I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983: Second Stage.
(Interruptions.)
You are acting highly irregularly——
We are now on the Second Reading. If Deputies want to break up the House there is nothing I can do.
(Interruptions.)
There is a motion here which has to be moved as well.
You can move your motion when the Minister has concluded his speech.
The Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983, provides for the reconstitution of An Bord Pleanála and for the amendment of the existing law in relation to planning appeal procedures. There are already three Acts on the Statute Book which together form the existing law in relation to land use planning. The Principal Act — the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963—has now been in operation for nearly 20 years and the general physical planning system which it established has in large measure stood the test of time. The main purpose of the second Act — the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976 — was to provide for the setting up of An Bord Pleanála to decide planning appeals; it also provided for the more effective enforcement of planning control and made various amendments to the Principal Act. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1982, was primarily a measure to deal with the duration of planning permissions and to remove doubts which had arisen as a result of a Supreme Court decision concerning the validity of certain permissions granted on appeal. It also provided for the introduction of fees for planning applications and appeals and for increased penalties under the planning code.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Molloy is out of order.
A Cheann Comhairle——
(Interruptions.)
Shame on the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
The House is being obstructed.
(Interruptions.)
On assuming office, I decided to press ahead with the general review of planning law which had already been started in my Department. However it quickly became apparent that the problem of delays in determining planning appeals and the growing backlog of appeals required urgent consideration. In addition to this, it became evident that there was increasing public concern about the method of appointment to An Bord Pleanála. Arising from these considerations, I had no option but to decide that the review of planning law should focus initially on possible improvements in the method of appointment of the members of the board and on appeals law generally.
On a point of order, Sir——
No, I have allowed innumerable points of order.
(Interruptions.)
This is a disgrace.
On a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
You are trying to trample on the Opposition.
I am not.
(Interruptions.)
You can do what you like now.
A Cheann Comhairle, I want to raise on the adjournment of the House the matter of the building of Cavan Hospital.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
The planning appeals system has often been a contentious one. Originally, under the 1963 Act appeals were made to the Minister for Local Government. For various reason, not least the question of possible political bias, this arrangement soon came to be regarded as an unsatisfactory one and, as early as 1967, a Private Members' Bill was introduced to set up an independent body to deal with appeals. Other Bills followed but it was not until the enactment of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976 in July of that year that provision was made to remove the planning appeals process from the political arena by transferring the responsibility for their determination from the Minister to An Bord Pleanála. The board was established on 1 January 1977, and took over from the Minister the function of deciding appeals in March of that year.
In its early years the new board seemed to have been reasonably successful in establishing for themselves in the public mind the kind of independent image which is so necessary if decisions of the board are to be accepted. Some decisions naturally gave rise to controversy but this was only to be expected, given the subjective nature of some planning issues and the fact that, almost by definition, every decision cannot be a favourable one from the point of view of every party to the appeal. However, it can now be seen, with hindsight, that the 1976 Act did not go far enough to achieve its objective; in particular, it left the appointment of the ordinary members solely in the hands of the Minister and made no provision for a selection or nomination system which would provide assurance that appointments were being made from among persons considered to be suitable by those best qualified to judge. This is, in principle, an unsatisfactory situation and the way in which the power has in practice been used in recent times has led to a widespread diminution in public confidence in the appeals system. Without implying any reflection on the persons concerned, I have to say that the circumstances surrounding some of the appointments, and especially their timing, could have no other effect than seriously to detract from the public perception of the board as an independent and unbiased tribunal. Matters have not been helped by the fact that as more members were appointed to the board, the number of decisions made by the board decreased, the backlog of appeals increased and the delays involved in the release of employment-generating projects lengthened.
The provisions of this Bill are intended to restore public confidence in the system and to make the board's operation more efficient. In short, the objective is to provide for a system which will ensure that justice is in future seen to be done in the making of appointments to the board and that these can never again be alleged to be based on political considerations. It is essential that the proposed new system should be in operation at the earliest possible date and it is in consequence of this that provision is made for the termination of the appointments of the existing board as soon as new appointments are made under sections 5 and 7 of the Bill.
Section 3 of the Bill provides that the new board will consist of a chairman and five other members. I am satisfied that this number should be perfectly adequate to deal with the likely volume of appeals. I should like to draw attention to the fact that from 1977 to mid-1981 the board consisted of six members, including the chairman, and during that period made good progress in dealing with the arrears as well as keeping pace with the intake. In 1981 and 1982, when there were between eight and ten members, the output of decisions actually declined. It may also be well to note that prior to 1977 all appeals were decided directly by the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, neither of whom could afford to devote more than a fraction of his time to this function.
The 1976 Act provided that the chairman of the board must be a High Court judge or former judge but this arrangement is not being continued. Governments seem to have found difficulty in getting a serving judge to take the position and this is understandable for several reasons. As a result, the last two Governments found it necessary to appoint, or to seek to appoint, a barrister as a High Court judge with a view to his immediate appointment as chairman.
Can we have a copy of the speech?
That is not a matter for the Chair.
They have been supplied and I am sure will be circulated in due course.
I understand that the officials are under some impression that the speech cannot be distributed because the Opposition have deserted the House.
They are now being distributed.
I see little merit in such a procedure. Secondly, as a matter of principle I would not be in favour of appointing a retired judge especially as the normal retirement age of High Court judges is 72. I think it is preferable that the chairman of the board and the ordinary members, in common with the overwhelming majority of public officials, should retire at age 65, and sections 5 and 7 provide accordingly. Thirdly, while I accept that direction in law is needed by the board, I do not agree that the appointment of a judge as chairman is the best way, or the only way, of making legal advice available and I believe that it should be open to the Government to consider persons with other relevant qualifications and experience for appointment as chairman. Section 5 of the Bill therefore provides that the chairman will be appointed by the Government for a seven-year term of office from among persons selected by a special committee consisting of the President of the High Court, the Secretary of the Department of the Environment, the Chief Engineering Adviser of the Department, the Chairman of the Council of An Taisce, the President of the Construction Industry Federation and the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This method of selection is similar to that which applies in relation to the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions, under the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974. I am confident that it will secure public acceptance of the integrity of the appeals system, without excluding anyone from consideration for the specialised post of chairman by reason only of lack of a particular qualification. Under section 6, the chairman will have a special responsibility for the overall efficiency of the board and for the allocation of its business among the members.
I turn next to the five ordinary members of the board. Section 7 of the Bill provides that these will be appointed by the Minister for the Environment for a term of office not exceeding five years. Four of them will be appointed from among persons selected by groups of organisations representing professional, environmental, development and community interests, one member being appointed from the nominees of each group. The fifth ordinary member will be an established civil servant drawn from the Department of the Environment.
The nominating organisations will be decided when the Bill has been enacted. However, I can assure the House that the organisations which I will select will be those which are genuinely representative of the interests concerned. I should also point out that the Bill requires the organisations to be prescribed by regulations which must be laid before each House and can be annulled by resolution of either House. I am satisfied that a board selected on the basis of these proposals will secure wide public acceptance, remove from the planning appeals system any allegations of political influence and produce a well-balanced board with the necessary qualities and capacity to deal with planning appeals efficiently and effectively.
I would like to emphasise that the chairman and ordinary members of the board will be required to be appointed in a wholetime capacity and that they will be precluded during their terms of office from holding any other office or employment in respect of which emoluments are payable. Like other public sector officials, they will be expected to work a full five-day week.
While it will be the primary function of the chairman and other board members to deal with the individual planning appeals coming before them, it is also essential that they concern themselves with the overall efficiency of the board and that they see to it that all possible steps are taken to avoid delays and speed up the processing of appeals. Section 4 of the Bill provides, therefore, that the new board will have a duty to ensure that appeals are disposed of as quickly as possible and, with this in view, to carry out periodic reviews of the systems and procedures being operated by it. The section also enables the Minister for the Environment to direct that reviews of organisational matters or of systems and procedures be carried out from time to time and to give appropriate directives in relation to such matters after consultation with the board. This provision is designed to enable the Minister to take action to improve efficiency, where he considers this to be necessary, but it does not, of course, entitle him to interfere with the determination of particular cases. In fact, section 23 specifically precludes the Minister from intervening in any way in relation to any particular case with which the board are concerned. As a further safeguard, section 14 of the Bill prohibits communications with the chairman or an ordinary members of the board which are designed to influence improperly his consideration of an appeal or other matter with which the board are concerned or the board's decision on any such matter.
As soon as possible after this Bill is enacted, I intend to make arrangements for the selection and appointment of the new chairman and ordinary members. In the meantime the existing board will continue to hold office. I should mention that section 9 makes provision for the making of schemes for the granting of gratuities to persons who will cease to hold office on the coming into operation of the new system.
Sections 15 to 20 provide for a number of changes in appeals law to enable the board to dispose of certain categories of appeals more expenditiously.
Section 15 gives the board an absolute discretion to hold an oral hearing of any reference or appeal. Under section 16 of the 1976 Act, the board have similar discretion but where an application to the board to hold an oral hearing is refused, a person has a right under that section to apply to the Minister for a direction which would overrule the decision of the board in the particular case. This arrangement is not being continued for a number of reasons. In the first instance, it seems to me to be wrong in principle that a subsidiary procedural decision by the board should be subject to ministerial review when far more substantial decisions are not. In addition to this, the present arrangements can contribute significantly to the delay in dealing with many appeals. Moreover, experience has shown that the board have not abused the power to refuse an oral hearing and that they have not applied excessively harsh standards: under successive Ministers, only a relatively small proportion of all cases in which oral hearing applications were refused resulted in directions by the Minister to the board to hold an oral hearing. For all of these reasons, the Bill proposes to terminate the involvement of the Minister for the Environment in considering whether there should be an oral hearing in any particular case. Instead section 15 allows the Minister to make regulations requiring the board to hold oral hearings in cases of particular classes or descriptions. It seems to me that this system should enable reasonable safeguards to be provided for parties to an appeal without the undesirable consequences which can follow from the involvement of the Minister, even in a limited way, in relation to particular cases.
Under existing legislation, all appeals to the board must be dealt with by considering the original planning application as if it were made to the board in the first instance. This provision for full rehearing has worked quite well in practice and it is proposed that it should continue to apply to the majority of cases. However, cases can arise in in which a full rehearing is clearly unnecessary and, in such cases, the requirements of existing law can add considerably to the time taken by the board to process an appeal. For this reason, provision is made in a number of sections of the Bill enabling the board in certain circumstances to determine appeals otherwise than by full rehearing.
Section 16 gives the board a discretionary power to dismiss an appeal where, having considered the grounds of appeal, they are of opinion that the appeal is vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation. The board will also be empowered to dismiss an appeal under that section if they are satisfied, having regard to the nature of the appeal and taking account of any existing permission or approval which is relevant, that the appeal should not be further considered by them. There are a wide variety of circumstances in which this latter provision might be appropriate. For example, use of the new power might be considered where an appeal is made against a decision to grant approval and the ground of appeal relate solely to matters of principle which cannot legally be taken into account at approval stage. The new power could also be suitable for use in cases where the planning application relates solely to modifications of a development which has already been permitted and where the grounds of appeal raise matters of principle which have already been raised and taken into account in the granting of the existing permission.
Section 17 deals with grounds of appeal. Delay in the submission of grounds can add considerably to the administrative work involved in the processing of appeals, absorb staff time which could be used more productively in dealing with fully-documented cases and thereby delay the determination of appeals. Appellants, whether developers or third parties, can make appeals under existing law without initially stating their grounds of appeal and this practice has been held by the courts to be in order. It is necessary, however, to provide the board with suitable powers for use in situations where there is continuing delay in submitting the grounds of appeal and section 17 does this.
The section enables the board to serve a formal notice requiring the submission of grounds and, in default of compliance, to declare that the relevant appeals shall be regarded as having been withdrawn.
Under existing law, the board are obliged to determine the original planning application afresh even in cases where no grounds whatever are submitted.
Section 18 is somewhat similar to section 17 in that it enables the board to deal in a summary manner with another class of case in which a party to an appeal does not co-operate fully with the board. The section will allow the board to dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal where a person fails to submit to the board information which they consider to be essential for the proper determination of the appeal and which the person has been requested to supply. This section is designed, in part, to replace section 18 of the 1976 Act which deals with cases where unnecessary delays are created by a party to an appeal. However, the provision in the 1976 Act has not been very effective because it did not release the board from the obligation to determine the original planning application afresh, even in a case where a third party or a person whose application for permission had been refused at local level was not co-operating with the board in submitting essential documents or other information.
Section 19 simplifies the procedure for consideration by the board of appeals against conditions attached to permissions. While the board will continue to deal with most appeals de novo, the provisions of the section will give them a discretionary power to deal only with a condition against which an appeal is made, provided the board are satisfied, having regard to the nature of the condition concerned, that the determination by them of the entire application would not be warranted. This new provision should enable a significant proportion of this category of appeals to be dealt with in a far more expeditious manner than can be achieved under existing law.
So as to discourage frivolous or vexatious appeals or those which are otherwise without substance or foundation, existing law empowers the board to require a party to an appeal to pay to the board or to another party, as compensation for appeal expenses, a sum of up to £50 or, after consultation with the Minister, a higher sum. Section 21 proposes to increase to £200 the sum which can be directed to be paid by the board without prior consultation with the Minister. This increase takes account of inflation over the period since the existing provision was decided upon.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are largely of a technical nature and the House will have an opportunity of examining them in depth on Committee Stage. Before I conclude, however, I should like to refer briefly to the current position regarding the backlog of appeals before the board. At the end of April, the number of appeals on hands was almost 3,600 cases. This build-up of arrears had led to long delays in the processing of particular cases and the consequent hold-up of many worthwhile development projects at a time when the building industry is particularly hard hit. Side by side with the preparation of the new legislation, I have, therefore, arranged a programme of action aimed at reducing the arrears. Since the beginning of this year, approval has been conveyed to the board to employ four additional senior planning inspectors and additional professional staff are being made available on a temporary basis by my own Department. Additional administrative staff have been made available by my Department in recent times to deal with bottlenecks in the flow of cases to the board. My Department have also carried out a study aimed at streamlining administrative systems and procedures within the board's organisation. I hope that these various actions, coupled with the proposed changes in appeals law, will ensure that, in a relatively short time, significant improvements will be made in the time taken to process appeals and reduce considerably the current backlog.
I commend the Bill to the House.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann refuses a Second Reading to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983, on the grounds that:
(i) It will seriously undermine the existing procedures for physical planning in this country.
(ii) It will have serious repercussions on the standing prestige and effectiveness of Government Boards and State-sponsored bodies.
(iii) It pre-empts the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Building Land which under its Orders of Reference is required inter alia to examine the operations of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1982 which are to be construed as one with the enactment of the Bill and thereby undermines the Committee system of the Houses.”
My party have made their protest at the Government's action in proceding with this Bill in the way they have done and we have expressed our dissatisfaction with the ruling of the Chair in interpreting orders of the House. When the Government Chief Whip rose to make his explanation he referred to me. At the outset I want to clarify my role in the matter for the record. I was not involved in any formal talks with the Government Whips, that is a matter for the Chief Whip of my party. I was approached very informally in the self-service restaurant about when the Planning and Development Bill might be taken. I recall very distinctly having made it clear that at that stage neither the Front Bench of my party nor the Environment Committee of the Fianna Fáil Party had had an opportunity to even discuss the contents of that Bill. I also pointed out that on the previous occassion when Planning and Development were discussed in this House the debate was lengthy, many Deputies wished to contribute to the debate and the Committee Stage took about 11 days. I thought it was most inopportune that the Bill should be rushed.
I want to come to the basic objection which our party have to this Bill. We feel it would seriously undermine the existing procedure for physical planning. It is clear that there is an organised campaign to depoliticise the whole planning process. This campaign has been undertaken by vested interest groups in the community. They are not representative of any large section of the community but they are quite vociferous.
The existing Planning Appeals Board were appointed under the terms of the 1976 Act which was introduced by a Coalition Government and a Labour Party Minister, Mr. James Tully. At that time the Fianna Fáil Party accepted the main provisions in that Bill to transfer the decisions on individual planning cases to an appeals board and disagreed with the recommendations of that Government that the appointment of the members of that board should be carried out by the Government and the Minister of the day. The process of depoliticising, which the Government are facilitating now, is highly impractical and cannot ever succed unless the Government intend to completely scrap the 1963 Planning and Development Act on which all planning and development are based. In that Act it is laid down quite clearly that planning decisions must be based on the county development plans adopted in each planning authority area — in other words, each local authority area — and that only the elected members of local authorities have power to adopt those plans.
It seems that the campaign which is under way seeks eventually to remove the participation of elected representatives from participating in the planning process, a highly improbable and impractical proposition which would have chaotic consequences for the development of this nation. In regard to the appointment of State boards, the Government's role must be paramount and the elected Government must make those decisions. In the proposals contained in this Bill an attempt is being made to transfer the role and authority of the Government to vested interest groups. There are some who believe that the terms of the Bill are unconstitutional. I will come to that later.
At this stage, I would like to make my position clear on another important point. Shortly after this Dáil met and the Government were appointed, one of their first actions was to reconstitute the Committee on Building Land. As spokesman for the Fianna Fáil Party on environmental matters, I was appointed chairman by the members of that committee. The terms of reference of that committee state quite clearly that it shall be the responsibility of the committee, of which I am acting as chairman and for which I must speak as spokesman in this House, to consider the operation of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963-82. The work of that committee is now being pre-empted if the Government proceed with the introduction of a planning Bill which changes in a very fundamental way the whole structure of the planning and development system which has been in operation here.
The committee have been charged to consider the proposals of the Kenny Report. That report on building land prices says that the actions of public authorities are a further factor which may influence the trend in land prices and that planning legislation tends initially to add to the upward pressure on land prices. The committee, of which I am chairman have been charged with considering all matters which affect the price of building land here, and in particular to consider in a detailed way the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963-82. The terms of reference of that committee do not contain any reference to the 1983 Bill. Obviously their terms of reference will have to be altered.
It is very wrong that the Government and the Minister should proceed with major fundamental changes in our planning laws while at the same time a committee of this House have been appointed to examine and make recommendations on them. In proceeding with this Bill I consider the Minister and the Government are offering a serious slight to the members of that committee. In recent weeks the House debated whether to establish numerous other committees to consider matters of vital concern to the community. Are we to take it from the Government's action today that the deliberations of those committees will count for nought in the minds of the Government? The Government are offering a lot of lip service in encouraging the establishment of these committees and stating that their deliberations will be seriously considered and will influence future changes in legislation. Already this weekend we heard the Tánaiste, the Leader of the Labour Party, announcing his position without waiting for the report from the Committee on Family Law Reform and other related matters to meet, deliberate and report to the House. What is the point in all these arguments, debates and suggestions and all the time which has obviously been wasted debating the merits of establishing committees of this House when it can be seen quite clearly that the Government will ignore these committees and will proceed to impose their own will, irrespective of recommendations emanating from these joint committees?
I submit that the Government are making a farce of establishing joint committees. That is a basic principle which we defend here today. As chairman of one of those committees I am in a very difficult position. I appeal to the Minister to have second thoughts about proceeding with this Bill.
There is absolutely no need for this Bill at this time. It makes only a minor contribution in some of the minor sections towards speeding up the process of decision-making on planning appeals. The decision to alter the membership of the planning board has nothing whatever to do with the Minister for the Environment's stated intention of speeding up decision-making or planning appeals — that there was a backlog and that the creation of a new board would shorten the time in deciding planning appeals.
I had prepared a speech in which I wished to refute all those arguments on Second Stage. It might be appropriate for me to deliver that speech now to the House. It is as relevant on this motion as on Second Stage of the Bill. Before I refer in greater detail to what the Minister and the Government are trying to do in this Bill, may I also revert to my role as chairman of the Committee on Building Land and refer the Minister again to the Kenny Report which our committee have been set up to report on. On page 36 of the Committee's report it is stated:
Section 26 subsection (1) of the Planning Act, 1963 provides that where application is made to a planning authority for permission for the development of lands, they may grant it subject to or without conditions or they may refuse it.
Further on, it is stated:
... the planning authority shall be restricted to considering the proper planning and development of the area of the authority...regard being had to the provisions of the development plan...If this restriction on the powers of a planning authority to refuse applications for planning permission continued to apply to lands in a designated area, one of the main aims of the scheme would be defeated.
There is the kernel of the matter which the Committee on Building Land have been asked to consider and on which they have been asked to report back to this House. I submit that it is absolutely useless for that committee now to continue their deliberations. The Minister has provided in section 16 (2) of the Planning and Development Bill, 1983, the continuation of that section. That will inhibit the consideration of our committee on whether those restrictions should apply when they are deciding whether a local authority should have power to designate land or not, as proposed in the Kenny Report.
Again, the Minister is pre-empting everything which we on that committee have been asked to consider. For my part, I shall have to consider very seriously whether I should continue to act on that committee. We should not be asked to participate in a charade, as we seemingly are being asked to do. The Bill before the House——
On a point of order, could I ask for guidance? Deputy Molloy has moved an amendment indicating that we should not take Second Stage. I take it that we are entitled to speak to his amendment and then contribute later on Second Stage debate.
The amendment and Second Stage debate will be discussed together. We are now discussing them together.
I wish to make some comment in support of the amendment, but also to speak substantively on Second Stage. I trust that I shall be entitled to do both.
On a point of order——
In the one speech, Deputy.
On a point of order, Deputy Haughey has far more experience in this House than I, but surely there is ample precedent for this kind of procedure whereby both Second Stage and amendment are discussed together and that at the end of the debate——
An Ceann Comhairle nua.
——when no other speaker is offering——
The Deputy is telling the Chair what to do.
This is to clarify the procedures of the House. Surely, the arrangement would be that they would be taken together.
I have already indicated that both may be discussed together and are being discussed together.
Deputy Molloy indicated that he was doing that.
I am speaking on the amendment.
It may be that sometimes the House may decide for its own convenience to discuss two things together. I submit to the Chair that this amendment now proposed by Deputy Molloy can be spoken to by anybody in the House who wishes to speak to it and, as a second matter, that any person who wishes may speak on Second Stage as such.
The practice of the House is that an amendment to the original motion is discussed at the same time. That is the precedent.
I am not satisfied with that. This amendment is now put forward and we are anxious to speak to it as an amendment and later to speak substantively to the Second Stage debate. I want to advance reasons for that, in favour of Deputy Molloy's amendment.
That is not possible. The amendment is being moved. The amendment and Second Stage will be discussed jointly. If the Deputy makes a speech on the amendment, he is also involving Second Stage. He can speak once in the overall debate on Second Stage.
I want to propose that we are entitled to speak on this amendment. I shall advance to the Chair reasons in favour of this amendment which have nothing to do with the merits of the legislation itself. I wish to point out in this context that the question of agreement between the parties will be seriously jeopardised unless this amendment is accepted. I ask the Minister if he is standing over the solemn agreement which he made in this House about the taking of Second Stage? Is he a man of his word, or is he running away from what he said to us in this House?
I am not running away from anything.
These are things which I wish to raise on the amendment and which the Chair would probably rule out of order on Second Stage. I submit that the only satisfactory way of dealing with this is for us to be able to speak on the amendment as such and then later make speeches on Second Stage.
On a point of clarification, this amendment on Second Stage of the Bill is exactly the same as a Private Members' Motion and an amendment being taken on it. Such motion and amendment are discussed together. This applies also in this case. The amendment has been moved by Deputy Molloy and Second Stage has already been read out by the Minister and there is now a discussion on the amendment in conjunction with Second Stage of the Bill.
So Deputy Molloy still has the floor and may continue with his Second Stage speech?
Before we leave the amendment, I ask the Minister specifically is he or is he not standing over his solemn assurance to this House that Second Stage would be taken only by agreement between the Whips. That is a very clear question. It touches on the Minister's honour and dignity as a parliamentarian. I am asking him to reply to it.
The Deputy is now reviving the issue which was debated for half an hour.
He is trying to get an answer from the Minister for the Environment, the man who has misled the House.
He is now entitled to make his Second Stage speech as well as speaking on the amendment. Deputy Haughey can come in at any time on that debate. He is quite free to speak on the amendment and on Second Stage together. It is the same as a Private Members' motion.
If I may resort to the vernacular, begob I intend to keep on reviving the dishonourable treatment the Government meted out to the Opposition today.
Hear, hear.
I appeal to the Leader of the Opposition.
I am only dealing with a point of order. I hoped that I was specific in that regard.
I have made a specific ruling.
I shall accept the Chair's ruling, because he is a very fine gentleman.
The compliments I accept. Will Deputy Molloy please continue?
I cannot say the same about other parliamentarians.
The Chair is inviting me to continue with my Second Stage speech. I understood that I was moving this amendment.
On both the amendment and Second Stage. He may speak for as long as he wishes.
In moving the amendment to this motion in the names of Deputy Ahern and myself, I am to speak to that and Second Stage jointly.
As regards part 3 of the amendment, where I claim that the action of the Government pre-empts the work of the Joint Committee on Building Land, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on 12 May the Joint Committee wrote to the Secretary of the Department of the Environment as follows:
I am directed by the Chairman of the Joint Committee to inform you that at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 27 April 1983 notice was served by members that the following matters should be considered.
Among the matters listed was An Bord Pleanála. I cannot understand how the Minister and the Government expect this committee to continue their deliberations into the operation of the Planning Acts if, during the course of their work, the Government proceed to change the basic law which the committee was set up to examine and report on. That is making a farce of the joint committee system. It places me in a very invidious position, as I have been appointed chairman.
The reply to that letter stated that appropriate papers on these matters were being prepared in the Department and would be submitted to the committee in due course. I do not see the point when we proceed to deal with a Bill which will change the planning laws. It changes in a fundamental way the structure of the board.
It will have serious repercussions on the standing, prestige and effectiveness of the boards of State-sponsored bodies. There are numerous bodies to which Governments have appointed people as board members for a fixed time — three, five or seven years. In all cases provision is made where these members can be removed from office for stated misdemeanours. No such accusation has been made against any members of this board. They are all being fired from their positions and it is clear that it is only a vindictive political act on behalf of the Government because the board members were appointed by the previous Government. This will have serious repercussions as regards people who will serve on such boards in the years ahead. The action of the Government will be pointed to time and time again.
The Bill abolishes the existing membership and method of appointment of An Bord Pleanála and proposes minor improvements in procedures to try to speed up decisions on planning appeals. No valid arguments were advanced by the Minister to justify abolishing the existing board and it is well recognised that the only way decisions on planning appeals can be speeded up is by the appointment of additional planning inspectors and administrative staff. It is clear that there is no need for the Bill and that the Dáil is being forced to discuss something which is unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the urgent needs of the nation at this time.
There is not a quorum present.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.
It is clear there is no real need for the Bill. In the circumstances of the many pressing problems affecting the people and the economy the Government in bringing forward this Bill are dealing with something which is irrelevant to the real needs of the nation. When one considers the extent of organised crime, which is at crisis level, had the Government come forward with proposals for urgent debate which might seek to deal in an effective way with the level of crime they could certainly justify using the jackboot tactics they are using — the guillotine method of pushing legislation through. We are not dealing with any proposals to bring about an improvement in that area. Recently in the courts we saw the godfather of illegal drug selling walking out in the middle of his case.
Will the Deputy please circulate his script?
Is the Minister touchy about that?
It is not a script. I am referring to notes.
This is Parliament and we do not read out scripts in it.
If the country saw the Government taking urgent action to deal with the drugs crisis or if Parliament was asked to deal urgently with necessary legislation to clamp down on the tragic expansion of the use of drugs, then the Dáil would welcome such a move because such urgent action is called for. If we had moves to deal with the crisis in unemployment — there are 200,000 people registered as unemployed — that would be a different matter. Unemployment is the real crisis and tragedy in Ireland in 1983; it is not the membership of An Bord Pleanála. The Government are making a farce out of Parliament in seeking to avail of valuable time to bring in unnecessary and irrelevant legislation which will have far-reaching repercussions and bring about a fundamental reappraisal of the planning system. If the Government rushed in with legislation to deal with the PAYE taxpayers' revolt against crippling taxation the House might welcome it and willingly participate in such an urgent discussion.
On a point of order, is there a quorum in the House?
There is not a quorum.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
The Government's action in informing the Opposition that they were intent on introducing a guillotine or time motion to ensure the quick passage of this Bill would normally indicate that the Government believed there was great urgency about the passage of the legislation. There is no evidence why the Government have come to that conclusion, nor is there evidence of any great urgency attaching to the provisions of the Bill. It is quite extraordinary that this Parliament which has not yet completed a 12-month term is faced for the first time with a measure, regarded by the Government as urgent, which in reality has no urgency. The introduction of the Bill is vindictive political action by the Government.
If the Government had sought to bring forward proposals to aid the ailing construction industry we would have welcomed it. We have used Opposition time to bring the crisis in the building industry to the notice of the Government. We have made suggestions as to how the Government might bring about an improvement in the industry by increasing investment and creating thereby a growth in employment, but the Government ignored the pleadings and suggestions we made during those debates. Nothing has emerged to deal with the crisis which is affecting the lives of thousands of people, many of whom returned from abroad to live and work here and helped to build the facilities now enjoyed by our population. Many craftsmen who have trained in our training centres and developed their skills see that the Government have no time for them. We would have welcomed Government proposals to deal with this problem.
Similarly we would have welcomed proposals to deal with the threat hanging over State and semi-State companies and the possible loss of thousands of jobs. A terrible tragedy will descend on part of my county if the Government proceed with the proposed closure of the sugar factory in Tuam. We would have welcomed debate on this urgent question initiated by the Government but it was left to the Opposition to bring the issue into Parliament.
The tourist trade is also facing crisis. We are now well into the 1983 tourist season and there is evidence that the industry is in the doldrums. The fine weather of recent days has been enjoyed mainly by ourselves since tourists are scarce. We would have welcomed urgent measures to deal with the expansion and development of tourism.
Off the west coast Spanish fleets are invading our waters and moving in to our fishing grounds and the Government dilly-dally with legislation to deal with the problem. We are prepared to sit here all night and pass any reasonable legislation which the Government bring forward to deal with the invasion by Spanish fleets off the west coast and the moves to re-register Spanish vessels under the Irish flag in an underhand attempt to gain entry to our fishing grounds. This is an urgent problem which would warrant a guillotine motion if the Opposition were acting unreasonably and refusing to cooperate. We have not seen any such legislation and we are being asked to deal with something which is not urgent and is unnecessary.
Elderly citizens are facing a crisis week after week in the courts where rents are being increased by exorbitant amounts which in many cases they are unable to pay. Many of them are suffering deep anxiety and their lives may be shortened as a result. The Government have not come forward with the proposals to set up a rents tribunal. We have heard promises but we have seen no action. Week after week rents are being increased by several hundred per cent and elderly people are absolutely dismayed at the level of increases.
On a point of order, I am wondering what this has to do with the Bill before us. The Deputy has not touched on the Bill in the past 20 minutes or so.
I believe the Deputy is trying to emphasise that there are other matters which are just as urgent and he is prepared to stay all night to deal with them.
Do we have to stay here all night to listen to him? I am not hearing anything about planning appeals.
In order to consider the frivolity or otherwise of Deputy Skelly's point of order, could we have a quorum?
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
On a point of order, I should like to ask Deputy Lenihan to ask his colleague whether he intends to make a farce of the legislation process for the rest of this session——
That is not a point of order.
Is the Deputy aware that I tried to make a point of order earlier but I was not allowed? Is there a distinction being made? Deputy Skelly surprises me when he questions the relevance of my making a comparison between this legislation and the urgency attached to the need to introduce legislation for the establishment of rent tribunals to alleviate the cruelty being inflicted on elderly citizens of this land in the courts of the country.
If the Deputy would tell the truth——
The Deputy never told the truth in his life, here or elsewhere. It is well known, especially elsewhere.
Unfortunately, Deputy Skelly is unable to make a distinction between the type of urgency that should attach to bringing in legislation to establish a rent tribunal to alleviate the cruelty being inflicted on these elderly people week after week in the courts.
On a point of order——
I will regard persistent points of order as disorderly. Deputies are not deceiving anybody.
Before this third quorum came back there was only one interruption, but I was wondering, and I said so, what the last 20 minutes of Deputy Molloy's speech had to do with the Bill.
Will Deputy Skelly resume his seat immediately?
He does not run the House.
I appeal to Deputies to behave as they should behave. Deputy Molloy without interruption.
I am sure the House will allow me to reply to the questions put by Deputy Skelly. He asked what was the relevance of my referring to the tragedies of elderly people.
The Chair put me our last week, but of course I am on the wrong side.
The Chair cannot sit here and listen to attacks on the Chair, snide, indirect or otherwise. I ask Deputies, whatever else they do, not to attack the Chair.
I merely said you put me out for less.
That is an attack on the Chair.
That is your interpretation of it.
I am sure the House will allow me to reply to Deputy Skelly on the relevance of what I have been saying. I am seeking to convey to the House that there are urgent measures which we on this side would welcome if the Government would bring them forward. I am identifying what I consider to be matters of great urgency. We would welcome any measures to deal with those serious problems affecting our people. I was referring to one of them when, much to my surprise, I was interrupted by Deputy Skelly. I was referring to the need for a Bill to be brought in here immediately for the establishment of rent tribunals.
It is the biggest social need at present.
The greatest of tragedies is being perpetrated on a section of our people who have given of their best and who, in the twilight of their lives, are facing cruelty, but we in this Parliament are delaying the introduction of legislation to alleviate that problem. If Deputy Skelly, who lives in a Dublin constituency, cannot understand the relevance or the need or the urgency about the introduction of legislation to establish rent tribunals as distinct from this charade which we have here before us——
Deputy Shatter probably wants the Rent Acts in a state of confusion.
Perhaps the Deputies in Fine Gael have not been consulted as to whether this Bill should be brought forward in this fashion. Perhaps they have not been consulted as to whether their votes would be available for a guillotine motion. Perhaps they were as surprised as we when our Whip notified us at a very late date, at the end of the week, that the Government intended taking the very unusual, the exceptional step, of putting down a guillotine motion to force through a Bill about which there is no urgency whatsoever. This is a vindictive act by the Government against people who have given excellent service to the nation. I have a lot to say and if Deputies sit here for a few more hours they will hear a lot more. I am complaining that the Government are seeking to force this Bill through.
This Bill is unnecessary and even at this late stage we on this side appeal to the Government to withdraw this Bill and let us get on with other urgent matters affecting the people of the nation. A crisis exists and there is need to bring in legislation to remedy it. Legislation is needed in the areas of crime, drug abuse, rent tribunals and the crisis in the construction industry. I could go on and on and point out real problems affecting our people. We do not see legislation to remedy these problems. What do we see? There does not seem to be any need for this legislation and the Government are wasting the time of the House. We oppose this legislation because there is a very basic principle involved. People who are appointed by the Government of the day to act on State boards hold legitimate appointments and it is the tradition of the country that they be allowed to complete the term of their appointments. However, if you read section 10 of this Bill you will see that a new principle is being introduced into Irish legislation.
All of those members holding legitimate appointments from the Government of the day are being let go. Previous members of this board were appointed by Coalition Governments. The board was established by a Coalition Government and by a Labour Minister. It is now being dismantled by a Labour Minister in another Coalition Government which makes it all the more confusing as to why it is necessary. If there had been a mix of appointments on the board, this Bill would never see the light of day. Because of the coincidence that members of An Bord Pleanála were appointed by the previous Government, this Government have taken this extraordinary step. They think they will get away with it without its being exposed. That will not happen. We will avail of this debate to expose what the Government are doing. That is why we are opposing it.
If the Government proceed to establish the principle in this Bill, any person who accepts any appointment from this Government to any State board need not feel secure in his directorship or membership of that board if there is a change of Government. If the Government insist on putting this into the law of the land, we will accept from now on that all those memberships can be changed with a change of Government. This will be a fundamental change.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
The Deputy has a short memory.
Deputies will have an opportunity to make their contributions.
I am sure the House will accept that that will be a fundamental change in the traditions and procedures adopted since the foundation of the State. Traditionally there has been respect by an incoming Government for the decisions of the outgoing Government. To my knowledge there has been no attempt by an incoming Government to interfere with appointments made to boards.
The Deputy has a short memory.
In section 10 of this Bill all of that is to change. I hope this sinks into the minds and understanding of Fine Gael Deputies. I do not believe they have given full thought to what is going on here. There is something a lot more subtle going on. This is not just removing people because they were appointed by Fianna Fáil. It is also removing people because they were appointed by politicians, by Governments and by Ministers. That power is also being shifted away from this House to outside vested interest groups.
This is another principle which we think is wrong. People will rue the day they allowed that to happen. Members of this House will regret the day they allowed that principle to be introduced in appointments to boards. When Deputies opposite reflect on the real intention behind this, I am sure they too will see that the stand we are taking is the right one for Parliament and for democracy, and that it is one they should support. I hope Deputy Skelly can understand the relevance of my reference to the delay in bringing forward the Rent Tribunal Bill.
Never has the future of our country seemed to bleak. The thousands of young people just completing their school examinations, and those in the third level institutions who are coming out into the market place and seeking employment in their home towns, their home counties, or in their own country, have to face the real tragedy and the really bleak prospect that is Ireland today. These are the problems the Government should be facing and tackling. They cannot claim that this Bill will make any contribution towards dealing with the crises which exist in the various areas to which I have referred.
The Government's response at this time of great crisis is to force Dáil Éireann to spend two weeks, I understand, discussing an unnecessary and irrelevant Planning Bill. This Bill creates a precedent in Irish politics. This is the first time that all the members of a State board are being fired without warning just because they were appointed by the previous Government. This naked vindictive act will have repercussions throughout the whole State and semi-State sector. It will affect in a fundamental way future participation on State boards by people from the private sector. Many people will be reluctant to act on these boards in the future now that it is being established that members may be dismissed in this arbitrary way following a change of Government.
This Bill casts a serious reflection on the Irish parliamentary system in implying that the Government elected by the people are not competent or trustworthy enough to appoint a chairman and members of an autonomous national planning appeals board. The central role of Parliament in the life of the nation is being challenged in this Bill. This further reduction in the role of the democratically elected Government and individual Ministers is evidence of the ever-increasing bureaucratic control which is steadily getting a grip on every area of major decision making. The bureaucratic machine is slow. It is cumbersome and very expensive. It is stifling enterprise, initiative and creative thinking. I believe this country needs to be freed from over control by rigid bureaucracy. Any Bill which seeks to remove decision making from the arena of elected representatives and hand it over to vested interest groups should be strenuously opposed.
The vested interest groups covered in section 7 of this Bill hold no mandate from the electorate and may themselves operate under very questionable undemocratic procedures. One of the organisations mentioned in section 5 of this Bill, An Taisce, has been involved——
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
One of the organisations mentioned in section 5 of this Bill, An Taisce, has been involved in a public campaign to denigrate the role of public representatives in planning and development. While valid criticism is at all times welcome, one wonders about the objectivity of some members of An Taisce whose main purpose is to depoliticise the whole planning process.
Ask Mr. Killilea about that.
Deputy Donnellan is a member of a local authority who have been the subject of An Taisce's attentions. He should be well aware of the attitude of An Taisce to elected representatives on local authorities. He should be aware of the views held by these people about people like Deputy Donnellan who is a member of a planning authority.
While valid criticism is at all times welcomed, one wonders about the objectivity of some members of An Taisce whose main purpose is to depoliticise the whole planning process. This is a highly impracticable and dangerous proposition which would involve the abolition not just of the existing membership of An Bord Pleanála but also of the 1963 Planning and Development Act which lays down that only elected members of local authorities have power to adopt development plans upon which all planning decisions are based. Fianna Fáil agreed with the other parties in this House some years ago to transfer responsibility for deciding planning appeals from the Minister for the Environment to a board "the chairman of which shall be appointed by the Government and the ordinary members numbering not less than four or more than ten will be appointed by the Minister". It was accepted by all parties then that planning and development issues would always be of major political importance affecting the economic, social and cultural development of the nation and as such could never be removed completely from the mainstream of political activity. Any organisation who adopt as their major objective the depoliticising of planning and development are acting in an unreasonable, unrealistic fashion and should not be given a role to play by a parliament whose authority they seek to displace. It is essential that the role of parliament be paramount in any legislative proposals brough forward for enactment in Dáil Éireann. We consider the main proposals in this Bill to be absolutely unnecessary.
In 1976 we accepted the Coalition proposals introduced by the Labour Party Minister, Deputy Tully.
Will Deputy Molloy give me a copy of what he is reading?
The Chair takes it that Deputy Molloy is referring to notes.
I have been dealing with notes. Deputy Skelly seems to have difficulty in seeing the relevance of some of my arguments. If he likes I will send him a copy of my contribution when I have completed it. As I was saying, in 1976 we accepted the Coalition's proposals introduced by the Labour Party Minister, Deputy Tully, granting the Government and the Minister for the Environment the power to select and appoint the chairman and members of An Bord Pleanála respectively. We never sought to interfere with the appointees of the Coalition Government to An Bord Pleanála. It should always be the Government's prerogative to make these appointments free of the cumbersome and unnecessary procedure proposed in this Bill. Obviously much of the push for this Bill is coming from the Labour Party whose leader is Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State in the same Department is another Labour Party member. In this Coalition the Labour Party are controlling the Department of the Environment and it is Labour Party Members who are bringing forward this legislation. Therefore, I appeal to the Fine Gael Members not to allow all of their beliefs to be swamped for the expediency of remaining in office. I appeal to them to defend the integrity of members who have served on An Bord Pleanála.
Remember that this House is casting a very serious aspersion on the people who have acted as board members since An Bord Pleanála were established in 1977 by the Coalition Government. People of great eminence and ability have worked on that board at a remuneration level which could not be deemed exceptional or extraordinary. The work is hard and involves reading volumes of paper, studying reams of plans and spending hours studying the issues in each case before arriving at a decision. I have some experience of that work, having had the responsibility for deciding planning appeals in the years prior to the establishment of An Bord Pleanála. Therefore, I speak with some knowledge and authority on the onerous tasks involved for any individual who is obliged to consider planning inspectors' plans, to examine all the submissions in support of a planning appeal and, most difficult of all, to arrive at a fair decision. All of that involves dedication and hard work. People who have given this type of service to the country are now being ridiculed by the Coalition Government and fired out of office without any valid reason given. There is no stated misbehaviour, no act which they are alleged to have committed which was improper which would warrant their being fired from those positions. Many of those people have very high qualifications; some of them represent just pure common sense as Mr. Tully said, the man in the street. He justified the appointment of one of the individuals on the grounds that the man was a sensible person who would apply common sense and the view of the ordinary man in the street as distinct from the expertise of the technocrats. In this Bill we are being asked to establish a planning appeals board comprised solely of technocrats. Leaving aside the other principles which we oppose, that will not be a good board. There is always need for a broader view of matters when decisions are finally being made in planning cases and a narrow board as is proposed will not be successful.
In the 1976 Act grounds were laid down on which members could be dismissed from office. No complaints in line with the grounds in that Act have been made against any of the members on the board at present. Therefore, it is very unfair and improper for Parliament to take this extreme action for no good reason.
It is no harm to recall that the appointments to the board were for a very short period, three years I understand. Many people had agreed to act in the interests of the nation and gave up their free time. I know of one individual who did not live in the city of Dublin and who travelled each week to this city, stayed away from his family, and did that five days a week for all of the three years in which he acted on the board and he dealt with very complex appeals such as the caverns case in Dublin Bay and made a major contribution to the decisions of that board. Is the work of such people all to be cast aside for naught? Is this Parliament not to show gratitude and respect for people who have participated willingly in the democratic process by accepting invitations to act on this board? It is an absolute and utter disgrace that people of that quality, calibre, level of dedication to the nation are abused and vilified in this way by this Government in this Bill. I hope that many of the Members on the other side will re-think seriously about what they are doing.
We believe so strongly that the new principles enshrined in this Bill should be opposed that we have adopted as part of our party policy that if and when Fianna Fáil are returned to office we will rescind sections 5 and 7 of this Bill. If this Bill becomes law and if somebody accepts an appointment as a member of this board we are serving a notice on that person from Parliament here today that he need not expect the continued support of Fianna Fáil if and when we are returned to office.
A Deputy
He need never worry.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I have been here a long time now and I have heard it said that it will never happen.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
A Government Deputy — I believe it was Deputy Carey — replying to my statement that if and when there is a change of Government and my party are returned to power we will rescind sections 5 and 7 said it would never happen. We are serving notice now on any person who accepts an appointment from the Government that that will be the position. The urgency which the Government have attached to the Bill will be matched by the same urgency by us to have the sections rescinded. Government Members who contribute glibly across the floor of the House and make comments in reply to suggestions about a change of Government that it will never happen should remember that when one is a Member as long as Deputy Lenihan and I one is careful about making such a comment. Changes have come and will come. If any Government Members think they will be Members saecula saeculorum they are in for a rude awakening. I can recall the late Deputy Sweetman telling me in 1968 that he would be a Member longer than I.
It is the intention of our party to rescind the main sections of the Bill in regard to the method of selection and appointment to An Bord Pleanála if and when we are returned to office. We intend to do that to ensure that full authority in appointing members of An Bord Pleanála is vested in the elected Government of the people. The Minister has pursued a vicious campaign of vilification against the chairman and members of An Bord Pleanála since his appointment as Minister for the Environment. In his campaign he has resorted to false accusations to justify the extreme action he now proposes. On the numerous occasions he has averted to the backlog of appeals and the impact of planning delays in An Bord Pleanála on jobs in the building industry, thus seeking to create the impression that it was the chairman and members of the board who were responsible for these delays. Nothing could be further from the truth, as I will demonstrate later.
The Minister, having accused board members of being responsible for the delays, may feel he is justified in firing every one of them. The Minister has not presented any evidence to substantiate his claim, and until he does he stands indicted of having acted unjustly and in doing so damaging the reputation of a High Court judge and the ordinary members of the board. Under the 1976 Act the Government may only remove the High Court judge from chairmanship if he has become incapable through ill health of effectively performing his duty, or if he has committed stated misbehaviour or if his removal appears to the Government to be necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions. In case a chairman of the board is removed under this provision the Government shall cause to be laid before the House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the reasons for the removal. The Minister has similar powers in respect of ordinary members.
To my knowledge neither the Government nor the Minister have claimed that any board member has (1) become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing his duties or (2) committed misbehaviour. Neither has any statement been laid before the Oireachtas setting out in writing reasons why removal of members appears to the Government to be necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions. The only grounds given by the Minister is the size of the backlog caused by delay in dealing with appeals but that is not a valid reason for a dismissal because the delays did not take place at board level but were caused by lack of adequate numbers of planning inspectors and administrative staff. I challenge the Minister to deny that statement.
A former chairman of the board has spoken out to contradict the Minister's assertion. Mr. Justice Denis Pringle, who was appointed chairman of An Bord Pleanála by the Coalition Government in 1977, said in the course of a statement published in The Irish Press, 26 May 1983:
The failure to replace key staff attached to An Bord Pleanála was a major factor in the backlog of planning appeals.
The planning inspectors are the key people in the working of the board and they were cut considerably. We were pressing the Department for a long time to increase the number of inspectors to deal with appeals.
A former member of the board has stated that appeals were rarely if ever delayed at board level for more than one week. Compare that to the false allegations which have consistently been made by the Minister in statements given to the newspapers and interviews. He has sought to convey the impression to the public, and the construction industry, that the reason for the long delays in deciding planning appeals here was dilatoriness on the part of the chairman and ordinary members of An Bord Pleanála. I will demonstrate how inaccurate, unfair and unjust that is. It surprises me that all the Government Deputies will troop in behind the Minister who is bringing forward this legislation on the basis that the board stands accused of being responsible for the delays. We know that the delays have been unreasonable. It is most unacceptable that it should take ten months or 12 months to decide a planning appeal and I would be highly critical of any system which would cause such delays in making those important decisions. We know at this time of high unemployment and a crisis in our economy how important it is to ensure that any administrative matters causing delays in investment are dealt with urgently. We would welcome a serious attempt to deal with the cause of such delays. To seek to convey the impression that these delays are solely caused by the members of the board and because of that that they must all be fired is a lie, it is not true, it is false.
I would ask the Deputy to exclude the word "lie" from his vocabulary.
What word am I to use to describe an inaccurate statement of that kind? It is a falsehood, a milder way of saying the same thing. I challenge the Minister, and the Minister of State, to contradict what I have said or to give evidence of some kind. I do not have access to the inner corridors of An Bord Pleanála, the Department of the Environment or local authorities; but a person who served in the past on that board — it should be remembered that Mr. Justice Pringle, who was chairman of the board, has spoken out — has contradicted the Minister's comments. The delays in appeals has never been caused at board level and rarely if ever were delays at that level longer than one week. Even if I said that delays at that level were rarely longer than one month I do not think anybody could accuse board members of being the cause of unnecessary and unacceptable delays.
There is no sincerity on the Government side of the House because there are very few Members listening to the debate.
It is important that as many Government Members as possible are present, because obviously they have not read the Bill and do not know what is in it.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.
I was referring to the cause of the delays. It might surprise many Deputies to know that when planning appeals were brought before the members of the board they rarely took longer than one week to be decided on. The 1976 Act established An Bord Pleanála and section 10 of that Act enables the board to employ their own staff. It was the intention of Dáil Éireann that An Bord Pleanála would be an independent autonomous body employing their own staff. I must now ask why the board have never been allowed to employ their own staff. The Department of the Environment's staff, seconded on a short term basis to the board in 1977 to facilitate the transition, have continued in that capacity ever since, thus frustrating the establishment of a truly independent board. The Minister's civil servants have maintained their grip on the administration of the planning appeal process and must accept responsibility for the inordinate delays which have taken place in deciding appeals.
The civil service bureaucracy may have resented the change from the Department to An Bord Pleanála and could have used their special position to frustrate the intention of the 1976 Act of establishing a completely free and independent appeal board. It must be said that successive Ministers for the Environment presided over the continued employment of their staff on secondment to the board and contributed to the present unsatisfactory situation where the chairman and the board members do not have direct control over all of their staff. If anybody cares to read the 1981 Annual Report of An Bord Pleanála he will see that the board have only one full-time staff member under their direct control, the chief executive officer. This is a most unsatisfactory situation and explanations are certainly called for.
I would like to give the House some figures to support my argument that delays in deciding planning appeals have more to do with staff shortages at technical and administrative level than delays at board level. In the year ending December 1977 there were 18 planning inspectors. In December 1980 they were down to 15 planning inspectors and in the year ending December 1982 there were still only 15 inspectors. We see that this board established during 1977 had at the end of that year 18 planning inspectors and at the end of December 1982, five years later, they had only 15 planning inspectors. I understand there were times in between when the number was even less than 15. We have the extraordinary situation — this is a well-known and accepted fact — that there was an increase in the number of appeals brought before the board. No appeal can be decided unless the planning inspector has written his report. This is presented to the board and they make their decision. If there is no corresponding increase in the number of inspectors how can the board increase the number of decisions they are making? They will not be receiving a substantial increase in the number of planning inspectors' reports coming before them because there has not been an increase in the number of planning inspectors.
With regard to staff employed by the board, in December 1977 there were 73 people employed by the board; in December 1980 there were 74, an increase of one; and in December 1982 there were 78, an increase of five from 1977. In December 1977 there were 3,198 appeals decided, during the year ending December 1980 there were 4,271 and during the year ending December 1982 there were 3,662 appeals decided, despite the fact that there was a substantial drop in the number of inspectors employed.
I now come to the crucial figure which illustrates the case being made in regard to delays. The number of appeals on hand at the end of 1977 was 1,684, at the end of December 1978 there were 1,710 and at the end of December 1982 there were 3,255 appeals on hand. There was a substantial increase in the number of backlog appeals but there was a drop in the number of planning inspectors. These figures clearly illustrate that the number of planning inspectors dropped during the period, the number of appeals decided during the period increased and the number of appeals received greatly exceeded the capacity of the planning inspectors to deal with them. Perhaps, for those who do not know I should explain that the members of the board have no knowledge of a planning appeal until a member of the board receives a planning inspector's report on the appeal.
The delay from the time an appeal is received until the planning inspector's report is available is something over which the board members have not been able to exercise any control as they do not control the staff. I have valuable information given to me by a former member which I think Members of the House should be aware of and which I should like to put on record, that is, the procedure followed by the appeals board in dealing with planning appeals. When an appeal is made to An Bord Pleanála it is received by the administrative staff; it is not received by a board member, which the Minister continues to seek to convey. I understand that local authorities have been responsible for a delay of on average three months in submitting documents to the administrative staff of An Bord Pleanála to enable them to prepare the appeal file. Therefore a large portion of the delay which has been taking place in planning appeal cases has been caused by local authorities throughout the country. That point must be clearly established first.
If we are apportioning blame in regard to delays in deciding appeals let us be factual and truthful and show where those delays really occur. I understand that local authorities have delayed, often as long as six months, before submitting necessary documents to An Bord Pleanála to enable the staff to prepare an appeal file for a planning inspector. I understand sometimes the delay will be one month, sometimes six months and that an average over the year would be three months. After that three months' delay the appeal file is ready to be sent to the processing section, where on average a further one month's delay occurs. At that point there is an appeal lodged — the board have not seen it yet and four months have passed. The appeal file is sent then to the planning inspector where a further delay of on average, six months occurs. Therefore, we had a three months' delay awaiting the local authority to submit the necessary documentation, a further one month's delay in the processing section, checking, cross-checking and preparing the file, then it was sent to the planning inspector — it takes him on average six months — so the appeal has now been with An Bord Pleanála for ten months. But the members of the board will not have seen it yet. When the planning inspector has completed his report — and this is at the end of an average period of ten months — it goes then to a board member and on average it is cleared through the board within one week.
Therefore an appeal takes ten months before being placed before the board for decision and then is decided within one week. This Minister has issued public statements accusing the appointed members and chairman of An Bord Pleanála of being responsible for inordinate delays which have affected employment in the construction industry. That was a wrong accusation to make. Indeed, it was most surprising that the Minister should make such accusation. But the delay does not end there. After the board have decided on the appeal it can take anything from two weeks to two months before the order is ready for signature. Until the order implementing the decision of the board is signed it cannot be sent to the appellant, the appellant is not notified, the local authority are not notified. Therefore there is an average delay of 12 months involved.
It is clear that if there is to be a substantial reduction in the delays involved in deciding planning appeals local authorities must submit the necessary documentation more expeditiously. I support the amendment to that effect.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I have been illustrating that on average it takes 12 months to decide planning appeals from the time An Bord Pleanála are notified of the appeal until such time as the order is signed and issued by the board. In all of that period of 12 months I have said that the actual members and chairman of An Bord Pleanála involved in taking the decision on average take their decision within one week of receiving the planning appeal file and that the remaining 11 months and three weeks it took to decide is accounted for elsewhere, but not at board level. I hope that point has sunk in on the other side of the House.
Even at this stage I would appeal to the Minister to apologise to the members of the board for the allegations he has wrongly levelled against them. At the outset he should have been honest and admitted that really the only way of having an increased number of appeals decided would be to increase the staff numbers, particularly the number of planning inspectors. It has been a false economy to cut back on the number of planning inspectors and administrative staff in view of the substantial increase in the flow of planning appeals to the board. It is wrong for the Minister to claim that the backlog with regard to planning appeals is the fault of the board members and he should offer an apology to board members, past and present, for the unwarranted slight on their ability and efficiency. Members accepted invitations to act on the board, often at great inconvenience and financial loss to themselves. They saw their work as a national task requiring competence and integrity. They gave their service loyally to the nation and the Dáil and the country owe a deep debt of gratitude to all of those who have served on the board since the foundation of that body.
I will conclude by raising another issue in regard to my amendment and to the Bill, namely, the constitutionality of the proposal before the House. It should be remembered that An Bord Pleanála exercise powers of a quasi-judicial nature. When making decisions, the members must have unfettered discretion but, more important, must be seen that they have this unfettered discretion. If members are appointed from a representative panel they will feel their appointment is to represent a point of view and to reflect it in their decisions. If such an impression is held by the public it will sap public confidence in the operation of the board.
There is a major principle of jurisprudence involved here. Judges or those exercising quasi-judicial functions must be free and independent in the exercise of their office and must be free and deemed to be free of any bias in their decisions. This being the age of minorities, one can see the absurdity of arguing that the Supreme Court should be representative of all sorts of minority groups. That is the kind of reasoning that suggested the Bill before the House. In our opinion there is a case to be examined as to whether the selection method proposed in the Bill is constitutional. I pose that question here and Members on my side of the House may return to it at a later date.
There are many other sections in the Bill which seek to achieve some improvements in a minor way in regard to considering planning appeals de novo, removing that obligation and allowing the board in future to consider conditions attaching to an appeal if the appeal is only against a condition in a matter of that kind. I should like to contribute further to that on Committee Stage. Other Members on this side will deal with those aspects of the Bill at a later stage.
There are two main sections in the Bill, one proposing this new system of appointment and selection of board members and firing ignominiously the existing board. The second part of the Bill concerns the minor improvements which should help to reduce some of the delays. It has been a completely false argument for the Minister for the Environment to seek to justify this extreme step he is taking on the grounds that the delays were caused by the board members, that because of inefficiency or delay on their part our planning appeals system has been cumbersome and slow to make decisions. I hope what I have said has demonstrated there is no truth in that. A heavy responsibility lies on the Minister to clarify the false allegations he made against those who now serve and who served in the past. All of them are honourable men and the nation owes them a debt of gratitude. There are many other people who have participated in the working of State boards at the invitation of the elected Government. They have served their country well and they should not be denigrated in the fashion proposed in this Bill. It is a retrograde step on the part of the Government. We are disappointed it has been left to the Opposition to defend the principle of the supremacy of Parliament. Let there be no mistake about it. That is what we are here to do today and what we will continue to do until the Government have a change of mind.
I support this Bill which I regard as timely, if not overdue. On behalf of the Labour Party and Fine Gael I must say we regret the way this debate has started. It is not our intention to try in any way to subvert or short-circuit the parliamentary process. In view of what has taken place it is only fair that the House should be aware of the timetable against which this Second Stage debate is taking place.
The Bill was presented to the Dáil as long ago as 30 May after the Minister for the Environment on a number of occasions had indicated that the board would be restructured and reformed. The order for Second Stage was made on 2 June and the date fixed was Wednesday, 8 June. There was an absence of agreement at that time but, as Deputy Lenihan will agree, three weeks were allowed which was not an unreasonable length of time. The Bill has been with Members of this House and the public for quite some time.
Because it proposes to restructure and change the board it is preferable that it be done properly and quickly now that the intention has been made clear. It is not in the interest of anyone, least of all the members of the board for whom Deputy Molloy declares so much concern, that the debate on this Bill be prolonged indefinitely. More important, it is not in the interest of the nation that any ambiguity should surround the ongoing existence of the board because that would make their position untenable so far as the making of decisions was concerned.
In moving his amendment Deputy Molloy attempted to suggest that the Minister somehow or other was pre-empting the role of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Building Land. He attempted to suggest to the House that in some way that committee had specifically to look at the question of planning and to advise on changes in relation to An Bord Pleanála.
It is in the terms of reference.
I am about to read them to the House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.
As I was saying, that committee, of which Deputy Molloy was unanimously elected chairman, was set up specifically to look at the problem of building land, legislation relating to the problem of the cost of building land and to examine the operation of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963-82. It would not be fair to try to suggest, as the Deputy did, that the primary purpose of that committee was to look at that legislation——
It was part of their terms of reference.
I know that reference to the legislation was made, but the point the Deputy was making was that the deliberations of that committee — and the House should be grateful because Fianna Fáil have consented to participate in it — would be pre-empted by this legislation. I am refuting that.
Section 16 (2).
It appears from the repeated interruptions by Deputy Molloy that he does not seem to like my refutation. In restructuring the operation of An Bord Pleanála, which will not have the slightest effect on the cost of building land, I must, on behalf of the Government, totally reject the assertion that the joint committee's deliberations will in any way be pre-empted and by extension that of any of the other committees to which Fianna Fáil have agreed to participate will be pre-empted.
We do not accept that.
That is evident from the Deputy's behaviour today. I am giving the facts.
The Minister is giving his opinion.
No, I am telling the facts. In part of his long and comprehensive speech, which was frequently interrupted by calls for a quorum, Deputy Molloy mentioned a number of times what he called the attempts to depoliticise the planning process and how much he, and presumably his party, were against that depoliticisation.
I said total depoliticisation is the aim of a good number of organisations, of some of which the Minister is a member.
The Deputy, members and supporters of his party should recall the background against which An Bord Pleanála were originally established. Successive Fianna Fáil Ministers had so outrageously politicised a section of the planning process that there was a public demand that ministerial appeals on individual planning applications should be transferred from the control of an individual Minister to an objective and semi-judicial body which, like Caesar's wife, would be above suspicion.
Pure hypocrisy. The then Minister, Jim Tully, did not want to give it up, and he was right.
It would be wise for Deputy Lenihan to steer clear of the field of hypocrisy.
The Minister should stick to the facts.
There is no hypocrisy here, on planning.
I take that qualification.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister without interruption, please.
Over the next few weeks this House is going to see——
On a point of order, the Minister has cast aspersions on decisions made by former Ministers when deciding planning appeals. As one of those people, I challenge the Minister to identify any case of planning appeal I decided where there was a public outcry against my decision.
That was a filthy remark to make.
(Interruptions.)
I regret if any of my comments inflamed feelings on the other side of the House, because that was not my intention.
Stick to the facts.
I want to make it quite clear that I am not casting any aspersions on Deputy Molloy or on any other individual. I am simply referring to a climate that existed at the time, rightly or wrongly.
I thank the Minister for that clarification because earlier he seemed to imply that we had unclean hands in the area of planning permissions, and that is why I answered his remarks by saying that he might not be above suspicion——
(Interruptions.)
The Minister without interruption, please.
This subject seems to be extraordinarily sensitive.
Not to me.
I am simply saying that the historical background which brought An Bord Pleanála into existence was a public desire, which Fianna Fáil supported — albeit with some reluctant converts——
The most reluctant convert was Deputy Tully.
The reason the board were established under the 1974 legislation, was to depoliticise the decision-making in relation to one aspect of planning, individual applications. The House should be aware, and most people are, that the primary power of the local member in the making of the development plans is still reserved in the planning legislation. The local authority members' position is being reinforced and strengthened in this legislation.
It is ominous, to say the least, that Deputy Molloy is talking about the depoliticisation of the planning process. We believe individual planning decisions should not be open to political persuasion, as some people believed they were. The Committee Stage will give Deputy Molloy an opportunity to clarify this point, but the House should be told if Fianna Fáil want to return to a situation where the Minister of the day exclusively makes the decision.
That is a scurrilous innuendo. It is clear Deputy Molloy was talking in the wider context of depoliticisation. He was talking about the function of local authorities——
Deputy Molloy continually condemned the process of depoliticisation and taking away from politicians powers in relation to the making of planning permissions. If that is Fianna Fáil policy let the House——
That is scurrilous. We all know of the Minister's interest in the Dublin planning committee at one time.
Deputy Lenihan will have plenty of opportunity to speak and no doubt his interruptions will assist me to clarify further some of the points I want to make. I will not delay the House at this stage because I believe the majority of the Members support the principle of An Bord Pleanála. Therefore, a Second Stage debate at this time is superfluous. This legislation is changing the structure, the operation and some of the law dealing with how that board should operate and function, how it should be structured and how members should be appointed. That is contained in various sections and the detailed discussion of those points is more appropriate to a Committee Stage debate.
The Minister for the Environment and I in my capacity as Minister of State in the Department with direct responsibility for the construction industry, both jointly and individually have repeatedly met deputations from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions Building Group and CIF, the Cork group of building trade unions, the Cork group of CIF and others throughout the country to discuss the present problems of the building industry. Invariably those developers and builders referred to the delays in the planning process of An Bord Pleanála stage as preventing them from undertaking projects in which their capital and resources were tied up. They said that in their perception of how the system operated the delays had increased and that there was an urgent necessity to have, as they would say, something done about An Bord Pleanála. We are proposing to do something about that board.
That is the weakest argument I have ever heard.
I am quoting what was requested. We shall be restructuring and improving and moving towards a stage in which there will be a fixed time in relation to the processing of an appeal by the board. This is the ideal towards which we hope to move, so that a developer or any member of the community would have a clear picture of the timetable in relation to obtaining planning permission here. They cannot have that picture at present because of the open-ended delays which can occur at appeal stage. The Minister for the Environment's indication at those meetings that he was in the process, on behalf of the Government, of reforming An Bord Pleanála was warmly welcomed by the professional institutions, by the Congress of Trade Unions Building Group and by CIF. I want to put that on the record of the House.
Deputy Molloy made very disparaging remarks against voluntary organisations, both national and local, for their unrepresentative role and what he may have described — although I am open to correction on this — their destructive role in relation to the planning process. The House should recognise the role of local residents' associations and of An Taisce in the development of a planning awareness in this country since 1963, when a former member of the Fianna Fáil Party introduced the major legislation on local government planning and development. Most of these bodies have come into existence — and have certainly blossomed — within the framework of that legislation. The role and the contribution of these bodies have been in the main positive and substantial and without them small, and in some cases understaffed or inexperienced, local authority planning staff could not have done the job they have done, both in terms of monitoring what is happening in our environment and, more importantly, in having an input into the formulation of development plans throughout all the planning authorities.
To say that these bodies should have no voice in any way or be consulted or be able to propose prospective members — not to nominate or appoint them, but simply to propose them — along with other interested bodies which have a particular interest in a particular skill in this area, is something which the vast majority of Fianna Fáil members outside this House would not accept. I look forward with interest to hearing the contributions of other Fianna Fáil Deputies in relation to this. For example, I would be interested to hear if my constituency colleague — and former colleague in the Custom House — with direct responsibility for urban affairs feels that all the resident groups whose meetings he attends along with me are so unrepresentative or so destructive as Deputy Molloy seems to imply.
This Bill is necessary and it is proper that it should pass after a reasonable debate. It has been circulated in ample time to permit of proper discussion. Deputy Molloy was so well prepared that he had a substantial series of notes printed and available. He was not in any way caught on the hop, because he had time to circulate these to the Press Gallery as well. Adequate time was provided to the Opposition.
On the procedural point of not taking all Stages of this Bill in the current session and taking Second Stage today, for whatever reason, and I do not wish to speculate on what the reasons might be, on precedent Fianna Fáil do not appear — and I say this in a spirit of co-operation — to have any strong case for opposing the taking of this Bill in the proposed manner.
I was very glad to be a member of the Irish Government in 1977 when the first board of An Bord Pleanála, which had been appointed by Mr. Tully as Minister for Local Government then, and by the Coalition Government, functioned under the then Minister for the Environment. There was never any suggestion, good, bad or indifferent, that we would in any way change any member of the board who had been appointed by Deputy Tully. Very strong representations were made in respect of one or two of the appointments and I shall say no more than that. We resisted those representations and would not entertain for an instant any interference with a board appointed by a Minister and sanctioned by a previous Government. We had a long tradition of recognising that Governments elected by the Irish people have a duty and responsibility and the decisions made by such Governments should be respected. If we are now going down the slippery slope literally of firing members of boards and authorities just because they happen to have been appointed by a previous Government that is not the path pursued by numerous Governments and administrations from the formation of the State until just now. This is the first board since the formation of the State that has been dismissed crudely and arbitrarily by a Minister and a Government without giving a scintilla of reason for such dismissals. Other boards have been dismissed by Governments. I was in a Government when the RTE Authority were dismissed because of a very serious issue. I shall not go into the merits or demerits of the issue, but it concerned the interpretation of section 31. It arose out of a matter of public policy in which there was a very real, open disagreement between the Authority and the Government of the day. For that reason the Authority of the day went and the then Government reappointed another RTE Authority. There is no parallel whatever between that case and this instance.
In the Minister's script, there is no mention of any reason, good, bad or indifferent, why even one member of this board should go, let alone the whole board, under the crude instrumentality of section 10(2)(i) which states:
The person who immediately before the commencement of this section held the office of chairman shall, on such commencement, cease to be chairman.
There is no reason given, no word of the reason to be stated or the grounds for ceasing to be chairman.
In section 10(2)(ii) it is stated:
Every person who immediately before the commencement of this section was an ordinary member of the board shall, on such commencement, cease to be such ordinary member.
That is the language of a Commissar State. Once the instrument is in operation, the chairman and board members shall cease to be chairman and board members.
I want to give the Minister and the Government warning that they are treading on very dangerous legal and constitutional ground. I hope that they have considered those aspects fully, both in regard to the efficacy of the legislation and of the position of the chairman and members of the board, the chairman being a very distinguished jurist. I am certain that these matters will be very fully considered by them. The whole efficacy of this legislation and the personal position of these board members who are being treated in such manner by section 10 will wind up in the courts on very substantial legal and constitutional grounds.
Apart from the legal and constitutional aspect, there is the astounding political attitude involved in just firing a board for no reason other than because that board happened to have been appointed by their predecessors in office in Government. This is a very dangerous, slippery slope. No Fianna Fáil Government would ever dismiss a board without reason. I was proud to be a member of a Government and hold the Ministry for Justice — the Ceann Comhairle will be aware of the gentleman I am talking about, a very respected judge, the President of the High Court and a former Fine Gael Deputy between 1957 and 1961——
We should not discuss individual judges.
He is mentioned in the Minister's speech.
It is stated in the Minister's speech that he disapproves of appointing judges as chairmen of the boards.
There is nothing wrong with that.
We are moving very near to interference with the courts because this planning board is a quasi-judicial body. The powers exercised by An Bord Pleanála, the amount of money involved, the complex nature of the investigations and decisions made have given rise to a situation where decisions made by An Bord Pleanála are, were and always will be far more important than 95 per cent of the business conducted by the courts.
Mr. Tully very wisely wrote into his legislation in 1976 that the chairman should be a High Court judge. Under that excellent legislation a very reputable High Court judge, Judge Denis Pringle, was chairman of the Planning Board as was Judge Eamon Walsh. We appointed an equally distinguished jurist, Judge George Murnaghan, to be chairman of the board. Under Mr. Tully's legislation which was very wise and proper in this respect it was mandatory that the chairman be a High Court judge and so it was.
On a point of order, normally when Deputies make contributions they are articulate. Has Deputy Skelly anything to say? If not, he should desist from his perpetual mutterings.
I have plenty to say but I will say it in my speech.
There should be silence in the House for Deputy Lenihan.
The three chairmen of the Planning Board since 1976 have been High Court judges. Judge Murnaghan, a distinguished jurist and judge, will be dealt with crudely under section 10. He was a judge appointed under that wise legislation brought in by a Labour Minister for Local Government. Just because he was appointed by a Fianna Fáil Government he will be removed, without any explanation, under section 10 of this Bill. Judge Pringle was appointed under a Coalition Government and remained there under our Government. Judge Walsh was distinguished in planning law matters. He was appointed chairman of the board and unfortunately died. Judge Murnaghan was a High Court judge we appointed and he is now to be asked to cease holding office on the commencement of this legislation. Every other member of the board will be treated in the same scurrilous fashion.
This is a serious matter because this board exercise functions of a quasi-judicial nature. They discharge obligations and powers which, in many cases, are far more important then the powers or obligations exercised by the courts.
In his speech, the Minister said that he does not regard the position of chairman as appropriate for a judge. I take issue with him. It is very important that a person of the stature of a High Court judge should be in this position. The Minister will be on a very dangerous path if he seeks to appoint a person who is not completely above reproach and suspicion. High Court judges have always been so regarded. The Minister is taking a very dangerous step. He is dismissing a retired judge of the High Court but once a judge always a judge. He is doing this without any explanation just because he was appointed by a previous Government. The other dangerous step is that the status of High Court judge is being removed from the position. That is a very serious departure and marks a dangerous development. It does not recognise the importance of a quasi-judicial tribunal.
As regards the general principle of an incoming Government interfering with State boards appointed by outgoing Governments, I have been in Government for a long time and any Government of which I was a member was never a party to that. It is a dangerous and damaging principle. If you start hopping the ball that way there is no end to the balls which can be hopped. I would resist any such development on the part of any Government I have the honour to be part of. I do not approve of it.
Inevitably as our amendment states it will have serious repercussions on the standing, prestige and effectiveness of Government boards and State-sponsored bodies. Sensible intelligent people of stature in the community will say when asked to serve on state boards: "Why should I go on such a board when an incoming Government can throw me out without any reason? They can simply bring in a crude section in a Bill and tell me I am gone." That is not the way to add to the prestige and value of State-sponsored boards.
There are serious repercussions implicit in this for other State bodies. It has been of considerable value to the social and economic development of our society over the years and to successive Governments that they have had a pool of people in various walks of life who could give their expertise whether in the social, economic, financial or legal areas on these State boards and authorities, in many cases for little remuneration. If the Minister does not agree with that, he should check the list of State-sponsored bodies and he will see that in the great majority of cases people are working on these boards for a mere pittance. It has been of great value in our society that these people have been available but this sort of action is a direct deterrent to recruiting people of that kind to such boards. The inevitable result of this action will be to bring all State boards and State authorities into disrepute and it will deter people who can make a contribution from becoming members of these boards.
The great majority of the people who take on these tasks are not active, militant politicians in any party political sense. The Governments of which I was a member selected people primarily because of their ability and capacity and the contribution they could make. Inevitably there were people who belonged to my political party but people were also appointed who belonged to other political parties. If there was an outstanding member of one's party he was appointed to a board but the primary requirement was always the capacity of the person. It seems we are to have in regard to Bord Pleanála the crude exercise of section 10, causing a person to be dismissed without any reason on the commencement of the instrument becoming law. If that crude method of dismissal is open to be used over the whole range of State bodies and authorities, it is not a good thing.
The Minister suddenly announced his intention during a heady week-end following election to Government. Apparently he announced it without any consultation but in a number of speeches since then and in his speech today he has spoken dishonestly as if there were some equation between the board membership and the inefficiency of the board. He has sought in the public mind to do the double trick of the smear and the big lie, equating the lack of efficiency on the part of Bord Pleanála to the membership of the board. He tried it again here but only by innuendo because the facts are entirely at variance with that proposition. One sentence of his speech is an example of this pernicious type of innuendo.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
On a point of order, am I right in thinking that it took five minutes to get a quorum?
I did not time it but there is no fixed time.
Is there not a specified time?
No ——
The Deputy is abusing the process of the House.
He is bringing the place into disrepute.
Deputy Lenihan.
I heard a Member who has just taken his place for the first time today allege that I was bringing the place into disrepute. I would expect you to protect me.
I did not hear him.
It was very clear. Deputy Molony alleged that I was bringing the place into disrepute. I believe I am entitled to your protection.
The Chair did not hear it.
It was said loudly.
All Deputies should behave themselves and preserve order in the House.
When you say that, Sir, you are inclined to look in our direction.
Nothing is more calculated to bring this House into disrepute than the nature and format of the type of legislation we are considering, particularly the draconian nature of section 10 where under subsection (1) the chairman can be terminated in his office without any reason being given. Subsection (2) applies the same legal ukase in respect of the other members of the board. Not a single reason was given; there was no basis on which the Minister should exercise his discretion to cause the members of the board to cease to hold office. Merely on this instrument becoming law the chairman and members of the board will automatically cease to hold office. The chairman is a distinguished man who has been a High Court judge for a number of years and has the status of one of the country's leading jurists. He is being treated in that manner by this legislation.
As I said earlier, disrepute will hang around this Government like an albatross because there are very sound legal and constitutional reasons why that section can be challenged successfully not just by the members of the board or the chairman whose office is being terminated in this drastic draconian manner but by anybody who becomes prejudiced by reason of decisions of the board in the future or who feel prejudiced or wronged. Such persons, in my view, have got admirable legal and constitutional claims to have his legislation declared unconstitutional immediately on its passage.
The very nature of section 10, the language used in it, is the most unique I have ever seen in legislation. It creates a precedent because of the crudeness of the language, the lack of any reasons being taken into account, only the implicit power in an instrument to the effect that a person's office automatically is terminated on the passage of this law. In his speech the Minister did not give any reason. He did not give any reason in the many heavy statements he has made about this matter since assuming office. There has just been this smear technique
The Deputy is a good man to talk about smearing.
If Deputy Skelly cannot restrain himself he should leave the House.
The big smear technique is quite simple. If the House will bear with me I will explain how it is being worked here. Two uncorrelated facts have been put together to make the appearance of a correlation. The two put together in this document will be put over only by a smear technique. There is not a scintilla against any member of the board. Not an iota of evidence or complaint has been made against any member of the board. The only way the Minister has given himself some sort of justification for interfering with this quasi-judicial body is to bring in the big smear, the big lie technique to link two unrelated facts together. In this case the justification is the backlog of applications to be dealt with. In the last sentence of page 3 of his speech he said in a very smeary fashion:
Matters have not been helped by the fact that as more members were appointed to the board, the number of decisions made by the board decreased, the backlog of appeals increased and the delays involved in the release of employment-generating projects lengthened.
I would like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that a member of the Press Gallery, before leaving the House, indulged in what I would regard as a full course sneer and derisive laughter at the proceedings here. I ask you whether this is in accordance with the normal high standards and behaviour of the ladies and gentlemen of the press?
For the Deputy's information, the Chair did not observe it. Obviously it is a matter for the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, if it happened.
I appreciate that the Chair was unable to observe it. I will discuss the matter with you later and name for you the man concerned.
In that sentence it is sought to establish a relationship between the members of the board and the increasing backlog of appeals. In the last paragraph of the Minister's speech, which in all probability was written by his Department, an attempt is made to relate to the technical and administrative problems in the Department as the real cause for this backlog, but there is not a hint of the Minister's earlier reference to a correlation between the backlog of appeals and the members of the board, because at pages 11 and 12 the reference is to administrative and technical difficulties. I will quote:
At the end of April, the number of appeals on hands was almost 3,600. This build-up of arrears had led to long delays in the processing of particular cases and the consequent hold-up of many worthwhile development projects at a time when the building industry is particularly hard hit. Side by side with the preparation of the new legislation, I have therefore arranged a programme of action aimed at reducing the arrears. Since the beginning of this year, approval has been conveyed to the board to employ four additional senior planning inspectors and additional professional staff are being made available on a temporary basis by my own Department. Additional administrative staff have been made available by my Department in recent times to deal with bottlenecks in the flow of cases to the board. My Department have also carried out a study aimed at streamlining administrative systems and procedures within the board's organisation. I hope that these various actions, coupled with the proposed changes in appeals law, will ensure that, in a relatively short time, significant improvements will be made in the time taken to process appeals and reduce considerably the current backlog.
It is quite evident from reading those last 30 lines of the Minister's script that the civil servants fully recognise that there is an administrative blockage. That is what has given rise to appeals in hand of more than 3,600. As Deputy Molloy said, it is quite clear that these appeals are processed at inspector level and that it is at inspector and administrative levels that appeals have been dealt with. They come to the board for final decisions. As Deputy Molloy also said, the process of delays extends through the administrative system, from the local authorities to the Department, out to the inspectors and back from the inspectors to the board. That procedure often takes 12 months before a person is communicated with a decision. The actual time spent by the member of the board on making final decisions can be as short as a week or two.
That is what we are talking about. That is the real problem. The real difficulty has been caused because the Minister would not take off his coat and employ more inspectors and administrative staff. Then there would not have been need for this hullaballoo and the termination of a High Court judge, Mr. Justice Murnaghan, as chairman of the board. There was no need for the interferrence with this quasi-judicial body without any reason being given. There was no reason for all this nonsense because the appointment of additional technical staff would have ended the problem.
The Minister is well aware of all these facts. The only reason the other matter has been dragged in is simply because the previous board and the very respected and reputable chairman happened to be appointed by the preceding Government. It was the type of action I have no intention of being associated with in future Fianna Fáil Governments. We will never embark on that sort of slippery slope. That is the sort of thing we can expect from Coalition Governments. I would prefer the sort of Coalition Government that gave to the original Planning Act when a sensible Labour man, Mr. James Tully, as Minister for Local Government introduced a Bill and very wisely insisted in a section of that Bill that a person of the status of a High Court judge should be appointed to the position of chairman of that board. He very wisely did that because he saw the importance of the decisions which had to be made by the Planning Appeals Board at the end of the day. He very wisely saw that it was important to have somebody of the status of a High Court judge in that position. That desirable practice is now being set aside by the Government and the Minister.
Debate adjourned.