Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 1983

Vol. 344 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on 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 requiredinter 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.

—(Deputy Molloy.)

Mr. Lenihan

Before the adjournment of the debate I made it clear that the main motivation for this Bill was one which sought to terminate the board solely on political grounds and without any stated reason as to impropriety of behaviour by members or inefficiency of work. That creates a serious precedent. If that is to be the standard of administration of future Governments it is a totally wrong development. Successive Governments, have always respected appointments made to boards by previous Governments. There were occasions when for stated reasons a Government had to remove a member or members of a board. That happened on one occasion in the case of RTE when the Government of which I was a member had a conflict of opinion on a principle concerning the operation of section 31 of the Broadcasting Act. On that occasion because the board and the Government did not see eye to eye the board terminated their operations. That was for an open, stated reason.

In this case it is clear that the Government's only motivation is that the board presided over by Mr. Justice Murnaghan was appointed by a Fianna Fáil Government. At no stage in the course of various statements made by the Minister since the decision was announced has he uttered one word of criticism of the board or members. The precedent created by him is highly undesirable. The Minister is only playing games and not tackling the real problem which is lack of technical and administrative staff in An Bord Pleanála. The solution to the delays in dealing with planning appeals, lies in that area. In the Minister's speech, by implication, he makes it clear that his Department regard these administrative difficulties as being the main blockage to dealing with appeals.

What prompted the motion was that until last Thursday the two Whips appeared to have reached agreement. That was the whole purpose of the decision made in the House. This legislation was to be introduced in the House and processed by agreement between the Whips. That was the case until last Thursday. For some extraordinary reason the negotiations between the Whips broke down and the decision was made by the Government to bulldoze this legislation through——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Jackboot tactics.

Mr. Lenihan

——with consequent guillotine provisions which will have to be introduced by them. What is it all for? What is the motivation of the Government other than to cloud over the issue and seek by innuendo to make the case that in some way this board is associated with the delay in the backlog of appeals and that there is something wrong with it because it was appointed by Fianna Fáil? This raises serious issues of public policy. In his legislation, Mr. Tully decided to have a High Court judge presiding over this tribunal. Now this is being withdrawn. It adds up to a sordid story not least because it is being introduced by a Government supposed to be concerned about Dáil reform and expediting the work of parliament.

It is a Government that does not recognise there are certain elementary facts in connection with parliamentary work. One is that you make the Whips system work effectively. If you cannot rely on the Whips to come together and order the business of the House in a sensible way and so avoid the scenes we had today then one of the most basic facts of Dáil work is completely ignored. The most effective way to have Dáil reform is to have effective consultation between the Whips and a greater acceptance both by the Government and Opposition of the decisions they make.

There is ample scope for Dáil reform in having matters of immediacy raised here and having a certain time for discussion instead of the daily wrangle we have with the Ceann Comhairle which I deplore. It happens because there is no scope for immediacy of debate on matters which we are anxious to raise in the public interest. We find ourselves frustrated by a combination of Dáil orders and you, a Cheann Comhairle, are constrained and restrained by Dáil order and procedure and the non-allocation of Government time for such matters to be discussed. These practical areas of Dáil reform are not tackled.

We have a lot of talk about committees. They will not expedite the work of the House but will clog it up. We have the kind of scene on the Order of Business and the kind of scene which is giving rise to this legislation which has no urgency or motivation except to have a crack at Fianna Fáil and no reason for its existence except that the Minister, in a moment of euphoria, decided to have a go at Fianna Fáil——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Taoiseach insisted that it should be this week.

Mr. Lenihan

The Taoiseach and the Minister decided differently last Thursday, after the Whips had made a sensible arrangement which had been communicated to us and the other parties. The whole arrangement fell apart. It is in the areas of hurling abuse at Fianna Fáil and by innuendo blaming them, the malice and remarks made by the Taoiseach on the day the Leader of Fianna Fáil was elected Taoiseach, the kind of remarks made by some commentators and the nasty political comment which has become part of the business of political debate both here and in the media that we should have real reform. We should have respect for ourselves and conduct our business properly instead of appointing fake committees, bringing in fake legislation and concentrating on the politics of cosmetics instead of on the politics of reality. That is the kind of thing which has caused the work of the House and politicians to degenerate.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

And making the appropriate political appointments.

Mr. Lenihan

The only political concern appears to be the question of jobs for the boys. Because a particular board is presided over by an eminent jurist and judge who happens to have been appointed by Fianna Fáil, the implication is that there must be something wrong or dishonest about it. I am proud to have been a member of several Fianna Fáil Governments which followed Coalition Governments who made changes into the dead hour of night within minutes of departing and we did not change a single judge or a single board member appointed in that dubious manner, on the principle that the previous democratic Government were entitled to make appointments up to the end of their term of office.

Mr. Skelly

How could they have changed a judge?

Mr. Lenihan

Those opposite would chance their arm at changing anything. In this instance they are taking from a judge the chairmanship of a tribunal which has functions as important as any judicial functions, functions I would describe as quasi-judicial where decisions are all important because of the nature of the cases. For that reason a man of the status of a High Court judge has held the position of chairman since James Tully, then Minister for Local Government, introduced the legislation. Mr. Justice Murnaghan was preceded by Mr. Justice Eamon Walsh and Mr. Justice Denis Pringle. Mr. Justice Murnaghan is being tried under section 10(1) and (2) which state that the person who holds the office of chairman, who is a High Court judge, shall, on the commencement of this instrument, cease to be chairman, without rhyme or reasons.

Mr. Skelly

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lenihan

Deputy Skelly suggests that High Court judges will not be interfered with. A High Court judge is being interfered with under this legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Skelly must cease interrupting.

Mr. Lenihan

The Government will learn to regret this measure. I have never been a member of any Fianna Fáil Government who interfered in any way with a single such appointment. Now a whole board are being fired, their offices terminated without cause. The Government are walking into a minefield of legal and constitutional troubles and problems in this legislation. Be it on their own heads.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

Mr. R. Bruton

We have seen today Fianna Fáil blocking a measure introduced to this House to bring in the nonpolitical selection of members of the Planning Board. When the Planning Board were originally established it was precisely to achieve that sort of independence. There was a feeling that in the interpretation of who should have permission in specific cases it was necessary that independence be guaranteed. It is regrettable to see Fianna Fáil blocking a measure to bring a greater independence to planning decisions and to restore public confidence in the decision-making process in regard to planning appeals.

Deputy Molloy argued earlier that there was an organised campaign to depoliticise the planning process. He argued that the reason for this organised campaign was to undermine the role of local public representatives who decide on development plans. I would argue precisely the opposite. This Bill is in no way designed to interfere with local public representatives in their role in setting development plans. Rather the purpose of this Bill is to see that in the observance of those development plans as published by the elected representatives there is entire independence. It is copper-fastening the democracy of our planning process.

It would be a political ostrich who did not recognise that public confidence has been undermined in the operation of the planning system during the past couple of years. Much of this has been due to the method in existing law of selecting the members of the Planning Board. The board proposed in this Bill is a tremendous step forward in the area of independence in the planning process.

I fail to see the argument advanced earlier by Deputy Lenihan that the change-over from the present structure of the board could be construed as bringing in a board whose decisions might not be beyond reproach. Far from this, the fact that the selection procedure for the chairman is to be based on the procedure used for the selection of the Director of Public Prosecutions will increase public confidence and ensure beyond all doubt that the position will be beyond reproach.

Equally I cannot see the argument against the method of selection of members of that board. The Bill will give a role to competent and experienced persons with a long-established record of working in the area of planning and brings in on a statutory basis all the interests affected. This will bring greater independence to the operations of the Planning Board and ensure that in the public eye it is entirely beyond reproach. I cannot see how the argument could be put forward that the present system would be better.

Another important aspect of the Opposition's blocking of this Bill is that in doing so they are blocking important reforms that would speed up the procedure in planning appeals. The sort of provisions contained in the Bill which have not yet got much attention in the comments coming from the other side are that the chairman of the board will be given explicit responsibility to ensure the efficient operation of the board, and the board are to be required to review their operations and put through reforms to shorten the period which it takes to settle appeals. The board will also bring in a system to deal with vexatious appeals and recommendations generally to speed up the process.

I cannot understand how Fianna Fáil can express concern for the needs of the building and construction industry, as they have on several occasions in this Dáil session, and at the same time block one of the single unanimous demands of the building industry in the past two years to do something about An Bord Pleanála and the way they have been operating. Contained in the Bill are many important provisions that have been welcomed by the building industry.

I will now turn to some of the substantive issues in the Bill. In section 16 it is very welcome that the board are being given new power to dismiss vexatious appeals. In the past the board have had to proceed to ultimate determination of such appeals even if they believe that the reason for putting in the appeal was groundless. It is welcome that that is being changed. However, there will be a problem about deciding what is vexatious, and I am concerned that because of the way the provision is framed that the board will be empowered to dismiss appeals, it may mean in practice that very few vexatious appeals will be turned out. In reality it is easy to put in some minor objection that could be construed as substantive in some way to cloud over what would otherwise be vexatious. Either there will be a need for the Minister to publish some sort of guidelines as to what will be regarded as vexatious or without foundation, or it might be possible to rephrase this section in order to enable the board to satisfy themselves before proceeding that an appeal is not vexatious. That may appear to be only a change of words, but it would change the emphasis significantly so that the board would proceed only with cases when they believe there is good ground. That could probably mean that this important power would be used more often.

Section 17 is very welcome because the Minister is giving the board power to put a time limit on the submission of evidence by various parties to the appeal. It is well known that it has been difficult for the board to get compliance with requests for information within a reasonable time, and appeals have dragged on. However, I submit that the Minister should give attention to one matter when all the parties are agreed, that is, that the board themselves should operate within a time limit. Because of their judicial function the board cannot be given quite as stringent a time limit as the local authorities, who have two months. I would suggest a limit of six months for the board's operations. If that would be too stringent in some cases, the Minister could provide for extensions, on application to him, when the board could state their reasons for being unable to reach a decision before six months. Perhaps it could be extended beyond the six months if agreement is arrived at between the parties. In a Bill that puts the onus on the parties to the appeal to present their evidence within a period, equally there should be an onus on the board to come to an end of their deliberations in a certain time.

In section 19 it is welcome to note that the board will be given the authority to confine themselves to conditions when an appeal is brought before them contesting just one of the conditions. The board are now enabled to confine themselves to that restricted area rather than reopening the whole appeal.

Having welcomed that, I can see a problem in the operation of the board generally, that is, in the balance between the political and judicial roles. Under our present system we have a decision on a development plan which is undoubtedly democratic because the councillors decide upon it, it is laid open to the public and objections are heard and discussed by the councillors before final adoption. It seems that under present law the board have a somewhat wider role than simply interpreting the provisions of a specific development plan, and it is right that there should be a possibility to look at a certain application in a wider planning horizon than would be considered by a single local authority, certainly in Dublin where you have a number of authorities very close together. There is no doubt the planning authority should have an over-seeing role so that they could look at the implications of certain development plans not just for their immediate area but outside.

In the exercise of this wider authority the board will have, it is important, if we are to ensure openness of the procedure, that some reforms should be made in the way the board will operate. In particular, I should like the Minister to consider whether the inspectors' reports in the case of planning applications decided by the board should be published. For a long time the board have given their reasons for refusing permissions but not for granting them. A board that hold that authority should comply with the need to give the public full access to the reasons for their decisions. That is especially important in cases in which the board might decide to act contrary to the reports of the inspectors. The opportunity should be taken to consider more openness in the manner in which An Bord Pleanála will conduct their procedure, namely, in the publishing of the reports. I suggest also that more publicity should be given to oral hearings. At present oral hearings conducted by the board are notified to the parties but there is not a general onus on the board to make it known to persons affected that the hearing will take place. I have seen many cases in which interested parties discovered only too late that there would be an oral hearing and they did not get the chance to attend.

Returning to the question of the political role in the planning process, it is regrettable that at the moment the Minister can intervene in planning decisions only by giving directives of a general nature. He can lay down broad principles on which planning authorities and the planning board should make their decisions. In some cases where a planning application would have a bearing on national policy I can see the need for the Minister to have power to call in that application and issue advice to the board. That power is not in our present law. I can visualise cases where it would be necessary.

In my own constituency there is a planning application of major importance. Many of the points raised in the application are not purely of a planning nature. It is regrettable that the consideration given to that planning application at all stages was confined to purely planning matters and the broader issues of national policy were not taken into account. I urge the Minister to consider taking power to call in a planning application in special circumstances and to consider it on grounds of national policy. Of course it would be a requirement that, if he gives advice to the board, he will also arrange full publication of the grounds for his advice. That would be a significant improvement on the present position.

I should like to express concern over a recent decision which may not be entirely relevant to this Bill. I refer to a decision made recently on the right of a person to have services provided in a case where a sewerage pipe or a service line is running through his land. There are many green belts around development areas such as the green belts around the city of Dublin. Inevitably, they must have sewerage services and water services running through people's land. It is worrying that the continuing existence of green belts may be threatened if such decisions are upheld. Planning authorities could be required to give permission to applications on green belts by virtue of the fact that a sewerage pipe ran through the green belt. It might be worth our while to consider that issue when a Planning Bill is being considered.

I welcome the Bill. It will go a long distance towards restoring public confidence in planning. It will also go a long way towards allaying many of the justifiable concerns of all involved about the very lengthy delays in the procedures of the planning board.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I intervene in this debate to support my colleagues who have already spoken. I support Deputy Molloy's amendment which proposes that Dáil Éireann refuses a Second Reading to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983, on a number of listed grounds. I support the reasons for that proposed refusal and I want to add quite a number of other reasons why Dáil Éireann should not be engaged in a naked political cosmetic exercise. While the previous speaker had to speak in support of the Bill as introduced by the Minister, he concluded by saying that there were times when he believed the Minister should call in a file or an application in the public interest. There are many issues on which the public interest has to be served and can be served only by the elected representatives of this House.

This afternoon we had exchanges which could have been avoided. A Cheann Comhairle, I had a good deal of sympathy for you in a situation in which it became obvious that the Government were bereft of business, bereft of legislation, and bereft of the urgent legislation which the country needs at present. For seven months, they have been paying lip service to Dáil reform. The exchanges were forced on us because the Government saw fit to introduce a Bill as a naked political cosmetic exercise to pretend Fianna Fáil had created something while in Government which they now wish to get rid of and, by doing so, they would improve the whole area of planning and development.

Physical planning is of immense importance. It must obviously take account of the economic, social and environmental circumstances pertaining in the area. Who are better equipped to serve the people than the elected representatives who have to face the electorate at regular intervals? I was a Member of this House in 1976 when we spent many weeks — not 25½ hours — on a Bill. With hindsight I wonder have planning and development improved since to any noticeable extent? There are delays. Deputy Molloy went to great extremes to point out where the delays occur, and that the removal of this board and their replacement by a new board, by whatever means, will not make one iota of difference to the delaying factor.

Deputy Molloy went to great pains to outline the fact that the delays are probably of the order of 12 months in many cases. This is dreadful; because these delays affect projects and they affect employment. The alteration of this board was started when the Minister disgracefully attacked the board as being the whole cause of the problem. He knows that one of the main factors is the shortage of staff, and successive Governments must take some responsibility for that. Another factor is lack of co-operation. There has been need for a long time for greater emphasis on co-operation in the interests of orderly planning and development.

Where does planning start? It starts at local authority level. We have all been dissatisfied with planning decisions by local authorities, whichever way the decision went and for whatever reason. Since 1963 many representatives at local level have served on planning committees of their own authorities. The vast majority of them have acted in an honest and honourable way. There have been abuses and there have been misuses of this function on occasions. Whatever system is used there is room for abuse or misuse.

What we are doing here is purely a whitewashing exercise. The Minister is using the public relations people the Government use so well. Neither of the Ministers across the House from me was in this Chamber in the period from 1973 to 1977. Many times we charged the Coalition Government with going to great pains to use public relations exercises as a substitute for good government. How they failed was evidenced by the result in 1977.

Mr. Spring

There were a few other results.

Mr. McLoughlin

That was a disaster.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

In his five minutes in the House today Deputy McLoughlin is making his presence felt. We have not seen much of him all day.

Mr. Quinn

He did not walk out.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

If Deputy McLoughlin wishes to make a contribution he is quite welcome.

Mr. McLoughlin

The Deputy got his answer.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Deputy McLoughlin is here on the sufferance of the man who brought in this legislation in 1976, a man who to his credit set up the board the Minister is now removing. Jimmy Tully did it in an honourable way. Deputy McLoughlin knows full well that this is a cosmetic exercise. He is ashamed of his leaders in abusing power and privilege.

Mr. McLoughlin

I am not.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzgerald, without interruption, please. I will not tolerate a deterioration of this debate.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Thank you for your protection, a Cheann Comhairle. It is difficult to deal with people who know they are working for purely cosmetic purposes. It started a long time ago. Deputy McLoughlin knows far more than I do about local planning and he made strenuous efforts on behalf of his constituents over the years to make sure they were successful in their planning applications. He was correct in making those efforts provided he approached planning in a fair-minded way. Most of us are prepared to do that but there are exceptions. Of course there is a balancing factor that, when the next election comes, they have to face the public who will have the opportunity of saying whether——

Mr. Quinn

Is the Deputy suggesting that politicians would give planning permission?

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

——they are satisfied with the way public representatives performed their duty. The Minister of State may not like what I am saying but he knows from his profession, when he served on planning committees in the city and county, that there were times perhaps when there was a clash of interests and he had to stand back from a decision. He knows, as a public representative, that he put his elected position before his professional status on behalf of his clients. I compliment him for that and I see nothing wrong with it.

This is pure, naked political placing of blame where no blame lies. Removing a board and replacing it with another is bureaucracy gone mad and is taking the function further and further away from those who know more about the physical, economic, environmental and social needs of an area. This is terribly dangerous because some of those nominating bodies have vested interests that may not be to the advantage of people in some constituencies. I suspect we may end up with the creation of a very dangerous board.

Deputy Molloy outlined our party's position at present and what it would be if we were returned to office — and, for the country's sake, the sooner that happens the better. Why are we discussing this Bill? It is because there is no other legislation to debate. Where is the Rents Tribunal Bill? The Minister of State talked an awful lot about it when he was on this side of the House. That legislation is urgently needed in cities throughout the country where thousands of people are frightened of the consequences of court decisions because of the Supreme Court decision a few years ago. That is what we should be discussing today. We are discussing this Bill and pretending that nominations by Fianna Fáil on to a Board have created an unfair body to decide on planning appeals. That is so far removed from the truth that it makes a joke of what this House stands for. I should like to ask the Minister for the Environment if the Rents Restrictions Act will be brought in before the recess as it would be disgraceful if it was not brought in before that.

We should also be discussing pay agreements which are so vital to the needs of the country. I accepted your ruling on my Private Notice Question because of the events of recent days but I should like the Government to spell out their policies clearly.

The Minister was contradictory in his speech. He is dismantling a board and removing a High Court Judge and members, but with regard to oral appeals, the Minister said:

Moreover, experience has shown that the Board has not abused the power to refuse an oral hearing and that it has 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.

The Minister has been very critical of the board in his public comments but, in respect of oral hearings, he compliments them. It is unusual, especially coming from a Labour Minister, to see men being fired because, allegedly they were appointed by another Government. My colleagues have gone into the dangers which will result from this exercise. I took office in March 1982 on the day after a chief executive officer had been appointed to the new Youth Employment Agency. The agency members had been appointed a week earlier and there was an outcry because the agency had not been given the opportunity of appointing the chief executive officer. They said it had been done by the Minister for Labour although he had been appointed before I took office. I supported the appointment in the interests of the agency. We now have a Minister for the Environment who, for political reasons, has fired a board. Imagine a leader of a Labour Party hiring and firing in that manner. I ask him to withdraw this, not to let it go to the House. I can see my way to supporting a few minor amendments in it provided the objectionable ones are removed. Planning problems start at local authority level and there is an inconsistency about decisions from, first of all, within the county itself, as Deputy McLoughlin knows. Many a row he had in County Meath.

Mr. McLoughlin

Do not become involved in planning in our county.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Does the Deputy want me to produce some of the evidence here? I will do that if he wishes me to.

Mr. McLoughlin

The Deputy must not become involved——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

They tell me in that county that you are an expert as far as planning applications are concerned.

Mr. McLoughlin

I am an expert.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputies should address the Chair.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

He is an expert at coming up with good results because of his knowledge of the matter. As I was saying, the difficulty starts at local authority level. Inconsistencies can apply to decisions within an area, within a county or within a local authority administrative area or between local authority and local authority. Delays can occur as was outlined today by Deputy Molloy, the average given by him as being probably three months. We have longer delays, technically at An Bord Pleanála level, not by the board but by the bureaucrats, the planning inspector, the administrative officer or whoever it is. Let us rid ourselves of those blockages, those problems, and streamline what must be done where they are concerned.

On the measure on which you ruled this evening, Sir — I am not referring to your ruling because I am sure you would rule me out of order — I refer to the advantage that has been taken of it by the Minister, "at a certain date, 8 June, subject to agreement by the Whips". There is no doubt that that means "on 8 June or such other date as would be agreeable to the Whips". It has for long been accepted practice in this House that that is the case. I remember when you, Sir, were on this side of the House you insisted that if a Tuesday date, a Wednesday date or a Thursday date was being named, such a date or any other date was subject to agreement by the Whips. The clear interpretation of that is that it is 8 June if it is agreed by the Whips and if it is not agreed it is such other date as is agreed by the Whips that the measure is taken.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy is not questioning my interpretation.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I am glad that we have some distinguished Members present on this occasion. There is no doubt that the only interpretation that one could put on the Dáil debate of 2 June was that on a date, 8 June or such subsequent date as would be agreed by the Whips, this Bill would be taken.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is now bringing into question the Chair's ruling. I ask him to get away from that.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I am not doing so, in fact that is the last thing I would do.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I qualified my remarks by saying that I was not questioning your ruling, I was pointing out to the Minister that he had put you, Sir, in the most unenviable position of having to put an interpretation on what was——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzgerald, you are a senior Member of the House, an experienced Member, and now you are attacking the Chair.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I do not want you, Sir, to think for one moment that I am questioning your ruling. I may disagree with your ruling, but the Minister has set a headline this evening that will not be helpful to the ordering of business of this House in the future. I saw one Minister last week opening his eyes in amazement when told that he would have to name a date but as long as I have been in the House I have always known a date to be named and that the measure would be taken on that date subject to agreement, or on some subsequent date. By doing this the Minister——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy in pursuing dates is questioning the Chair's ruling whether he realises it or not.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Minister has embarrassed the Chair but as well as that he has introduced a dangerous precedent here whereby it will be more difficult in future to get agreement on when measures will be taken. There are more important measures that we should be discussing, the most important being the rents tribunal, the next probably is the pay mess that has been created because of lack of action by various Government Ministers. We should be discussing these before the recess. We have 200,000 unemployed. All these are issues of real urgency and this would be urgent if it were to contribute one iota to the speeding up of planning applications or decisions but it will not do so.

I ask the Minister not to try to confuse the House. I appreciate that he also must use the people appointed to the GIS, and they are many. They must be used by this Government just as the 1973-77 Government used them so cleverly with so little success. The Minister has appointed more people and probably he thinks because of that that he will be more successful. The facade is being seen through more quickly because he set out to discredit a board for political reasons, although replacement by any other board, however constituted, will make no difference to the speeding up. The need for additional staff or perhaps a change of authority to whom the staff may be responsible, and ensuring co-operation at all levels, within that Department, between that Department and the board and at all levels of the Department and of the board are the stumbling blocks that must be overcome. You would be doing a tremendous service to yourself, your office and your party——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I am sorry if I was doing anything else. I seem to be ruffling somebody's feathers tonight more than usual and I cannot see any reason why.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not doing anything to the Chair's feathers.

Mr. W. O'Brien

There are vacancies for comedians.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Deputy's few appearances in the House would not keep the fans happy for long.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I was never a carrier or a Minister's boy.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It took the Deputy long enough to be elected to this House.

Mr. W. O'Brien

The standards are very high on this side.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

There are those in the Deputy's constituency who would not say that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzgerald to continue without interruption.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Deputy O'Brien should be spoken to for being unruly. I deserve the protection of the Chair from those who come in for an occasional brief appearance.

Mr. Spring

At the Deputy's invitation.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Not at my invitation. The Minister would be doing the House, his party and himself a favour if he withdrew this measure and sought our support for measures that would make a meaningful contribution such as the section covering vexatious appeals or the frivolous objectors we have all encountered and which have cost a lot of money. There is need for improvement there and I would support such measures. Another matter in need of improvement is the question of appeals against conditions. I have an open mind as far as oral hearings are concerned and if the Minister says the section that relates to that is needed I will not cavil at that view.

The major sections, 5 and 7, do nothing to speed up decisions of the board. The Minister almost said that it was a political exercise to scrap the board and reappoint different membership when, in the course of his speech, he said:

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.

There was no such public concern until the Minister embarked on his press campaign to malign the chairman and the honourable members of the board. While I was a member of Government we did not make a bad appointment to any board. We examined each appointment carefully whether it was to An Bord Pleanála or any other board. The suitability of each appointment was considered.

Mr. Skelly

They were all rights as long as they were members of a cumann.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The day before I assumed office in March 1982 the Minister for Labour, a member of the Labour Party, appointed a chief executive to the Youth Employment Agency. A short time after the general election that same Minister appointed the members of the agency and some of those appointed disputed the Minister's power to appoint a chief executive. If the Minister for the Environment was in my shoes and followed his procedure he would have fired that chief executive on assuming office. I did not adopt that course because it was not the honourable thing to do. A Minister in a caretaking capacity saw fit to make the appointment the day before he left office but I was prepared to stand over it. We should contrast that with the situation we are faced with now. This amounts to a naked political exercise to prove that the board cannot be tainted by public representatives.

At a time when public representatives are taking a lot of criticism, this type of decision-making is not helping. Surely an elected Government, irrespective of who is in power, are entitled to make their appointments provided those concerned are suitably qualified even if they are party supporters. If the Minister wishes to make his appointments and if the people are suitably qualified and are Labour Party supporters he is entitled to make them. I do not say that Fianna Fáil is the only party with members capable of acting on boards. Provided those appointed are suitable I have no objection to the Minister making appointments but I am not happy that the major function of planning, which is extremely important in the physical, environmental, social and economic development of Cork, Kerry, Tipperary, and other countries, be given over to a group of people nominated by various agencies. The function of appointing such people is best left to the elected Government.

The Minister is seeking to undermine the competency and commitment of those asked to serve on many State boards. Many people have given a lot of their time to act on such boards and, perhaps, lost money also but they did so because they felt that they could make a worthwhile contribution. This exercise by the Minister is an optical one to give the impression that the Government are better than those who went before them and will appoint a board that will not make an incorrect decision. So many matters must be taken into consideration in regard to planning that it is hard to say a decision is the correct one. Certainly decisions are not acceptable to everybody. That problem will face the new board as it faced Governments in the past. Replacing the existing board will not speed up the delays. We are all anxious to eliminate the backlog and speed up the process so that developments are not delayed or postponed indefinitely.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; house counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Bill has nothing to commend it in relation to what could be regarded as the more important sections. The Minister should withdraw sections 5 and 7 and we can see the possibility of giving support to some of the sections that are regarded as the less important ones but which are of greater importance in relation to expediting decisions in the whole planning area. The Government are very divided in relation to this measure and some Members are funding it very hard to accept that you can have a Minister for the Environment who is prepared to fire members of the board who have contributed well and have given their commitment over a period to planning decisions. They are also concerned about whether the new form of board appointments will make one iota of difference. I have outlined where the strangleholds are, where the delays occur and where they can be improved. It does not matter to the previous Minister whether it is the board which is there at present or the new board, because if the other problems are not taken out of the way there will be no change in the speed with which decisions will be handled.

We have all experienced difficulties and delays and we have known of employment being affected because of frivolous objections being made. Very often those are not sustained and they certainly cause unnecessary delays. This often means that projects do not go ahead. The Minister endeavoured in a very weak way to say in his speech today that the board did their best and that they did a very good job in relation to the old hearings. In public debate all along he seems to have been critical of them. I suspect that he has been advised by those people in the public relations grouping that surround the Government how he should handle this so expertly to create a climate abroad that there is need for the change he is proposing. When he introduces it there is a great heralding of it. I suggest that people have seen through that facade.

I am well aware that there are great reservations among the Minister's colleagues in government about how good or successful a measure this Bill is. I suggest that he withdraws the sections we particularly object to and then we can see our way to having a new look at this Bill. The delays can be put right. Deputy Molloy outlined week by week this evening how the 12 months delay is arrived at. The Minister should admit that this is the true situation. I want him to confirm to me what he obviously did with a nod of the head, that the most urgent legislation from his Department would be that establishing rent tribunals which would give some peace of mind and some relief to the many elderly sufferers in every city in the country who are worried about what effect their appearance in court will have. I want the Minister to tell me that the rent tribunals Bill is ready and that we will have it before the recess. We would be far better employed putting that legislation through the House than going through the cosmetics we appear to be going through in relation to this Bill.

We will have other opportunities to discuss this rents tribunal legislation and I do not want to delay the time of the House. I again appeal to the Minister to withdraw this Bill and take it back for reconsideration. Let the Minister bring the rents tribunal legislation before the House, as promised, before the summer recess; let us go into that in detail, streamline it to the best possible advantage to all our constituents, particularly those living in the city areas who are suffering so much mental anguish at the present time, and we will be doing this house and the country a far greater service than jumping in with controversial measures like the Bill we are now discussing, abusing — whatever side are in Government and whatever side are in Opposition — the phrase "Subject to agreement between the Whips". This has been breached on this occasion. This could be a bad precedent and could be disastrous for the orderly procedures of the House and for ordering business in a normal way where the Whips co-operation, in government and in opposition, is of such vital necessity.

I support the amendment moved today by Deputy Molloy which outlined some of the reasons why Dáil Éireann should refuse a Second Reading to this Bill. I mentioned a few of the reasons. We have heard a lot of talk about the man who got away from court a few days ago, about Dáil reform and about committees. Some of those committees have been set up and some of them still have to be set up. They will all reform Dáil procedures. We agreed to participate in a committee on marital breakdown but no sooner had we reached that agreement than the Tánaiste, with great public acclaim, called a press conference and said: "This is our stance in respect of it". I do not deny him his entitlement to do that nor do I deny his party's entitlement to do that. But it seems odd that different parties in the House are meeting in committee on a particular subject and the Tánaiste makes this statement. It is obvious that the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach are not agreeing in relation to that as well as on many other issues.

I would like to refer to one of the reasons listed by Deputy Molloy and Deputy Ahern in submitting the amendment. I refer to grounds (iii) which state:

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.

Is it not ludicrous to think that an agreement is reached and the orders of reference are set down in relation to setting up a committee on a very controversial issue and then this Bill is brought into the House? The controversial issue is basically the Kenny Report, which has been kicked about by everybody for so long, some claiming that parts of it are unconstitutional. That is basically what we are talking about. Built into the orders of reference is consideration of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963-1982; but just as that committee has got off the ground, chaired by Deputy Molloy, a Bill is introduced amending these Acts. One could ask why should that be included in the orders of reference of the committee. It is part of a public relations exercise and Dáil reform. As everybody in this House knows, despite all we have heard about Dáil reform — the Minister responsible is abroad somewhere at present — we are still far removed from being able to raise relevant issues here, relevant to the day, to the week, to the specific period. We would be so much better employed discussing, say, the Rents Tribunal, the figures for the unemployed, methods of improving the employment situation, the mayhem existing at present in relation to pay, the crime situation, the situation with regard to drugs abuse and, as I have said, the person who jumped from custody at lunchtime on a recent day. Those are items we should be discussing before this recess, items much more urgent and relevant than firing a board for purely political reasons which, by the way, it is contended will eliminate all the problems existing with regard to planning.

The last point I want to make is in regard to section 9 — superannuation of members of the board. I might well read the relevant paragraph from the explanatory memorandum:

This section contains provisions in relation to the preparation by the Minister of a superannuation scheme in respect of the chairman and ordinary members of the Board, and enables the Minister to make a scheme for the granting of gratuities to persons who cease office by virtue of section 10.

That paragraph of that explanatory memorandum will always be a grave embarrassment to the Minister, particularly as a member of the Labour Party. He feels he has a problem, it is a political one, he thinks, and he wants to buy them out in the old hire and fire style.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present, House counted and 20 Members being present.

Mr. Skelly

The debate today has been like American television with all the interruptions heralded by the quorum bells. It has not had much continuity. The speeches of the three Fianna Fáil Deputies so far have been of a somewhat similar trend, with three main themes. They have not given good reasons for their opposition to this Bill. I hope to elaborate more on that later.

It is fair to say there has been general public dissatisfaction with our planning laws and with An Bord Pleanála. It has proved to be an unworkable board to date, unsatisfactory with interminable delays occurring with regard to planning appeals. I should not like to think that the establishment of this board would herald a situation in which planning appeals would be bulldozed through. However, I do not think that will happen because there are precautions taken in its provisions.

Fianna Fáil speakers, particularly Deputy Lenihan, have been preoccupied with the removal of the judge from the position of chairman and one judge about whose removal Deputy Lenihan was most annoyed. It should be remembered that that judge is retired; I think he is in his seventies. It must be remembered also, that there is a terrible problem obtaining in our courts with delays in cases coming to the courts, especially the High Court. Much of the judges' time is spent chairing tribunals, special inquiries and so on. Indeed appointing a High Court judge for the purpose of having him chairman of An Bord Pleanála seems to be a waste of time and talent, particularly with so many people experiencing hardship, loss of money and the opportunity of having their cases heard, with some of them having to wait three to four years for their cases to come up in court. I do not think it at all essential to have a judge chairman of this board. Neither do I think that the appointments should be of academics or quasi-academics with too much weight on the civil service aspect, it needs to be a balanced board. At present we have one of the best teams of Ministers ever to be appointed to the Department of the Environment. They are commencing at the very top and working their way downwards, reorganising the whole system. I hope what they are attempting to do with regard to the appointment of this planning board will filter throughout the whole system of planning so that we shall have more efficient planning at every level throughout the country. I am delighted that so much time has been spent researching the provisions of this Bill, this area of the environment, that they have devoted so much attention and taken such care to ensure the board is workable, independent, honest and respected. Their serious approach to their work is reflected in the contents of the Bill.

There have been some extraordinary decisions taken by An Bord Pleanála in recent years. I shall not attempt to apportion blame. I suppose there were diverse reasons such decisions were taken. However, what puzzles me is why Fianna Fáil are so worried about this Bill. Deputy Gene Fitzgerald appeared to say, in effect, that when they are in office they will appoint their members, or that when Labour are in office they will appoint their members, that when we are in office we appoint ours to the board and that that is all right. The same theme ran through Deputy Molloy's remarks. I do not understand why Fianna Fáil are so worried about the so-called de-politicising of this board. Perhaps it hits a power base. As Deputy Molloy suggested, I do not think there are hidden reasons for the introduction for this Bill but that there are reasons they should be worried about the establishment of this board.

There could be a conflict of interest in the board. For example, there will be an appointee from the Confederation of Irish Industry and from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I should imagine that appointees of those bodies would look after their interests. Perhaps the CIF might appoint someone who would push their interest, as would the ICTU. If one removes those two representatives from the board one is left with the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and the engineer. I am not sure that would be the best composition.

The duration of office of the chairman will be seven years and that is a long time especially for an active and responsible body. It is not a figurehead position and a period of seven years may be too long. One of the effects of setting up the board will be the removal of patronage, and that is good for the country. People are very aware of patronage wherever it occurs. The board can sue and they can be sued, and that is a welcome innovation. In the recent Bill regarding Posts and Telegraphs there is provision for immunity with which I did not really agree.

Concern has been expressed about the use of section 4. I am glad to see that the loophole in the previous legislation with regard to undue influence has been closed. Deputy Molloy said that this Bill will interfere with planning and will depoliticise it. There have been abuses in the past with regard to planning and the people are well aware of this. Some of the abuses were scandalous, some were cases of deliberate intervention and others were done through ignorance. People in a position to make appointments did not have the necessary qualifications and awareness and were not concerned about the effect on the environment. They did not realise the effect that certain planning applications would have on the countryside. Dublin County Council have an appalling record in this regard. In effect, they have destroyed the county and I am very much ashamed of this. I am not pointing a finger at any one person but as a body the council were not capable and by their actions they have proved they should not be entrusted with planning responsibilities. As an environmentalist I have had many battles with them outside of politics. I know of dreadful decisions that have had a permanent effect on the landscape of County Dublin. This is very regrettable. I hope that in the elections next year people will examine carefully the candidates to see if they have any concern for our environment and if they do not show such care and concern I hope the people will reject them. Candidates have not been made accountable in the past. Very often the public did not even know who was their candidate in the elections.

This Bill has been introduced because of a situation that arose through neglect. People did not hold their public representatives responsible for the environment. Ten years ago one could not get 20 people to attend a meeting dealing with the environment, but as a result of the tremendous damage that has been done people at last have become aware of the facts. I hope that next year in County Dublin people will ask candidates to give an account of their actions and their attitudes towards the environment and their proposals to handle matters of this kind. I hope voters will be very critical of candidates.

It is very important that the right people be selected for this board, especially when the chairman will be appointed for seven years. The Minister stated that ordinary members of the board will be appointed from different bodies. He did not say how they can be removed: possibly by ministerial order. In view of the fact that they will be there for a long time there should be some method of monitoring their performance and, if necessary, we should be able to remove them in order to get a more efficient board.

Media attention was recently given to section 4 cases. A programme on this matter was done recently in County Galway — that is Deputy Molloy's county, but that is not to say that he had anything to do with the matter under discussion. People do not like the use of section 4. There is no doubt that this power has been abused. Removing elected representatives may not be a bad thing although I can understand a certain fear of total removal of the powers of public representatives. I should like to see all political influence removed from the appointment of a board such as the one we are discussing. The standard has been appalling. Sometimes wrong people have been chosen. They did not have the necessary qualifications or experience.

The standard on our county councils — I am speaking particularly for Dublin County Council, is appallingly low. The statements on the environment made by the Dublin Council make one feel ashamed. This applies also to statements made in the area of the arts where they have blundered and made asses of themselves. It is appalling that these people are elected to serve five years. The local authority elections are not taken as seriously as a general election. A county councillor can be elected quite easily and he does not have to account to his constituents for his actions. Why should any member of the public have to go to a county councillor and beg him not to do something atrocious? I had to beg county councillors not to put a dump between Chapelizod and Lucan—the first phase 132 acres, 25 feet deep. If that had happened there would have been refuse trucks driving up that road every five minutes for the next 50 or 100 years. Some years ago when the late Deputy Noel Lemass was contemplating a golf course in an area near me it was decided to make it a temporary dump. That decision was made 30 years ago and that dump is still there. Why should any member of the public have to go to one of these ignorant people——

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): County councillors are ignorant?

Mr. Skelly

The people I am speaking about are ignorant and insensitive as regards matters of the environment, planning——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Illinformed might be a better phrase.

Mr. Tunney

We must have dumps somewhere.

Mr. Skelly

Why should any member of the public have to go to one of these ignorant county councillors—I use that word, which is in the English dictionary, advisedly—and beg him not to commit an atrocious act on the environment or on the community?

During the next year when these local elections are held I intend appealing to people to be careful whom they select and elect to a county council. In Dublin West where I come from we will try to retrieve some element of respect for our county councillors.

Deputy Molloy mentioned depoliticising. I do not know what the fear is in this area. He particularly referred to appointments to State boards. I am not sure if we want State boards to be within the reach of politicians. Deputy Molloy said if and when Fianna Fáil are returned to power they would remove anybody appointed to this board. Why? Why is it so important to have control over the appointments to semi-State boards? Is it a bid for the retention of power, of corruption or of influence? Is this a bid to hold power because there is political largesse to be distributed? If this criteria were to be applied to the appointments to all boards and to all the positions which are subject to political influence, would this be essential for a large political party to remain in power? If we look at the history of the State since 1922 and at the composition of governments over the years, it is not very hard to see who was in power for the longest period. If political appointments to these boards have been effective I can see why it would be important for the Minister to retain the power of appointment and not to remove appointments to these boards from political influence.

When we set up An Bord Pleanála the appointments to the board were removed from ministerial control. Who will deny that influence was used when ministerial decisions affecting planning were made? Who has not been affected by such decisions at one time or another? Who in this county has not seen something happen very near to him over which he had no control because somebody asked permission from a person who had political influence? Whole areas of this county have been destroyed by such decisions. Even projects which did not hit the headlines affected the lives of people who are bringing up their children in settled areas where they thought they would enjoy a lifetime of peace. Suddenly their lives were disrupted by this corrupt practice. This Bill is a bald-headed attempt to remove political influence from the appointments to these boards and I applaud it.

I have not been in politics for very long and I have not been a member of a political party for very long either. Therefore I may be looking at this problem from a new angle. I do not want to keep my seat at any cost, but now that I am an elected public representative I want to make my contribution. It is important for people outside this House — professionals, business people and so on — to be aware of how the system works and to try to get into this House. We want to break the practice where two parties can stay in power by pulling the strings of influence.

In the last three speeches I have heard, there has been an element of that. Deputy Fitzgerald said he did not mind if the Labour Party were in and decided to appoint a Labour person to a semi-State board. That is fine. I suppose that Fine Gael could do so too and then when Fianna Fáil get in they could again do likewise. That was the gist of the statement made by a former Minister of this House who has reminded us during the last year of his great experience and has told Deputy McLoughlin on this side of the House that he was wet behind the ears. I listened to that and I can draw only one conclusion, that what he is saying is, "You do it when you are in and we shall do it when we are in. It is all right, boys. Let us keep it going". What he is not saying that they they were in power for the greater part of the last 60 years therefore, if Fianna Fáil get back into power they will have the greater influence.

This legislation will break the Fianna Fáil Party. It is necessary because Fianna Fáil have been doing this for the last 50 or 60 years all over the country. I am tempted to name different professions, bodies and places where this takes place and I hope that neither the Labour Party nor Fine Gael will indulge in that kind of operation. The last time these parties were in power together they managed to correct some of these abuses. They even appointed a Director of Public Prosecutions, because these appointments were given in favour of the party or parties in power, as were the State briefs. This has been going on all the time in the Four Courts.

The Ministers are to be congratulated for what they are doing. The matter was not rushed but thought out very carefully and Deputy Molloy had a prepared speech for the occasion. If what I am saying about these abuses is true, that sickens me and I hope that the Bill goes through and does what the Minister intends it to do — removes from political influence the handling of planning decisions. It will help to create a better environment for all of us and better planning for what is left of this miserable city which has been destroyed over the last decade. The bad planning over the last decade has contributed greatly to the misery experienced by many through crime, drug abuse and all the other ills.

The Minister talks about how the law is to be amended. We have three Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts. The first, in 1963, was a milestone and a landmark. It was necessary because of the uncontrolled and wild development which was taking place then and was brought about by ministerial decision. Former Minister Tully, in his wisdom, removed it from under the aegis of the Minister and said afterwards that he was glad that it was taken from him because otherwise the finger could be pointed at him. He probably was under great pressure. It was enlightening legislation and Deputies on the far side of the House rightly congratulated him on it and I did also. It put a stop to much scandalous and horrible development. People at least had an opportunity to object and there was an attempt at a fair hearing. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act of 1976 set up An Bord Pleanála to decide on planning appeals and Mr. Tully was responsible for this. Its main objective was to set up the Planning Appeals Board, which was a good start.

In 1983 it is time to review this Act, to see how it has performed. It is also timely that we consider what people have had to say about the legislation, how it has worked and whether or not it has been effective. The Minister is perfectly right in revising it. We had the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act of 1982, which dealt with the duration of planning appeals, the Supreme Court decision, fees on appeals and increased penalties. There have been very long delays and backlogs under the present board and the position does not appear to be improving. The purpose of revising the legislation is not to speed it up in such a way that people will not have an opportunity to examine what is going on. There must be notifications of planning applications but there is a flaw in that the planning applications are not circulated efficiently. They are not brought to the notice of people in general. It is very difficult to find out if a planning application is imminent or in operation which will effect you or your property or will have an undesirable effect, such as the creation of an eyesore. That is an area which could be taken up under this Bill and should be looked at.

How many houses, garages, extensions, buildings have been built in areas unawares, perhaps next door to someone's total investment of a lifetime, a private house or perhaps affecting a whole estate? These things can happen— for example the rotten dump about which I was speaking which, if not outlined, would affect thousands of people and destroy an amenity, the Liffey Valley, which has existed for thousands of years. It is wild, with flora and fauna and a natural landscape, but all that the county council can think of doing is filling it up with refuse 25 feet deep and making a linear park with small tarmacadam paths and wooden benches. One of the county council members told me that it was only a swamp and the county council consider that that plan would be nicer. This is a natural landscape which God has made and Joyce immortalised. That is what I mean by ignorance. These people would not even know about that, or bother to find out. I must mention the corruption and suspected corruption which have gone on in the area of planning. It is extremely important, in fact crucial, that this Bill be passed for the very reason that these abuses can be stopped and be seen to be stopped. It will enable people to see how this board are constituted and whether this has been fairly done. It will enable other Deputies and myself to make suggestions in the House as to fairer ways of doing it. It is necessary and welcome.

Perhaps planning applications could be put in the national or local papers. Many people have had the sickening experience of finding out about the granting of planning permission with dreadful implications for them and resulting in the destruction of amenities only when the building operation was commenced. They have had no opportunity to object, because they did not know about it.

In regard to the Rent Restrictions Act, Deputy Molloy referred to me as having a lack of understanding or appreciation of the sufferings which people are undergoing.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 June 1983.