Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1983

Vol. 344 No. 4

Estimates, 1983. - 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 on 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. Flynn

Before Private Members' Business I was dealing with the dominance in certain areas of activity of the Labour Party. I drew attention to certain aspects of the Minister's speech. It was a document which was devised and concocted by his Department. It was put into his hand and he was asked to deliver it. Very little screening was done by the Minister. It is full of ambiguities and half suggestions of what might or might not happen in the future. The Minister was dedicated to one area of activity only and that was to sack the board irrespective of the cost. It did not matter to him what their qualifications were or that the Labour Party can normally be expected to show justice in dealing with the work force. It did not matter that the normal practice before asking a person to relinquish their position is to give them an opportunity to make a case for themselves. It only mattered that these people were appointed by Fianna Fáil and because of some commitment he gave to a sectional interest in his party he had to bring in this legislation.

We have a party in this House who would like to think they have a big political future. They are small in number but they have designs on the sliding Labour Party vote. It is to try and shore up the voting and electoral strength of the Labour Party that they find it necessary to bring forward these edge of liberaltype policies and so hopefully retain some support among their own types. The Workers' Party have something else in mind. It is interesting to note their actions in the House for the past two months. We have heard their exposé of Fianna Fáil and what we should or should not be doing as regards appointments to An Bord Pleanála. I do not know what philosophy Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa follow. I do not know whether it is the Marxist or Trotskyite theory they follow. It is amazing, because if they are real followers of Trotsky or if they follow the fundamentalism of Marx, they should be the people who should be promoting the fact that public representatives should be supreme in all matters concerning Government. However, they want this done away with because it was done by Fianna Fáil.

I should like to pose a question to those two either Trotskyite or Marxist supporters in this House: what political philosophy are they following and what real political objective are they following in the House at present? Is it not strange that, irrespective of whether they are in the House, whatever their attitude to any Bill is they will get the best media and radio coverage for it particularly at the 6.30 p.m. News. It seems strange that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not more concerned about what is going on in that area as far as The Workers' Party are concerned. We take no comfort in seeing The Workers' Party try to undermine the Labour Party. They are both running for the same vote.

The whole idea of this legislation is to divert the public's attention so the Government will not have to answer to the House for their lack of action in dealing with unemployment, pay and so on. People are to be nominated by selected groups which the Minister is not prepared to acquaint us with. The Minister probably has to scurry around the organisations which have a majority of Fine Gael and Labour members. They will probably put forward names with a fine Fine Gael or Labour label. They will be the names acceptable to the Minister. They will not be acceptable otherwise, particularly so if they have an affiliation to Fianna Fáil.

Our attitude is entirely different. Governments are elected to govern. It is their responsibility to appoint people as they see fit to the highest offices in the land. If mistakes are made it is up to the public to show by their vote what they think of the appointments made by the Government. The Minister's speech is a classic and will be prescribed reading in some Department of Political Science in some university somewhere as an example of what should not be done by way of a Second Stage speech by a Minister who feels his responsibilities heavy on his shoulders.

The new members of the board will be professionals. How the Minister expects to appoint people with no political affiliations I do not know. A judge with a man's life in his hands can put the onus of responsibility in the hands of twelve good men and true but the Minister says that Seán Citizen is not worthy to be considered for involvement in the Planning Board. There will be no representation on the board of the attitude of the man in the street when the Minister has his way. A string of degrees after a person's name does not necessarily mean he will have a practical attitude to anything, particularly planning.

One member of the board is to be a civil servant nominated by the Minister from his Department. While trying to get rid of people appointed by the Government, the Minister considers it obligatory to have one civil servant on the board. This leads me to be suspicious that this civil servant will be his messenger boy, carrying the Minister's dictate to the board and following whatever line of policy the Minister wishes to have implanted in the board. Why bother picking a civil servant from his own Department unless the Minister has something in mind for that civil servant to do? If the civil servant is carrying out his duties properly the only thing he can do is carry the wishes of his Minister to the board. That will be his means of political influence. He will shelve off his so-called political influence by having a selection committee pick a chairman for seven years. He will shelve off his responsibility to do something by way of positive planning by supposedly waiting until some organisations with majority Fine Gael or Labour affiliations bring forward names to suit him. Irrespective of whether that succeeds, he will not be left without an opportunity of influencing the decisions of the board because he will have a hand-picked civil servant on that board. We would all like to know the political affiliations of the civil servant.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Haughey

A Cheann Comhairle, perhaps you would bring Deputy Harte to order.

Mr. Harte

I am just making a point.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Harte should not interrupt.

Mr. Flynn

I will answer Deputy Harte in one simple sentence. It is well known that civil servants faithfully carry out the wishes of their master, the Minister. That is what this civil servant will do.

When the Minister assumed office two things came to his notice immediately, the delay in appeals and the appointments made by Fianna Fáil. He did not call in the chairman or members of the board to see how he could help, to suggest what new avenues were available to him to improve the inspectorate or to give them a certain amount of computerisation to assist them. Those matters could be left to another day. He considered it more important to deal with the people who had been nominated by Fianna Fáil. Not a single word about malpractice or undue or illegal influence was heard during this debate or elsewhere in regard to the board. They had to be sacked simply because they were appointed by Fianna Fáil.

The whole structure of the board is being changed. Members were appointed for three years and if they were successful they continued in office. If they were unsuccessful they could be let go. Now the period of office is to be changed to five years. How many changes of attitude have taken place during the past five years? A man might become stale in that time and might not reflect what would be regarded as normal or acceptable policies which we would enunciate here. It might not be the right thing to have a chairman hold office for seven years or a member for five years. It is a cause of grave concern that the Minister is setting up a team in perpetuity and if they develop a strain of attitude to a particular type of development there is no way that attitude can be changed, except through the Minister's civil servant.

There was reference in the media to the question of political pull in some of the decisions made by An Bord Pleanála. I challenge the Minister to substantiate any of the remarks made in his speech. Can he show us any impropriety in the dealings of the board members with planning appeals? If he can put on record one instance of political pull achieving the desired result, let him do so. Let him put up or shut up.

If there are delays the onus of responsibility is on the Minister to do something about it. He has done nothing. To suggest that there are a few sections at the end of the Bill that might help the situation is putting the cart before the horse. If the Minister had been taking his responsibilities properly he would have dealt with the chairman and the board. The Minister did not seek to find out whether they were willing to accept his directions and use new administrative skills or technology to improve matters. He did not seek that information because he is hamstrung by the Government's embargo. It is not possible to get reports through the board more quickly without increasing the inspectorate and giving them the necessary equipment. The Minister is trying to convince the general public that the reason for the delays is the Fianna Fáil appointees.

The Minister has incorporated in the Bill the compensation to be paid to the existing board members. They receive a certain salary, as does the chairman. The Minister and the Minister of State, with the obvious connivance of the Minister for Finance, are prepared to deal with wild abandon with the public purse in compensating these people by way of pension and gratuity subsequent to the enactment of the Bill. The Minister would have been better employed in using this large sum of money to provide extra inspectors or better equipment to the board.

We as members of local authorities, county councils, corporations and urban district councils, made development plans and spent long tedious hours making plans. Such councillors know the requirements of their regions better than anybody. They have the inside knowledge that is necessary to provide a good development plan for their particular areas. Who or what has been thwarting those rights of democratically elected representatives? It has been those organised groups with sectional interests, the very people the Minister will utilise to send nominations to him of people who will supervise the most intricate appeals in the country. If the councils were competent to develop plans for their particular areas why are they not qualified now to make nominations to the board? Perhaps the Minister has in mind, now that he has taken the first steps, that there is incompetence and lack of capacity among county councillors and urban councillors in regard to their own development plans. Maybe his civil servants will be appointed to redraw development plans throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. This Bill is nothing but a Department of the Environment device to take away power from the democratically elected representatives.

Mr. Wilson

That is what Deputy Kelly said — his exact words.

Mr. Molloy

It is time Fine Gael woke up to what is in hand.

Mr. Flynn

Section 4 suggests that reviews will be carried out by the Minister's appointees. I agree that reviews are necessary but if the Minister had been carrying out his responsibilities properly he would have these reviews. Did he staff any review with the existing board and their chairman? Did he have any review carried out at all except a review of the names of those appointed by Fianna Fáil? The Bill is badly timed, ill-conceived and ill-advised. It cannot guarantee any of the so-called improvements it proposes. It shows the narrow introverted attitude of the Government, which is susceptible to Labour Party pressure, which has to be bought off regularly by trying to push anti-democratic legislation the likes of which the Minister and his supporters have been trying to push on the people in the last couple of months.

Mr. Molloy

All Ruairi Quinn's.

Mr. Flynn

This is deliberate because the Government are locked, stitched into a package of coalition that is totally anti-social, totally against traditional Labour. They must offer up something to the last of their supporters. This will get the bad end it deserves. The Bill is politicially motivated and the political purpose is to outmanoeuvre The Workers' Party, to try to do a disservice to Fianna Fáil and to try to get the public to believe that we made bad appointments.

Mr. Spring

The Deputy has a great imagination.

Mr. Flynn

This is unworthy of the Labour Party who traditionally suggested to the Irish people that they stand for fair play and justice. There is no justice in what they are proposing here. There is no justice in sacking somebody without giving him a chance to appeal. The Minister is denying that fundamental right that a former member of his party, as Minister, put through this House so that workers would have an opportunity to defend themselves against unjust dismissal. I charge the Minister with the unjust dismissals of people who committed no crime and who have no case to answer. It is unworthy of the Minister.

Mr. L.T. Cosgrave

It is clear than An Bord Pleanála, set up in 1976, in some areas have not been as effective as they might have been. We need an effective board to deal with planning throughout the country. That is what the public want. The Bill has a twofold purpose — to try to ensure independence for the board, and in an area which is so important, to ensure that the board's procedure and administration will be handled expeditiously and fairly in a way that will make good business sense.

This Bill will make sense to people in many areas. It will make good sense to builders awaiting decisions to build houses and accordingly employ people. It will make sense to those who are waiting for permission to build simple extensions. A more efficient board became necessary so that decisions would be arrived at quicker. Recently, the Minister for the Environment in reply to a question told the House that in 1980 5,271 appeals were dealt with by the board. That had decreased by 1981 to 4,059 and last year the number was 3,662. We understand that at present there are roughly 3,600 applications awaiting decisions.

Consequently, without getting any further applications in the next year, the board will have all of last year's quota to get through. This is entirely unsatisfactory. At present a person will make an application to a local authority. The local authority have two months in which to come back with an answer, turning down or granting the application. If the application is turned down or if somebody lodges an objection and it goes to An Bord Pleanála there is no time limit in which a decision has to be made. We have the crazy situation up to last year when people were waiting from between eight and 12 months for their appeals to be decided.

I had hoped the Minister would bring in a statutory period of between four and six months in which an appeal would have to be decided so that people would know by the end of September whether their appeals had been granted. At the moment they do not know whether it will be by September, November or well into the next year. Meanwhile the cost of building materials and all associated items is escalating and the cost of the development becomes more exorbitant because of the lack of a time limit.

Further criticism levelled at the board is that people find it difficult to get any information apart from the knowledge that the papers have been lodged, that they will be reviewed by the board and that decisions will be communicated in due course. This is gravely unsatisfactory and I had hoped the Minister would have put a deadline on decisions by the board. Some of his other proposals in relation to the hearing of appeals and the rights of persons appealing decisions, or the rights of people objecting, may quicken up the process. Another thing that may quicken up the process is the recent decision of the Department to approve four additional inspectors. I wonder have they commenced work in An Bord Pleanála. They should be working away for the board trying to reduce the backlog. Over the coming months if the number of appeals being processed monthly does not increase, the Minister should exercise his right under section 4 (2) and call in the board and ask why these appeals are not being dealt with more expeditiously.

The general duties of the board are defined in section 4 (1) (a) as follows:

It shall be the duty of the Board to ensure that appeals, references and other matters with which it is concerned are disposed of as expeditiously as may be and, for that purpose to take all such steps as are open to it to ensure that, in so far as is practicable, there are no avoidable delays at any stage in the consideration of such appeals, references and other matters.

I presume that up to this their duties were along the same lines. There have been many comments about the board but I have had no complaints — apart from one incident which I will mention in a moment — about misconduct or irregularities on the part of the board over the past few years. There is the real problem of the delays.

In my constituency of Dún Laoghaire an application was made in respect of the proposed development of Roche's Hill, Killiney. It was turned down by Dún Laoghaire Corporation on the grounds that it was totally inconsistent with the zoning of the area. Most of the locals, all the councillors and I think most of the public representatives hope the area will be left as it is. Since then the application has gone to An Bord Pleanála and it leaped from somewhere around 3,000 on the application list up to an oral hearing next week. I do not know how that happened but it seems to be inconsistent with what has been going on up to now. Perhaps they have made up a tremendous amount of ground in recent weeks and are now almost up to date, but I doubt that.

Obviously I hope that any applications upon which people are waiting and where money is outstanding in relation to the purchase of land, and where houses are needed, decisions will be given quickly. There are other cases where some poor individuals have been saving up for an extension and somebody else, out of jealousy or otherwise, has objected. In one case in my own constituency a person has been waiting for eight or ten months for a final permission, which I presume will come. The problem is that, in the meantime, the cost of building that extension has escalated by 25 per cent or 30 per cent, and it may now be beyond the person's means.

The Minister should look at these cases to see exactly why these delays are occurring. They are probably due to a combination of circumstances. Perhaps there are not sufficient staff or inspectors or administrators. It is important that these areas are looked at immediately. Over the next few months the Minister should find out whether the number of appeals being dealt with each month has increased. On a rough calculation at the moment they are dealing with 300 or so a month. With 3,600 outstanding it should take quite a while to eat into that backlog.

When the Minister is replying I hope he will confirm that the appeals going in are taking their place at the bottom of the queue, and that those which are in the longest are dealt with as soon as possible. If not, many innocent people will be affected. I hope the Minister will take note of what I have said about the appeals. The number dealt with has fallen, even though apparently more staff are employed.

In the autumn the Minister may be able to indicate that progress has been made. It appears that some staff from his own Department will have to stay with the board for quite some time to clear the backlog. A person should not be asked to wait longer than about six months from the time he first makes application to the final appeal decision by An Bord Pleanála. Unfortunately that is not the case at present.

On the question of the inspectors' reports it appears from section 13 that only limited information will be made available. In England inspectors' reports are released in bound volumes and various decisions and precedents can be looked at and used as references. I hope a certain number of reports will be released here for reference purposes.

Various groups will be asked to make recommendations for nominations to the new board. We all hope that the people appointed to the board will be efficient and effective and get the job done. If they do the job, their political affiliations are not important. From the point of view of the public the important thing is that the planning appeals are going through and are being dealt with expeditiously and without undue ceremony.

People nominated to the board should have a commonsense attitude to planning, to the building industry and to development. They should be good administrators. In some parts of the public service the problem is that we get ourselves tied up in paper work, in bureaucracy and in delays. We get ourselves tied in trying to get answers and decisions. I hope that whoever is appointed, we will have an even more effective board. I do not know whether they need more power or more nudging to come up with decisions. A statutory time limit would be the ideal. The Minister may have some points to make as to why he did not go that far this time. If he has, I would like to hear them. It is important that appeals are not delayed unduly.

Section 17 strikes me as being slightly peculiar. If appeals are not in writing the board can ask the reasons for the appeal, and this could lead to a waste of time and money. In my view this section should be rejected. Some members of local authorities are concerned about section 19 which deals with orders the board may make. There is a line over which the board should not step. If the planning authority have fully discussed zoning in a certain area and have reached a decision, the board should not overturn that decision because the local authority know the local area better than the members of the board or the inspectors who may be looking at documents and they may not know the situation at first hand. Only in very exceptional circumstances should the board overturn the decision of the local authority. It appears from section 19 that the board can overturn decisions or even go further and make orders which the local authority will have to carry out.

I am glad to see vexatious appeals will be dealt with as they should, but without denying the people involved, particularly residents' associations, their rights in raising objections and expressing their point of view.

We should take another look at the operation of An Bord Pleanála. I am very concerned about the inordinate delays in the decision-making process. I do not think the fault rests with any one person; it is a combination of circumstances. I hope a code of practice and a plan of campaign are adopted by the board so that there will not be very long delays in dealing with appeals. Under section 4 (2) the Minister can direct the board to review their organisation, systems and procedures in relation to appeals and other matters. If appeals have been with the board for an inordinate length of time I hope the Minister will be able to find out why there have been such delays. Appeals should be dealt with on a first come first served basis. It should not be possible for someone to leap-frog the queue because he knows someone with influence.

The public must have confidence in the board. They should know that irrespective of whether their application is big or small, it will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. There should not be a delay longer than six months from the time the first application is made to the local authority. Nobody should have to wait ten, 12 or 14 months. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what I have said with a view to ensuring that the appeals are dealt with promptly so that if he is asked in a few months' time how many appeals are outstanding, he will not say there is still a year's work to be tacselve kled. The problem is that the number of applications has built up over a period of time and the situation has got out of hand. I hope the extra inspectors will help to reduce the number of appeals. Some of the sections in this Bill will go some way towards reducing these delays.

Mr. Molloy

I compliment Deputy Cosgrave on a fair and reasonable speech which surpasses anything we have heard from the Minister or his Minister of State. It is obvious that if Deputy Cosgrave had his way we would not see a Bill of this kind brought before the House.

Dr. Woods

I agree with Deputy Molloy. Deputy Cosgrave addressed himself to the principal problem in this area which is the delays. He recognised the fact that lack of staff is one of the reasons for the delays and he hopes the Minister will do something quickly about it. He also wants to see attention given to the work of the inspectors to help them get on with their job. In that respect he is more direct and more to the point than the Minister has been.

Deputy Flynn pointed out clearly that the Minister jumped in to attack the board but left aside a question of dealing with the very urgent matter of getting appeals heard and making the system more efficient. Deputy Cosgrave has been quite skilful in highlighting a positive point which needs to be tackled by avoiding reference to the board or its constitution. He made it clear that what is needed is attention to the work which has to be done and he hopes this problem will be tackled expeditiously. He does not think people are very concerned about the board but they are concerned about having appeals dealt with expeditiously. In putting his views here tonight, he has done a service to his side of the House because this Bill must be exposed for what it is. This is not the only Bill of this type; later I will point to another one which is equally shameful.

I would like to refer to something Deputy Shatter said earlier. I object to his remarks about the mental institution in Dundrum. I congratulate the Ceann Comhairle on asking him to withdraw the remarks, which he subsequently did following objections from various members of the House, particularly from this side. In so far as his remarks refer to the House, I object to the mention of one of our institutions for the mentally ill in this manner. I wish to put that on the record as one who has visited that institution to meet the patients who are there and those who work there. It was scandalous and I am glad that for one reason or another the remark was withdrawn.

I fully support the motion in the names of Deputies Molloy and Ahern to delete all words after "That" and substitute:

Dáil Éireann refuses a Second Reading to the Local Government Planning and Development Bill 1983 — on three specific and very clear grounds.

My own experience of An Bord Pleanála is very much at arms length. As an ordinary representative I seek an oral hearing for a constituent or groups of constituents in the normal way. I do not know any member of the board and have no association whatsoever with them. I deal with them in the normal way as a T.D., as I deal necessarily with many bodies and boards.

I am very concerned about the reason for having this Bill and for the mad rush at this time to have it passed in a hurry. One could say that the whole process of review is very necessary and desirable and is something which should be going on in the House and for this reason alone it is desirable to have a Bill which reviews the present board's position and looks at its future.

As Deputy Molloy has pointed out, we have the work of the Joint Committee on Building Land whose terms of reference include looking at the question covered in this Bill — the operation of the board — and we will have views to put forward in that respect. The logical approach would be to consider all the aspects maturely and responsibly and to proceed from there. But why this terrible rush now? We know from what our Whip has said that the Minister for the Environment and the Government Whip were not in a rush last week in relation to this Bill and suddenly everything changed at the end of the week, resulting in a mad rush to have it through before the recess. The sudden change of emphasis and direction makes me a little suspicious and makes me ask who is looking for such a change in such a great hurry?

We know from what has been said in the House and from reading the Minister's speech that there is no direct proof or direct suggestion of any malpractice on the part of the board. The Minister has not said that he is unhappy with the board or with the members in the way in which they were working and has specific evidence of this to put before the House, so it is not for any special such reason that there is this great urgency. I have to ask, is there someone behind the scenes? I have listened to various Deputies questioning the sudden change of emphasis. They wonder if it is a policy of a member of the Labour Party to appease someone in particular, or if it is a special policy of the Fine Gael Party. If it were any of these, surely the Bill would be presented in the normal way. I suspect that there is somebody with power and emphasis behind the scenes who is aggrieved at the activities of An Bord Pleanála, who perhaps has not got the anticipated results from it.

Who could have such power to change dramatically the direction of the business of the House which was clearly taking a certain line up to the recess. Who else is there? I thought about this and realised that recently a close relative of the Minister for Education, chairman of Fine Gael Centre Policy Committee, was involved in an attempt to purchase a number of small farms in County Leitrim at relatively low prices, with a view to joining them together to go into afforestation. There is no harm in that. This is a free country and anyone is free to become involved in any chosen association.

A special programme was done recently by the "Today Tonight" team on this matter. Our spokesman on Agriculture referred to it at some length in a speech which he gave on 16 June 1983. His great concern was that subsequent to this event, perhaps by coincidence — but certainly it is a coincidence which one must question — the Coalition Government have curtailed the power and authority of the Land Commission to intervene in land purchase by stopping all compulsory purchasing and by removing the necessity for notification to the Land Commission of the sale of land. One must ask if the Commissioners of the Land Commission will be the next to be axed.

Speaking about this on 16 June, our spokesman said, in relation to the Minister for Agriculture, that he seemed prepared to adopt a completely laissez-faire approach without adequate safeguards. He talked about the opening up of the land market to EEC citizens which would take place without those safeguards and that the Minister's approach would be applauded by the monied interests with the fat cheque books, the speculators who invest in land. It will be a cause of concern and frustration to the progressive farmers, the small farmers, and young people who want to get their chance on the land. He said that contact with the Donnybrook set who dominate the Fine Gael Party now leads a Minister from Waterford to describe the Fianna Fáil spokesman, who is sincerely and genuinely concerned with the future with our young progressive farmers, as a backwoods man. He said that not very long ago “Today Tonight” had a programme about the attempts of the husband of the Minister for Education to acquire a number of small farms in county Leitrim for private forest redevelopment against the opposition of both the local farmers and the Land Commission. He said that showed very clearly that the dangers of which he warned were real ones. He talked further about land policy and abhored the fact that the wings of the Land Commission were being clipped in relation to such situations and their powers reduced. This is one of the chief architects of Government policy, chairman of the Fine Gael policy, committee. I read in todays Irish Press, 29 June 1983 that he is also in conflict with an Bord Pleanála. The heading is “Husband of Minister in Planning Row”. Here Mr. Hussey is challenging the decision of the board to grant approval for the building of a house at the rere of No. 31, Temple Road, Dublin. Mr. Hussey lives in No. 29 Temple Road. Again, I do not deny him the right to challenge a decision or be upset by somebody intending to build a house in the back garden of neighbouring house. Everyone should have the right to object. However, here An Bord Pleanála had given their decision and that decision is being challenged.

Is there a relationship again between the Fine Gael think-tank policy people and the sudden decision last week to clip the wings of An Bord Pleanála? That must be looked into. That presents the Leader of the Labour Party in a somewhat different light in the context of the changes which are taking place here.

Mr. Enright

If that is the best argument that the Deputy can produce, it is a very weak one.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy will have his opportunity later to make his case.

Mr. Enright

I will be making a better one than Deputy Woods is making. His is very poor, very weak.

Dr. Woods

You can ask the very same question and the Minister can answer it subsequently, if he wishes. Is the Minister for the Environment becoming a stooge for the Taoiseach's crony?

Mr. Spring

Earlier the Deputy put it the other way around. He should make up his mind.

Dr. Woods

The classical approach, if one wants to do something like this, is to denigrate the existing board and instal one's own cronies. It is clear that that is what is happening. There is a clear attempt to denigrate a very valuable board who have been doing excellent work for the citizens. The Minister made what can be described only as a scurrilous speech.

Mr. Spring

A bit like the Deputy purporting to have a bedside manner as a doctor.

Dr. Woods

The innuendo contained in that speech is shameful and scandalous on the part of the Minister. I say that advisedly. I thank the Minister for referring to my normally cool manner but when I see such behaviour on his part, I am prepared to stand up and let him know what I think of what he is doing. I am contributing to this debate because of my personal conviction as to what is being done.

Mr. Spring

The Deputy is entitled to speak.

Dr. Woods

There has been far too much denigration of the bodies and institutions of this State from people on the other side of the House, people who made their way into Government by denigrating the institutions, financial and otherwise, of the State. They tried to convince people that the country was bankrupt but then in Government said that the situation was not quite so serious. All of this was done for political purposes.

Mr. Enright

Can the Deputy give even one quotation to substantiate what he is saying?

Dr. Woods

I am asking the Minister to cite one reason why the board or any member of it should be sacked.

Mr. Molloy

Perhaps Deputy Enright will tell us about the appointment of his friend, Mr. Brendan Toal, and of the hundreds of other appointments made by Coalition Governments.

Dr. Woods

If there has been any wrongdoing on the part of the board, the Minister should put the evidence before the House and thereby stop the malicious innuendo. Mr. Justice Pringle who was appointed chairman of the board by the Coalition in 1977 said in a press statement as published in The Irish Press of 26 May 1983 that the failure to replace key staff attached to the board was a major factor in the backlog of planning appeals. He said that the planning inspectors are the key people in the working of the board and that their numbers were cut considerably. He went on to say that the board had been pressing the Department for a long time to have the number of inspectors increased so as to be able to deal with appeals. That is the evidence of an independent member of the Judiciary who spelled out clearly what the problems are in relation to the work that Deputy Cosgrave says should be done. That is the sort of independent evidence to which the Minister should address himself. We must be thankful that members of the Judiciary are independent and therefore cannot be got at by this Government. That is one of the safeguards with which our Constitution provides us.

The Minister says that the public perception of An Bord Pleanála is bad. What does he mean by this? I deal with a great number of people in my constituency and the only problems I encounter there in regard to planning are problems of getting results one way or another. People are anxious to have quick decisions so that they know where they stand. The Minister went on in a number of other ways to repeat the allegation that the public perception of the board is bad. He said that the circumstances surrounding the appointments and especially their timing could have no other effect than seriously to detract from the public perception of the board as an independent and unbaiased tribunal. He went on to say that the objective of the board is to provide for a system which will ensure that in the future justice is seen to be done. Is the Minister suggesting that justice is not done or not seen to be done so far as the board are concerned? That is a far more important question. The Minister of the day is the one to decide whether a board are doing their job with integrity and in an honourable way. Decisions as to whether to fire a board must not be made solely on what is the perception of someone somewhere who may not be aware of the facts. For instance, we would hardly sack all the judges at the suggestion from someone that they were making wrong decisions or because in some respect there is a wrong perception of them on the part of the public. There are plenty of misconceptions about decisions made by the Judiciary. There are areas also about which one would be concerned but it is our duty as Members of this House to stand by those institutions which are so important to democracy and to explain to people that their views are misconceived. When a justice is determining a case he takes into consideration a good deal more than what one reads perhaps in the morning paper.

If the Minister is convinced that any board for which he has responsibility are acting honourably, he must, in accordance with his responsibility, defend that board. A Minister's first step is not to be in conflict with a board but to emphasise the positive. In this case we have nothing but innuendo from the Minister and a move to dispose of the chairman and members of the board.

The 1976 Act provides that the chairman of the board must be either a High Court judge or a former judge. In this context I should like to refer to a speech made by the Attorney General yesterday and which was reported in the Evening Press for that day. The Attorney General referred during that speech to the independence and the incorruptibility of the Judiciary. We may well ask if the Attorney General is in the same Government as the one of which the Minister is a Member. The Attorney General is right in his praise of the Judiciary. They are independent and as we have witnessed in practice, they have been incorruptible. They are the one group to whom we can look constitutionally for total independence irrespective of the fact that in their earlier backgrounds and careers they may have been affiliated to one party or another. The history and the practice has been, however, that once appointed to the Bench they are constitutionally independent and remain so. To their credit that is the way they have behaved and that is the way they have been seen to behave.

Here the Minister suggests there must be something wrong with the chairman, who happens to be a High Court judge. I warn the Minister that the chairman's incorruptibility and his independence as a member of the Judiciary is a very important element in such an important body. It means that people in the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party, The Workers' Party and the Fianna Fáil Party can all look to that body and say that there is a chairman who is constitutionally outside and beyond interference. That has been the history and the practice so far. Everyone can have complete confidence in the board and it is very important that people can have complete confidence in it. The kernel of the arguments of other speakers has been whom can we have at the head of the board in whom we can place complete confidence. The Act gives us a member of the Judiciary. There may be problems in getting members of the Judiciary appointed, but if there are not sufficient members from whom to appoint that problem can be tackled in another way.

For quite a number of years I studied public administration and it is accepted by all that one of the outstanding examples we have to proffer is the fact that our Judiciary have remained independent and incorruptible. There is no better source to give the Minister than his own Attorney General, who advises on question of law, on the right choices to make and the right direction to take. The Minister talked about legal advice and said legal advice could be got in other ways. Of course it could. Everybody knows that. That was a little diversionary tactic and as such it is an insult to the intelligence of people on this side of the House. Anyone can get independent legal advice. Here we are talking about someone in the position of chairman, someone independent and clearly seen to be independent, and what better person than a member of the Judiciary. When tragedies strike, such as the Stardust or the Betelgeuse, to whom do we look as totally independent to investigate those tragedies, someone whom people can see is not a pal of the Minister or of the Leader of the Opposition? We look very quickly to the Judiciary. The Minister will learn this in time. If one wants someone clearly seen to be independent a member of the Judiciary, as prescribed in the Act, is the kind of person whom people will accept. Presumably there is collective support for this Bill on the part of the Coalition and the Coalition must decide whether or not it accepts the total independence of the Judiciary. We must be quite clear about that. If we accept that independence is essential, then this is the only group who have the full support of all political parties without hesitation and without question.

The position of the Judiciary is being questioned here by the Minister. That is why I felt compelled to contribute to the debate. I am concerned about how these decisions are made, why they are made so precipitously and why this is all being done before the recess without proper time for consultation, consideration and discussion. In my view the Judiciary should continue to provide the chairman as one who is constitutionally independent. Perhaps the Minister would get the advice of his Attorney General on this matter and we might then reconsider what he proposes here.

As spokesman on Justice, I resent the insinuation that the Judiciary are not seen to be independent or above corruption. I resent the innuendo and I call on the Minister to withdraw his remark. He has shown a disregard for the Judiciary, a disregard which can only undermine the members of the Judiciary. That is something about which we must all be very deeply concerned. This is not the only case in which the Coalition Government for party political purposes has set aside a statutorily appointed board. Last year on Act was passed setting up the National Community Development Agency. It was required to get under way before the end of the year and to report. This it did. Now the Coalition are doing away with the National Community Development Agency. Their work has shamefully been stopped. At the time of the passing of the Act the Minister was empowered to add by regulation an extra two or three people. That would seem to be a reasonable provision. That was not sufficient for this Coalition Government. They did away with the whole board.

There was a budget of £2.25 million to deal with poverty and social deprivation. Poverty and social deprivation can continue so far as this Coalition Government are concerned. There are smaller signs in other areas. Perhaps the Coalition will come back later with another Bill like this one to deal with poverty and social deprivation. Where they will get their membership I do not know, because the members have gone from the various bodies. In the meantime those who would have benefited from the operations of this board are left unaided and told that there will be another board later on

That will have repercussions for the Coalition. The chairman of the board was a distinguished man who served the country well. He was the chairman of Gorta, Mr. Joe McGough. The vice-chairman is the chairman of the National Federation of Social Services Councils. There was no political association or affiliation involved but obviously the Coalition want to put in other people who have a special association to suit their own interests. A staff representative was appointed. Mr. Patrick Doherty, the director of the North Western Centre for Learning and Development in Derry, made a great contribution in this area. There was a lecturer from the Department of Social Science in UCD and also the national secretary of Muintir na Tíre. The president was invited to come but because of commitments he was uanable to attend and the national secretary took his place. There was a representative from the Departments of the Environment and Health, from community services, home helps, AnCO, Mercy Simms representing the Church of Ireland Social Services Committee, Sister Eucharia from Waterford, a voluntary social worker, Mr. Twomey from the Council for the Aged and the Society of St. Vincent De Paul. These are people involved in the area of community development.

This will mean another Bill will come before the House to frustrate the normal development which has taken place. We are not dealing with an isolated incident. It is one of a number which are taking place behind the scenes. Doubtless there will be others. The Coalition in their machiavellian way are butchering these boards in an unprecedented fashion. Ministers making appointments to boards should look for people with ability and something special to offer. It can be difficult enough to get people with good experience and ability. Very often they have other commitments and it is difficult to get them to give up their time and go to these boards. How will they feel in future when they see what the Government did with An Bord Pleanála and with the National Community Development Agency? They will be very reluctant to become involved.

There were people on boards I was involved with who came from Labour, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil backgrounds. There were also people who had no known political affiliations. The Minister should be looking for people with experience who are involved in the life of the community. How can they serve on State boards when they know that an incoming Government can let them go? The normal procedure was that members served out their full term. If they were making a special contribution and wished to remain they were usually reappointed but if there were other people who were anxious to make a contribution and a board member's term was up it was a question of reappointment. No-one really minds if they are not reappointed after they have served a term because they know that it is up to the Minister of the day to appoint someone else in their place. However, if on the change of Government they find they are thrown on the sideline what will people say? Will questions not be asked about what was wrong with them? Were they doing something odd? Anyone reading the Minister's speech would have to be very concerned about the innuendo contained in it. It will reflect adversely on the present members of the board. I am sure they are sensitive about that.

The Minister is not worried about casting a slur on these people. It is not sufficient to engage in this kind of innuendo and then back away and say you did not say anything specific about anybody. The Minister is doing a disservice not just to this board or the National Community Development Agency but to all other boards. These are only two of all the bodies which give assistance to the State and perform valuable tasks on behalf of the State. When individual members retire from the board the Minister would have an opportunity to appoint whoever he liked. We all know that every week members of boards come to the end of their term of office. Why was the Minister so greedy? I am sure that there are many vacancies before the Cabinet at present waiting to be filled. Next week there will be new ones and so on.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us when replying why he did this. His reasons so far do not satisfy me. He probably does not realise how great a disservice he is doing these boards. This is not the sole precedent. There is another in the background waiting for similar treatment which has been mentioned by his colleague — it strikes me now that he is also a Labour Party colleague — Deputy Desmond. It is being done under the direction of the Taoiseach. As I said, this is not an isolated incident. It is being accompanied by similar activities.

Debate adjourned.