intend to propose such at local authority meetings. I hope all local authorities, including the one of which I am a member, Dublin County Council, will amend their standing orders in that regard so that there will be an obligation to give advance notice, where such impending changes are intended, on the part of any member.

During the debate in 1974-75 on the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill there was an extensive contribution from the present Taoiseach. I consider his views to be of fundamental importance because they set the tone. At that time they set the tone of a number of attitudes adopted by some back benchers on this issue and they may well be of importance today. During the past week I read the Dáil debates on that Bill and it is not an unfair summing up to say that, at the time, the Bill was enacted despite some of the most obstructive delaying tactics by some members of Fianna Fáil's front bench particularly on the sections we are due to discuss tonight, namely, the question of declaration of interest. My admiration for the tenacity and integrity of the former Minister, Deputy Tully, in the course of those debates increased on re-reading them because he was subjected to extremes of obstruction and abuse. As one reads the debates in the calmness of one's home and tries to see what was in people's minds at the time this is quite evident.

I referred to the views of the present Taoiseach in such matters. At column 149 of the Official Report of 14 January 1975 he said during the Committee Stage of the Bill:

Mark you, I am not a great believer in the value of planning at all. I have very serious doubts about whether in totality planning is a good thing or a bad thing. That is something that could be very validly argued.

At column 164 he said:

Briefly, I shall refer back now to what I said about planning in general. I am still not convinced that planning is on the whole worthwhile and beneficial to the community, judging by the way in which it has worked out.

When I read the debates those statements left me speechless and people from Cork are usually anything but speechless.

Regarding the question of declaration of interest Deputy Tully, the then Minister, said on 27 November 1974 at column 419:

... the reason they are asked to make the declarations which they will be asked to make when this is finished is because of the allegations which are being made fairly widely, rightly or wrongly, that members of local authorities can and have rezoned areas so that the land within those areas would be of greater value and that they or their friends were able to enrich themselves as a result.

Deputy Tully, who usually deals with things in a trenchant form, said on 25 June 1975 at column 1819:

The reason I introduced this amendment at the time it was introduced is because in the national newspapers and magazines allegations were made against elected representatives. I defended the elected representatives in this House but no action was taken by anybody against the newspapers involved. Allegations were made week after week about land deals. I, in this House and outside, defended the elected representatives and said I was not prepared to accept that, but they were published and republished. There is only one way to stop that kind of thing and that is by putting it into the Bill so that everybody will know that there is no involvement.

It is of importance to stress that the original enactments of 1974-75, by the Coalition Government, were introduced in the face of protracted opposition from Fianna Fáil. It is necessary to give the background to the proposals we are suggesting for consideration to the Minister tonight. We hope there will be a consensus within the House on this matter by and large.

In 1975, Deputy Molloy, the then Fianna Fáil front bench spokesman on local government, the immediately former Minister, said on 25 June at column 1806:

We objected to the amendments as drafted by the Minister because they are aimed solely at one section of the community, a section who have given their service free to the community as members of local authorities. The section as worded by the Minister is derogatory and disrespectful to them and casts a suspicion on any person who is a member of a local authority dealing with planning matters. We object to the Minister's attempt to single out, for this special restriction, only those members of our community who serve as elected members on our local authorities. These people have had a great slight cast upon their character, their integrity and their honesty, by the Minister in the terms of his amendment.

Deputy Molloy went on to state the following:

As the Minister well knows, the number of changes that have been made by members of local authorities in the zoning of development plans has been very minor. The number of local authorities who have made any basic change in a development plan that went before the public over the past four to five years is very slight. Their primary function was in the adoption and in deciding the wording and the scope of the original development plan. After that their involvement is very slight.

The views of the Deputy on that fundamental issue were of great interest and five years afterwards the occasion of that debate comes vividly to mind. Recently when I was going through the debates what surprised me more than anything else were the influential interventions that came from no less a person than the present Taoiseach. In the light of the quotations I shall mention now, I ask if it is any wonder that recent events occurred in one local authority in particular? I should like to quote from columns 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829 and 1830 of the Official Report of 25 June 1975 when the present Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, made the following observations:

I support very strongly the objection to legislating separately and solely for elected members of local authorities, as is being done in these amendments. Indeed I would nearly go so far as to say that the last section of the community on whom these constraints and obligations should be placed are the elected members of local authorities.

I feel perfectly free to speak frankly and openly on this question because I am not a member of a local authority and, hopefully, never will be. Therefore, I feel I can speak on this question without having any vested interest of any sort whatsoever. I wish to underline the importance of the fact that we expect elected members of local authorities to give their services voluntarily and gratuitously to the community. Also, in this regard we should be concerned with procuring the highest possible calibre and quality of elected representatives on local authorities. We should be very reluctant indeed to enact anything by way of legislation which would inhibit anybody from going forward for election to these local authorities. I have a very strong doubt about the wisdom of these proposals ab initio. I have a particularly strong objection to the Minister bringing in these amendments to deal with one section of the community in this way, in this very restricted area.

The Taoiseach at column 1827 of the Official Report of the same date said:

It is coincidental only that this Bill happened to be before the Dáil and the Minister availed of that opportunity to insert these particular proposals concerning local authorities. They are the last people in this country who should be singled out in this way, suspicion cast upon them, because no matter what protestations of goodwill towards local authority members the Minister makes, there is no doubt that these proposals do point the finger of suspicion at members of local authorities.

At column 1828 of the Official Report he stated:

It is not difficult to visualise the type of individual who would have an interest in public affairs, who would wish to offer himself for election but who, because of his business interests, could not consider, not for any secret or illegitimate reasons but for genuine business reasons, disclosing in a public register all his business and property interests not because he would wish to do anything furtive or secret in the confines of the local authority to promote his own self-interests but simply because it would disclose information to business rivals which competitors and he could not face up to.

Deputy Haughey was not a front bench spokesman on Local Government but he took an enormous interest in the passage of this Bill. He stated:

I do not know if there is any situation in this country which has developed to a stage where we should depart from the old, well-established procedures that if you are a member of a local authority or indeed any body, a member of a private organisation, a member of the board of directors of a company, where the old principle applies, if something affects your own interests you must disclose that before you participate in the discussion or vote on a proposal. If you are not honourable enough to do that I think that the normal democratic processes of public opinion, ultimately expressed through the ballot box, will take care of this situation.

He continued at column 1829 as follows:

After all if there is somebody who is devious and who seeks to manipulate the local authority in his own self-interest—I think that it is a very difficult thing to do because of the way local authorities are constituted and with the balance that is maintained between the managerial system and elected representatives—then I think he will succeed in doing this, no matter what legislation the Minister passes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware of the rule of the House that long quotations are completely out of order. We certainly had long quotations in this case.

Mr. B. Desmond

I think it was important to put a number of them on the record of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The rule is that it is not permissible to quote at length.

Mr. B. Desmond

I accept that ruling. I consider the quotations of extraordinary interest. I should like to conclude with a short quotation from a speech by Deputy Molloy. He was totally jaundiced about the effectiveness of the proposed provision. In his speech he said:

His amendment only precludes a person from voting as a member of a local authority where the matter for decision is one in which he has some beneficial interest. There is no obligation on him to abstain from voting if, in the Minister's words, "his friends"—I put that in inverted commas— want something done and he is prepared to vote for it.

I use these quotations because it is self evident that a member of a local authority may assert strenuously that since his interests are already a matter of public record there should not be any obligation on him to attend such meetings or to notify the chairman in advance of his interests. Therefore, it is possible for a member under existing legislation, either wittingly or otherwise, to appear to perpetrate a deception. That is why our motion seeks to impress on the Minister the need for a change in the law. This is the fundamental purpose of this proposal. The point is that there is not any obligation on a member to attend a meeting and that if one is not present at a meeting there is not any declaration required there and then. One could have a situation in which some other councillor would move a seemingly innocuous resolution or he might move an entirely controversial resolution without giving any advance notice particularly where a development plan was being discussed. The net outcome of such a situation could be one of dramatic pecuniary benefit literally overnight to the member concerned.

I am surprised that in the light of recent events the Government have not acted yet to close off that possibility. One would have thought that firm action would have been taken by now in this regard. I would draw a very clear precedent here which I think would be of some help to the Government. This is because the Taoiseach, as Deputy Haughey, was the person who brought in a particular change in relation to the members of An Bord Pleanála. I would submit that what is sauce for the Bord Pleanála goose should be sauce also for the Bord Pleanála gander. In 1974 Deputy Haughey moved an amendment to section 9 of the Bill going through the House. This amendment was to add after the word "interest" the words "when so interested shall inform the Chairman of the Board in writing accordingly". In support of his amendment he went on to say that we were concerned with the situation of persons who would be members of the new board. Deputy Haughey said he wished to make it clear that he was discussing only the activities and the disclosure of certain matters by members who would be appointed to the new board. He then went on to read section 9 which provided that no member should vote or act otherwise as a member of the board in relation to any matter in respect of which the person had a material, financial, or other beneficial interest. The Deputy then suggested and I quote:

What we are all after in the Bill is to try to bring the maximum amount of objectivity and impartiality to the deciding of planning matters, and in this respect it is important that there be the maximum amount not just of disclosure but a record of disclosure. As it stands, the section could become quite ineffective as time goes on. It simply provides that a member shall not act or vote as a member of the board in relation to any matter in regard to which he had a financial or beneficial interest.

Then the Deputy moved the amendment and it was accepted by the then Minister, Deputy Tully. It represented a major change in relation to the activities of members of An Bord Pleanála. Therefore, the precedent is set for a member notifying the chairman in relation to any matter in which that member had an interest. In view of the significant contribution made to the legislation at that time by the Taoiseach, that experience should now be extended to members of local authorities. At that time in 1974 Deputy Haughey was very unhappy with the situation of the members. Both he and Deputy Molloy were obsessed about who were to be the members of the board in question. They posed the question of whether these members were to be a shower of Coalition hacks, for instance, and the then Deputy Haughey was determined to copperfasten the provision of a declaration of interest. Therefore, having regard to the record of the House the Taoiseach would hardly object now to an extension of what was provided for in his amendment in 1974 to members of local authorities.

Our submission this evening is that in a situation where a member of a local authority might be tempted to take advantage of that privileged position, it is of the utmost importance that the law relating to that position should be amended decisively. I am saying this in the light of my experience on local authorities. It has been the experience not only of myself but of my family before me, who served also on local authorities, that 99.9 per cent of members conduct their business in public and with absolute integrity, going into committee where that was necessary but increasingly that is becoming less necessary. These members take decisions that are both popular and unpopular. They are men who serve well the local communities that they represent as well as serving the political parties to which they belong if they are so affiliated.

In that context it is of profound regret to me that I should have to raise this matter in the House in the manner in which I have been constrained in regard to raising it. Therefore, I wish to put my view very clearly. Members of local authorities are easy targets for all types of pressure groups, for developers and for investigative media persons as well as for any individual who wishes to object to anything at any point.

I was a member of a local authority with very considerable personal experience in local government, an experience which I regard as being deceptively effective. The Minister has far more experience than he would admit to at times. Between ourselves this evening, as mature parliamentarians, it is my view that we could reach a consensus on this motion, taking a sharp look at the legislation with a view to its amendment if it is found to be wanting. I do not presume to be a parliamentary draftsman. Our motion is fairly general. It would necessarily have to be examined by the parliamentary draftsman, by the staff of the Department of the Environment——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going on overtime now.

Mr. B. Desmond

I shall conclude on that note, in the hope that our views might be met by a general consensus on the issue which would be of great benefit to the country and which would not necessitate this matter being raised ever again.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

At the outset, I should like to deal with the terms of this motion. The amendment of the law which the motion seeks is in two parts. The first relates to the attendance at some meeting of the planning authority. The motion does not say what meeting. Perhaps I should say that the meeting in question is one to decide on zoning, acquisition or disposal of land in which the member has a beneficial interest. If this interpretation is correct the proposal would require the member to withdraw from that particular meeting. But it is strangely silent as to what happens if a decision is not reached and the matter has to be considered further at a subsequent meeting.

Another matter requiring clarification is the reference to zoning in both parts of the motion. I cannot recall any use of this term in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts. In an Irish planning context it is commonly used in relation to land use zoning but equally it could refer to density zoning. Perhaps it means both.

The second part of the motion refers to any proposal relating to the zoning of lands. That could cover a proposal not to have any zoning of the lands in question. I am more than doubtful that the first part of the motion would cover such a proposal. Yet a decision not to zone is potentially beneficial to the relevant landowner since it implies no zoning restriction. Of course it can be suggested that these are drafting points only, of no great consequence. Given the background and experience of the two Deputies sponsoring the motion I am not so sure and I have to assume that the motion means what it says. Consequently, I am concerned at the restrictive effect which the proposed amendment of section 33 (2) would have.

There are numerous ways in which the provisions of a development plan may affect the value of interests in land—the establishment of a public right of way, the route of a new road, the widening of an existing road on one side rather than the other, the preservation of land for particular purposes, such as open space or refuse tip, are a few examples. Accordingly section 33 (2) is drawn in the widest terms and the performance by the planning authority of every function under the Planning Act is covered. Perhaps I should mention in particular resolutions under section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, directing the manager to deal with particular applications for permission for development in a specified way.

Deputies will appreciate my concern that this situation should not be altered. The motion before the House calls for the amendment of section 33(2) in specific terms. It does not ask for an addition to it and I cannot read it that way because of the inconsistency of what is proposed in regard to attendance. It seems to me that the amendment sought can only be interpreted as a substitution of the provisions indicated for those existing at present. This would seriously reduce the value of the section because it would reduce considerably the scope of its application. I am not unwilling to consider any amendment of planning legislation which would help to make effective or to improve procedures where such appear necessary or desirable. The legislation is extremely complex and, while the 1976 Act effected considerable improvements, I doubt if it will be the last word on this matter. I would be prepared to examine any reasonable suggestions but I do not think that hastily concocted proposals fall into that category.

The amendment proposed in the motion would make mandatory the attendance of elected members of planning authorities at certain meetings. Assume for the moment that the type of meeting in question is one at which a matter relating to zoning, acquisition or disposal of land by an authority may arise, there must be a great many such meetings. How is a member to know in advance that such a matter will arise and that it will be a matter in which he has a pecuniary or other interest?

A draft development plan has many interlinked provisions. Normally it is prepared by officials and is then considered by the council. Their members are not there to rubber stamp what is placed before them; they are the elected representatives of the people and it is their right to make changes before formally adopting any draft plan. Because the interlinking and alteration may require consequential changes a provision requiring 14 days notice of every change would lengthen an already protracted procedure. What the motion proposes is that such notice be given only in respect of proposals relating to the zoning of lands which are the subject of periodic review under draft development plans. It says nothing of other matters and nothing about the development plan itself, which is the instrument for zoning land. How, then, is a member to know when it is necessary for him to attend any particular meeting? Assuming the difficulty can be overcome, the question arises as to how to deal with the situation where a member is ill or out of the country. Is he to be prosecuted in such circumstances and disqualified from membership of the authority? The number and variety of valid reasons why a member would not, or could not, attend any particular meeting would make it difficult to legislate for exceptions and the enforcement of such a provision in the courts would seem fraught with difficulties.

I want to review briefly the existing relevant legislative provisions. The provisions included in the Local Government Planning and Development Act, 1976, in relation to the declaration of interest by members and officials of the planning authorities and members of and employees of An Bord Pleanála are wide-ranging and stringent and include serious penalties on conviction for noncompliance. The provisions were the subject of lengthy debate and were amended in the progress of the legislation through the Dáil. These provisions require every member of the planning authority to make a written declaration of a certain interest which would be relevant to the functions under the Planning Acts and to keep the declaration up to date. The requirement applies to interest in land situated in the area of the authority, any business, or dealings in, or developing land in which the person is engaged or employed, and any such business carried on by a Company or other body of which he or his nominee is a member, any profession, business or occupation in which the member is engaged and which relates to the dealing in or development of land. That is a very wide field dealing with a member's interest. That applies to most draftsmen, architects, auctioneers, estate agents and anyone who may be involved in leasing, or have any interest in land development.

The declarations are required to be recorded in a register which is available at the offices of the planning authority for public inspection during office hours. The entries remain in the register for five years after the member has ceased to be subject to the provisions of the Act. In addition to the making of a declaration, a member of a planning authority is precluded from seeking to influence the planning authority in relation to any matter in which he has an interest. Where a planning authority or a committee of the authority is to discuss a matter relating to its functions under the planning Acts, or in relation to the acquisition or disposal of any land, any member of the authority or committee present at the meeting who has a pecuniary or other beneficial interest in the matter must declare his interest, withdrew from the meeting and take no part in the discussions or voting on the matter.

These provisions of the 1976 Planning Act are extremely stringent in regard to the obligations put on elected public representatives to disclose in a register open to the public their personal and business interest. Not alone are they obliged to give this information and to keep it up to date, but if they fail to do so they are liable to prosecution and, on conviction, to a fine or imprisonment or both, and to disqualification from being a member of a local authority. That goes a long way. These are serious penalties to impose on a public representative who gives freely, and without remuneration, his time and energies to the service of his fellow citizens. Deputy Desmond is an active member of the Dublin County Council and is aware of the demands put on him by such membership.

The making of a draft development plan is a reserved function. It is a matter solely for the elected members to decide what its provisions should be. They would be wise to take expert advice and ensure that no variation is made in an existing plan without due consideration. They might also order their business so as to ensure that, having considered the various matters in detail, they would still be free to review any decision when they come to adopt the draft plan as a whole. They can, if necessary, alter their standing orders, but it is their job to devise a plan which will ensure the proper planning and development of their area. They do not need the consent of the Minister or anyone else to their draft proposals. The elected members must know that at the end of the day what they produce is merely a draft and that they will be judged on what it contains.

The making of the draft must be publicised by notices in the press and the draft must be placed on public display for a period of at least three months. A copy must also be sent to each of the prescribed authorities. These include An Chomhairle Ealaíon, Bord Fáilte Éireann, An Taisce and The National Monuments Advisory Council. They also include the Minister for the Environment and various other Ministers and local authorities. Each of these authorities and every member of the public are free to make objections or representations to the planning authority. All of these must be considered before the development plan is adopted. It is not unusual for a considerable number of submissions to be received. Changes can be made at that stage. Section 37 of the 1976 Act makes specific statutory provisions in this matter.

When the development plan is finally adopted copies must be sent to the prescribed authorities. At that stage the Minister may require the development plan to be varied in respect of matters and in a manner specified by him. The fact that no Minister has found it necessary to invoke this power since the 1963 Act came into operation suggests that the elected members of the planning authority have acted responsibly in discharging their plan-making functions. All local authorities, and all members that I know on these authorities, have carried out their duties in a very competent way.

It seems to me that the statutory provisions and procedures which I have outlined provide substantial safeguards. The press, the prescribed authorities and the public have access to the register of elected members' interests. Members are prohibited from influencing, or seeking to influence, a decision on any matter in which they have a pecuniary or other beneficial interest. Any question of a development decision can be brought to light and will be capable of remedy, if that is needed.

I have been a member of a local authority, a county council, for many years but am not now a member. I just want to make that clear. In my county, when the draft plan came before my county council, I made a number of amendments to that plan. These were not in regard to re-zoning but were technical amendments. I served notice on the council and on the members of the council. I spelled out, in a notice of motion, what I was going to do. Every member received that. They were of a very technical nature, such as road frontage, density and other technical matters.

I am familiar with the operation of the Planning act of 1963. The 1976 Act introduced amendments which, as I have said, were improvements. There is, however, only very limited experience of the operation of this Act, especially in relation to the provisions which we are discussing in this motion.

A planning authority do not review a draft plan except at long intervals. This has the effect that the procedures of the Act dealing with the declaration of interest have not had to stand the test of practical application to any extent. The 1976 Act provisions may well need amendment. I have an open mind on this matter. In the light of what has been said, I am prepared to look into the question. As I have already indicated, I see technical problems in the precise terms of the amendment proposed in the motion. This is not to say that I accept altogether that the 1976 Act is perfect and could not be improved. I will look at the matter without any delay and if I find that a revision of the provisions referred to is justified I will bring forward draft proposals in due course.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This is one of the most important motions that has come before the House in Private Members' Time for a very considerable time. I say that because it is a proposal which is intended obviously to tighten up the procedures to be adopted by local authorities, which are also planning authorities, in relation to meetings at which it is proposed to dispose of, to purchase or to re-zone land. Without in any way casting any reflection, good, bad or indifferent on the Minister of State who came in here to represent the Minister for the Environment, it is regrettable, to say the least of it, that the senior Minister in this Department did not signify to the House the importance which he and the Government attach to this motion, and to the events which obviously led up to it, by coming into the House and personally dealing with this motion. I would be doing less than my duty if I did not put that on the record of the House.

Mr. Connolly

I want to clarify a point. The Minister is abroad on very important business and that is the reason why I had to take the motion.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I note the remarks of the Minister of State but I will go further and say that if that is the situation the Minister should have requested an adjournment of this debate and should not have agreed to it until the Minister in charge of the Department and a member of the Government was here to handle it. That is my opinion and I am putting it on the record.

Mr. Connolly

Am I incompetent?

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to join with Deputy Barry Desmond in saying that as far as I am concerned I do not intend that any reflection at all should be cast on the vast majority of local representatives who are representing their areas, and those who have gone who represented their areas since local government was introduced here. They are a fine body of men who discharge their duties conscientiously. There is always the exception to the rule; there is the person who is prepared to play unfairly. I want to make it clear that in no way am I making an attack on local representatives. I hope they will long continue to serve their areas well.

Accusations have been made against local representatives and against Members of the House from time to time, but never until 1976, when the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act was passed, were any steps taken to protect the general body of local representatives from the few who might be tempted to play the game unfairly. In that Act two provisions were made. It was enacted that on election a local representative who was elected to a local authority which was also a planning authority was obliged to make a declaration of his interests in land and so forth within the area to which he was elected. It was provided that that register would be kept by the local authority and would be brought up-to-date. It was also provided in that Act that a person who had an interest, beneficial or pecuniary, in property that was being dealt with at a meeting of a local authority should withdraw from that meeting and should not take part in the proceedings until the matter concerned had been concluded.

That was a big step forward which it was hoped would demonstrate that the game was played fairly by local representatives and that it should be seen to be played fairly. It was thought at that time that the proposals in the 1976 Act would be wide enough to cover all possible cases of abuse or apparent abuse. These resolutions, so far as they applied to local representatives, were, as Deputy Desmond said, violently resisted by Fianna Fáil. The Bill was introduced in 1974 and was so obstructed that it did not become law for a couple of years.

It often appears when an Act has been on the Statute Book for some time that there are loopholes and that it needs to be extensively amended. This motion calls for a change in the law to provide that a member of a planning authority who has an interest in land which is to be dealt with in any way at a meeting of that authority, should attend that meeting and having informed the chairman of his interest he should then withdraw. The motion also says that if any member of a local authority proposes to propose a resolution at a meeting of that authority relating to the zoning of any land which is the subject of periodic review, he should give at least 14 days' notice to the county secretary or assistant manager. Applying my layman's commonsense to that motion, that is what it proposes so I was surprised to find the Minister of State spending half the time available to him dealing with technicalities, niceties and drafting points in this motion. It is up to the Government to convert that motion into a statutory instrument and get it passed.

It is no harm to pose the question—how does this motion come before us? I do not intend to indulge in personalities or in making accusations, but this motion comes before us because of a meeting of Dublin County Council held not so long ago at which land was re-zoned with great ease and informality. As a result of that re-zoning the value of the land increased from £5,000 or £6,000 an acre to about £50,000 or £60,000 an acre. Part of that land is the property of a member of the local authority. That is what brought this resolution into Private Members' Time this evening. The country in general was shocked with the apparent informality and ease, amounting almost to secrecy, with which the initial step in re-zoning this land was taken in the teeth of the advice of the professional advisers of the authority. If I did not say that there would be an air of unreality about this debate.

Apparently Dublin County Council's by-laws do not require that a note should be sent to the members of the council informing them that it is proposed to consider rezoning of land. It comes up, as far as I am aware, in an informal, haphazard way at a meeting without notice to members of the council. The Minister shakes his head to suggest that that is not the position. I hope it is not, but as I understand it, it is not necessary that an agenda with a notice that it is proposed at a specific meeting to consider the rezoning of land from agricultural use to development use be sent to members. Unless that provision is in the by-laws of all county councils it is a public disgrace and the sooner it is changed the better.

It was laid down in the Planning and Development Act, 1976 that a member of a council should declare his interest in lands by way of declaration, the declaration to be filed as long as he is a member of the council and that he should bring it up to date. It was also laid down that the member could not vote or take part in any meeting dealing with property in which he had an interest. It is obvious that that is not enough. The resolution calls on the member concerned to attend the meeting, declare his interest and withdraw. The Minister says that it might not be possible for the member to declare his interest. I would be satisfied if there was an onus on somebody, be it the county secretary or the city manager as the case may be, to refer to the register and before the meeting inform the meeting that according to the register kept under section 32 of the Planning and Development Act, 1976 Councillor A has a beneficial interest in the land now being considered.

There will always be an executive to do that and, I would be satisfied with that, but it should not be just made by a declaration which it has been proved now that members of a council may not read and which was made four years before this land was to be considered. That is not sufficient. Either the member involved who has the pecuniary interest should himself bring to the notice of the council that he has a beneficial interest in this land as the Labour Party have suggested or, as an alternative, the county secretary or the assistant county manager should do it. That would satisfy me. That is the first thing that must be done and it must be done immediately.

Even worse, such information as I have would disclose that this initial step—and it was only an initial step because we know that notices must be published and objections invited, then it must go back to the council again—was serious. The ease with which this initial step was taken by Dublin County Council to re-zone this land was nothing short of amazing. The meeting was called without any notice to each of the 36 members of the county council that it was proposed to consider re-zoning 150 acres of land some place in the Lucan district. That should have been done. From now on this House should take steps to see that the by-laws are changed so as to ensure that in future meetings will be convened properly and there will be a proper agenda sent out from which it will be perfectly clear to the most uninitiated councillor who can read that it is proposed to deal with the land in a way that may alter its value substantially.

I was amazed that the Minister finished up by saying that he would look into this and make any changes that were necessary. I am glad that he said it, but he said it in two or three sentences in the end. Up to that he seemed to be a bit annoyed with the Labour Party and the Opposition for bringing this resolution before the House. That is the impression I got.

Mr. Connolly

No way.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): He should not be. Let us not shadow-box all the time. I have put on the record of this House how we come to be discussing this resolution. The Fianna Fáil Party are having second thoughts about it and they have said now that they will rescind this resolution. That shows that they must be satisfied that the resolution should not have been passed in the first place, or at least not passed in the way it was. I am glad to see that the Fine Gael members of Dublin County Council have put down a notice of motion for discussion at the county council which reads as follows:

That special standing orders be immediately adopted for all future meetings of this council concerned with the draft Dublin County development plan and that the said orders provide that all motions proposing the re-zoning of land be lodged in the office of this council not later than 10 days prior to the meeting called to discuss the draft development plan as it relates to the area affected by such motion, and that any such motion be circulated to all members of this council to be received by them not later than four full days after the lodgment of the motion and no less than four full days prior to the relevant council meeting.

I would have thought that that was elementary, my dear Watson. I would not have thought that should have been necessary, but I am glad at this stage that that will be done. Public men at whatever level, ministerial, Minister of State, parliamentary or local, undertake onerous and very thankless jobs. Certainly they are not remunerated with gratitude for what they try to do, but it is essential that they should not be exposed to the sort of thing that this performance of Dublin County Council has exposed the entire local representatives of the country to.

I do not want to talk simply for the sake of talking. I conclude by saying that I am glad that this resolution was introduced. If the Labour Party had not introduced it, the Fine Gael Party would have introduced it. I join with the Labour Party in urging it on the Minister. I am not concerned with how you do what but I am concerned with getting it done. I am concerned with getting the position changed so that a business of this sort will never be transacted again in that way.

Mr. Leyden

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of State in relation to this motion. He dealt adequately with the basis of the motion and I welcome his concluding remarks that he was prepared to look into this whole matter. It has serious implications for all members of local authorities. A member of a local authority myself, I was keenly aware of the situation when the declaration of interest came up in 1976. At that time I felt that it was so serious that I was in communication with the then Minister for Local Government—as the Department was known then—Deputy Tully. Deputy Quinn, who is not here today, would be aware of the implications the Act had for people who were engaged professionally outside their own county councils. That would entail auctioneers, architects, engineers, solicitors, barristers and such like. When this section came up I felt it appropriate that clarification should be received and obtained from the Minister at the time because any person acting in a professional capacity and as a member of a county council would have to be very careful about how he or she dealt with any application that came before the council for the development, sale or purchase of land or, as we are dealing with the development plan, the question of the zoning of land in different towns throughout a county. Many counties have planning committees who have no real power as such to instruct the manager to grant an application, but in the public mind the implication may be that they have this power. Therefore, this motion, referring as it does to the situation of declaration of interests and the need for a member to attend a meeting, is important.

Debate adjourned.