Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 4 November 2004
3 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on any conflict of interest which would inhibit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority from making balanced planning decisions in the Docklands area. [27650/04]
View answerThe executive board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority comprises a chairperson and seven ordinary directors, with business, management, public sector, financial, architectural and engineering backgrounds. Accordingly, the board has been assigned to bring a wide range of experience to bear in directing the performance by the authority of the functions assigned to it under relevant legislation.
It inevitably arises for the above that entities with which board members are associated may have legitimate business interests in the docklands area. The authority has adopted a formal code of conduct for its board and employees, which requires disclosure of interests by board members and specifies procedures to be followed in the event of a conflict of interests. I consider that observance of this code should allow the DDDA executive board to benefit from the relevant knowledge and expertise of persons with the backgrounds outlined above, while avoiding material conflicts of interest.
I wish to make a further point to the Deputy. It is difficult in a relatively small city to select people with the talent and the time and who are willing to give service to the public through these boards.
This executive board is effectively the planning authority for the docklands area. Some of the board members, including the chairman, are associated with Anglo-Irish Bank, which is now funding the largest development in the whole north docklands, a development to which they, as board members, granted the planning permission in the first place. The Minister referred to a code of conduct in his reply. What course of action will the board's code of conduct provide when these same developers make new planning applications and come to the docklands board looking for planning permission? Will members associated with Anglo-Irish Bank, including the chairman, simply absent themselves and if so, how could the board of the DDDA realistically fulfil its functions as planning authority in those circumstances? On the other hand, if they do not absent themselves, there must surely be a question of a conflict of interest when they are making a decision on future planning applications.
How are local community interests protected in this set up? Is it any wonder a local residents' leader expressed serious concerns regarding the Spencer Dock development, where planning permission was granted in contravention of the docklands own master plan while the views of the community representatives on the docklands' council were ignored? Following that——
A question, please, Deputy.
I am concluding the question, Cheann Comhairle. The bank with which some board members are associated funds the Spencer Dock development and the chairman of the authority accepts a position on the board of that bank. The Minister must surely agree that a very serious conflict of interest exists somewhere. I ask the Minister whether it is time to review the membership of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.
I thank the Deputy for those questions. I reiterate the point that in a relatively small city in European terms, it is very difficult to find people willing to——
I have specific questions.
I listened with courtesy to the Deputy and I ask him to do the same. I will answer the specific points raised by the Deputy. The board operates as a planning authority and the point I made is none the less valid in that regard because the membership of the board is drawn from a relatively narrow pool. Planning decisions are taken by the executive board of the DDDA. They have regard to the assessment and to the recommendations of the professional staff. As with all other planning issues, those are recommendations. Possible conflicts of interest will inevitably arise from time to time but if the Deputy is suggesting that they have behaved with impropriety, then that is a very serious allegation.
I asked specific questions. I am not making any suggestions. It is wrong and irresponsible of the Minister——
Allow the Minister without interruption.
The Chair should protect me. I asked a specific question based on fact.
The Chair has no control over the answers to questions.
I am simply making the point to the Deputy that if he has some suggestion to make that there is impropriety, he should give me the details.
It would be helpful if the Minister answered the questions I asked him.
Given the nature of the activity of the DDDA, and the nature of the board, there will inevitably be areas of overlap but to suggest that is the same thing as wrongdoing is wrong.
I have not mentioned the word "wrongdoing".
Elsewhere the Deputy has suggested that people should be removed. There is a code of conduct which is operational and it is the same code of conduct as operates in other areas of the public service. On appointment, members are expected to furnish details which has been done. When an item for discussion creates a conflict, that may be discussed. The code of conduct is published. In so far as I have any information, there is nothing to say it has been breached.
That is very helpful.
I take the points made by the Deputy seriously. If he wishes, I will write to him in detail.
The Minister will not answer the questions I have asked.
Allow the Minister of State to answer Question No. 4.
