I would like to get a few observations from the members of the committee on the useful discussion we had with representatives of Mayo County Council last week. I suggest we produce a report on the important issues that were dealt with at the meeting. The comments members make today will be taken into account by the clerk of the committee when the process of drafting the report begins. We will not dwell on this for too long as a delegation is due to make a presentation to the committee shortly.
Mayo County Development Plan: Discussion (Resumed).
I apologise for the fact that I was not present at the meeting in question. I heard it was an excellent and long meeting. It is great that local representatives can interact with Members of the Oireachtas on national policy. It would be remiss of the committee not to produce a short report, as suggested by the Chairman. Have we discussed this matter with representatives of the Department?
Officials from the Department were present for the first two hours of the meeting. The councillors were here for the second two hours of the meeting.
That is right. Will the clerk draw up some draft recommendations?
Yes. I have suggested that the members of the committee should make observations, if they wish, before the clerk and I put pen to paper. That would be preferable to the unilateral preparation of a first draft by us. If members are happy to let us get on with it, we will do so. I am throwing it open.
We could have a look at a first draft in private session.
It will not be a major, long or extensive report. The net point will be made in it.
It would be worthwhile to do something of that nature.
I was here for the first 45 minutes of the meeting. I am conscious that the meeting continued for a further three hours. I was detained at two meetings that followed on from each other, unfortunately. It is obvious that I was able to catch some of the meeting on the monitors. I got the overwhelming thrust of the concerns that were outlined. I would like to express my personal support for the Minister's intervention. I have done some reading on the issue. Having read some local media reports in County Mayo, I am concerned that things might not be as clear cut as the deliberations at last week's meeting might have led us to believe. Concerns have been raised in the local media in County Mayo about the zoning of unserviced lands in certain parts of Castlebar. The council, subsidised by central government, has spent millions of euro on providing sewerage, water and road improvements in other areas of the town which have not been zoned for intensive development. The issue is not as clear cut as some members have suggested. On balance, I support the Minister's intervention in this regard.
I remain concerned about the significant representation on the council of individuals whose main business is the buying and selling of lands. The e-mail address provided for one member of the county council on the council's website is based at an auctioneering firm. There needs to be a much clearer distinction between one's day-to-day job and one's obligations and duties as an elected representative. There should be a much clearer line of division between one's operations in the buying and selling of land and one's duty to represent the public interest when drawing up a county development plan. I am not convinced, on the basis of my reading of articles in the Mayo media and my examination of the website of Mayo County Council, that the necessary distinction is sufficiently clear in County Mayo at the present time.
I cannot allow that to pass. I cannot allow Deputy Cuffe to get away with that. The 31 members of Mayo County Council were duly elected by the people of that county to represent the public to the best of their abilities. They did that, in conjunction with the council's officials, when they drew up the plan under discussion. That is one of the council's reserved functions under the law. Deputy Cuffe wants to cloud the issue by introducing extraneous details of the occupation or profession of an individual councillor to the debate. If he has allegations to make about these matters, the law of the land, in the form of the corruption Acts, will be well able to cope with that. Enough spurious arguments have been spewed out over recent years. Tribunals have been established to deal with such matters. If there are accusations to be made, they should not be confused with the drawing up of a development plan at local level. I ask Deputy Cuffe to withdraw his remarks in the absence of any firm indication to the contrary.
Does the Deputy wish to respond?
I am happy to let my the remarks stand on the record. I have publicly stated my concerns about the significant number of councillors throughout the country who are involved in the buying, selling and trading of land. I share the concerns raised in the Mayo Echo regarding some of the changes made in the manager’s draft of the county development plan. I am happy to let my remarks stay on the record.
While I missed last week's meeting, I would have liked to have attended as I have a particular interest in the issue discussed. I have a problem with the views expressed by Deputy Cuffe. Is he suggesting that councillors should be paid as professional, full-time employees? Given that their job is part-time, they need to have other employment or interests. From my experience as a councillor, local representatives have an important input into the workings of councils. I disagree with Deputy Cuffe's suggestion that it is wrong for an auctioneer, solicitor or member of another profession to be involved in council business. Much of the business done by councils involves the type of activity engaged in by such professionals. The matters the Deputy has raised have not come to my attention previously.
I would caution against taking a report one reads in a newspaper as factual or proven. As Deputy Cuffe will be aware, if any member of a local authority has any interest in an issue under discussion in a council chamber, he or she must absent themselves from the meeting when a vote is being taken on the matter. I am not saying that this takes place as I do not know what is the position. However, Deputy Cuffe has cast aspersions on all members of Mayo County Council by indicating that he is not happy about the occupations of some of the representatives on Mayo County Council. Safeguards are in place but anyone may get involved in local authorities. If one is making a decision on a matter relevant to one's business or with which one has any connection, one must leave the meeting.
Deputy Cuffe should withdraw the remarks he made. The record of the joint committee is one of doing its work in a constructive rather than politically partisan manner. I am sorry the Deputy introduced this element to the discussion. His contribution is akin to arguing that he, as an architect, acted corruptly in the discharge of his duties while a member of Dublin City Council. Given that no one would make that suggestion, Deputy Cuffe should not cast aspersions on other professions, whether in County Mayo or elsewhere.
As a member of Dublin City Council, I withdrew from meetings when a perception of a conflict of interest arose. I have no doubt members of Mayo County Council who find themselves in a similar position do likewise.
I welcome the Deputy's clarification. He has not cast aspersions.
Two issues arise in this regard. The first is the code of ethics governing all members of local authorities and Members of the Oireachtas, while the second is the position pertaining in County Mayo. When this issue was first raised here about two months ago, the volume of correspondence members received called to mind the Dead Sea scrolls. It would have been easier to measure the correspondence, rather than read it such was its quantity.
Having listened to the discussion on the matter, I fail to see what conclusions the joint committee could reach other than to try to ascertain if a compromise can be reached between all parties concerned, namely, the local authority members, the executive of Mayo County Council and the Department. I am not sure if this will be possible.
God knows I have given the joint committee enough work to do and i do not intend to give it more for a while. However, a particular difficulty arises with regard to members of local authorities absenting themselves from meetings in the event that matters in which they have an interest are debated in the council chamber. If a local authority member becomes a beneficiary of a decision to which he or she was party at a later date, in other words, if the council promotes a particular development in which the councillor in question becomes involved subsequent to a decision being made, disclosure is not required and an ethical question does not arise. This problem was exposed by a "Prime Time" report about 12 months which showed that there is no ex post facto or retrospective accountability in cases where a local authority member benefits from a decision months or years after it is made. While this issue is not specifically related to Mayo County Council, it is a local authority practice which requires further examination.
With due respect to Deputy Lynch, I understand from his remarks that if a decision is taken by a local authority on land rezoning or similar issue, a councillor cannot subsequently become involved in any projects arising from that decision.
No, councillors may do so without making any disclosure.
The Deputy has given me to understand that councillors should not get involved in such projects.
The question of whether local authority members get involved in such projects is not the issue. The issue is one of disclosure.
I suggest we invite departmental officials to explain in detail to the joint committee who may vote in certain decisions, who should not vote and when councillors should leave a meeting. This appears to be a grey area.
People are made aware of these matters when they sign up to become a councillor.
It used to annoy me that councillors who were involved in negotiations on development plans would not declare an interest until a vote was taken.
Surely, it is acceptable for a councillor to declare an interest and leave a meeting when a vote is taken. Why should a councillor who has an interest in a project two years after a decision is taken be required to declare an interest?
The answer is simple. A member of a council who is involved in property related business, whether as an auctioneer, estate agent or builder, and clears a development plan or makes a rezoning decision may not have a direct connection to the matter being decided. However, 12 or 18 months later that person may be engaged as an estate agent for the disposal of the properties in question. While they are directly tied to the decision they made, there is no legal requirement to disclose this fact afterwards.
It is part of their business
That means they are retrospective beneficiaries of a decision they have made. In such circumstances, there is no accountability and their benefit from the decision is not recorded. I am not alleging that this practice is illegal — members can decide that for themselves — but it should be tracked.
My reading of the Deputy's remarks is that if a councillor sits in on a meeting at which a decision is made, he cannot quote for business arising from that decision two years later.
He should make disclosure in that case.
Obviously, if he is an agent for the business, an auctioneer or whatever, he will advertise it.
I was an auctioneer until I surrendered my licence recently and took part in development plans for eight years. I never compromised myself or the county council and always worked in the public interest, which is what all councillors do. Councillors of all parties work for the common good and interests of those they serve. I have never seen any councillor seek to benefit from a decision in which he or she was involved. If councillors intended to benefit from something, they declared an interest.
Regarding the Chairman's request for comments on the previous meeting, it was an excellent, informative meeting from which I learned a great deal and I believe our guests will also learn a great deal from it. Perhaps the Chairman will allow us to read the transcripts again to refresh our minds before he puts pen to paper. I ask him to wait until the next meeting to allow members time to produce opinions and ideas. I should have downloaded a copy of the transcripts before attending today. I did not do that but I would like to have an opportunity to do so. It would be useful if we could get the written submissions in advance or make submissions at the next meeting.
We will move on and keep that item on the agenda for the next meeting. The committee has to take note of the fact that 75 councils, including those represented by the members present, were able to draw up plans within the national guidelines. Mayo drew up a plan that the Minister concluded did not come within the national guidelines and that is the situation we must consider. It is possible that Mayo was out of step with the rest of us but that was not the impression given at the meeting. We all accept the rights of county councils but if we say the Mayo plan was correct, every one of us individually is admitting our own plans were wrong because the Mayo plan is different to the plans of everyone else. It may be the case that everyone else is wrong and Mayo is right. That may be hard to accept.
Sligo has similar problems to Mayo and its plan did not fall foul of the Department. If Mayo had adopted the Sligo approach the issue would not have arisen. Mayo has done something in its plan that no other county has done. I was at the meeting to the end and it was only when we teased it out that it became apparent that its plan was different to other councils.
I also attended the meeting to the end. I thought it was up to each county to decide on its own plan.
According to the legislation passed by the Oireachtas the Minister has power of direction. That is made clear in the legislation. We can comment on how that power is used. It is an abrupt, clumsy approach.
There is a slight difference between the Sligo plan and the Mayo plan in the sense that the Sligo plan provides that an area under urban influence, namely an area for which there are many planning applications, is restricted to the people who live in that area. That is not in the Mayo plan.
That is the basic problem with the Mayo plan in that no account was taken of those type of issues. Everyone else had to address them in their own counties, including every county that is represented by the committee members. However, Mayo councillors, as is their democratic right, chose to take a different approach. We must be careful in drawing up our report.
I was one of those who attended most of the debate. It was a welcome interaction for us as members of an Oireachtas committee to hear the concerns of councillors. We also heard from the officials prior to that.
I took exception to the remark made by Deputy Cuffe. It was an unnecessary charge against councillors. I hoped he would withdraw it but that is beside the point.
The nub of the issue is the Mayo county development plan. The Chairman is correct that every development plan is unique. The fundamental question is whether councillors have a reserved function in drawing up a development plan. If they do not and if, as the Chairman indicated, the Minister has the ultimate say, we must tell councillors that because they are under the illusion that it is their function to draw up a county development plan. We need to come clean on that. I would like to see clarity emerge from our report
I felt the councillors were disappointed that there was no consultation——
That is correct.
——with the Department or the Minister when he decided to intervene. If there had been communication perhaps some agreement could have been reached. That was the main disappointment of the councillors and we should reflect that in the report.
That is agreed. We will move on. We will leave the matter for a week and then seek to compile a draft report. The next item on the agenda is the national homelessness strategy. I will suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to arrive.
Sitting suspended at 4.34 p.m. and resumed at 4.35 p.m.