I do not think there is anything more I can add to what I have already said. The question as to whether or not the High Court could supply a judge is not a matter appropriate to be dealt with here at all. The position is that we are providing for a serving judge or an ex-judge to be chairman. If the occasion arises in which a serving judge is not available, then I am quite sure a judge can be appointed. I do not think it is necessary to go any further at this stage.
Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:—
In page 3, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following section before section 4:
"4.—(1) The chairman of the Board shall be either—
(a) such judge of the High Court as is for the time being nominated with his consent by the Government, or
(b) a person who is a former judge of the High Court and is appointed by the Government.
(2) If immediately before the exercise by the Government of a power under subsection (1) of this section there is in force a nomination under that subsection, then on the exercise the nomination shall cease to have effect.
(3) A judge of the High Court who is chairman of the Board shall on ceasing to be a judge of the High Court also cease to be chairman of the Board.
(4) A person who ceases to be chairman of the Board by virtue of subsection (3) of this section may be appointed under subsection (1) of this section.".
—(Minister for Local Government)
This will be a full-time judge.
That will depend on how much time is required for the job. If a full-time judge is required then a full-time appointment will naturally be made.
The Bill will obviously take some time before it passes into law and we will accept the amendment if the Minister will now give us an indication that he will make some inquiries from the Judiciary to find out what the possibilities are of a High Court judge accepting the position of chairman. Some approach should be made.
I am sorry. Really I am not being awkward about this but it would be ridiculous to suggest that, before the Bill becomes law, we should ask a judge if he will do something it will be his duty to do. It is quite possible judges may not like doing this but, as I said earlier, I am quite sure judges do a great many things they do not like doing.
Purely judicial work.
This will be part of judicial work.
It will not.
If this becomes the law it will be laid down that a High Court judge or an ex-High Court judge will be chairman and it will therefore be part of his job to do this work. We could argue about this all night, but argument will not alter the situation. If the eventuality arises in which an extra judge is needed we will have him appointed and, if necessary, appoint him to do the job. It may not be necessary. It may not be necessary to have a judge full-time for this work but, if one is required, then provision will have to be made. We are labouring something which is customary course.
But this is a board. It is not a court. A judge appointed by the Government to do court work would have the option of refusing to be chairman of the board. He could put forward the very good and valid reason that he was not a qualified planner and, therefore, was not capable of being chairman of a planning board which this is.
Since we are all agreed that the chairman of the planning board should be a judge, there is a lot to be said for the Minister suggesting to the Government, when the time comes, that a judge should be appointed specifically for the purpose of chairing the board. He should be selected after the Government have made inquiries into his qualifications. He will be a legal person which is a very necessary qualification for somebody who will study and adjudicate on planning appeal decisions. As well as that, it is desirable that he should have some planning experience.
An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle
The Deputy seems to be going outside the terms of either of the amendments.
A judge must be appointed to the board. I am suggesting that it should be a full-time appointment and made specifically for that purpose by the government. In the selection of the judge who is to be chairman of the board, regard should be had to two things. It is automatic that he will be a legal person, but regard should also be had to whether he has any planning qualifications.
Neither of the amendments mentions this.
The Deputy seems to be widening the scope of the amendments.
I am glad the Minister has clarified the position. If for some reason or a number of reasons an existing judge cannot do the job or refuses to do the job, the Minister has agreed, and rightly so, that a special judge can be appointed to do the job. Being specially appointed, he will have a full-time job. It is desirable that he should have the qualifications which I have suggested.
We seem to be going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Apparently the Opposition are prepared to accept the appointment of a judge or an ex-judge. It is then suggested that we should ask the existing judges now if any of them would be prepared——
No.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. They want to know if there have been consultations. The suggestion is that a judge may not take the job. Deputy Cunningham seems to be in some doubt about being able to get a judge with legal knowledge.
No.
He then suggested that he should have planning knowledge. Let us be reasonable. We will not get a judge who will be an expert on planning. A judge or an ex-judge who is asked to do the job will be considered suitable. Although I greatly doubt it, it is possible that none of the judges will want to do it. I would be amazed if any judge who was asked to do it refused. If he does refuse, since it will then be in an Act of Parliament, the onus will be on the Government to appoint a judge who will do it. Having reached that stage, for the life of me I cannot see what the argument is about. We ask an existing judge or an ex-judge and, if an existing judge or ex-judge will not accept, it will be necessary to appoint somebody to do the job. Where do we go? What is the difficulty?
I do not think we have got across to the Minister yet that this is a significantly and radically different type of job. The only word I can use in this connection is that it is an executive type of job. All the extra-curricular work judges have been asked to do was more or less an extension of their own judicial work. They presided over some commission, or some board of inquiry, or something of that nature. Here they will be dealing with commercial considerations. It is an executive type job. It will be the same executive type of job as the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister was doing before. It is totally different from the ordinary judicial functions which a judge carries out.
It is perfectly legitimate for us on this side of the House to say we will not get a retired judge. As I understand it, the Minister is in agreement with us that it would be infinitely preferable to get a serving judge and that this is not the sort of task which could be undertaken by a man who has retired. There may be an exceptional situation from time to time in which we will have to go to the retired ranks to get somebody, but in the normal way we will be dealing with serving judges.
All we are saying to the Minister is this: between now and the time this Bill leaves the Dáil or Seanad, would it not be wise to consult with the President of the High Court and say: "This situation will arise very shortly. Are you in a position to supply a judge who is not fully occupied and who will be able to carry out this task? If you are not, we will have to appoint an additional judge." If the President of the High Court says: "I have no judge who can take on this task. They are all fully occupied with the pressure of work in the courts at the moment. I will not be able to make a judge available", the Minister can put down an amendment and provide in this Bill for the appointment of an additional judge if that is necessary.
We are not looking a gift horse in the mouth. We appreciate that the Minister has met us with this amendment. We acknowledge that and we accept that he has been resonable in agreeing to appoint a judge to this post. We are pressing him to go a little further and to see a little ahead and to make provision for a situation in which a judge of the High Court will not be readily or immediately available for this new and onerous type of task which no judge has undertaken so far. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the Minister to have these consultations either with the President of the High Court or with his colleague the Minister for Justice. If it is apparent that there will be a need for an additional judge, let us know that and let us deal with it now.
We appear to be trying to institute short-cuts now which might be desirable but which are not possible. This is the start of Committee Stage. When we know what is to be the law we will make the necessary arrangements. It does not have to be written into the Bill and it is not possible to have a section in this Bill which will allow for the appointment of a judge.
Of course it is.
It is not. It would not come within the Long Title of the Bill.
Sorry.
It is not a function of the Minister for Local Government.
You would have to amend the Long Title.
You would and even that would not allow it. It is a function of the Department of Justice, not the Department of Local Government. We are bandying words. What we have at the moment meets the requirements of the Opposition and is what we think should be done. I cannot see why there is all this talk about consultation. Before the new planning board is set up, of course arrangements will have to be made to have somebody who will act as chairman. Otherwise there would not be any point in passing the Bill through the House. But that is a long way off and it would be a little ludicrous to go now to the President of the High Court and say: "We have a planning Bill which is at the start of Committee Stage and we want to know is there any judge who would be prepared to take on the job as chairman." We have yet to define what he will be taking on. I suggest that the reasonable way is to accept. Do not look a gift horse in the month. What has been put in can be accepted by everybody in the House with the exception of Deputy Callanan and one or two others. Therefore, I suggest we go ahead.
We are not being unreasonable when we ask the Minister to consider our suggestion, and not to make a hard and fast decision now. If he tells us he will do this we will move on to the next amendment.
I want to tell the Minister that in the history of this country it was the intelligent minority which kept the national spirit alive here.
Will the Minister consider our point?
I will consider it before we come to Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
SECTION 4.
As amendment No. 6 is consequential, amendments No. 4 and 6 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In subsection (1), page 3, line 35, to insert "in the opinion of the Board" after "may".
Amendments No. 4 and 6 are simply drafting amendments. Therefore, I ask the House to accept them.
This means that the Minister is changing the words "in the opinion of the Board" in one place in the section to another.
Yes. The effect of the amendment is to move the phrase "in the opinion of the board" to the first line of subsection (1). This is primarily a drafting change to make clear that the board will have some discretion with regard to the extent to which it will be necessary for them to keep themselves informed of policy and objectives. This may help to meet the view expressed by Deputy Molloy on Second Stage.
This is reasonable and improves the drafting of the section. The combined effect of amendments Nos. 4 and 6 is simply to take the words "in the opinion of the Board" from where they are at present and put them after "may" in the first line of section 4. That makes the meaning much more precise.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5.
In subsection (1), page 3, line 37 and page 4, line 1, to delete "and any other body which is a public authority" and substitute "or any public authority or any other body".
In my view this amendment has great significance. I ask the Minister, therefore, to accept it. It is crucial to the successful operation of the measure and to the view the public will take of the board in its deliberations in the future. If our amendment is not accepted, under this section the board are bound to keep themselves informed of the policies and objectives for the time being of the Minister for Local Government, planning authorities and any other body which is a public authority whose functions in the opinion of the board may have a bearing on proper planning and development. This provision, limited as it is to policies of the Minister, planning authorities or public authorities, is we feel weighted against such opinions as might properly be taken into account by the board such as the opinions of private individuals or groups who concern themselves with proper planning and development, either generally or in particular areas. It appears that the constant flow of information with regard to policies and objectives of the Minister and public authorities will condition, of necessity, the minds of the board in their deliberations so that they might be over-influenced by what might be described as the official view.
The amendment is to delete the words "and any other body which is a public authority" where these appear on page 3, line 37 and substitute "or any public authority or any other body". The board in its deliberations should not be confined soley to considering the official views. There are many concerned citizens in the community who have in the past displayed a great willingness to make a contribution to the betterment of their local environment. They were represented at appeals in the past to planning authorities on matters of importance, large and small. If this board, which will be completely removed from the political field, is confined to the consideration of the views of those persons named in section 4, it will present a very stifled view of community thinking on planning and development.
This danger did not exist under the 1963 Act where the Minister was responsible for making final decisions on appeals. The Minister is a political figure involved with the community and is very much aware of the feelings of the people. Up to now he had the power when deciding appeals to take all relevant factors into consideration. This board will not be in such a happy position. They will not be in close touch with the feelings and views of the community. They will be removed from the ordinary stream of life. They should be allowed to take into consideration views other than the official view.
This is one amendment which I could not accept. I do not think Deputy Molloy has properly understood what he is suggesting. The purpose of section 4 is to give a guidance to the board as to the context in which they should approach their task in deciding planning appeals. We cannot have a situation where the board would be operating generally in a manner which would frustrate the policies and objectives of public authorities. Public authorities are charged with the responsibility for housing, roads, transport, tourism, harbours, airports, conservation and so on. It is not the function of the board to make policy in these matters but to decide how far individual development proposals are compatible with, or prejudicial to, public policy and objectives. Where there is no objective of this kind permission will normally be forthcoming provided the proposals conform to proper standards of design, layout, drainage and so forth.
To introduce bodies other than public authorities is to confuse the issue. The board are not concerned in the same way with the policies and objectives of other bodies. It will be open to them, as it is at present, to put forward the views in relation to particular development proposals and these views will, of course, be considered by the board in the same way as they are considered by the Minister when he is making appeal decisions. Therefore, I believe the amendment should be withdrawn because if what Deputy Molloy is suggesting——
I should like the Minister to put all that in his own words.
I have a habit which I would recommend to Deputy Haughey: I have got into a nasty habit of writing my own scripts.
I am not being facetious, but I would like to hear the Minister's own interpretation of what he said.
Deputy Molloy is suggesting that "any other body" the local football club, the local fishing club development association or Children of Mary, it does not matter who they are, be included. Where does one draw the line? Jehovah Witnesses would be another body also and they would be all entitled to make representations if Deputy Molloy's amendment is accepted. We want to ensure that this will only apply to a public authority, the only people entitled to do this. The elected representatives are there to do this type of job and nobody else. We would be as well to scrap the Bill as it is now because it would be completely unworkable if everybody was allowed to come in as Deputy Molloy suggests.
Section 4 suggests that the board will keep themselves informed of ministerial policies and policies of statutory bodies such as county councils but it does not say that the board must carry out the wishes of the Minister. I hope this board will be an independent body and not subject to the political wishes of the Minister, or the policies of a particular party in Government.
They will be independent.
What the Minister says makes me suspicious about this. As an independent body such a board can listen to the policies of the Minister and tell him he is talking through his hat. They may be dismissed for doing so but they can do that.
They may not be dismissed for doing that. There is nothing in the provisions so far to that effect unless the Deputy succeeds in bringing something in.
Everybody is out of step all along except the Minister. He is the possessor of all wisdom and knowledge. Any board will take cognisance of governmental and ministerial policies, but I hope not of ministerial directions. Local authorities can make their wishes known to such a board and make suggestions on planning matters. The Minister is putting the board in a very isolated position. Previous Ministers, and the present occupier of the office, have taken cognisance of advice on planning matters from An Taisce and the Department of Lands who have a special section dealing with conservation and preservation.
In my view this section is very narrow. Deputy Molloy's amendment is wide enough to take in the Department of Lands who are interested in policies on planning. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries are also interested in planning. I am supporting the amendment of Deputy Molloy because it is necessary and is good. It takes away from the board the stigma which the Minister, in his section, is trying to attach to them. The Minister is trying to label the board as a body who must listen to him, the Government, or the local authorities. This is wrong. Section 4, as at present drafted, hamstrings the board from the start.
The Minister should envisage a situation, as the amendment does, where responsible and recognised bodies such as the Department of Lands, An Taisce, the ICA and Bord Fáilte may wish to put forward suggestions on planning. I know it is the Minister's habit, and method, to make anything that comes from this side of the House sound ridiculous. To bring in the Children of Mary sounds good in the Minister's ears but I do not believe it cuts any ice from the logical point of view.
Why mention it then?
There are other bodies, apart from those to which the Minister is trying to confine this Bill, whose policies I would listen to. I did listen to the policies of such bodies when I was dealing with planning and I was glad to receive their advice. In some cases I accepted their advice. Deputy Molloy is trying to bring the board into the position which the Minister holds of deciding planning appeals in accordance with the policy. Any Minister would be wise to go easy on dictation in this respect. I accept that there are broad principles of Government policy with which such a board must familiarise themselves. However, the Minister should not put the board in a different category to that which the Minister occupied up to now.
The House agrees that it is preferable that such a board should deal with planning appeals rather than the Minister for Local Government, but, having agreed to that, that situation is spoiled unless Deputy Molloy's amendment is accepted. The board the Minister proposes to establish should not be in an inferior position to the Minister or his predecessors. This board should be able to avail of the advice of the bodies I have mentioned. If Deputy Molloy's amendment is not accepted this board will be surrounded by red tape from the start.
The Deputy has slightly misunderstood me.
As far as the Minister is concerned the Members on this side of the House always misunderstand everything he says.
If Deputy Cunningham grew up for a few moments and behaved like an adult we would get somewhere. It is laid down in the Bill that the board must know the policies of the Government on planning and that they must be aware of the plan for any particular area. This board must take cognisance of that. Nobody is trying to stop them listening to anybody they wish to listen to but they must know the general policy and the plan for a county or area. It is laid down in the Bill that they must take cognisance of these things.
The Bill states "may".
Look here——
I am looking.
The section states that the board "shall".
It is "the Board shall". I am not trying to be awkward. We must deal with it in a rational way and even Deputy Cunningham will accept that there is nothing wrong with what is laid down in the section. We cannot have contradictory proposals in regard to two different types of body. We must try to reconcile two opposing things.
I must confess I am not happy with the section as it stands. Whether we accept Deputy Molloy's amendment or not. We must make some improvement along the lines he suggests. We are dealing in this section with instructions to the board. The section will lay down and make it mandatory on the board that they should inform themselves on certain matters. It is easy to be wise after the event, and I am looking at the section now and I am not so sure we were wise to accept the Minister's proposal to insert "in the opinion of the board" after "may" in the first line. We were quite right to take those words out of where they occurred after "function". The section reads much better now with those words out of where they were originally interpolated.
The section now reads much better when it reads: "which is a public authority whose functions have or may have", not whether in the opinion of the board they have or may have. It is a question of fact. I do not think the opinion of the board enters into that matter and we were quite right in our treatment of that. However, I am not so sure, looking at the section as it now reads, that we were wise to put the words into the first line of section 1. The section now reads:
The board shall, so far as may in the opinion of the board be necessary for the performance of its functions...
That leaves the situation very open and, as Deputy Cunningham was indicating, the interpolation of those words in the first line, after "may" takes from the strength of the word "shall". That is an aspect of the section to which I would direct the attention of the Minister because of the amendment we have just made to the section. We are concerned here with making it obligatory on this new board to take into account certain policies and to keep themselves informed of the policies and objectives —I think the Minister was talking about proposals——
Did I say proposals?
The Minister did. All we are concerned with here is which are the bodies whose policies and objectives this new board must inform themselves of. We are concerned with what type of body we are to make it mandatory on the new planning body to inform themselves of their policies. We are dealing with something of significance and substance. This Bill will involve the new board in a certain amount of reading, of research, keeping themselves up-to-date with a wide variety of documents and publications. As the section stands, the board will be concerned with the Minister's policies and objectives, the policies and objectives of all the planning authorities in the country. Therefore, at this stage we are only concerned with which other bodies, outside those, it will be mandatory on this new planning authority to concern themselves about.
The Minister's approach to this problem is very simple. He has said that in addition to the Minister for Local Government and the planning authorities the board will have to inform themselves of the policies and objectives of
any Minister of State not being the Minister, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, the Irish Land Commission, a harbour authority within the meaning of section 2 of the Harbours Act, 1946, and any other body established by or under statute which is for the time being declared, by regulation made by the Minister, to be a public authority for the purpose of this section.
That is the Minister's approach. I think that can be restrictive. The Minister can only declare a body established under statute to be a public body. The Minister was inclined to talk in terms of elected bodies. Under the section as it stands, he can declare any body established under statute to be a public authority. It does not have to be an elected body. I do not think there is anything to be lost by adopting Deputy Molloy's argument and permitting himself to declare anybody, whether established under statute or not, to be a public body. If he is prepared to make this new body to inform themselves of the policies and objectives of any body which he by order declares to be a public authority, why restrict it to a body established under statute? As the situation develops, he might think it would be very useful if he by order were to make it mandatory on the new board to inform themselves of the policies and objectives of some bodies not established under statute. Deputy Molloy comes at that in a different way and if the Minister is not prepared to accept Deputy Molloy's amendment—I think he should—then he should be prepared to delete the words "by or under statute".
Which kind of body is the Deputy thinking of?
I do not know if An Taisce have been established under statute.
No.
It might strike the Minister as being desirable some day to make the new planning authority inform themselves fully of the policies and objectives of An Taisce. That is the sort of body I have in mind. We are not talking of the Children of Mary, or bodies like that. An Taisce are the sort of body Deputy Molloy and I have in mind. We are prepared to limit it. The Minister, in limiting it, is giving himself the right to ask, by order, bodies which are established under statute. I think he could go that bit further and give himself authority to declare some important body, not necessarily established by statute.
I do not want to be taken as being derogatory about An Taisce or anything else but An Taisce are a private body set up under the Companies Act. They can have their own rules. The Department of Local Government some years ago said they were a body which could be consulted by the planning authorities and, as such, they have been offering an opinion.
Possibly what I should have done at the start—and which might have saved a lot of this discussion—is to read the section. Some of the people who have been talking here have not read section 4. Section 4 (1) says:
The Board shall, so far as may be necessary for the performance of its functions, keep itself informed of the policies and objectives for the time being of the Minister, planning authorities and any other body which is a public authority whose functions in the opinion of the Board have, or may have, a bearing on the proper planning and development (including the preservation and development of amenities) of cities, towns or other areas, whether urban or rural.
Amendments to that were accepted.
I want to refer now particularly to subsection (2) of section 4 which says:
In this section "public authority" means any Minister of State not being the Minister, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, the Irish Land Commission, a harbour authority within the meaning of section 2 of the Harbours Act, 1946, and any other body established by or under statute which is for the time being declared, by regulation made by the Minister, to be a public authority for the purpose of this section.
Therefore, to suggest that the Land Commission or anybody associated with it or that the Department of Lands could not be included here, as Deputy Cunningham was suggesting——
We withdrew that. We are not making that point.
I am glad that that has been clarified. What Deputy Haughey had been saying was that in addition to those, several other bodies which might be declared to be public bodies by the Minister might be included. But, as it stands—and, again, let me refer to my notes because, despite objections to them——
I do not mind them at all but I would prefer the Minister's own words.
Subsection (1) requires that the board keep themselves informed of the policies and objectives of the Minister, planning authorities and certain other bodies in so far as may be necessary for the performance of their functions. Those other bodies are defined in subsection (2). It will be for the board to decide how far and to what extent they will keep themselves generally informed to comply with this statutory requirement but will probably invite Departments and so on to provide a synopsis of present policies and objectives and to notify changes as they occur. The bodies concerned will also be able to put forward views in relation to appeals and be represented at oral hearings, as has been done in the past. In fact, I think everything that has been done is still open. What I do not want to do, and I am sure Deputy Molloy did not intend it this way, I am sure he would agree, as would Deputy Haughey and Deputy Cunningham also, that it could be considered that if we simply said: "any other bodies"——
No, it must be made by order.
That is not in the amendment. The amendment before the House says "any other body", which would mean that anybody, any group at all, would be entitled to be considered. It could create a position which would make the new Act unworkable. It is as simple as that.
There is one point which the Minister is missing. I suggest that he read section 4 (1) again and place some emphasis on the words "whose functions...have, or may have, a bearing on the proper planning and development...of cities, towns or other areas, whether urban or rural". All I am suggesting is that if, in the opinion of the board there are bodies whose functions have, or may have, a bearing on the proper planning and development of towns, cities and other areas, this should be taken into account by the board.
Section 4 is quite an important section. It gives direction to the board about the authorities of whose policies they must inform themselves; the views with which they must acquaint themselves and it confines those views to public authorities. There are views in this country other than those of public authorities, views which are very representative of the community. Often the thinking of public authorities is stifled and not always the most imaginative. To deny the board the right to take those other views into consideration is wrong.
We are not denying them the right. They are entitled to take them into consideration but we are not saying that they must do so.
All that is written down here is that:
The Board shall, so far as may be necessary for the performance of its functions, keep itself informed of the policies and objectives
of those public authorities, provided the board feels that the functions of those authorities have a bearing on planning and development. But it shall keep itself informed only of the official view. All we are asking is that it be extended to include "and any other body" which, in the opinion of the board, has functions which have, or may have, a bearing on proper planning and development.
What we are suggesting is not anything that will greatly upset the section because the ultimate decider as to whether or not their views should be taken into consideration will be the board. But they cannot take those views into consideration, or are not obliged to as the section stands. I cannot see why the Minister sees any great difficulty in accepting the amendment, in allowing those other bodies to have their views taken into account also by the board in their consideration of planning and development matters. It is stifling and restritive to confine those views to the official view and to the bodies outlined here.
I feel acceptance of this amendment would be welcomed by the community as an indication that we are not having foisted upon us a board which will place themselves aloof and remote from the community once they come into operation. If they have in the Bill under which they are set up, provisions which require them to acquaint themselves with the views of bodies other than the official view, then the people will look upon this board in a more human light.
Again, there must be a slight mistake here because I am sure Deputy Molloy will understand that there is no restriction. What we say is that cognisance must be taken of statutory bodies. Everybody else can but the onus will be on the planning authority to take cognisance of the statutory bodies whose job it is to look at these things.
Deputy Molloy made a comment about cities and towns in dealing with planning. In Deputy Haughey's area I found recently two bodies which would be concerned with planning in the local area.
Myself and Deputy R.P. Burke.
No, they are not in the one area and I do not think they agree on planning.
Cruise-O'Brien.
In that area there were two bodies who gave directly opposing views on what should be done with regard to a pathway.
They were entitled to do so.
Of course they were. But, if we put the onus on the new planning authority to take cognisance of every one of these, where do we stand?
Only inform themselves.
They have the right to do that. Those bodies have the right to make representations under the present Act.
So have public authorities. Therefore, why not leave out the whole section if that is the view?
Is Deputy Molloy suggesting that public authorities are not entitled to more consideration when it comes to this Act than are ad hoc bodies set up all over the place?
I do not think it should be confined.
Can we hear the Minister out, please?
Nobody is confining them to that. All we are saying is that they must take cognisance——
No, "inform themselves of their policies"; that is all.
Of course, which amounts to the same thing.
No, it does not.
They cannot ignore the policies of the statutory bodies. What Deputy Molloy appears to want is that they must also inform themselves of the policies of every group in the area who may be in some way affected by planning.
No, if, in their opinion, their functions have a bearing on proper planning and development.
That is not what we have been talking about for the last hour. I think it will work but there appears to be a slight attempt to make the section unworkable.
During the years there has been the demand to take decisions on planning appeals out of the hands of politicians.
We decided to do it.
We also had decided to do it and we had a Bill ready——
Fianna Fáil put it away safely where nobody could see it.
When we were in Government we agreed to a motion in the Dáil about the matter.
That was in 1968.
We are setting up a body to replace the Minister for Local Government and it should be an independent body. It should familiarise itself with the policies of the Minister for Local Government and the local authorities but it should have wider information. In some cases it should be able to thumb its nose at the Minister if it is to act in accordance with the wishes expressed in this House for many years. The bodies mentioned in subsection (1) will be subject at various times to directives from the Minister for Local Government. He can send a circular to a local authority telling them what he wants done.
On planning?
Yes.
: No. The Deputy should know that having been a Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of Local Government. Planning regulations are drawn up by each local authority for their area.
There is in existence a circular to local authorities regarding planning. Does the Minister deny that?
There are dozens of circulars.
Are they directives?
They are not directives. A local authority are entitled to draw up the plans for their own area and the Deputy should know that.
Of course I know it.
What is the Deputy talking about, then?
Let us get back to the amendment in the name of Deputy Molloy.
The bodies mentioned in the section are subject to directives from the Minister for Local Government, although, perhaps, the word "directive" is too strong. What is the purpose of sending out circulars to a local authority telling them to adopt a certain course? Is such a circular from the Minister to a local authority a directive or is it not? The Minister is trying to impose limitations on the new board and it will hamstring them from the beginning.
Deputy Molloy's amendment meets another point. We talk about cross-Border development. We have cross-Border planning co-operation. I am referring to planning in the counties of Donegal, Tyrone, Monaghan, Louth and Fermanagh. We must familiarise ourselves with the policies of the authority in the North and the board must do likewise. Equally, the people north of the Border must familiarise themselves with planning objectives and developments on both sides of the Border. We cannot work in two separate compartments especially with regard to planning.
Deputy Molloy's amendment would cover that situation. The Minister is being very childish if he suggests that we envisage a multitude of organisations that would have to be consulted, whose opinions and policies would need to be considered by the board. We have not that in mind. If the Minister wants to eliminate a number of them, he can do that in an amendment on Report Stage. We can be more specific in a further amendment by us on that Stage.
I should not like to see this section pass as it stands. I should like to see a situation existing where the board would have to consider and familiarise themselves with the policies on planning of the Assembly in the North so that there would be co-operation between both bodies and other organisations. I support fully the amendment put forward by Deputy Molloy.
As I read this section, I consider we are setting up a large bureaucratic body. While the present situation where the Minister is the person responsible for deciding on planning appeals has many drawbacks, at least it has the advantage that there is some democratic control in that the Minister is elected by the people, is responsible to them and has to depend on them for re-election.
If Deputy Molloy's amendment is not accepted, we will be moving away from democratic control. We are setting up a body by an Act of the Oireachtas, one that will not hear anyone other than the Minister and the public authorities. Surely there are many other voices entitled to be heard. The Minister spoke about bodies that have statutory recognition. We have local government laws and one of them makes provision for recognised local councils. They are recognised under statute. Surely the members of a recognised local council, representing their own areas, who have an intimate knowledge of the affairs of their areas, are entitled to be heard? Surely at least this one democratic proviso would save the board from becoming merely a bureaucratic machine, not subject to any control, because as the Bill stands we are setting up a board, appointing a judge to act as chairman and appointing other members but there is no way that we, as Members of this House, can debate the activities of that board? Admittedly, a report may be laid before the Dáil once a year but this report will not be subject to debate in this Chamber. There will be no democratic control of this board and the more one instructs any such board to listen only to public authorities or to the Minister the more they are being removed from the ordinary people—the people who are affected by planning decisions. Surely, therefore, the Minister would agree with the amendment in the name of Deputy Molloy because what body are more entitled to be heard than those bodies of people who will be affected by the decisions made by this board?
Surely the Minister would agree that the best way of ensuring that the board would at least have some democratic control would be to agree to this amendment, that is that the board shall hear the views of any public authority or any other body. By that is meant recognised local authorities, authorities recognised under statute of this House or any such body as An Taisce. Unless there is this type of control and this type of proviso there will be set up a large steam-roller of a bureaucratic organisation the ear of which will be given only to the Minister and public authorities. This is a wrong trend. Instead of going away from local democracy as we are doing here, we should be moving towards it.
Seemingly I am not the odd man out here because Deputy Burke appears to have reservations also. I support the amendment but I do not think the section goes far enough on the question of the board keeping themselves informed. I would like the Minister to take a serious look at this aspect of the proposal. Who is to inform them? The local authority are a planning authority and matters of interpretation are carried out for them by officials. In respect of a planning appeal a decision is made by the county manager, although section 4 may alter that. Is it the county manager who is to be asked for details of policy? Would the Minister not insert a provision in the Bill that the board keep themselves informed by means of the knowledge that is at the disposal of local authorities? That is what I would like to see in the Bill. Otherwise, it is not going far enough in so far as obtaining the views of the elected representatives of local authorities is concerned. We, in local authorities, are supposed to be the planning authority but in practice that is not so. What we do is to put forward our interpretation in regard to all cases of planning. If this board are to deal with a planning appeal concerning, say, County Galway, must they go down to the county manager and ask for his views? Should not the people responsible for drawing up the plan, for instance, the chairman of the county council and another member, be asked for their views? For Report Stage I hope there will be a clear spelling out of who is to keep the board informed about the views of the planning authorities. I support the amendment in the belief that the more people who are consulted in regard to planning, the better, but I am very strong on the point that the elected representatives should be consulted rather than that the view of some official be taken.
I can sympathise with Deputy Callanan. The interpretation of a plan would be undertaken, I assume, by the planning body. They will not ask a county manager to read the plans for them but will interpret them themselves.
That is not so at the moment.
At present what happens is that the county manager or some other such person as the county planning officer makes the decisions at that level but as Deputy Callanan has said, sometimes section 4 alters the situation. I was interested in Deputy Burke's idea of democracy. It would appear as if the Deputy is opposed to the Bill.
That is not so.
If he is not in agreement with what is contained in the Bill, he is entitled to say so. There seems to be some doubt in the minds of some people as to the difference between an elected representative, that is, a person elected under universal suffrage and a person elected by various other means to local bodies. So far as I am concerned the elected representative takes precedence over everybody else. At a time of local elections everybody has a right to go forward as a candidate.
Not everybody.
Everybody who has reached the age of 18, as a result of what was done by this Government. There seems to be some misunderstanding in that some people are under the impression that a new principle is being introduced.
That is so.
One of the sections that has been taken from Deputy Molloy's Bill is this one but, apparently, Deputy Cunningham was not upset about this kind of measure being introduced at another time.
The Minister told us five minutes ago that Deputy Molloy had no such Bill.
He had proposals.
That was what I said.
He had not gone to the Government with those proposals but we can assume that he discussed them with his then Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cunningham, in the same way as I would discuss proposals with my Parliamentary Secretary.
The Minister has been caught out.
Deputy Cunningham seems to be very much against something which, five or six years ago, he considered to be all right. However, I would not blame him for forgetting it. It was forgotten by everybody else in Fianna Fáil before they left Government. I wish to reiterate that what I am saying in the section is that there are certain bodies of which it is necessary to take cognisance, in particular, the planning authority.
Cognisance of what?
Of what were their plans. Would Deputy Cunningham read the Bill? He might understand it then. It is because of his apparent inability to grasp what the Bill contains that I am repeating something I said earlier.
The Minister is not being very clear.
The Deputy was not very clear as to what he was trying to put across. He offered us five or six arguments, each of which was contradictory of the other.
I only wanted the Minister to finish a sentence that he had begun, but had not finished.
Deputy Cunningham started a number of things which he never finished. Is it his wish that I read them out?
Yes.
Let us confine ourselves to Deputy Molloy's amendment.
The Minister has been making that threat for a long time.
Amendment No. 5, please.
It would require all these benches to accommodate all that the Deputy left after him.
It would require a lot to tell the story of how the Minister finished some of them.
This is irrelevant to the amendment before the House.
Deputy Haughey suggested that perhaps we might be able to overcome this problem. That would be my suggestion also, because the whole idea of discussing the Bill is to try to improve it. For Report Stage I would be prepared to consider having a look at subsection (1), line 37 and, perhaps, after "planning authorities" to insert "and any other person or body which is prescribed by regulations made by the Minister..." This is something like what Deputy Haughey suggested earlier and might meet requirements. I am not trying to make it too narrow but neither am I making it a mile wide so that every crank in the country can create some little group and say, according to the Act, he is entitled with his association to have a say in the matter. If that happened there would be no planning. In an effort to meet the Opposition I suggest this change. It will have to be dressed up, perhaps, for Report Stage. I shall repeat it slowly:
In subsection (1), line 37, after "planning authorities" to insert "and any other person or body which is prescribed (by regulations made by the Minister) for the purposes of this section".
The remainder of the section would follow. This is the sort of thing I should like to introduce on Report Stage if it meets the wishes of the Opposition and the House.
That is acceptable to us because if such an amendment is later proposed by the Minister and accepted by us it will give the bodies for whom we were seeking it the opportunity of applying to the Minister to be prescribed in regulations made by him. They will thus be afforded an opportunity of making their case to the Minister who can if he wishes have them included in regulations. That will meet the point we have been making because their views would have to be sought and taken into consideration by the Minister.
Could the Minister indicate the circumstances where he would be prescribing a person or body?
We shall not push that now.
We do not want to be arguing against it if it appears on Report Stage.
I have no objection. If this is not acceptable I will withdraw it and we can go ahead with the argument here.
We just want some information on what type of person the Minister would be prescribing.
I withdraw amendment No. 5, in view of the Minister's offer to introduce an amendment which will satisfactorily cover the point we were making.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6.
In subsection (1), page 4, lines 1 and 2, to delete "in the opinion of the Board".
Amendment No. 6 which is consequental on No. 4 seems to be agreed.
Perhaps the Minister would have a look at that in view of what I said but I am not pressing it.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 7. I suggest that as amendment No. 10 is consequential the House might debate amendments Nos. 7 and 10 together.
I move amendment No. 7.
To delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"(1) The Minister shall give to the planning authorities under the Principal Act general directives as to policy in relation to planning and development, and the Board shall have due regard to such directives."
The amendment proposes a small change in section 5 as proposed by the Minister. Subsection (1) states: "The Minister may give to the Board general directives as to policy in relation to development" and subsection (2) says: "The Board shall, in performing its functions, have regard to any directives under this section". My amendment proposes that the Minister shall give general directives ...and that the board shall have due regard to such directives. I think the Minister should be obliged to make such a directive available to the board. There are arguments against it. Those who wish to take a cynical view of the Bill could say that although the Minister is creating a board, at the same time he is giving himself power in this section to issue directives to that board which will influence their decisions and in this way is exercising influence and eroding the independence of the board. That being a fairly legitimate and somewhat cynical view I must conclude that taking all factors into consideration it should be obligatory on the Minister to inform this board by way of directive of the general policy which the Government and the Department wished to have implemented under the Planning and Development Act. Otherwise the board would be operating in a vacuum—if such knowledge was not made available to them by the head of the Department of Local Government charged with responsibility for planning matters.
I hope that the cynical view will not prove to be correct and that this section will be subsequently used to influence decisions of the board. At present we can only take the view of the angels and assume that such would not be the case and that the directives would be of a general nature and could not influence any individual application.
I was not happy about the Minister's choice of the word "may" in relation to these directives. If we are putting in the section we should decide in a positive way either that he shall, or shall not do so. I suggest that the Minister accept the amendment which is not much different from the amendment he proposed himself.
I would suggest that we could take amendments Nos. 8 and 9 with Deputy Molloy's amendment because he includes the two principles that I had included in my amendment.
Certainly. We shall take amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 together.
We can discuss them together and, perhaps, decide separately on them if the House so wishes.
Yes, indeed.
I want to support what Deputy Molloy has been saying on this amendment which more or less telescopes subsections (1) and (2) together. That is a sensible piece of drafting. In doing so he incorporates both of my ideas, the idea that I had on section 8, namely, to substitute "shall" for "may". I strongly advocate that; I think it is very important that the Minister shall give general directives to the board. The Minister will be our instrument in this regard. He will be representing the elected representatives, representing the House in regard to this board. We can get at the Minister; we can criticise or advise him and it is very important that the Minister to whom we can have access in this House should have a mandatory obligation to give directives to the board as to what principles they should follow.
We are rather at a loss to understand why the section as drafted leaves out "planning". In the principal Act and elsewhere, planning and development always go together and again in his revised telescoped draft of subsections (1) and (2) Deputy Molloy has used the words "planning and development". On those particular aspects of Deputy Molloy's amendments I support him very strongly, the substitution of "shall" for "may" and the addition of "planning" to the word "development". I want to say something about subsection (3) later but for the moment I confine myself to saying that I think Deputy Molloy's idea of putting subsections (1) and (2) together into the one subsection and making these alterations is a distinct improvement on the Bill.
It appears that amendment No. 9 is acceptable. It does not involve any change in substance and it would possibly be more consistent with the Long Title. It may be as well to get that out of the way first. Perhaps Deputy Molloy and Deputy Haughey would like to go outside for a few minutes and settle their argument. Deputy Molloy wants the Minister to give the planning authorities directives and Deputy Haughey wants the board to be given directives. There is a very big difference. If the planning authorities have to be given directives it means that not only will the chairman of the board have a full-time job but the Minister will have a full-time job too.
I misread Deputy Molloy's amendment. Therefore, perhaps Nos. 8 and 9 are separate.
There appears to be a difference of opinion on the Opposition benches on this. Deputy Molloy wants directives on everything to be given to the planning authorities. This would be a bad idea. In fact, he argued against it himself on Second Stage when he said that the power of the Minister to give general directives was a watering down of the board's independence. He now wants directives to be given to the planning authorities.
Section 5 refers to the giving of directives to the board. I would be satisfied with the Minister's amendment No. 11 under which he agrees to send a copy of the directives to the planning authorities. That will meet my point to some extent, provided the directives which are given to the board are also available to the planning authorities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 8:
In subsection (1), page 4, line 13, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Again this is a suggestion that a directive should be given on everything and, to quote Deputy Molloy, it will be a watering down of the board's authority if they are to be told by ministerial direction what they should do. I think the Minister "may" give directions——
Directives. We are talking in general terms now. Subsection (3) makes it specific that they must be in general terms.
I would prefer that it "may" be done because otherwise it could be a full-time job.
There is a very important point of principle involved here. The Minister is the person responsible to this House in this area and this board will be established under his jurisdiction. My colleague Deputy Burke, who is from the same area as I am, has pointed out that this board will not be subjected to scrutiny by this House. I doubt if we will be able to put down parliamentary questions about their decisions.
I would imagine not. I would like to give them as much autonomy as possible. It would be a pity if we were able to drag them around the floor of the House.
We are faced with that dilemma. We want to make this an autonomous board who will carry out their functions in an impartial and objective manner. At the same time, we must realise that planning is something which has strong social implications and is very important from the point of view of the community and so on. We will not, as Deputies, have access to this board, be able to criticise them or ask parliamentary questions about their activities or decisions. We will still have the Minister for Local Government here and we will be able to query him about planning in general. It is important in that context that the Minister should have an obligation placed on him to give general directives about planning and development to the board. We could then question the Minister about the terms of those directives. The section as it is framed specifically indicates that they must be general directives. Subsection (3) spells out quite clearly that nothing in this section shall be construed as enabling the Minister to exercise any power or control in relation to any particular case. All we are concerned with here are directives of a general nature, outlining the overall policy along which planning and development should take place. It is quite legitimate for us to make it obligatory on the Minister in the performance of his duty to us in this House that he from time to time "shall" issue those directives.
The onus is on the board to inform themselves of Government policy. I would prefer to leave it that in the event of it appearing that they were not doing what was expected with regard to Government policy the Minister could then bring it to their notice. It would be a pity if we made it too tight and that every general directive had to be spelled out to them. It would mean almost day-to-day discussion between the Minister for Local Government and the planning board. Perhaps the board I envisaged and the board which is envisaged by Deputy Haughey and Deputy Molloy are different things but the board I envisage is one which will, as far as possible, be autonomous and will not in any way feel they are subject to any type of political control which, in effect, is what directives from a Minister for Local Government would be, even though specific cases are not being dealt with. I am as anxious as Deputy Haughey that no loopholes be left but he will agree that it would be a pity if we were to spoil this by keeping too tight a rein.
I cannot accept that there is any question of keeping too tight a rein particularly having regard to the fact that they are general directives and that they shall not be construed as giving the Minister control in relation to any particular case. It seems to me that so far as parliamentary democratic control is concerned what I am at here is important because I would visualise Deputies, if some aspect of conservation or environment matters became important, asking the Minister in pursuance of his duty under this section whether he had issued directives. I would visualise general directives covering such things as nuclear stations. This will become a very important issue in the future. Are we to have nuclear stations or not? That is the sort of area in which it should be obligatory on the Minister for Local Government to lay down national policy of a general nature. This board, after all are only there to decide individual planning appeals and to decide on individual matters.
Broad lines of policy would still be a matter for the Minister, and it would be the function of this new board to decide these individual appeals on their merits and having regard to overall national planning policy. There will be major issues cropping up in this area. There will be things like the control of mining, oil refineries, nuclear power stations, offshore oil drilling. All these things will become matters of national importance. They will have importance outside the competence of any individual planning authority, matters on which the Minister, the Government and this House will have to take national policy decisions. It is in that area I am thinking of these directives being issued. I would like to see it obligatory on the Minister to issue directives from time to time to the board to give them guidance under the umbrella of which they can take their individual decisions.
The matters to which Deputy Haughey is referring are ones on which of necessity the Government would have to have a policy, and the onus would be on the planning board to make themselves aware of that policy. He might say there is the danger that the planning board would plead they did not know what the policy was; if they did that they would not be carrying out the terms of this Bill.
Both of us are arguing for the same thing. The only difference is that I do not want to set up a planning board and afterwards find that somebody can say there is still a political control of that board, even in a general way. Deputy Haughey shakes his head, but even the decision whether or not a nuclear power station should be allowed——
At all.
Yes, at all.
It is a national policy decision.
Yes, so, therefore, in that case there would be a well-defined policy. There must be.
On which the Minister should have the obligation of issuing a directive.
The obligation is already on the planning board to make themselves aware of Government policy. I think Deputy Haughey is a belt and braces man. Maybe he is right. Maybe it is right to insist that not alone should the onus be on them to find out what the policy is but that it should be on the Minister to spell out to them what the policy is. I have an open mind.
Then accept it.
I do not want to create the situation where there will be too much governmental control of the planning board, because the one thing we want to ensure is that it is autonomous.
Subsection (3) gives full protection there.
There is also the question of the amount of work which would be involved. This could be a very big job if everything——
A general directive.
Any Deputy could put down a question to know if a directive had been given, and in this case, as the Deputy knows, the result of a parliamentary question is that the directive is given by the time the question comes to be answered.
Under amendment No. 11 the Minister is going to publish them.
I shall have a look at this. There may be a lot in what the Deputy says, but I do not want to put a tight rein on the board. I shall tell him on Report Stage what the position is.
Tá go maith.
In what way does the Minister see that the board will be able to acquaint themselves of Government policy. What are the procedures he sees the board adopting in order to ensure that they are au fait with Government policy in relation to all these matters?
I am sure they would consult each Government Department as to what exactly was the position about a particular matter such as the nuclear stations which Deputy Haughey has mentioned. Instead of going directly to the Minister concerned, the officials of the Department could supply the information. This is what I would envisage as being the way in which it would be dealt with.
This facility is available then to the board if what the Minister says is the procedure to be followed. Deputies may be in the dark as to what the policy is. Following on amendment No. 8 proposed by Deputy Haughey, if the policy of the Department of Local Government in relation to planning and development and the policy of other Departments where their functions are related to planning and development, were made known to the board in these directives and these directives under amendment No. 9, are going to be published in Iris Oifigiúil, then Members of the House will be kept informed of policies which the board are taking into consideration in arriving at decisions on appeals made to them.
I am sorry, but Deputy Molloy has misquoted the numbers of amendments.
It is No. 11.
No. 11 is the one in relation to Iris Oifigiúil.
The Deputy will appreciate that if he says No. 8 I would not understand that he meant No. 11.
We are dealing with amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 at the moment.
Has the Minister any comment other than the one he made about the section? Maybe my eyesight is not so good; the light is not great in here.
Which one is the Deputy talking about now—No. 11?
I am not. I am talking about the board being able to inform themselves on Government policy by approaching Government Departments, and being a statutory board set up under this Bill it seems from what the Minister says that it will have the authority to demand, under the previous section as well, knowledge of Government policy in relation to aspects which affect planning and development. If the word "shall" was included in the directives, would the Minister consider that it would be proper and reasonable that such communications from the Department of Local Government and from the various other Departments should be made in directives to the board, because these directives will be available to the Deputies and to the public, and in that way the public will also be enlightened as to what the Government's policy is?
I do not quite follow the Deputy. He seems to suggest that, if directives are sent to the board, they will automatically be available to Deputies.
Under amendment No. 11 they are to be published.
If they are in the form of directives there is an obligation to publish them and it is, therefore, desirable that the Minister should give directives. That is the point we are making.
I do not see any great objection one way or the other. It is a question as to whether or not it is essential. Again, I do not want to make the Bill one which, because of things which might or might not be desirable, will, in fact, be unworkable.
We are asking the Minister to introduce some mechanism whereby we can be certain of getting at these matters.
The Opposition always know what Government policy is.
When they have a policy.
The Minister will consider this between now and the Report Stage?
Yes.
The procedure at the moment is that the Department issue guidelines and other information on planning matters—I suppose "directives" would be too strong a word to use—to local authorities. Will the board, which will replace the Minister, issue guidelines to local authorities or will the Minister issue guidelines on planning matters?
Deputy Cunningham is again a little confused. The function of the board will be to consider appeals. That is all. They will not interfere in any other way with local authorities.
Could the Minister explain the difference in his mind between a circular from the Department to a local authority or to the board on planning policy vis-á-vis a directive? What is the difference in interpretation to be made by the recipient of a circular or a directive?
I think Deputy Molloy knows the answer to that himself. Looking back through the files, I find he issued quite a number of these and I am sure he knew what he was doing; at least, I hope he did.
Deputy Molloy is asking for the Minister's interpretation.
If Deputy Molloy did not understand what he was sending out he should not have sent them out. The ones sent to local authorities since I took office are advice. The ones sent as directives to the planning board will be different; they will be directives as to Government policy on a particular issue and they will carry those directives out.
They will be obliged to carry them out?
They will be obliged.
I wanted the Minister to say that.
I thought the Deputy would have understood it without my saying it. I am sorry; I should have told the Deputies opposite hours ago.
We are withdrawing this amendment on the understanding that the Minister will consider the matter between now and the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Amendment No. 10 is consequential on amendment No. 7 and is therefore governed by the decision on amendment No. 7.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 11, in the name of the Minister, and 12, in the name of Deputy Haughey, can be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, between lines 19 and 20, to add to the section the following subsection:
"(4) Where the Minister gives a directive under this section, the following provisions shall apply, namely—
(a) as soon as may be the Minister shall cause a copy of the directive to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas,
(b) the directive shall be published in the Iris Oifigiúil, and
(c) the Minister shall cause a copy of the directive to be sent to each planning authority."
The Minister has met in this amendment the principle involved in my amendment No. 12. The Minister's decision to have copies of the directives laid before each House, published in Iris Oifigiúil and sent to each planning authority more or less meets the point raised by Deputy Molloy in amendment No. 7. We must admit the Minister has been very generous in meeting us on these points.
Am I not always very generous?
A problem may arise here. Take a case where a directive is given to the board and a copy is sent to each planning authority; does that mean that each planning authority will there and then have to alter their development plan which has been passed and agreed? The planning authority's development plan may be in contravention of the directive. Must the local authority there and then set about amending their plan to comply with the terms of the directive? Is this obligatory?
I do not think so. The Deputy is thinking of individual cases. Earlier on Deputy Haughey listed what he considered to be matters which should be sent by way of directive. If Deputy Cunningham is thinking of individual matters which would be affected by a directive he can set his mind at ease because that is not likely to happen. If, however, a general directive is sent setting out Government policy, that of course will refer to the planning authority as well. This does not mean they must immediately alter their own plan; it simply means they will have to take cognisance of the directive when they are making future decisions. That is only reasonable because it would otherwise mean that at national level one policy would be followed while at local level an entirely different policy could be followed. This would naturally cause extra work.
The Minister can issue a directive to the board and a copy of that will be sent to the local authority. The contents can be interpreted locally and a situation might arise in which the local authority might find themselves contravening their own development plan. What will happen in such a situation? If Government policy is found to be in contravention of the local development plan are the local authority obliged to follow the directive?
If they get a directive in contradiction of what is in their own development plan they are naturally expected to carry out the directive, but they can apply to the Minister for permission to contravene their plan until such time as their development plan is amended. There is no need to rush out and start changing their plan because one portion of it is being contravened. As Deputy Molloy knows, local authorities very often apply for permission to the Minister to contravene their own plans.
The Minister has made the point that they cannot, in fact, act on the policy enunciated in the directive.
I did not. I said they are expected to carry out the policy enunciated in the directive but if, in order to do that, they have to get permission from the Minister, then that is the way they will do it.
That is all right so far as it goes, but there is no provision in this Bill which compels a local authority to carry out the terms of any directive given to the board. The Minister is not providing for that in the Bill and there could be a situation in which a local authority might decide that, in the interests of their own county or town, it is not desirable their development should be altered to comply with the terms of a directive and they do not intend to apply to the Minister for permission to contravene their own plan——
Would Deputy Cunningham like to know what will happen in that case?
I would.
Under section 22 (3) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act of 1963 it is provided that the Minister may require a planning authority to vary a development plan in respect of matters in a manner specified by him and thereupon it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with the request. No local authority would be so stupid as to say they would not carry out a directive issued to them by the Minister because this gives the authority to the Minister to tell them to do it and they will thereupon have to alter their plan. The other way is that any body who was aggrieved would be entitled to apply to the planning board and since the directive was issued to the planning board they would deal with the matter by way of appeal. Quite frankly I do not think any local authority would do something like that.
They might be Labour controlled.
If they were Labour controlled Deputy Haughey can be assured that they would do the right thing.
That is known as sheer logic.
It is logic anyway.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are cognate and can be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 13:
In subsection (2), page 4, line 30, after "annually" to insert "not later than three months following the period to which they relate".
What I am seeking here is fairly evident and I trust it will recommend itself to the Minister. Section 7 deals with the accounts of this new board and the audit of those accounts and provides that the accounts "shall, together with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon, be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas."
The proposals outlined in section are pretty standard. In subsection (2) after the word "annually" I should like to insert the words "not later than three months following the period to which they relate".
If the Minister wants to say to me that this is an innovation and that there is no precedent for it, and if he wishes to point out to me the many Acts of Parliament which have similar types of provision, without this restriction, I will say to him: "Quite so." It is time we made a start in this area. We have here a new board and I should like to see this new principle, if it is a new principle, applied to this new board. Perhaps in due course we will be able to get the principle adopted generally. We would all like to see, within a reasonable time after the ending of the financial year, the accounts of the board presented to us and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General similarly presented.
It is not entirely satisfactory that we should have a statutory obligation on these boards to have their accounts audited and presented to us if there is no time limit involved in that presentation. I am afraid that, in some cases, the audited accounts and the report on them are presented to us so late in the day that they have become quite meaningless. That is the type of situation which I should like to see rectified.
I should like to see it made mandatory in this case as a start that, within three months—and I do not think that is too long a period—after the end of the financial year concerned we would have the accounts in the Library, available to use for inspection and scrutiny at a time when they would mean something to us. It is a very futile and idle exercise to be looking at the accounts of some of these State bodies and organisations and institutions years after the relevant accounting period.
I strongly urge the Minister to set a shining example in this case. I would certainly be prepared to listen to him if he says to me: "I accept in principle that the accounts must be presented within some reasonable period but three months is too short." If he would like to suggest a longer period I would certainly be disposed to listen to that. It is important that there should be some prescribed period after the end of the financial year within which the audited accounts and the report thereon must be presented to us.
We hear quite a lot of discussion on the question of making State bodies and State institutions subject to scrutiny in some way by the Oireachtas. The question has been on the mat for many years and from time to time we return to it and devote our attention to it, but we do not seem to be able to make any progress in regard to it. Generally speaking, that discussion is concerned with trading bodies and commercial organisations of a semi-State nature. In this area we could make a beginning in having a tighter scrutiny by the Oireachtas over these bodies by making sure that we get these accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General within a reasonable space of time.
While that is important in regard to the accounts which are covered by amendment No. 13, it is a great deal more important in the case of the annual report on the activities and the proceedings of the board which are dealt with in section 8 and to which my amendment No. 14 refers. The same principle is involved in the two different matters. It is quite important that we should have the accounts within a reasonable period of time, but it is much more important that we should have the report envisaged in section 8 within the same reasonable period of time, that is, within a period of three months after the period to which it relates.
Section 8 provides: "The Board shall in each year make a report to the Minister of its proceedings during the preceding year and the Minister shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas." Subsection (2) provides: "The Board shall supply the Minister with such information relating to its functions as he shall from time to time request." I adverted to this matter of the board and their activities being subject to scrutiny by Deputies in another context and I want to mention it again here. It is important.
Section 8 could perhaps be regarded as a very routine and general type of provision but I suggest it is an important one. It is vitally important in regard to this report that the House gets it while it is still relevant.
As section 8 stands there is no prescribed time within which the board must make this report. That is a mistake. Planning is a very important, critical matter and of fundamental importance. It is important that the report of this board should be available to Members as quickly as possible. I would regard a period of three months after the end of the year as adequate time in which to prepare a report for the Oireachtas.
I recommend both these amendments to the Minister. They are simple in their implication. We want to put a limit on the board. Within a prescribed time they must make their financial report to us, and, in addition, but more important, we must prescribe the time within which they must make the report of their proceedings, activities, decisions and so on.
If anyone but Deputy Haughey had made this proposal I would have thought he had not understood it. The Deputy is the one person here who should understand what the score is. He must know that if the Comptroller and Auditor General must produce his report within three months of the end of the financial year—by the end of March—it must be assumed that every other report should also be due then. There are other reports which are more important than this.
Could Deputy Haughey envisage the Comptroller and Auditor General either working night and day for three months for the purpose of producing this and other reports or does he imagine it can be done? He is the one person who should know that what he asks is impossible. I am very anxious to have the question of accountancy regularised. Nobody is more anxious than I to ensure that every penny voted here is spent as it should be. Recently I was horrified to find that a body who are under my control to a certain extent had not completed an audited report for four years. They are now up to date. I am sure the Deputy is aware that there are a number of State bodies which did not produce their accounts when they should have.
The Comptroller and Auditor General could not possibly do what Deputy Haughey is suggesting. The amount of money involved in the running of this board will not be very large. It will not be the most important amount of money to be accounted for. There will be many other more important accounts which we will all be anxious to see accounted for. To suggest that this should be given precedence and the report produced within the first three months of the new year is very unreasonable. Deputy Haughey said he believes the report should be in as soon as may be. This is what I would like to see—an early return of the report—but I do not believe we should put in an impossible condition. Therefore, I would not be prepared to accept these two amendments. The suggestion that it can be done is not reasonable and I am sure the Deputy on reflection will agree.
I am the last man in this House to be unreasonable. I am prepared to agree that perhaps three months might be pushing it a bit far. The fact is that this is a new board and there will not be any great complicated finances involved in its operations. This will involve a straightforward auditing and reporting so far as the accounts are concerned. It was that fact which encouraged me to suggest that we make a start with this board.
I was not aware of the situation he outlined. I did not realise that he was anxious that bodies of this sort should have their accounts audited regularly and keep them up to date. That makes me all the more keen in proposing my amendment. If he has embarked on this reforming crusade in so far as bodies under his control are concerned, why not start with this new body by putting them on the right lines straightaway? They should not be let slip into bad habits which prevail throughout the Public Service.
As I said, these accounts will be comparatively straightforward affairs. There will not be any great volume of finance involved. This will be an ideal opportunity to start off with a clean sheet and set a headline. However, I will not push this too hard. If the Minister considers three months is too short, or even six months, he should make it mandatory on the board and the Comptroller and Auditor General to produce the accounts and report at least within the following year.
Different considerations should apply to the report of the board's proceedings. We do not need to have the Comptroller and Auditor General working through the night because he does not come into this at all. This will come within the jurisdiction and the competence of the board themselves. This will be a report by the board to the Minister of their work. Here we are entitled to insist that we get this report within three months. Very important matters will be involved here. Crucial decisions will be reached about which the public will want to know.
I will be reasonable about amendment No. 13 but I would press very strongly for something where amendment No. 14 is concerned. I should like to hear the Minister's view on this. What time would he consider reasonable within which the board must make their report to him and, through him, to this House?
I am anxious that audited accounts should be produced as soon as possible. If money is not accounted for relatively early, it is very difficult to account for it later and find out where it is. Therefore, when the accounts are fresh in people's minds is the time accounting should be made. It would be very unreasonable to expect that this could be done within three months.
There are two other accounts which must be audited, the IDA and An Chomhairle Oiliúna. In both cases the phrase used is "at such time as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance shall direct". That means that the Minister may ask for the accounts in a relatively short time. I propose to follow that line. With regard to the other matter, while Deputy Haughey has a point the worst thing we could have is a skimping——
What is the Minister proposing to do on section 7?
I am proposing to insert "at such time as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance shall direct".
With regard to the other amendment, the board should be encouraged not to confine themselves to statistics of appeals received, decided and other routine matters. When they have some experience they should be able to produce a report of general interest, something which will give information to the House and the public, and which can be printed and published. While it may appear to be straightforward, difficulties may arise. Deputy de Valera would know of the difficulties involved in having material printed.
He has to have truth in the news.
I will not comment on that. I know what the truth in the news is tonight.
What is it that is puzzling the Minister?
It does not puzzle me or anybody else. I could have told the Deputy the news a week ago, if he had asked me. That is the beauty of knowing everything.
And nobody else knows anything.
I believe it is necessary to give a reasonable time. I assure Deputy Haughey that arrangements will be made whereby the phrase, "as soon as may be", may be acceptable. I could put this in on Report Stage. I should like to mention that I do not want to have a short report giving details which do not mean anything. If we are to have a report worth anything it should be properly prepared, printed and made available to the House and the public.
It should contain relevant material. By this I mean material related to the period the report covers.
I agree it would have to appear well within the year after the end of the year, and if possible within the first six months.
Are we dealing with sections 7 and 8 together or are we dealing with the amendments?
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are being dealt with together. Deputy Haughey indicated that he was withdrawing amendment No. 13.
I am accepting the Minister's proposal but I am not too happy about the other.
Would the Minister mind outlining his proposal for section 7?
Deputy Haughey has accepted my proposal——
Subject to agreement by this party's spokesman on Local Government.
That proposal is to the effect, "at such time as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, shall direct". The second proposal is, "as soon as may be". They mean that the onus is on the Minister to ensure they are produced.
The Chair takes it that the Minister will move these amendments on Report Stage.
Yes.
I want to support the argument made by Deputy Haughey in relation to the report under section 8. He has stated a period of three months.
Deputy Haughey withdrew his amendment and accepted what I put forward.
I accepted the proposal in relation to amendment No. 13.
We should play fair and not be going back.
I would rather accept Deputy Haughey's version than the Minister's interpretation.
If Deputy Molloy wishes to start making snide remarks we can all do the same.
The Minister has a habit of trying to involve everybody in snide remarks. If Deputy Haughey wished to withdraw his amendment he would have had informed me. Then there would not have been any point in going on with the discussion.
Deputy Haughey did withdraw it.
The Chair understood that Deputy Haughey was withdrawing his amendment in favour of the Minister's proposal.
That was in relation to amendment No. 13.
Amendment No. 14 was cognate with it.
Deputy Haughey heard me on amendment No. 14 and said that, although he was not happy, he was withdrawing that amendment.
The discussion was on amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together.
I do not think it is worth doubting my word over amendments Nos. 13 or 14. I withdraw both amendments and Deputy Molloy can raise his point on section 8.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In subsection (2), page 4, line 40, before "its functions" to insert "the performance of".
This is a drafting amendment. It seemed that there was an inaccuracy in the section as it is worded. Subsection (2) of that section states:
The Board shall supply the Minister with such information relating to its functions as he shall from time to time request.
In my view that is bad wording because we all know the functions of the board. Those functions will not change from year to year but what will change and what the Minister wants information about is the performance of the functions of the board.
Again this is a question of crossed lines because the subsection requires the board to supply the Minister with such information relating to their functions as he shall from time to time request. The amendment seems to imply that it is too wide and that there is something sinister in the provision. The provision is related to the general responsibility of the Minister who must have proper information in relation to estimates, expenditure and staff. The Minister also has specific functions under the Bill such as approval of appointments, approval of superannuation schemes, receipt of annual report, appointment and removal of board members. He will also be concerned with the efficiency and effectiveness of the board and how it is administered. For this reason he will need regular returns from the board. The IDA are required under the Industrial Development Act, 1969, to supply the Minister for Industry and Commerce with such information regarding their activities as he may from time to time require. Local authorities are required to furnish the Minister with any information in relation to their functions which he may consider desirable or necessary for the purpose of his powers and duties in relation to local authorities.
The intention of the amendment is, apparently, to narrow the provision. I have no intention of probing into what the board are doing. I have simply repeated what is done in relation to the other authorities I have referred to.
"Activities" I accept is used in some other cases. That is information supplied to the Minister about what the particular board are doing. We are now laying down the functions of this new board and there is no question of obtaining information about them. We are concerned with how the board perform in relation to their functions. We want information about the performance of their functions or their activities.
"Activities" in my view is not the word to use. Can the Deputy suggest another word?
The phrase, "relating to the performance of its functions".
It is not a very critical one.
The Minister should keep up his batting average and agree to my amendment.
I want to be sure that what I am agreeing to will enable me to get the information that is required. I am not being awkward about it.
The Minister is not, but I am pressing this very strongly because I consider my point to be a very reasonable one.
Would Deputy Haughey accept my proposal that if this is considered to be OK, I will accept it and that if it is not, I will come to him before Report Stage to give him an opportunity of dealing with it again?
That is agreeable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Unfortunately it has been the practice that where public bodies are required by legislation to produce annual reports these have not always appeared in the 12-month period following the completion of the year for which the report was to be written. It has often been the practice that these reports have not appeared for two, three or four years. Deputy Haughey's amendment, which has been dealt with, attempted to place an obligation on the board to produce their reports within three months. That was not accepted by the Minister. I am asking the Minister to insert some provision other than "as soon as may be". That could be any time. There is no specified period of time indicated by these words. They are often used by Ministers when they are not too sure when a thing may happen. We are well used to them being used here at Question Time when Ministers do not know the answers.
I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that this board, which will perform functions that will affect not only the lives of many people but the quality of life itself we are to enjoy, should publish a report as quickly as possible after the 12-month period for which the report is due. We should in the Bill place an obligation on the board to produce that report within six months, if three months is considered to be too short. I do not think three months is too short, but these deadlines will be met if they are put there. We know from experience that if they are not put there the thing will be allowed to drag on and there will be no urgency.
This is a new body being established and we should provide in the Bill a limited time period within which they should produce a report. I am asking the Minister to be more specific in the matter of the time within which the report will be published.
"As soon as may be" is a phrase which has been accepted as having the legal meaning of "as soon as possible." It has been used all over the place.
It does not tie it down.
It depends entirely on the person who wants the report made. It may be possible to be more specific but there is the danger, of course, that three months would be out of the question and even six months might be difficult. Deputy Molloy will remember asking some time ago why I was not producing housing statistics, why it took almost three months to produce them. It was something I did not like to do, but I had to point out that when Deputy Molloy was there it was usual not to have these figures for much longer than three months, and they were only stencilled. I should like to see properly prepared reports——
A nice glossy job.
So long as it did not cost too much. I do not like these glossy jobs that cost a lot, particularly when an organisation are losing a lot of money. I should not like to say six months. A period of 12 months has been suggested but I think that would be too long. Perhaps we should go between the two and say nine months.
That is agreed, so long as there is a specific time.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 4, line 43, after "interest" to add "and when so interested shall inform the chairman of the Board in writing accordingly".
It is important at the outset to be clear on what we are talking about in this amendment. There might be some confusion in the public mind about its different applications. The Minister has put forward proposals which have received quite a lot of attention in the press governing disclosures of interest by members of local authorities and we will be dealing with that aspect later on. Here we are concerned with the situation of persons who will be members of the new board. I want to make it clear that for the moment I am only discussing the activities and the disclosures of certain matters by persons who will be appointed to the new board. I will read section 9:
A person shall not vote or otherwise act as a member of the Board in relation to any matter with respect to which the person has a material financial or other beneficial interest.
My amendment would add after "interest,""and when so interested shall inform the chairman of the Board in writing accordingly." I hope this amendment will commend itself to the Minister and indeed to the general public. What we are all after in the Bill is to try to bring the maximum amount of objectivity and impartiality to the deciding of planning matters, and in this respect it is important that there be the maximum amount not just of disclosure but a record of disclosure. As it stands, the section could become quite ineffective as time goes on. It simply provides that a member shall not act or vote as a member of the board in relation to any matter in regard to which he has a financial or beneficial interest.
That is a bald prohibition on a member of the board who has such an interest voting or acting in certain circumstances. I want to pursue that a little further. I want to have a record available to the Minister or any other interested person of what the exact position is in regard to such a matter. This would be very important from the point of view of the individual board member concerned and from the point of view of the status and integrity of the board. There would be no question of it being said later: "When the board were deciding that very important matter of whether a nuclear power station should be situated in Laytown, County Meath——
Or Dublin Bay.
——this so-and-so disclosed that he was vitally interested in the matter." What I want is not alone will he have to disclose where he has an interest and that he will not vote or act, but that he will also disclose that interest in writing to the chairman. This would be a valuable and useful protection and it would add to the status of the board and the quality of their decisions.
I agree this might be of help to the board but perhaps it would be better to insert "shall inform the presiding chairman", because if the chairman were not present for one reason or another and somebody else was acting it might cause difficulty and the provision might be defeated. If that is acceptable to Deputy Haughey, then we can have it included.
Is amendment No. 16, as amended, agreed?
Is the Minister accepting that amendment?
Yes.
With the insertion?
We will put in an amendment "the presiding chairman of the Board" for Report Stage, if that is all right with Deputy Haughey.
On Report Stage.
I thought the Minister was accepting that now.
I want "the presiding Chairman" put in.
There may not be a presiding chairman in time.
I thought the Minister was worried about the chairman informing himself.
No, the presiding chairman—and so shall inform the presiding chairman of the board.
Our understanding is that the Minister is going to propose that an ordinary member of the board shall inform the presiding chairman of the board in writing.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
There will be a ministerial amendment on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 17:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"() For the purposes of this section ‘beneficial interest' includes membership of voluntary bodies or institutions."
This amendment, again, has been put down for broadly the same purpose, that is, of helping to enhance the status and standing of the board. It seems to me that, as the section is worded, it is a little ineffective. It says:
A person shall not vote or otherwise act as a member of the Board in relation to any matter with respect to which the person has a material financial or other beneficial interest.
I want to define "beneficial interest" not exclusively but make sure that it includes membership of voluntary bodies or institutions. I want to look forward, perhaps, to a situation in which a member of the board, though he personally would not have any material financial interest, or anything that could be regarded personally to him as a beneficial interest, nevertheless, might be influenced unduly by the fact that he was a member of a voluntary body or an institution concerned.
I would recommend this amendment to the Minister for those reasons and along that line of thinking. Perhaps the Minister would let me know if the amendment commends itself to him.
I am afraid that is a different kettle of fish although I have sympathy with the idea. If the intention is to prevent a board member from acting in a case where, as a member of some body, it might appear he would have a strong interest in the outcome of the case, the difficulty there is to know where to draw the line. You see, should a judge not be able to act because he was a member of the legal profession?
There was a famous case once where a judge was the president of a golf club.
Indeed, I was going to come to this. It could even refer to membership of a golf club. The ramifications are very wide.
Where I come from, being a member of a golf club could be regarded very much as having a "beneficial interest". The Minister knows what I am talking about.
I would not know anything about that.
I will make no secret of it. St. Anne's Golf Club in my constitutency is very much involved in planning matters at present.
I am not allowed discuss planning matters.
We are discussing a Planning Bill.
Deputy Haughey is discussing a specific case.
I am not making any valid judgment. I am just saying that it is a specific case.
We are allowed put down questions about specific planning matters at present.
Of course, Deputies are but a planning appeal is before me——
Oh, I did not know that.
——and I am not entitled to make a comment on it. There must be some reliance on the integrity of the board members and "material financial or other beneficial interest" would seem to cover any case where it would seem to be improper for a board member to act. If that were expanded, there might be terrible difficulty.
It does not prevent him being a member of the board. It is only disclosing his interest in a particular matter.
Supposing there is on the board—as was suggested by somebody here—a planner, an architect, an engineer; all of them may, because of their professional association, have an interest. What happens? Do they all have to declare an interest?
Yes, declare it.
I do not think that would be a good idea. Quite frankly, I believe this is a different one altogether to the other. The other, I thought, was a good idea. This, I think, is not necessary.
It is quite possible that a member of this board, or of any board, could be more coloured and prejudiced in regard to a particular matter because of his membership of some body than he would be because of his personal interest. The Minister knows that this is not an unusual circumstance. People who are acting as members of a particular organisation to which they have given life long service may be quite blind and prejudiced in coming to a decision where the interests of that body are concerned, whereas they would be quite objective and honourable where their personal interest was concerned. Therefore, I think my amendment has a lot of merit and principle in it.
I am afraid Deputy Haughey is not following his own amendment. He sees it only as referring to disclosure but, according to the section, it means that he cannot act or vote. Therefore, one could reach a situation where in a case being considered, four, five, six or whatever number of members were on the board all of whom would have, for one reason or another, a connection if we make it too wide, would make a disclosure and would not be able to act or vote, which would make the whole thing ridiculous. This is what I am trying to avoid. If Deputy Haughey would think over it for a moment. I think he would agree that such a situation can easily enough occur. I am prepared to agree where it appears reasonable, but this is one case where it does appear we are going just that little but too far.
The Minister wants this board to appear above suspicion, does he not?
Yes, of course.
That is what we are after here.
But what Deputy Haughey is saying, in fact, is that "beneficial interest" includes membership of voluntary bodies or institutions.
May I give the Minister an example of what I mean? I do not want people to be able to come along and say—that institution, that society, that golf club, that football club was allowed its appeal because Mr. X was a member of the board. That is the sort of situation with which we are all familiar and which could arise from time to time, much more frequently, I would suggest, than the case where Mr. So-and-So's appeal got past the board because he was a member of the board. I think that is very unlikely to arise. That sort of situation deals with itself automatically. It is equally important to deal with the case of a man who has a particular interest in a thing because of his membership of a club, organisation or institution. I want no breath of suspicion to be wafted in the direction of this new board because of that sort of situation. I am sure the Minister could think of hundreds of cases where this sort of situation could arise.
I am prepared to agree that it is very important to have the board above suspicion. But cannot Deputy Haughey envisage the situation where—if we are going to include everything, including membership of voluntary bodies or institutions—it would be extremely difficult to get a board which will not have a connection one way or the other?
I think it will. It will deal only with individual items and an individual not voting in relation to a particular item. I am not disqualifying them from membership of the board.
But the Deputy is preventing them from voting. I have just given examples of three different professions which if represented on the board—if any member of their profession is affected; they belong to the same institution—would mean that none of them would be entitled to vote? Is that not so?
If I am an engineer, I am a member of this board and the Institute of Civil Engineers in Ireland comes forward with an application for planning in relation to the building of a new headquarters or something of that nature, I, as that member of the board, must say: "I have no personal interest in this matter but I am a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers which has an interest in this matter. Therefore, I am not voting."
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27th November, 1974.