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. De Rossa

Before the House adjourned for lunch I had given a brief outline of the reasons why we were supporting this Bill with reservations, and the reasons why we reject the amendment put down by the Fianna Fáil Party which we consider to be unreasonable and foolish. I have already dealt with those points. It is worth noting that one of the arguments against the moving of the Bill at this time is that it is felt too much of the time available this week is being given to it. With the agreement of the Coalition Government and the Fianna Fáil Party in recent months, the House has put through the Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill, the Finance Bill and the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, all of which were guillotined at one stage or another despite the fact that many Deputies were anxious to get in on them.

This is a much more restrictive Bill. It aims at dealing with two areas of planning law. For that reason it should be welcomed. While we have reservations about it, one or two days on Committee Stage should be adequate to enable us to express our opinions. If additional time is required it should be on Committee Stage where it will be necessary to introduce amendments. As has already been said by Fianna Fáil Deputies, there are other areas which require urgent attention such as company law, family planning law, marital breakdown, illegitimacy and the question of rent tribunals. All of these are urgent matters which I have raised at one time or another over the past few months.

Despite the fact that I am just as anxious as anybody else to get a break from this place, I am quite willing to stay here until the end of July and to come back here on 1 September to deal with these matters. If Fianna Fáil indicated to the Government that they would agree to shorten the summer break to the month of August to deal with these very urgent matters, we should consider extending this sitting to the end of July and come back on 1 September.

I do not intend to go into specific points in any detail because we are preparing a number of amendments, but there are a number of areas which need to be dealt with in the Bill and tightened up. One comes under section 4 which seeks to have decisions made as quickly as possible. That is not good enough. There should be a time limit on the period within which decisions should be made. Local authorities have to make decisions within a given period of time, and I see no reason why An Bord Pleanála should not also make their decisions within, say, four months. That should be quite long enough for the board to take to make a decision on any application.

Another important area needs to be dealt with is the question of deemed permission. So far as I know that is not in the Bill, but the opportunity should be taken by the Minister to deal with it now. Where a local authority fail to notify applicants of a decision on a development the application is automatically granted. This interferes seriously with the rights of third party objectors. I understand that in Britain the reverse is the case. Where a local authority fail to notify applicants the application is deemed to have failed. I am not well enough up on planning law to know whether that is better than the present system. Some protection should be included in this Bill and people who are claiming deemed permissions should be required to insert notices in the newspapers so that third parties would know what was going on and would be in a position to object to the permissions deemed to have been given.

At the moment when a local planning authority intends to grant permission which would be in breach of the development plan for an area they have to put public notices in the newspapers. I understand that An Bord Pleanála do not have to do that. Where they intend to give permission to a developer which will be in breach of the development plan for an area they should be required to give notice of that in the newspapers so that people are made aware of what is going on.

One of the sections of the Bill provides that the board should review its organisation and practices on a regular basis but does not indicate when that review should take place. I believe such a review should be carried out at at least twoyearly intervals so as to ensure that they remain abreast of current thinking on planning and so on.

There is no requirement on the board at the end of the year to publish a list of applications before them or the status of appeals. It would be a good practice for them to issue at the end of the year the applications still before them, the applications they have dealt with and the status of any applications that still have to be dealt with. It would be an incentive to be that bit more efficient.

On the question of the procedures for the appointment of a chairperson, various bodies will be offered positions on the committees which will recommend a chairperson to the Minister. On that committee there should be representation from householder organisations such as ACRA and NATO. These are the people who either benefit or suffer most from decisions made by the board. They have a genuine interest in environmental development and they should be recognised. I know that on the board itself the Minister intends to have representatives from those organisations but in the appointment of the chairperson the Minister should give recognition to these bodies.

I am not too happy with the right of the Minister to refuse to appoint candidates selected by different bodies. That is an attempt to hold on — by the backdoor — to the right to select a person who might be more politically acceptable to the Minister.

The Minister of State shakes his head but the fact is that that power can be used in that way. We are trying to get away from a situation where powers can be abused. Another point about which I am not too happy is the right of the Minister to re-appoint sitting members. I think there is no limit to the number of times which he can re-appoint a member. That again is getting away from the stated purpose of the Bill — to depoliticise the establishment of this board. I am not happy about the right to re-appoint sitting members without some limit on the number of times a Minister can exercise that right.

Under section 16 the board can refuse an appeal if they feel it is vexatious. The board should be required to explain their reasons for refusing the appeal and to put them in writing to the person making the appeal. This power also applies in situations where an appeal is made and the grounds for the appeal is not forthcoming within two weeks. It is very difficult to decide whether an appeal is vexatious or not. It is a very unclear area. The board should be required to put their grounds in writing.

At present where people have got permission from a planning authority and are appealing against conditions attaching to the permission the whole application is considered and they could lose the permission itself. In this Bill the Minister seeks to bring about a situation where a person can appeal conditions attached to a permission without the board having the power to overturn the permission. I could see that militating against local authorities who attempt to ensure proper development by adding conditions which, according to the strict letter of the law, they may not be entitled to do. An example would be where they would insist that to get the permission a developer would have to, say, hand over £50,000 for the provision of a car park in the area. Developers would be reluctant to appeal against that condition at present in case the permission was lost completely. The power given to the board under this Bill would enable developers to appeal against such conditions. We might then be frustrating the efforts of local planning authorities to approve particular developments.

We welcome the direction in which this Bill is moving. We have reservations about some of its contents. We believe it could have gone a lot further in distancing itself from the political arena, but Deputies who are concerned about the reputation of this House and of State boards should welcome this move. For that reason I would urge those who are opposed to it to maintain their position that they object to certain sections but in reality we must accept that boards should be free and should be seen to be free from political interference.

I must emphasise that members of the board should be experts in the planning area. There is nothing in the Bill which requires the appointment of people with expertise. There is a civil servant mentioned and presumably he will have some expertise, but that is only one person. It should be a requirement that at least some members of the board have expertise in the planning area. I hope the Minister will be receptive to whatever amendments are brought forward on Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Prendergast.

Mr. Tunney

On a point of order, I would like to bring to your notice that earlier when you called Deputy De Rossa I thought the normal the movement from the Government side to the Opposition side had been breached. I said I understood he was going to speak in favour of this legislation. However, you said you were not privy to such information and therefore could not make any judgment. Having heard Deputy De Rossa indicate that he is in favour of this legislation perhaps you will accept the point I made and before calling on another speaker, who will presumably speak in favour of the Bill, in the interest of balance you will allow the next speaker to come from this side of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have already indicated that I was calling on Deputy De Rossa because he did not belong to a Government party, but rather was in Opposition. Therefore I have rotated from the Government side to the Opposition side and back to the Government side by calling on Deputy Prendergast. As a member of the Opposition Deputy Tunney will be the next speaker. I assumed that the Deputy had accepted my ruling.

Mr. Tunney

I am very reluctant to appear to take issue with you but on examination of the Official Report you will see that your decision was based on the fact that you did not know what attitude Deputy De Rossa would adopt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I said I had no intention of basing the allocation of time in anticipation of what a Deputy might say. Deputy De Rossa is a member of an Opposition party——

Mr. Tunney

The Chair is adopting a different stance now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a different stance. I could not allocate time by anticipating what a Deputy would say. I am calling Deputy Prendergast.

Mr. Prendergast

In rising to support this Bill I would like to make the following points. This is a very timely move by the Government to democratise the position in relation to An Bord Pleanála. Interested members of the public will recall that the then Minister, Mr. Jim Tully, was responsible for setting up An Bord Pleanála as a means of depoliticising the situation which had prevailed up to then so that the whole question of planning and related matters might be seen to be manifestly above suspicion. However, because of subsequent events, the leader of my party, Deputy Spring, felt obliged to change the situation again because of the way the original spirit and intention of Mr. Tully's Act has been circumvented by Ministers of Fianna Fáil Governments when in power.

I would like to make the following observations from a political perspective which I consider are important. Because of our history as a subject people, there was a certain recognition and toleration of a kind of cap-touching attitude of subservience as a means of survival by our people in the past. This is normal for a subject people. A modern analogy is that common proverb among the blacks in America which says that you tell Smokey what Smokey wants to know. That has been the attitude of subject peoples everywhere. A corollary of that attitude seems to be that when people of that type have managed to throw off the yoke of oppression — and that is a common experience in other parts of the world today — and come into their own, they look after their own.

There has been a tradition in this country since the foundation of the State, very sedulously fostered, that if you belong to one particular party it opens all doors. It used to be said that the leader of one party went to America to study how Tammany Hall operated and came back and applied that philosophy in the Irish political spectrum. The late and great Donnchadha O'Malley, from my own city, said on television in his typical, brashy, honest manner that all things being equal a Fianna Fáil man will get the job. That attitude became common. That type of sentiment breeds a reaction of cynicism, disillusionment and resentment in ordinary, decent, concerned citizens because it is seen to be nothing but an extension of the abuse of power practised by our political masters when they operated from Dublin Castle and when they dominated this country. In constitutional parliamentary democracy that kind of situation should not be tolerated because it manifests the type of nepotism and political patronage that can apply only in an almost totalitarian situation or a dictatorship.

There are traditional areas of public life in this and all democracies where appointment on preferment in some of the professions, notably the Judiciary, is based on political persuasions. That is very healthy because it builds in a safety valve of checks and balances. Our Judiciary have been manifestly equitable in their conduct of affairs and have never been open to the criticism that they were partisan in a political context in their judgments.

However, there are other institutions which do not enjoy the same level of respect, and I am referring particularly to An Bord Pleanála. I want to make this quite clear: I do not know any member of the board and I am not saying that any one of them, or all of them, is not a worthy, admirable person. What I am saying is that because of the manner of their appointment and the subsequent political controversy which that evoked, they, perhaps unfairly, have become tainted with the suspicion that they are in the pockets of one particular political party.

That is not fair to the concept of objective institutional life here and certainly not fair to the members themselves. There are inherent, built-in disadvantages in that type of system. People with eminent qualifications in that field might, ipso facto, be reluctant to go on such a board for fear of being deemed to be politically appointed rather than to have the necessary professional qualifications. It is not good that that perception of An Bord Pleanála exists at the moment and it does not help the image of the board if people of a known political persuasion who have been refused planning permission by a local authority and opposed by residents' associations give, if the Chair will excuse the crude expression, a political Harvey Smith to the institutions of this State by being prepared to take bets that they will beat the local authorities and the residents' associations and will gain their planning permission, not on technical grounds. That perpetuates the image of this body being in the pocket of one particular party.

It is absolutely essential that that body be put on the right track and be seen to be above any suspicion of political patronage or of nepotism. It could be deemed very useful to belong to such a political party if one were interested, perhaps, in making plenty of money out of land deals, speculations and the like. All the impassioned eloquence from the other side of the House — and I am being strictly objective and not descending into discussing personalities — will not make white black or day night. The perceived image of An Bord Pleanála in recent times is that it is in the pocket of one political party and I blame that political party for the manner in which the board was constructed. They left themselves wide open to that criticism, whether it is basically true or untrue. What is significant is that the public image of the body is that it is politically corrupt or suspect.

Mr. Tunney

Has the Deputy any evidence of that?

Mr. Prendergast

I am relaying that information to the House. Yes, indeed I have.

Mr. Tunney

Would the Deputy like to tell the House about it? I am anxious to hear it.

Mr. Prendergast

I will give evidence of it, if necessary, in committee.

Mr. Tunney

That is the place.

Mr. Prendergast

I am the type of person, because of my training, to do so. I believe in telling facts and will present the facts when called to do so at the proper forum.

I have said that I do not know any of the people on the board who are concerned. I am not saying in any way that any of them is other than above suspicion. What I am saying is that statements made outside that board would suggest that that is the known image of the board. It is particularly important for us politicians — and we could do with an up-lift in our public image at the moment — that all the institutions of public life here should be seen to be run in a democratic, fair and responsible manner, open to this House.

Dr. Johnson when talking about patriotism, which can be extended to politics, said that it is the last refuge of a scoundrel. That is very much the image of politicians at the moment and we are receiving a lot of unfair treatment from the media. If we do not do something positive to correct what is seen to be an abuse of public trust, we leave ourselves open to that kind of criticism. It is also of great significance in other ways at local authority level for those of us who are members of local authorities.

The whole operation of planning appeals and compulsory purchase orders is totally archaic and outmoded. For example, in the United States planning appeals and compulsory purchase orders can be got through in about six months, as against the years of tortuous investigation which arise here. For instance, in my own city we were looking at land owned for centuries back. The landlords were the Earls of Limerick, the Lords Glentworth, some of whom had gone to Spain and had not been in Limerick for the last century and a half. We had to contact the heirs before we could get clearance to move in and build modern local authority houses. We should bring that position up to date, if possible.

In Limerick we have what is arguably, outside of Dublin, the finest extant example of Georgian building in Europe. I am speaking about the Newtownpery area which was the great extension of our city in the late eighteenth century. A preservation order has been placed on that whole area which retains its original pristine Georgian character. With what is going on, or alleged to be going on at present, somebody might move in on that land and, in spite of the unanimous opposition of every elected member of the city council and of the Limerick Corporation officials, defy that unanimous opposition if he had unfair access to somebody in An Bord Pleanála.

Equally, we have a unanimous policy followed by all elected members of all political persuasions that flats in Limerick city should be owner-occupied. Everyone knows the abuse of flats where people move in and leave rubbish and dirt, the grass is left to grow and dirty curtains are left on the windows. In order to stop that we insist, where possible, that each flat be owner-occupied so that it will retain a well-kept appearance. In that area also we could be frustrated in our unanimous policy. Our old city has a thousand years of continuous occupation, with a heritage second to none in Europe. That could be put aside by a mercenary developer who thinks he has somebody in An Bord Pleanála in his back pocket. This could happen in spite of the unanimous opposition of the local authorities and of the preservation order. It is very important that any such planning authority be seen to be above suspicion, like Caesar's wife, having no taint.

Perhaps An Bord Pleanála might be departmentalised to take account of some of the objections made here this morning in relation to delays with industrial type planning which might have the effect of retarding progress in the area of construction for factory development. As a trade union official in my own area, I am very concerned with that aspect. The construction industry should not in any way be held up. It has been claimed by an American economist, Milton Friedland — of whom I would normally not be too loud in my quotation — that the construction industry is one of the great reflators of any economy. I would be reluctant to delay any development which would speed up the building industry.

Deputy Barrett referred to the tragic loss of one development in our region. In that case there were lost 250 highly-paid jobs in respect of which the dependency ratio was one to four or 1,000 depending on the planning permission being granted. Because the planning permission was held up the jobs were lost. We should insist on a built-in mechanism that would ensure that planning applications of that sort would be given priority and urgent treatment. We should set up a department that would deal solely with such applications, thereby ensuring that there would not be undue delay.

Every local authority member is aware of the blackguardism of builders who enter into bonds with local authorities and who promise to undertake all the works specified in those bonds but then move out of housing estates leaving them in a desperate condition. Recently we saw a television programme about an estate that had been left in such a condition. That was not all that far from where we are now. Obviously, residents are very aggrieved that builders be allowed play ducks and drakes with local authorities. The fault lies with the ponderous bureaucratic system in which we operate. Local authorities cannot move quickly or effectively enough to force builders to complete their contracts. In one area in Limerick, 21 years elapsed before a green area was completed by the builders. I am sure there are a number of similar situations throughout the country.

By way of dealing with this problem I suggest that the board or some body be vested with the authority to tie into the bonds a mechanism whereby there would be a very heavy penalty imposed on any builder who would not fulfil the conditions of the bond. The penalty that can be applied now is negligible. Alternatively it could be part of local authority law that a builder would not be allowed contract again for any public authority until such time as every detail of a previous scheme in terms of environmental layout, structural defects and so on had been completed satisfactorily. We had a case in Limerick recently where a threat on those lines proved very effective. In that case there was a question of structural defects in what was otherwise a lovely estate. When we informed the builder concerned that it would be useful to him, in the event of his seeking another contract, if he completed the previous one, the defects were put right very quickly. Some of us had been calling for years to have that situation rectified and it was only when the builder was interested in another contract that the defects were put right. That is the kind of effective planning legislation we should have, thereby ensuring that builders are answerable to local authorities.

Mr. Tunney

Ar an gcéad dul síos caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil an-díomá orm agus mé ag éisteacht le mo chara, An Teachta Prendergast, go raibh sé comh dian san ar a chomráidí anseo. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil baint aige le cúrsaí céard chumannachais. Tá siúl agam go bhfuil sé níos éifeachtaí agus é ag deileáil le cáil agus dea-ainm na ndaoine sin ná mar atá sé anseo. Chuir sé fearg orm go mbeadh fear chomh ionraic leis an Teachta sin, go mbeadh sé sásta teacht isteach anseo, a fhios aige go bhfuil cead aige rud ar bith a rá, saoirse nach bhfuil in áit ar bith gur sheas sé an méid sin ama le ráflaí —"dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi" agus é ag caitheamh droch-mheas ar a chomráidí. Chaith sé salachar timpeall na háite ar chuile dhuine. Ní raibh sé de mhisneach aige, má bhí eolas aige — rud a dhéanfadh mise — é a rá amach anseo. Má tá aithne ag an Teachta Prendergast ar Theachta ar bith, iar-Aire ón taobh seo a rinne aon rud as an tsli, tá dualgas aige é a chur os comhair an Tí seo. Níl cead aige saghas droch-mheas a caitheamh ar chuile dhuine.

Mr. Prendergast

B'fhéidir nár thuig an Teachta cad a bhí á rá agam. Níor chaith mise droch-mheas ar aon Aire nó ar aon Teachta ón taobh sin den Teach nó ar aon taobh eile den Teach. Ba mhaith liom é sin a chur in iúl don Teachta ó mo chroí amach. Tá mise ag trácht ar ghnáth daoine den phobal lasmuigh den Teach seo a mhaslaigh an Institiúd a bhí á plé againn anseo, gur thuig seisean go bhfaigheadh sé tacaíocht an mBord Pleanála nuair a chuirfeadh sé a fhadh féin os a gcomhair agus tá sé de nos——

(Cur isteach.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

An Teachta Tunney le leanúint, led thoil.

Mr. Prendergast

Tá mithuiscint ar mo chara dhílis thall, agus is fear ionruic é féin. Níor dúirt mise aon rud faoi éinne den taobh sin den Teach agus ba mhaith liom é sin a chur isteach sa Tuarascáil Oifigiúil. Is é an rud a bhí á rá agam — agus tá sé de nós agamsa — gan pearsanachtaí a thabhairt isteach in aon díospóireacht a bheadh agamsa. Níl aon easpa mhisnigh ormsa labhairt ó thaobh sin de. Ba mhaith liom bheith macánta os comhair mo chara.

Mr. Tunney

Anois agus mé ag trácht ar phearsantacht tá an-mheas agam ar an Teachta Liam Skelly. Bhí mé ag éisteacht leis. Níor aontaigh mé le rud ar bith a dúirt sé ach ar a laghad bhí sé cneasta. Dúirt sé amach go hoscailte na rudaí a chreid sé féin iontu agus, mar a deirim, cé nach n-aontaím leo agus shíl mé go ndeachaigh sé thar fóir, ar a laghad bhí sé cneasta agus chaith sé amach saghas go neamhurchóideach, b'fhéidir, rudaí a chreid sé fhéin iontu agus sin an chaoi is fearr. Níl aon chaoi eile go dtiocfadh tairbhe do mhuintir an Tí seo nó do mhuintir na tíre.

That is the sole purpose in my rising to make a short contribution on the proposed legislation. The previous two speakers expressed their concern for democracy. Deputy Prendergast indicated that he wants this whole area democratised. He is as mindful as I am of the character and nature of our democracy. This follows the line that at certain prescribed times candidates offer themselves to the public, advancing certain policies that are concerned with politics. There is a tradition of groupings of people who so far as they are concerned have a concept and a tradition of politics which is superior to others. Other parties can equally contend and, as a result of that, at urban level, local level and national level, certain people are elected or selected to represent them in this House.

That is democracy as I see it. I am surprised that, in so far as what is proposed here takes that away from this House, Deputy Prendergast could claim a great day for democracy. We are the people who are responsible. We are the people who are not protected by any unfair dismissals, not protected by any special redundancy payments, who must go out and meet the tribunal, often at a day's notice and give an account, if we have not already done so, of our stewardship, and the public have the right and the responsibility to dismiss us. There is no better system that I know of. We can go to other countries where that system of democracy does not obtain and where there is something which borders on this, where the dictator nominates certain people to make certain selections for him and those people will act ostensibly pro bono publico but we all know that they act to the dictates and requirements, expressed in one fashion or another, of the commissar.

What do we advocate here? Other Deputies and I have for the last two months been expressing in the corridors and elsewhere certain concern for our profession. I have said on other platforms that I had the privilege and honour of being a civil servant, a school teacher and a headmaster and been associated with people who had callings in the same direction. I have met as high, and possibly a higher, standard of integrity, honesty and behaviour among politicians than I have met elsewhere and I will retain my concern for the good name of politicians whether it is the Minister, Deputy Spring, Deputy Prendergast or Deputy Brian Lenihan until such time as I discover that any one has been guilty of something which does not warrant my confidence in him or her. The Chair will appreciate it if in the matter of those listed, I now include a lady from both sides of the House and I select the Minister, Deputy Nuala Fennell and Deputy Eileen Lemass. Why is it that we here now publicise that we should no longer have faith in ourselves? Tá seanfhocal sa Ghaeilge: Is olc an t-éan a shalaíonn a nead féin. That is as pertinent to us here and our profession as it is to the feathered flock.

If there are people among us who are abusing rights, responsibilities, powers or authorities, why do we not apply ourselves to having them removed from our midst? Why should we destroy — I am again basing my comments here on the case made on that side of the House — what is vital, what is in the interests and tradition of what is best in democracy, as we know it, because we fear Deputy Prendergast's rumour: "It is said that because someone is in there from Fianna Fáil you may not trust him on that board". We give the converse of that. He and Deputy McLoughlin, if you read their contributions, — and here I throw in Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Mac Giolla on television last night — interpret this legislation as being about getting rid of Fianna Fáil political influence.

Mr. Prendergast

And Labour and Fine Gael.

Mr. Tunney

Fan go fóill. I did not hear the Deputy mention Fine Gael or Labour so he will forgive me if I read it into his mind. Because of what people think about Fianna Fáil this is necessary. Do we take it then that in respect of the new board, if it can be said of any man or woman, however efficient or competent, they have the taint of Fianna Fáil on them, they may not serve? Do we take it it is proposed to have nobody with any connection direct or indirect with politicians? Do we take it nobody of that kind will serve? How, in the name of heaven, is the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and his able junior Minister, assisted by their other servants, going to stretch out into the recesses of Irish society and get that peculiar being who is interested in politics — because if he is not interested he is not interested in the life of Ireland — but who has no interest whatsoever in any political party? That is what this Bill claims it will do and that is what Deputy Prendergast and Deputy McLoughlin know it cannot do. If they were honest and said to me that this Bill was about a new day that has dawned, Fine Gael and Labour have come into power, they are entitled to have what used to be said here some time ago by an esteemed politician "their hands on the loot" and they can appoint their men or women.

Mr. Prendergast

On a point of information, I do not mind if each and every member of the board is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. I am only saying that so long as the selection mechanism is above suspicion I do not care who goes on the board and, when I talk about political patronage — I am grateful to Deputy Tunney for the reminder — I make the same remarks to this side of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would be grateful if Deputy Prendergast would allow Deputy Tunney to continue. Deputies may speak only once.

Mr. Tunney

Consistency is what I am endeavouring to establish. I will have no objection whatsoever to the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, coming in here and saying: "I, as the person now on whom the responsibility lies, who has the authority and the power, propose appointing a new board and putting on it people who in my opinion are less addicted to Fianna Fáil and more neutral in the matter of politics and I am selecting them". That is what he is going to do but he gives to it a facade that will, he thinks, satisfy rumour and duirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi.

In endeavouring to demonstrate that, I am referring to how he proposes having these people selected. Remember, all these people will not have the stain of political sin on them. One will come from the professional classes. What professions? Will it be an architect who may happen to know the Minister of State? Will it be a lawyer who perchance knows the Tánaiste? Will it be an engineer who knows some other member of the Government? Will it be a doctor? The term professional people covers a very wide spectrum. How will they carry out the inquisition to establish that it can never be imputed to him that he ever blemished his good name by having an association with Fine Gael, or Labour, or The Workers' Party, or Fianna Fáil? Listening to Deputies who spoke before me, that is what must be removed from anyone serving on the board. Deputies Prendergast and McLoughlin advocated this.

Many Deputies referred to the fact that it was a former Member of the House, Mr. Tully, who established this board. As regards one appointment, the person was not selected because of his profession, interest in environmental or community development but rather he was appointed because the Minister at the time found in him a man who would represent the views of non-professional people. I was a Member of the House and did not criticise the right of the Minister to appoint somebody who had an association with the Minister or the Labour Party in Navan. To me he was an intelligent, respectable man and his political leanings were immaterial to me. While acting as a member of the board he made a contribution equal to that of anyone else. If I had heard otherwise I would have informed the Minister.

As regards the present members, Deputy McLoughlin excluded one of them from criticism. He is a neighbour of mine and an engineer. I do not know his party politics nor have I any wish to. I have good friends who support Fine Gael and Labour. That is immaterial. It is what we do that is important. To suggest that the board cannot be trusted, that there have been backhanders, that something was done which should not have been done or to suggest that by changing the personalities on the board we would automatically remove human frailties is hypocritical.

The selection committee in their search for a suitable person must be aware that if a person has any political association he cannot be considered. One group is the environmental group. I an am environmentalist. Part of my responsibility is to have concern for the environment. Deputy Skelly spoke of his concern for the environment although he localised in so far as his concern was that there was a dump in front of his house. There is another dump in part of the Deputy's constituency in west Finglas which I would be glad to discover——

Mr. Skelly

I would be glad to provide the Deputy with details.

Mr. Tunney

It is a dump which must exist if we are to get rid of domestic and industrial waste.

Mr. Skelly

On a point of information, the Liffey Valley is not my property. It is very extensive.

Mr. Tunney

I did not credit the Deputy with ownership but with living there. I envy him because it is a nice place to live. If anyone cares to get a copy of the debate on the legislation dealing with the pro-life amendment they will see that Deputy Quinn and others on that side were very critical of a situation where a group of non-elected people would dare advocate anything to the country. We were sitting, perhaps correctly, on a pedestal which says that elected people only should have that right. Deputy Quinn was most vociferous in attacking any group which would dare work outside in pursuit of any legitimate exercise. Deputy Shatter made the case that they should not have the right. Who were they to have a right? I am sure I will listen to Deputy Shatter make a massive case for the involvement of an non-elected group to select people who will be qualified to serve on what is accepted on all sides as one of our most important boards. How it fits, níl a fhios agam. How he can wear one coat and while wearing it seem to pursue a line of democracy which disappears on the morrow is something I cannot understand.

Deputy Skelly said what he believed. He did not impress all his listeners. I will not criticise him except to say that in so far as he was disrespectful to elected representatives I thought he was most unfair, unreasonable, illogical and undemocratic. The environmental group, whoever they may be, were not told that this legislation was being sold to us. You buy it and the ghost of these organisations will come later on, look for powers of nomination and the Minister will accept them. This House will not have an opportunity of saying whether they should have the right to accept them or not.

There will be a development group who will have power to nominate. The Minister did not say who they are. What groups are they? Are we as politicians not concerned? Have we no responsibility, powers or authority in the matter of development? What development is it? Is it the development of Fine Gael or Labour?

The last group are those interested in the community. There is an inference there that elected representatives do not have an interest in the community or in development.

Mr. Skelly

Judging by some of the decisions made one would think they have not much interest in the community.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy had two hours. Please let Deputy Tunney continue.

Mr. Skelly

I am very interested to hear what the Deputy says.

Mr. Tunney

I do not know whether I should be afraid or complimented but I will proceed. I appeal to the House to consider the essence of this legislation.

Deputy De Rossa's esteemed President went on TV last night and said that the interest Fianna Fáil had was to have friends in court who would help them to get planning permissions through An Bord Pleanála. I resent and reject that and I am asking Deputy MacGiolla, when he makes his contribution, to exclude me and everybody else on this side, unless he has evidence. When Deputy Quinn, the Minister of State, was a fellow member of mine on the planning committee of Dublin Corporation he declared an interest. I am declaring no interest in what Deputy MacGiolla has said. If he knows some member of this party who has an interest let him name that member here, but let him not engage in insinuations against all on this side.

The moment this new board have been established, consisting of people who are amenable to the ideologies of their good friends in Labour or Fine Gael, similar charges will go across. It would be highly useless to go searching for people, innocents abroad in the life of Ireland today, who would have no association with political parties. I would go further and defy anybody here to go out into the community to get five people who would say they did not have an interest in Labour, or Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, or in The Workers' Party. If they did not have such an interest they would not be fit to be on this board. They would not know their business if they had gone through life without having made a decision about which party they think is the best one and without deciding to make one party act as an antidote to the rest of us.

Let the Minister appoint his own people. I will concede to him, as the elected Tánaiste, the right to appoint people who in his opinion are fit to serve on the board. I would regret that he would be setting a precedent so that on the next change of Government, perhaps in a year or two or five years, there would be a Tánaiste who would be acting on precedent when he did the same thing. It should be borne in mind in respect of appointments made by the Minister for Local Government, James Tully, that when the subsequent Fianna Fáil Government took over they did not jettison Deputy Tully's friend from Navan, Mr. McFadden, who later went to Offaly. Fianna Fáil retained those people for the duration of their appointments.

I appeal to the sense of fair play Deputy Prendergast displayed before he rushed in here lending his name to this legislation. He said he had not evidence of there being one thing against any member of An Bord Pleanála. However, he is now prepared to lend his name to this. I never had any responsibility for trade unionism. I was a member of the Civil Service Clerical Officers' Association and of the TUI. Apart from that, in my leisure time I have been a member of rugby, soccer and GAA teams and of athletic clubs, and I would always defend my colleagues. If I discovered one of my colleagues was not entitled to that defence I would jettison him, but I would not throw insult at him until I would have evidence of whatever charges had been made against him.

We live in times of jealousy. People will say "If you were on the board would you not do it?". We are underestimating ourselves as politicians, and, as long as we retain the traditional aptitudes, we have some hope for democracy, when bringing in the Minister for the Environment or his junior Minister we can say to them: "You appointed those people. We have evidence they have been guilty of some impropriety in the carrying out of the duties entrusted to them by this legislation, and we ask you to get rid of them".

Under this legislation the Tánaiste and any future Minister for the Environment can say: "That fellow was appointed because he claimed he had an interest in the environment. That lady was appointed by some professional groups. That man was appointed by a group who had an interest in development. That person was selected by groups who claimed to have an interest in the community". How silly and ridiculous can we get? Those groups are not responsible to anybody. Deputy Prendergast and Deputy Skelly know that in Ireland to day you can get a group to establish themselves as, say, the Rathdown Residents' Association, as a group which have a greater interest than anybody else in the preservation of bird life, or any other sort of life.

Mr. Skelly

What about An Taisce?

Mr. Tunney

I have friendship with several members of An Taisce to the extent that I know that politically they would not satisfy the requirements of this legislation. They would be excluded because one of them happens to vote Labour and another lady votes Fine Gael. You work down and get the lowest common denominator, the person who votes nothing. Such a person has no great contribution to make to democracy. If the Deputy has someone in mind and I discover he or she knows Deputy Skelly under this legislation I will be claiming he or she is not fit for appointment after Deputy Skelly's contribution to this debate.

As I said earlier, I had what I regard as fruitful conversations affecting another area with my colleagues, the chairman of Fine Gael and the chairman of the Labour Party, having accepted that the good name and reputation of politicians was not what it should be. We were hoping to discover some formulae through which that might be improved, after the introduction of this legislation and having listened to the contributions of my colleagues, the politicians, I would defend the right of any politician on any side of the House. He or she represents a group of people in a certain constituency who sent him or her here as their messenger, as their leader, as their voice. He or she commands the respect which is vital in a democracy. What is proposed in this Bill is another step in downgrading politicians. I will not use the word depoliticise.

I would gladly concede to Deputy Prendergast the right to appoint somebody if he were Minister. He would not appoint anybody who had only one qualification, that of being a member of his party. I credit him with having the decency, the honesty and the sense of responsibility to ensure that the person also had the qualities, qualifications and personality required to make the vital decisions which are the responsibility of An Bord Pleanála. I do not know why he would take that away from the leader of his own party and apparently take pleasure in it.

Mr. Prendergast

That is the open democracy of the Labour Party.

Mr. Tunney

I must remind Deputy Prendergast that his leader and others are on record as not having too much respect for people who are not elected. I refer to contributions made in the debate on the Bill to amend the Constitution. They had quite substantial backing from people outside the House. I hope that view will be equally critical of something which is very vital and has to do with the making of millions as a result of the rezoning of land. According to what I hear people can become millionaires overnight.

All these decisions are now being made the responsibility of people who never offered themselves for election to anything other than committees of their own associations. There might be only six of them. We do not know what qualifications they have. The Minister did not tell us. Is this the facade? Is this the veneer? He does not have to put any veneer on it for me if he comes out and says boldly that he is doing it. That is his entitlement. He should be honest.

It is not enough for him to say: "This is about Fianna Fáil hacks who are on An Bord Pleanála who are building up every member of the Fianna Fáil Party and who are swinging decisions". I move about in the same areas as everybody else. The only critism offered of An Bord Pleanála in my constituency is that they are dilatory, that people are awaiting decisions for weeks and months. Deputy Prendergast made the point that that is not desirable, especially in the establishment of industries and the provision of employment.

How will the Minister expedite decisions with his new formula? There will be fewer members and there is an embargo on appointments in his Department. He says he will expedite decisions. The magic wand will change everything. I do not know whether this matter was discussed by the respective parties and whether these questions were asked. I am differentiating between that and telling Deputies: "Go in there and save the party lads. Have a go at Fianna Fáil". There is more to this than that.

As I said, I am disappointed in Deputy Prendergast. If I have succeeded in sewing one iota of doubt in his mind that his contribution lacked the normal comprehension I have come to expect from him, I hope he will apply himself in greater detail to the terms of this Bill. I hope he will weigh carefully all the considerations and accept the reality, which is not the downgrading of Fianna Fáil or the friends or members of Fianna Fáil on An Bord Pleanála, but the downgrading of the rights, responsibilities and democratic obligations of Deputy Prendergast and everybody else in the House.

Mr. Shatter

It is very easy in all the debate which has taken place yesterday and today to forget the reason why this Bill is before the House and the rationale behind it. Until the Planning Act, 1976, was enacted, planning appeals from local authorities were dealt with by the Minister of the day. They were dealt with by different Ministers in different Governments.

During that period when these appeals were dealt with by way of ministerial decisions there was a growing public perception that in some way there was political interference in the planning process and that appeals were being decided or determined on grounds other than objective planning criteria. I have no knowledge or inside information relating to that period to show whether or not that was an accurate interpretation of what was happening. Prior to 1976 there was a very real and growing perception that this was the case, that objective planning criteria were not being applied in determining appeals on planning applications at ministerial level, and that they were subject to political influence and political interference.

As a result the legislation in 1976 made provision for the establishment of An Bord Pleanála. The theory behind the board was to ensure that the appellant procedures in the area of planning were distanced from the political process. They were seen to be isolated to a great extent from ministerial interference by the establishment of an independent board whose decisions could not and would not be affected by ministerial or political influence of any nature.

For a number of years after An Bord Pleanála was established the public perception of the board was that it was achieving that purpose, that it was comprised of independent individuals who were applying the provisions of the Planning Act in determining appeals. Unfortunately the perception has changed over the past three years. I have no information before me, just as I have no information relating to the period prior to 1976, on which I can base any allegation that An Bord Pleanála at any stage made any decisions which were influenced by the political allegiances of members of the board.

The difficulty is that in the past three years, for whatever reason, there has been an ever-growing public perception such as existed prior to 1976, that in some way An Bord Pleanála has been politicised and that the independence of approach in the planning appeals process, which was seen by the general public to have been inaugurated after the passing of the 1976 legislation, has now been lost. The public perception is now, as it was prior to 1976, that in some way or other there is political influence or interference involved in the decision-making process of the board. I have no evidence Bord Pleanála since its inception and in recent years, that there has been such a political input, but the public perception that has developed in this area has resulted from the behaviour of Members of this House and the behaviour of Government. In circumstances that were permitted by the legislation and circumstances that I believe are inappropriate, the Government have made appointments to An Bord Pleanála.

The first occasion on which public concern was expressed about An Bord Pleanála and the possibilities of political interference with the board arose following appointments that were made to the board on 29 June 1981 by the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government. Three members were appointed to the board on 29 June 1981 approximately, one day before the Coalition Government which won the June 1981 election took office. I would not suggest that any of the three people appointed on that day did not necessarily have the qualifications to be members of An Bord Pleanála. It may be that they were particularly qualified. I simply do not know. The problem is the public perception is that if Governments, on the day before they go out of office, start making appointments to bodies of this nature, there must be some political reasons for doing so. There is the start of the blame. There is where lies the beginning of the public perception that An Bord Pleanála in some ways is not a body that makes decisions on objective planning criteria but that there is political interference in decision-making. That public suspicion was bred by those appointments.

If that was the only occasion on which appointments of that nature were made, the public worries about the politicisng of the board might have dissipated. What did we again see? On the 8 December 1982 we saw two further appointments made to An Bord Pleanála approximately three days before the then Fianna Fáil Government went out of office. On two occasions within a period of less than 18 months two Fianna Fáil Governments leaving office managed to appoint five members to An Bord Pleanála. The appointments on the 8 December 1982 were not required. They were not necessitated by the retirement of any members from the board. They resulted simply in an increased membership of the board. Those appointments led to a report in The Irish Times on 11 December 1982 the contents of which have never been denied by the then Minister responsible for making the appointments. The Irish Times in an article headed: “Burke to appoint 3 board members” said:

Two more political appointments are being made to An Bord Pleanála, the highly sensitive planning appeals board.

After referring to Mr. Justice Murnaghan's appointment as Chairman — and they certainly do not suggest that that was a political appointment — they go on to say:

The two political appointments to the planning board at salaries of £17,000 a year — are being made by the outgoing Minister for the Environment, Mr. Burke. One of the appointees is believed to be a Mr. Tony Lambert, a former salesman, who was brought into Mr. Burke's office last March to deal with his constituency work.

The other appointee is believed to have served as director of elections for Fianna Fáil in the recent general election.

The name of the other appointee is also referred to in the article. He was one Mr. Patrick Malone.

It is that behaviour that has led to the public perception that An Bord Pleanála has been politicised. Let us not mince words. No outgoing Government should be in a position to make appointments of this nature or should seek to do so. I would extend that comment to all Governments of all parties. I am not claiming my own party over the years is in some way immune from criticism in this area or that we live in an atmosphere of political chastity. We have been guilty. My own party has been guilty in years gone by of behavious that I certainly would not stand over as a Member of this House in other areas of appointments made.

There were appointments made when the Coalition Government went out of office in 1977 which should not have been made. That does not mean we go on with the system of political patronage. There is a time when it has to be stopped. There is a time when the public will not stand for it any longer and An Bord Pleanála, I would hope, is the first area in which we will introduce reforms of this nature. There is no doubt that the public perception as a result of the appointments made by the two outgoing Fianna Fáil Governments in 1981 and 1982 was that An Bord Pleanála had been politicised to a degree that was unacceptable.

This legislation is to be welcomed in that it will mean that the board can no longer be the plaything of politicians who lose office. It will mean that there are independent criteria upon which appointments are made to the board. The membership of the board is delimited. The selection of the chairman of the board is left to be made effectively by a group of people whose independence could not possibly be impugned. The speaker prior to me tried to make fun of the criteria laid down for the selection committee for other members of the board. This selection committee is to be formed from various bodies whose terms are defined to a far greater degree than Deputy Tunney was prepared to state and are now clearly defined under section 7 of the Bill. When these bodies are selected this House will have an opportunity to indicate approval or disapproval because a ministerial order must be laid before this House. A motion can be proposed on foot of this order not to accept nominating bodies proposed by the Minister. This House does retain its democratic control but once the nominating bodies are accepted and the board is appointed it is immune from the type of political interference in the area of appointees that we have seen on the part of two successive Fianna Fáil Governments in a short span of time.

That is welcomed by the vast majority of people outside this House. I find it quite extraordinary that Members of the Fianna Fáil Party should be fighting tooth and nail and should create the type of scenes we saw in the House yesterday evening so as to ensure that at some later stage, before appointments are made to An Bord Pleanála, if and when they ever return to Government, they first of all can determine a person's qualifications to be appointed to the board by examining their political pedigree first.

Deputy Tunney seemed to think it would be an outrage to appoint members to An Bord Pleanála who have not yet theologically committed themselves to one of the four political parties represented in this House. It may surprise him to know that there are many people who are no longer theologically committed to any party in this house and who, viewing the behaviour in this House yesterday, probably want to distance themselves even further from all of us.

The provisions in this legislation will copperfasten the independence of An Bord Pleanála and will ensure that the board cannot be puffed up by the imposition of additional members by any Minister at any time, no matter what the circumstances. It will do something which is badly needed: it will streamline the operations of the board and speed up the decision-making process.

It was suggested by Fianna Fáil Members that this legislation was unnecessary and that nobody wanted it. That is blatantly untrue. There are something like 3,600 decisions pending before An Bord Pleanála at the moment. The construction industry is crying out for more efficient procedures in determining appeals. There are many building projects which could provide much needed employment being held up because of the slowness of the decision-making process of that board. On a smaller scale there are many small domestic projects which are held up by the extraordinary length of time it takes for An Bord Pleanála to make any decision.

From the point of view of ensuring that there is no public suspicion about the manner in which planning appeals are dealt with, and to ensure that the public are properly satisfied that in determining appeals objective planning criteria are applied and that there is no political involvement, the establishment of the new board under this legislation is, I believe, an urgent necessity. The new streamlined procedures provided for dealing with appeals under this Bill will provide a great deal of relief for many people and will be welcomed. To that extent these measures are urgent.

Both the speeches made yesterday and the behaviour of the Fianna Fáil Members did no credit to this House. All that achieved was a further public view that Members appeared to be acting on the stage in the Gaiety Theatre rather than performing the function of legislators. The hysterics, shouting and walking out we saw yesterday by the party which feel there may not be sufficient time to debate this legislation, who are constantly calling for quorums, whose members deserted the benches and were not prepared to listen even to the speech made by their party spokesman on this legislation, this behaviour led to a demeaning of politicians. I heard Deputy Tunney waxing lyrical about this. It is that type of behaviour which demeans politicians, which causes a loss of respect for politicians and which has led people to believe that Deputies are incapable of doing the job for which they were elected.

When I was first elected to this House, having studied law I was led to believe that the term "political asylum" was a term in the area of international law. Yesterday's performance gave the concept of "political asylum" a new meaning. The only difference between the political asylum the Opposition Party sought to turn this House into yesterday——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is bordering on being unparliamentary.

Mr. Shatter

——and Dundrum Mental Hospital, in my constituency, is that the Members of this House are let out at night.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should withdraw that remark.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Jun 1983

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1983