Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1983

Vol. 344 No. 4

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—
"Dáil Éireann refuses a Second Reading to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill 1983 on the grounds that:
(i) It will seriously undermine the existing procedures for physical planning in this Country.
(ii) It will have serious repercussions on the standing, prestige and effectiveness of Government Boards and State-sponsored bodies.
(iii) It pre-empts the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Building Land which under its Orders of Reference is requiredinter alia to examine the operations of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1982 which are to be construed as one with the enactment of the Bill and thereby undermines the Committee system of the Houses.”
—(Deputy Molloy)

I hope yesterday's television style debate on this Bill is not indicative of what it will be like in the House if television ever comes into it. The debate was punctuated by quorum calls every ten minutes, with the quorums taking the place of the commercials. Yesterday in the House we had an extraordinary situation even though it was contrived. There were deliberate attempts to put on a show probably for particular reasons. We had the spectacle of the Leader of the Opposition thumping his desk in frustration and then the Fianna Fáil Party left the House. The quorums did not bother me because I was here from 3.30 p.m. They succeeded in making the speeches of the Opposition very disjointed.

The three Opposition's spokespersons — Deputy Molloy, Deputy Lenihan and Deputy Fitzgerald — more or less discussed the same point. Each of them concentrated on the de-politicisation of An Bord Pleanála. Deputy Fitzgerald, who has been thrice blessed in this House in that he was a Minister three times, invited members of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party to select and appoint Labour people and Fine Gael people to boards such as this and said that he did not see anything wrong with doing that and that when Fianna Fáil were in power they could do the same thing. His only requirement was that the people appointed should be good people. I expressed my shock at this suggestion which would continue in existence of political jobbery in the State. I asked several times yesterday why it is that Fianna Fáil do not want this board or any other board to be de-politicised. I wanted to know why it is that Fianna Fáil are so worried about this, considering all the dissatisfaction there has been in the planning area over the years and the dissatisfaction that has been expressed in public and on the media with the present board as constituted and its workings. Does it hit at a power root? Were the antics in the House yesterday a result of the exposure of a very sensitive political nerve? Perhaps that is the case.

Fianna Fáil have been in power for the greater part of the last 60 years. If they do not want Government influence in regard to the appointment of boards and positions to be removed maybe they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I would not like to think that is the situation but there is a lot of evidence around to show that over the years it has been to the advantage of the Government in power to have this political largesse available to them and they have distributed it generously throughout the country. The tentacles of this practice have reached right down through Irish society. Making this board independent is another step in removing that influence, that control. These tentacles have stretched right down into every sub-post office, every Garda station and every Department of the civil service throughout the State. I for one would be very pleased to see this influence cut off. If we have exposed a nerve and the patient is in pain the only thing we can do is to deal with it and find other areas where political influence and patronage exist.

The last time Labour and Fine Gael were in power they managed to close off some of those. They established the DPP and set up An Bord Pleanála. Every legal brief that was ever handed out in the Law Library for years was handed out to known members of political parties and some people never got the opportunities of getting a brief. The same applies to the judicial appointments, which have been a scandal in this State since 1922. Only recently have there been one or two appointments that have not been political. Up to that every single judicial appointment, without exception, was a political appointment. A big furore was kicked up here yesterday by Deputy Lenihan as to why a certain retired judge was not to be appointed to this board. The judge is in his mid-seventies. We have the situation where people are waiting for three and four years to get their cases into the High Court and we have been removing judges and putting them on boards like this. We have actually been appointing barristers to the bench for the specific purpose of appointing them as chairman of An Bord Pleanála. That was not a good appointment. It is not a good idea and I do not think it is necessary for the chairman to be a judge or a lawyer. I am not sure that lawyers are always the right people to choose for these positions. The legal profession is an area that I hope this House will some day debate. It reminds me of the story of the two farmers fighting over a cow. One is pulling her by the head and the other is pulling her by the tail and the lawyer is milking her. That situation needs examination in Irish life.

This attempt by the Minister to set up an independent board must be welcomed. Both Deputy Lenihan and Deputy Molloy said they will resist the setting up of this board and that if they get back into power they will remove the members of the board. They said they had not in the past ever removed members of boards set up by the Government. What they seem to be saying is that they wish to retain the power of appointing people while they are in power and that we can do it when we are in power and they will not argue about it. In fact, Deputy Fitzgerald, to his shame, actually said that and put it on the record of the House.

Deputy Molloy referred to the Rents Restriction Act and the setting up of a rates tribunal. He said that I had no understanding of or sympathy for the people who are suffering under the situation and that this is what we should be discussing instead of this Bill. I had not at that stage made any comment about the rents tribunal or anything else and therefore I want to refute Deputy Molloy's statement. Deputy Molloy said his intention was to change all boards. The appointment by Government seems to suit Fianna Fáil because in the past it was a method of staying in power. I do not think that is true at present. Deputy Molloy also misinterpreted remarks made on this side of the House when someone said Fianna Fáil would never again get into power to make the changes he had suggested. I think it was suggested that Fianna Fáil on their own may never get back to power and that they will not easily make the changes which he and Deputy Lenihan proposed.

When the planning appeal board was set up and decisions were removed from the Minister, a great sigh of relief was breathed throughout the country by people who were interested in planning and who were aware of abuses of the planning laws. Did Deputy Molloy also breath a sigh of relief? Maybe he was happy with the standards in Galway but many people are not. There has been recent media publicity concerning section 4 in Galway. I hope that the setting up of this independent board will set a good example which will filter through the whole planning set-up in the country and that people will take decisions seriously, honestly and expertly. Terrible decisions were made here in the past. The city of Dublin has been mutilated by bad planning. We have been spared worse excesses throughout the rest of the country mainly because it is sparsely populated. Nothing much can be done about Dublin now but the rest of the country can learn by seeing what happened there. It is essential that we come to grips with the problem and the place to start is at the top. We are attempting to do that in this Bill.

I wonder if Deputy Molloy objected to the fact that appeals were removed from the Minister by the setting up of An Bord Pleanála because Fianna Fáil Deputies made very strong play yesterday about retaining power in the hands of the Government and warning that we would rue the day that we made it independent.

(Clare): We wanted the Government to retain the power to appoint the board.

Fianna Fáil wanted to retain power over political appointments. They kept repeating they did not want to depoliticise the situation. Three former Ministers said that and they will regret what was said yesterday in this House because it will be demonstrated easily that the real fear is for the future of Fianna Fáil and that they will not have their hands on the giving out of jobs for the boys in sub-post offices, Garda stations and the civil service. We have seen plenty of examples of the effect of those types of appointments where people who are supposed to be working for the State are using their positions to embarrass Ministers of parties which they do not support by leaking information. This is corruption and the method used for the past 48 years by Fianna Fáil to stay in power. We are now trying to stop it and the actions and speeches of Fianna Fáil Deputies yesterday demonstrated clearly that they do not want this power removed from them because when they are back in office they will want to dish out jobs again. Every attempt will be made to stop that. This morning's newspapers mentioned that the main objective of Fianna Fáil speeches was that they did not want depoliticisation. How many people share that view? How many people have been affected by the abuse of planning laws, by greed, the buying of planning permissions and all the other means used to push through what they want? I do not think many people will object to the setting up of this board. Fianna Fáil do not like to fire party hacks but I do not mind incompetent people being fired, no matter what party they are in.

Deputy Molloy said that this would be a terrible reflection on our parliamentary system. I do not think it is but what Deputy Molloy said is a reflection and has been a reflection on parliamentary democracy over the years. A new respect for politicians, which is badly needed, will be restored but the parliamentary party system to which Deputy Molloy referred is not the system to which we all aspire. That is why we need professional and business people in parliament who are not affected by the party system, who have not been waiting in the wings for 20 years and who would do anything to get in here and slavishly follow the party line. More people should get involved in the party system because there are many experienced people who, unfortunately, do not want to be associated with any parliamentary party. We must make them aware of the need to get involved.

In the past Ministers who would not be capable of running a huckster's shop were running huge Departments with huge amounts of money. People go out from here and talk to professional bodies or very successful organisations who could give this House the benefit of their expertise and help to sort out the country's problems and only then could we dispense with political patronage and board or job filling. That is one reason why we need this board badly.

Yesterday Deputy Molloy made a very serious attack on An Taisce. He said that their main purpose was to de-politicise the whole process. An Taisce are a public voluntary body and what they have done is on record. If their objective is what Deputy Molloy said, then maybe they have good reason for wishing to de-politicise the planning board, and any other such boards. Let us ask ourselves a few questions about An Taisce. Would they destroy an amenity? What are their objectives? Has Deputy Molloy read the An Taisce magazine? He is a spokesman on the environment. Has he ever looked at the quality of the photographs in that magazine, the articles published in it, the little gems they select from the city of Dublin of little shop fronts and details of the towns of Ireland where they show good planning and how towns should be made out properly and the kind of environment we would like to have? It would be no harm if Deputy Molloy were to subscribe to An Taisce or to their magazine at any rate.

Would An Taisce have allowed the ESB to demolish half of Fitzwilliam Street and build that ugly office block there? Would An Taisce allow what Dublin County Council have been trying to achieve, the dump from Chapelizod to Lucan four miles long and 20 to 30 feet wide and a refuse truck every five minutes for the next 50 years piling rubbish and filth in the Liffey Valley which has been there for thousands of years created by God? The wildlife there would be destroyed. The county council have said that it is only a swamp. Would the county council allow the carving up of the Carton estate or the Luttrellstown estate which is now for sale to some developer? Would they allow themselves to be influenced by some developer or party hack who would offer them money to get a planning permission through?

There is nothing to worry about in the involvement of An Taisce. Did Deputy Molloy read the recent publication by An Taisce to find out what their ideas are and the trouble they have gone to in the three years that they took to produce that document? He attacked An Taisce here yesterday and said that their main purpose is to de-politicise the whole process. Maybe it is, but if what has been happening in this country and city for the last decade is allowed to go on then maybe they are right. In this situation in relation to An Bord Pleanála, that is what is needed. If people even think that things are not right regarding planning applications or appeals an attempt must be made to put the matter right. Such an attempt was not made in the past when Deputy Molloy's party were in power. An attempt was made the last time the Labour Party and Fine Gael were in power. I do not know what The Workers' Party will say about it but I would be very surprised if they took the line that Deputy Molloy, Deputy Lenihan and Deputy Fitzgerald have taken. I know that Deputy De Rossa will tell me that he can speak for himself and on the approach they have taken on other things I will be interested to hear what they have to say about this.

The Minister said that one of the most important things is the independent image of the board. The way in which the power has been used recently has led to widespread diminution of public confidence in the appeals system. Why not, when it was wide open to abuse in the past? Deputy Lenihan said that there is no need to interfere and that when he was Minister he and the Fianna Fáil Party never interferred with a board set up by the Opposition when in Government, yet just before he left office on the last occasion he appointed fourteen members to Bord na gCapall and he did so in a great hurry. What was the urgency for him to do that if, as he says, he never interferred? If, as Deputy Fitzgerald said, it does not really matter whether you appoint Labour Party people or Fine Gael people so long as they are good people, why was the appointment of those members not left to the new Minister coming in?

(Clare): He did not appoint them yet.

Are they trying to cod us? Did we really hit the nerve centre of Fianna Fáil yesterday? Are they really worried that we might be able to get their hands away from the handing out of jobs? Are they afraid that they will lose support when people no longer feel that they can do them favours? People might start thinking for themselves and saying, rightly, that the politicians cannot do anything for you, that you must elect someone to the House who can make a contribution, who can set the economy right, that we will not elect people simply because they are able to do things or get things done for you.

Deputy Molloy made a strong plea about former members of the board who worked in the interests of the nation and gave of their time as if they had to plead with them to take these positions. I do not know whether that was done but I suggest that in many cases they did not take on these positions to work in the interests of the nation. This was a type of reward, a payola, a pay-off, and they worked in the interests of prestige. There was no effort required to get people to accept appointments to these boards. Why was it that members of their own party were always picked for such positions? The reason is simple. Fianna Fáil had been in power for so long that they were able to hand to out all these posts and the payback in the future would be a guarantee of a vote for the party.

The Bill does not state but that the objective is to break that but I deduce from the provisions that it is one of the objectives. One of my objectives in the course of this Dáil is to try to straighten things out and anywhere I see even a hint of anything tainted with corruption or political patronage, jobbery or nepotism, I will try to clean it up to restore respect for politicians instead of them being treated as the lowest form of animal here. It is amazing the amount of disrespect voters have for Members, not as individuals but as Members of the Dáil. That is as a result of what happened in the past and the quality of people elected to the House. It has a lot to do with the behaviour of Members and the making of appointments. I hesitate to go into the abuses that have taken place in the planning area or to refer to Members who were in a position to make decisions and did so. It is well known to those who conduct constituency clinics that it happened judging by the requests made by people. People expect Deputies to be able to do favours for them. We have all heard through the grapevine of Deputies being considered good for getting things done. I hope the Bill is an attempt to do away with that in the future.

Deputy Lenihan attempted yesterday to say that we were casting a smear on Fianna Fáil by trying to remove from office a board appointed by that party.

On a point of order, while the contribution is not relevant to the topic under discussion, I believe there should be a bigger attendance to hear Deputy Skelly.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present.

I was dealing with the attempt by Deputy Lenihan yesterday to give the impression that we were trying to smear Fianna Fáil.

The Government Chief Whip should recommend to some of his Members that it might be in their best interest to stay to listen to Deputy Skelly.

We will be back.

The Deputy can rest assured of that.

Deputy Lenihan's allegations were nonsense. Judging by his performance in the last two weeks he is not in any position to talk about smearing by this side of the House because he has endeavoured to make it his full time occupation. Lack of experience is an important factor in relation to the membership of the board. Decisions have been slow to come from the board and planning applications have been tied up with the board. Some of the members of the board do not have the confidence of people involved in the planning field and that is another reason why the board should be de-politicised. The Minister in the course of his speech said the Bill represented an attempt to appoint an independent board of experts who will be better able to carry out the functions and will be in a position to choose members from different disciplines and professions. He felt they would be better able to represent the interests of good planning and the environment in making their decisions. It is not good enough to select political cronies and appoint them to a board because they have done something for a party in the past. We are all aware of the destruction that has been wreaked on the country, particularly in Dublin, by planning decisions in the past. That is why I welcome the Minister's attempt to make the board independent. The Minister in the course of his speech said:

The provisions of this Bill are intended to restore public confidence in the system and to make the board's operation more efficient. In short, the objective is to provide for a system which will ensure that justice is in future seen to be done in the making of appointments to the board and that these can never again be alleged to be based on political considerations. That is what Deputies Lenihan, Molloy and Fitzgerald, three former Fianna Fáil Ministers, objected to. The big question is why do they not want that?

Did the Deputy ask why?

I have asked it many times. I hope the public will ask that questions and I hope the media will ask it. I hope Fianna Fáil will be put on the rack for this because they are the people who made the mistake yesterday, not us. They have highlighted their worry and fear of depoliticising something which has been the cause of widespread scandal in the past. This could be the straw that broke the camel's back. The intention from this side of the House is that they will not again achieve power on their own and they may not get the opportunity to come back into office and remove the members of this board. I believe this will be welcomed by the public and I do not think there will be any furore about it. They made their pitch yesterday in the stand they took in carrying out the farcical television debate that went on for seven hours interrupted with quorum commercials. I hope, if RTE ever come in here, they will not start to do that and that we will not have quorum bells ringing for commercials when we can all take a break during the commercial. This is the kind of circus that was carried on here yesterday. They had their clown prince dominating the ring for quite a time.

I ask the Deputy to withdraw the term "clown."

I withdraw that. They had their prince. You would think there was one speech written and handed out to all of them and each of them went in and read it because the same points were brought out by all of them. They were saying they did not want to lose the power of appointment, they did not want to give away their manna, the political largesse which kept them in power for so long. They wanted to retain that. The Minister proposes to do away with the necessity for having as chairman of the board a High Court judge. The Minister stated:

The 1976 Act provided that the chairman of the board must be a High Court judge or former judge but this arrangement is not being continued.

The Minister said that there has been difficulty in getting a serving judge to take the position and that this is understandable for several reasons. During the period of the last two Governments they found it necessary to appoint a senior barrister as a High Court judge with a view to his immediate appointment as chairman of the board. The last time that happened was just before the change of Government and a barrister was appointed as a judge specifically with the intention of becoming chairman of An Bord Pleanála but this did not happen. What was that? That was a blatant political appointment. They chose a barrister, made him a High Court Judge and attempted to appoint him as chairman of the board. Is that what Deputies Lenihan, Fitzgerald and Molloy want to continue so that they can go down, pick their man who served the party well — I do not know if it is true in this case because I do not know anything about the man — and put him in as chairman of the board? They want this to be the same as Bord na gCapall.

The Chair's attention was distracted for a moment. Deputy Skelly should not deal in personalities and particularly should not deal with a person who has been promoted to the bench and then appointed to a position as chairman of a board.

I did not mention any person's name.

It is not clear from what the Deputy said.

I will quote from the Minister's speech: He said:

The 1976 Act provided that the chairman of the board must be a High Court judge or former judge but this arrangement is not being continued. Governments seem to have found difficulty in getting a serving judge to take the position and this is understandable for several reasons. As a result, the last two Governments found it necessary to appoint or to seek to appoint, a barrister as a High Court judge with a view to his immediate appointment as chairman.

That is what I was referring to.

It is all right to refer to the Minister's speech provided the Deputy leaves it there.

I am leaving it there. I am saying, in reference to the speeches made by the three Deputies mentioned, that that is a blatant political appointment. I am not referring to any particular person. They want to continue with that and I am saying it is wrong. They want to put in a retired judge. Deputy Lenihan mentioned his name five or six times yesterday afternoon. I do not know why he did that. There is an appalling situation in the High Court because of lack of judges. If we are taking them away for this kind of work we should appoint more judges. The Law Library is full of expertise and they certainly could get barristers if they are necessary for this particular position, which I doubt very much.

Who decides that we must always run down and get a lawyer every time we want to do something? Who makes those decisions? What is so great about lawyers that they must always be at the head of every board, considering the fees they can command, win, lose or draw? The Minister is right in saying that it is not necessary that a lawyer should be chairman of the board. Legal advice is available to whatever chairman is appointed. People run their businesses, their professions and their affairs without having legal qualifications and they seem to do quite well. If they need legal advice they can go down to the Law Library, be ripped off but they only do it by choice. I do not see why we have to appoint a lawyer as chairman of the board when it is not necessary. This is a welcome innovation in the Bill.

The appointment of a chairman is for a seven-year term of office, which is a long term for a person with the responsibilities of An Bord Pleanála. It is a very sensitive post and a very sensitive board, which will very often cause controversy in relation to the decisions the board have to make. Many times it will not be the fault of the board that a controversy arises. It will be because some of the decisions the board have to make will affect a lot of people who will not agree with them. It is very important that we get the right person for such a long term in office. There should be a fair method for removing and monitoring the performance of the board.

The chairman will be selected by a special committee consisting of the President of the High Court, the Secretary of the Department of the Environment, the chief engineering adviser of the Department, the chairman of the Council of An Taisce, the President of the Construction Industry Federation and the President of the Executive Council of Irish Trade Unions. I do not know if that group is the best one from which to choose a chairman because I can see where there could be a conflict of interest.

Perhaps that point could be made more appropriately on Committee Stage.

I will leave it at that. I know an attempt has been made by the Minister to have an independent body capable of selecting the right person. I am surprised there is no architect suggested as a member of the board: perhaps the Minister of State was worried he might have been criticised if he had suggested an architect as he is an architect himself. I do not think one could consider appointing a board of this kind without an architect: perhaps the President of the RIAI or someone of that calibre. Architecture is one of the few disciplines that studies the social surroundings as well as the planning aspect and I consider it essential to have someone from that background on the board.

Deputy Molloy's apologia for An Bord Pleanála as enunciated yesterday was not very convincing. It has been proved and accepted that the board in the past have been useless and have lost the confidence of the people. For example, in the Harcourt Terrace case the board made a bad blunder in advising the applicants to adjust their application. They were told they would get permission if they reapplied in that way. The board went outside their terms and they were not a success. The way they were appointed was not accepted by the public and they lost the confidence of the people.

I should like to know how the members and the chairman can be removed. I should hate to see a situation developing here as applies in the courts where judges are appointed for life and can only be removed by the Oireachtas. That is a cumbersome method. Even though there could be the most dreadful decisions by certain members of the board, we might not be able to remove them. I think the Minister retains the power to do that but it should be spelled out more clearly. This is most important particularly in view of the fact that, according to three former Ministers in Fianna Fáil, when they get back to power they will remove the members. I am not saying we should do something that will prevent democracy from working in the normal way. If and when Fianna Fáil get back into power and they wish to take certain actions we do not wish to tie their hands in an unfair way. This debate is dealing with a serious matter but I do not think the debate yesterday as carried out by Fianna Fáil was a serious one. Quorums do not bother me because I spend much time in the House. In fact, I was thinking of calling for a few quorums yesterday. Deputy Molloy kept calling for people to come and listen to him but what we had to listen to was not worth hearing.

The Minister has recognised the importance of having representatives from a wide range of disciplines and bodies who will carry out their work efficiently. Under section 7 ordinary members of the board will be appointed by the Minister for a time not exceeding five years. Four will be appointed from among persons selected by groups representing professional, environmental, development and community interests, and the fifth ordinary members will be an established civil servant from the Department of the Environment. The nominating organisations will be decided when the Bill is enacted and the Minister gives an assurance that the organisation he will select will be genuinely representative of the interests concerned. I gather from that that the Minister is going to select the organisations and that they will appoint a nominee whom he will appoint to the board. The Minister is not here to answer my point but I wonder if he will select the person concerned because that would defeat the whole object of making the board independent.

I am surprised at the Deputy's innocence.

If that is innocence I plead guilty. I am not ashamed of it. I am not wet behind the ears, as Deputy Fitzgerald suggested about Deputy McLoughlin yesterday. The whole point in setting up the board is to get rid of the kind of thing Deputy O'Keeffe is talking about. He has not been here for the past hour to hear my speech. He is the fourth Fianna Fáil Member in the past two days who has come along and accused us of innocence. He wants to get back to doing what Fianna Fáil have been doing for the past 48 years. That is what has the reputation of politicians at such a low level. That is why we are the lowest form of animal in the country——

The Deputy is inviting interruptions. If he desists from that Deputy O'Keeffe will not interrupt him.

I was very glad to answer the Deputy. On Committee Stage I will ask the Minister how he proposes to select the members and to state the bodies from which they will come. I am sure we will get more definite information at a later stage. It always seems to be left to the Labour Party to try to undo this kind of political machinations to try to close the gap. It is a bit like the Fianna Fáil with the Revenue Commissioners trying to close the loopholes to stop tax avoidance. We are in Government and we are trying to stop corruption. Corruption can be a big word. I was misinterpreted yesterday when I said——

Tell us about the——

Deputy O'Keeffe, I do not see you listed to speak——

Yes, I am listed.

You are not on my list but we will discuss that later. Please let Deputy Skelly continue without interruption.

It is very important to have this board because of the abuses of planning rights down the line, and we are starting at the top. Yesterday I asked why any member of the public should have to go to a county councillor, as I did and beg him not to do something which would have a detrimental effect on the environment. I appealed to a county councillor not to put a dump in the Liffey Valley from Chapelizod to Lucan because it would destroy that valley. He told me he would thing about it, but it was only a swamp. In the past county councillors did not to have to answer for their actions because the public have never demanded that they do so. The public do not take local authority elections very seriously. Six or seven names are put forward and the public vote for faces they do not know. When the local elections are held next year I will try to impress upon my constituents that they should be very careful when selecting candidates. The public should ask them their views on certain subjects, such as the environment. They should be asked what they would do if certain things happened. Councillors are elected for five years. This is too long.

Everybody can see how Dublin County Council has been run. The councillors run it any way they like. They ignore the people who voted them into office. They have made the most attrocious decisions and destroyed this county, yet they are not answerable to anybody. I said yesterday that some of these councillors were ignorant and Deputy Tunney and Deputy Barrett objected to the use of that word. I take it that they objected to the use of that word because of its Irish connotation, which is insulting and because it could be considered as unparliamentary language. This morning I looked up the word "ignorant" in the English Oxford Dictionary. It means "destitute of knowledge, either in general or with respect to a particular fact or subject, unknown, uninformed and unlearned". It was in that context that I used it.

If a person wishes to be elected in a certain area he must be familiar with that area. We have let people go forward to represent us who do not care or know anything about what we want and there is often a doubt that, even if they did know all the facts of a situation, they would act in a proper way. When we elect councillors they should act in the interests of the people. I hope there will be an in-depth examination of what all the condidates have done and what they intend to do——

On a point of order, is the point being made by Deputy Skelly, relevant to this Bill, which deals with appointments to An Bord Pleanála and the speeding up of appeals applications? Could he tell us approximately what time he will finish?

I appreciate the Deputy is on a very keen edge. He is talking about planning, but the planning he is talking about is next year's local elections. Perhaps he will come back to the Bill now.

The last time I was speaking here Deputy De Rossa stood up in a rage and said he was not going to listen to this rubbish——

The Deputy is still speaking rubbish.

——and then he left. Again he is in the House and because I am speaking he stands up to object. Very seldom do I get time to speak. We have 70 Members on this side and there are two Members in his party. Yet he is speaking every day of the week. He does not need publicity. I object to that. That is not a point of order.

Deputy Skelly is doing very well.

I want to make the point that in future Deputy De Rossa is not going to try to walk over me.

On a point of order, is it in order for any Member to raise a point of order concerning the relevance of what a Member is saying?

Deputy De Rossa is in order and I have asked Deputy Skelly to confine himself to the Bill and not the 1984 local elections.

On a point of order, is it in order for a Member of this House to castigate our elected county councillors, honest-to-goodness, decent people who do the ground work at local authority level?

I listened to Deputy Skelly yesterday describing county councillors as ignorant, but he had the goodwill to go to the Library this morning to get the meaning of that word. I suggested yesterday that the phrase "ill-informed" would be more appropriate. If he had accepted my advice yesterday there would not be this discussion on it today. In the meantime, would Deputy Skelly continue on the Bill without interruption?

We are talking about setting up a planning board which will affect planning decisions right down the line. Many of the people who make these decisions are county councillors.

(Clare): Councillors do not make planning decisions.

The Deputy is illinformed. He should withdraw from the House.

We will hear from Deputy O'Keeffe later, and that will be fun. County councillors can make a large impact on the making of decisions and can decide — tell me if I am wrong — on rezoning.

(Clare): That is not a planning decision.

They can have an effect on decisions. They can talk to the manager, they can discuss matters in their chambers and so on. I hope this Bill will filter through the system and will show the people that there will be no more political interference in planning decisions. I hope that the people themselves will demand a higher standard from the county councillors whom they elect and that when these councillors are elected they will carry out the functions for which they are elected and will not act independently of the electorate but be answerable to them. That is the point which I am making and it is relevant.

This is an honest attempt to remedy a situation unacceptable to the public in the past and will be welcomed by everybody. No time limit has been put on delays in this Bill but the Minister mentions a procedure for specific examinations with a view to speeding up matters. Whether or not it is advisable to put a limit on time, delays can be discussed on Committee Stage but if an application cannot be reached and there is not enough time to discuss it properly it will go through by default. That would not be a satisfactory situation for An Bord Pleanála.

It can be seen right throughout this Bill and in the Minister's speech that every attempt is being made——

Take note of that.

——to be fair. The Minister cannot interfere with ordinary members. No communication is to be made between the chairman or the board members and members of the public, which is very important. It is important that people who do not see notification of an application get an opportunity to discuss the case and lodge an objection if they think it is necessary and are not happy about the situation.

I am glad that the vexatious and frivolous clauses are covered, with which Deputy Lenihan also agreed. An opportunity is given to the board to write to somebody who is delaying the giving of information, or is being frivolous or vaxatious. If there is no reply——

That was always there. It was in the old Act.

If there is no reply, it will be assumed that the objection is being withdrawn. It is important to remember that it is usually those with money or who have many resources who are able to employ the experts to try to get the application through. The ordinary person is not always able to afford to take on such people. I hope that this fact is taken into consideration. It is another important element in this Bill that in the past the ordinary objector could not engage senior counsel and planning experts, people whose job it is to steamroll through, or manipulate through, or keep putting in application after application. It is only people with money and time who can afford to have very expensive and longlasting applications. Under the old system, many of the unsatisfactory housing estates were forced through in this manner. People had no opportunity to compete with them. I would like to conclude by saying that there are 3,600 appeals——

The Deputy's Chief Whip is very effective.

The Deputy is not being very effective.

I am giving him a word of advice.

Deputy O'Keeffe was here listening last night for 40 minutes. I am speaking for long enough now and I have said all I want to say. If I wanted to say more, I would say it.

There are 3,600 appeals with An Bord Pleanála and every effort is being made in the constitution of this board to make available more administrative staff to speed up these appeals and get them through. The administrative systems and procedures are being streamlined. I welcome this Bill and look forward to discussing it on Committee Stage.

Deputy Molloy and other Deputies were saying that we should not be stressing this Bill, that we should be talking about different matters. Deputy Lenihan talked about fake committees and fake legislation which we were putting through this House. I ask him does he think that the budget, the Finance Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill, the Irish Steel Bill, the Export Promotions Bill, the SFADCo, Shannon Development Bill and the Transport Bill were all fake legislation being passed through this House? This is a serious thing for Deputy Lenihan to say and I hope that Deputy O'Keeffe regards it as serious.

The Deputy is being totally irrelevant.

Much serious legislation has been discussed in this House in the past six months and there will be much more in the future. No attempt has been made to avoid facing the issues during the term of office of this Government. I welcome the introduction of this Bill to the House.

(Clare): While Deputy Skelly is still in the House I should like to refer to some remarks which he made yesterday evening and again today in the context of this Bill. He was speaking about the role of county councillors who are, of course, the first stage of democracy in any democratic system, elected by the people to speak for the people in local authorities and who try to do what the people desire to have done in their own areas. He referred again this afternoon to them as ignorant. He appeared to get over that by reading the Oxford dictionary overnight and using the words “illinformed”.

If I did use it, I stood by it. On a point of order, I did not use the words "ill-informed".

I did not.

I was only trying to help the Deputy.

(Clare): That is what the Deputy said today. However, I would like to point out to this House——

I did not use the words "ill-informed".

(Clare): Deputy Skelly read out what “ignorant” meant according to the Oxford dictionary and the last words he read were “ill-informed”.

Uninformed.

(Clare): He did say that county councillors are elected representatives but he also said that they were ignorant.

Some of them.

(Clare): He said that they were ignorant.

Some of them.

(Clare): He also made other allegations about the county councillors.

That is right.

(Clare): He said that they were asses. Perhaps he will go out and get a description from the Oxford dictionary of what “assess” means.

I thought that the Deputy would understand that word.

(Clare): He did make that statement. More important and more serious altogether was the first statement which he made about the councillors — that they could not be trusted. That is more serious than calling them asses or ignorant. Incidentally, the Deputy did say during the course of his accusations that he was not a member of a local authority and never had been. I have never been a member of a local authority and am speaking objectively and with respect for the elected representatives on the local authorities throughout the length and breadth of this country — people with whom I had a lot to do over the last three years as Minister for the Environment. You could have nothing other than respect and admiration for them.

Speak for yourself.

(Clare): Another elected representative comes in here who would not be sitting where he is only for the electorate. He decides to call elected representatives asses, ignorant and not to be trusted.

I was elected by the people.

(Clare): Deputy Skelly referred this morning to the disrespect felt now for politicians and the political system. What is the doing to gain or restore respect if there is disrespect, with his type of behaviour and the remarks he has made? Perhaps he says the same about the Members of this House. However, with the other Members of my party, I supposed the amendment in the names of Deputies Molloy and Ahern.

By this legislation the Minister is sacking the present board. The Planning Act of 1963 was the first attempt to bring some semblance of planning into development. At the time we were at a reasonable stage of economic development. Deputy Skelly seems to think that county councillors decide on planning applications whereas this is a managerial or chief executive function. A planning applications is submitted in the first instance to the local authority and the decision on whether to grant or refuse the application is made by the chief executive. There follows then the appeals stage. The 1963 Act provided that the Minister of the day should decide these appeals. In some cases the junior Minister decided on them but the overall responsibility was vested in the Minister. This arrangement did not work very well because of the heavy workload that it entailed for the Minister. There were very good decisions made in respect of planning particularly in regard to major developments, but it is not possible to please all of the people all of the time in an area such as planning. Because of the numbers of applications coming before the Minister he could not continue to deal with all of them.

When I was assigned to the Department in 1977 the planning board had begun their work. I heard of the huge numbers of planning applications that had been awaiting the attention of the Minister before the board had come into operation. This was not because the previous Minister had been lazy but simply because the day was not long enough for any Minister to run such a big Department and at the same time to familiarise himself with the various appeals and reports that were furnished to him. The whole situation became unworkable. It was only to be expected, therefore, that a backlog would accrue. In 1976 the Coalition Government set up the planning board, who were to be charged with the task of deciding on planning appeals. The relevant Act was agreed by both sides of the House. There was no major criticism of it. From what I was told of the situation that had existed before the coming into existence of the board, I could only be very grateful to the former Deputy Tully who as Minister introduced the legislation to set up the board. Once the board began work, the backlog of appeals began to lessen. Deputy Molloy went into detail on this. By 1981-82, there had been quite an impact in so far as the backlog was concerned. The fact that there has built up a backlog again does not mean that the board or individual members of it are to blame. The problem is the lack of staffing. There are not sufficient personnel on the staffing side to enable appeals to be prepared and put before the board any faster than is the present situation. The only way, then, to deal with the delays is for the Government to sanction additional staff for the Department of the Environment to deal with this area. It has been suggested that the board might recruit their own staff, but whether that would be a good move is another question. Initially the board comprised six members. During my time as Minister one of those went back to his original job. He was only seconded to the board. I had the vacancy filled and also appointed another member. So far as I recall there were four places vacant on the board when I was appointed Minister.

Regarding the manner in which the board deal with the files on planning appeals, they do not have to familiarise themselves collectively with every file. Individual members read different files and then, as Ministers would do at the Cabinet table, each member would produce the files he had read and bring his colleagues up to date on the situation so as to enable them to reach a decision. Perhaps it is good to have more people on the board. This means that work can be dealt with more expeditiously. Most important in the lead-up to that level is the staffing. This Bill has no provision whatsoever to deal with the backlog so long as there is no mention in it of more staffing. In that respect the Bill is a total waste of time since it does not deal with the staff required to solve the existing problems, which cause all the delay, and it is futile for us to talk about politicising the board without taking any steps to deal with the immediate problem. There are many more important measures that need to be dealt with instead of our wasting our time discussing a Bill designed to disband the present board without taking the necessary steps to deal with the major problem of the long delays and all that is involved because of those delays.

We have been told how this board will be constituted. Members of certain bodies will nominate the members of the board. We can only hazard a guess as to what bodies they will be drawn from. This is allegedly the way in which the board will be removed out of the political arena. I believe there are very few people who do not hold some form of political belief or who do not support some political party. Irrespective of whether or not they vote they have leanings towards political parties. It would be just too bad if they did not because if the majority did not have political leanings we would not have our present democratic system.

With regard to political input and politicisation of the board and so forth, are we to believe these nominees nominated by these professional bodies will have no political leanings or preferences, do not involve themselves in or discuss politics, are not Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, or The Workers' Party? Are we to believe they do not belong to any party, that they do not even think about politics though they live in a democracy? I cannot see the relevance of this idea of putting in certain people who talk loudly about certain matters and who, apart from having some particular political beliefs and some political interest, will feel bound to represent the interest which nominated them. It would be extraordinary if they could dissociate themselves completely from the interests in which they have been involved.

I do not see that this is any improvement whatsoever. Remember these people will not have been elected by any electorate and it should be the right of the people generally who elect the Government and the right of that Government and the Minister responsible to appoint this board. Who is better equipped than the Minister? Who has more knowledge of the situation? Who is capable of acquiring information about the different people he may contemplate putting on a board? There are many channels through which he can get such knowledge. But here he is not even going to have an opportunity of assessing the appointees. Instead bodies of professionals will put forward names. This is a very retrograde step particularly in relation to An Bord Pleanála because of the impact it has and its input into development, economic and otherwise. It is very unwise to take this away from the elected representatives. Deputy Gene Fitzgerald suggested the Minister should withdraw the Bill not only because there is no urgency about it but because it will not deal with the major problem, namely, the long delays. The average time for an appeal is ten to 12 days. More inspectors are required and more staff to deal with these delays. It is not a question of appointing a new board nominated by certain interests outside of the Government and the political parties.

Delays cause serious problems. They are very frustrating and costly. Developers have decided against certain developments because of delays. In one instance in my county delay was not caused by the board. It was caused by local people who objected. The particular development would have employed 350. In fairness to the board they dealt with the matter as quickly as possible. The officials worked very hard. Everybody except the objectors was quite satisfied. The appeal was heard and planning permission was granted. The objectors were still dissatisfied and went to court. The developers became so frustrated they pulled out and went to the Far East.

There are other areas where delays have a serious effect. I would itemise tourist development and industrial development. There is one quick way of creating jobs. Employment can be created faster in the construction industry than in any other industry. The construction industry can start immediately whereas other developments take time to come on stream. The construction industry absorbs more unemployed quicker than any other industry. But the industry has been frustrated because of the delays, delays for which I have already given the reasons. If the Minister has difficulty in recruiting qualified inspectors he can recruit qualified personnel on a temporary basis by secondment from elsewhere. That is quite feasible. That is the way in which to deal with the backlog. If he gets the Bill through he should let the incoming board start off with the backlog because of the serious lack of development which results in a lack of employment opportunities.

Some local authorities are too slow in replying or giving their objections to submissions made by a person to the board. A number of local authorities have a habit of passing the buck regarding planning applications which are controversial. Their way of getting over this is to knock the application knowing that it will be appealed to An Bord Pleanála. If the board grant the appeal they will get the blame. Local authorities should deal with the applications before them on their merits. They have ample opportunity to get all the information they need. If they cannot acquire it within the two months that time can be extended. There is no justification for kicking them up to An Bord Pleanála just because they do not want to be saddled with the blame for granting permissions which are controversial.

A person who is refused an oral hearing heretofore had a right of appeal to the Minister of the day. This did not cause undue delays. There were instances where because the Minister might be better acquainted with the case he would grant an oral hearing. Sometimes facts are brought out at such hearings which would not be otherwise. This power should not be removed from the Minister. No Minister has ever abused this power by granting unnecessary oral hearings.

In some cases there is a long delay as regards the compilation of reports. It takes a long time when an inspector has finished his investigation to put such reports on the file and submit them to the board for decision. Perhaps something can be done in this area. There is insufficient staff in the Department of the Environment to deal with the backlog and this is well known. The Bill makes no provision for the recruitment of additional staff.

The selection committee to select the chairman will comprise the President of the High Court, the secretary of the Department of the Environment, the chief engineering adviser in the Department of the Environment, the Chairman of An Taisce, the President of CIF and the President of ICTU. I wonder why two are needed from the Department of the Environment. I do not see the necessity for having any selection committee. The Government are fully capable of selecting a chairman for this or any other board. There is no necessity for these fine gentlemen to select a chairman for this board.

We see no necessity for this Bill being brought in at this time. Any complaints I received during my time as Minister were always about delays. This is due to lack of staff to furnish the necessary reports to the board in order to permit them to make decisions. Until such time as extra staff are recruited there is no point in bringing in this Bill. We can only conclude, as my colleagues have stated, that this is just a political exercise. I regret to say that.

If I could see some purpose in the Bill it would be acceptable, but the fundamental problem is not being dealt with. If it was, it would not be necessary to sack the board and appoint a new one. All the members of the board are not appointed on the same day or in the same year so vacancies arise from time to time. If some members are found wanting their positions could be filled. There is no necessity to sack the board.

Most people have political beliefs or leanings so I do not understand how the board can be taken out of the political arena. I do not know of any case where there was political interference on a scale of any consequence. This Bill is totally unnecessary. It is wasting the time of the House. The Government should get on with the job of giving more staff to the board. In that way the backlog will be dealt with as efficiently as possible.

I welcome the Bill. As a person who is an elected member of a local authority I will give my experience as regards planning permission applications. I am proud to have been a member of Meath County Council since 1974 and I resent any allegations that a Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or Independent councillor in that county is an ass, a fool or stupid.

And was not to be trusted.

I can only speak for Meath county. The procedure there is that the councillors draw up the county development plan. Members of the public who want to apply for planning permission make a formal application and that is dealt with by the county manager, as the granting of applications is a managerial function. Should somebody not be happy with the decision they receive they can appeal that decision to An Bord Pleanála. In County Meath all the councillors are constructive and there is no political interference with the county manager. Certainly people have come to me concerning planning refusals; but during the 19 years I worked in a local authority I always found the honesty, trustworthiness and integrity of civil servants and local authority officials to be undoubted. I have never seen any backroom dealing with officials in regard to planning. It does not go on. Public servants are above board.

I welcome the decision to set up this new planning board and to take the election of members completely out of the political arena. I know that the members who will be appointed will be people who vote at elections but there is a difference between a person who casts his vote and a person who acts as director of elections or a staunch member of a party being appointed to the board. The Opposition are criticising the Minister for taking this matter outside the political arena. Has anybody in the Opposition stated the planning expertise of the members of the present board? Matters of a very technical nature must be considered in the granting of planning permission. The average member of the public probably thinks that such permissions generally are sought by individuals seeking permission for single house, but this is not the case. In my county there are massive housing applications as well as mining and industrial applications. Members of this board should never have been appointed on the strength of membership of a political party but should have been planning experts. The Minister has said that this will be a full-time job where people will do a good week's work for a decent week's pay.

For too long in parts of Ireland local authorities have granted planning permission for new towns without any forward thinking as to the provision of schools, churches and shopping facilities. The Minister is right to ensure that members of this board will have a certain amount of planning expertise. While a previous Minister increased the number of members of the board, the Opposition cannot deny that the backlog of work increased.

Whose fault is that?

The major restriction affecting planning permission is that people are not allowed to build houses on national primary routes. I would remind Deputy Molloy that in 1969 he, as Minister for Local Government, sent a directive to all local authorities to this effect, and I agree with his decision. I have known members of my local authority who have tried to get that decision rescinded but no Minister has acceded to that request.

While members of local authorities in some cases draw up county development plans, it is often county managers who have to grant planning permission in accordance with the plan prepared by the county council. It is the managers who must take the responsibility because the buck stops with them.

I thought the Deputy would tell us who was responsible for the delay in planning appeals.

The Opposition have said that the files are only a week with the board but it must be remembered that the board can change an inspector's report.

What about appeals?

I did not heckle Deputy Molloy yesterday. It is not right that the majority of the members of the board who decide all planning appeals, should be members or supporters of one political party. I accuse the Opposition of crying about the abolition of this board because the last bit of power in their possession is being taken away from their henchmen. They are being kicked out.

Rubbish.

I spoke this morning to a supporter of Fianna Fáil and I hope Deputy Molloy's party keep up the racket they started yesterday because they are on a loser. The average man in the street wants planning to be dealt with independently, no matter which party he supports.

Tell us more about the delays.

Deputy Molloy yesterday criticised every local authority and said delays were due to the fact that local authorities did not submit information in time. Possibly that is the case, but I have no proof. He must admit that most local authorities are overburdened with work. In my county about 2,500 planning applications are dealt with every year.

Do not blame the board members.

The Opposition are deliberately playing politics with this matter. They are like children who have lost their soothers and are crying for the henchmen they placed on the board. It was the deliberate misuse of political appointments by previous Fianna Fáil Ministers which brought about the scrapping of this board. No Government could tolerate the present situation. I would accept it if the Opposition could state that 100 per cent or even 50 per cent of the board members have planning expertise. I know one man who is entitled to be a member because he is a qualified civil engineer and would have planning qualifications. It is farcical to offer a job worth £18,000 to a director of elections. I hope the Opposition will continue to criticise my party's leader, the Minister for the Environment. The Minister has public support behind him. The man in the street, the majority of the public are saying: "Good man Dick; well done, take politics out of planning".

On a point of order, ordinarily the tradition here has been that the debate would swing from one side to the other. Accordingly, I had expected it would now come to this side. I presume you are aware that The Workers' Party are with the Government on this piece of legislation.

I have no knowledge of Deputy De Rossa's attitude to the Bill. I did not read it in the newspapers and I was not looking at television last night. I have already discussed this matter with you privately. Nine Deputies have contributed from Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil. I am trying to be impartial. I was calling Deputy De Rossa as the tenth contributor to the debate. He will be followed by Deputy Prendergast, Deputy Tunney, Deputy Dowling, a Deputy to be named by Fianna Fáil and then by a Fine Gael Deputy. I am asking the Deputy as a former holder of this office to accept that I am trying to be impartial and allow the debate to continue. This will be going on until Friday and I am trying to give everyone an opportunity to get in.

I should like to present my side of the picture. I served in the position you now hold and I never brought in a Member of a minority party until such time as a fair number of speakers from the major parties had got in. This debate, as you have said, will be going on for a long time. I sat here all day yesterday and this morning, and you tell me now that you propose to call on Deputy De Rossa, who has just reappeared in the House, and then you will call on Deputy Prendergast before you come back to this side.

Nobody can accuse me of giving an imbalance. Nine Deputies have contributed already. Deputy De Rossa has offered as the tenth. I have no knowledge of the alleged statement by Deputy De Rossa on television last night.

The President of his party indicated last night, or so I gathered from his contribution, that he was critical of the Fianna Fáil approach to the legislation. Therefore, I am assuming that he will not side with Fianna Fáil and that what Deputy De Rossa will have to say will be likewise. Apart from that, there is a situation in which we have had a member from the Government side and you are now about to bring in another speaker who is in favour of what the Government are doing, and yet you indicate——

Neither you nor I have any knowledge of whether Deputy De Rossa is in favour of the Bill.

You have indicated that Deputy De Rossa will be the third speaker as against one for Fianna Fáil, and how you can balance that when we have half the membership of the House?

Six months have elapsed since the new Government were appointed and since then, to the best of my knowledge. The Workers' Party have been regarded in the House as being an Opposition Party. I would be very glad if you would allow the debate to continue. I am anxious that you and every other Member would contribute before Friday evening.

I am not all that anxious for myself. You cannot substantiate your decision that there should be three speakers against one——

You are endeavouring to make the case that Deputy De Rossa is a Member of the Government side, and I challenge that. You are challenging my decision. I am being impartial. The Chair has the final decision and I am calling on Deputy De Rossa. Five minutes have been lost already so I am asking you to allow Deputy De Rossa to contribute.

I understand your invidious position because the precedent has been created by the Ceann Comhairle, on which I took issue with him as well as Deputy Tunney, because during a previous debate on the Department of the Environment exactly this situation occurred. I made the point to the Ceann Comhairle that he could not have Deputy De Rossa in when The Workers Party were debating with the Government side. You are in the invidious position that the Ceann Comhairle has ruled on this, but we must point out the unfairness of this position. It is another illustration of the Ceann Comhairle's ill-judged decision and it has caused much rancour in the House.

I resent the imputation that it is ill-judged. I am being as impartial as I can. I would point out to the Deputy that the House must accept the situation that the Chair has the final say as to who will be called next in a debate. We have lost eight minutes and I will be very grateful for the co-operation of all.

I would point out for the information of the House that the Deputy who has just concluded, Deputy McLoughlin was the subject of special legislation while an employee of a local authority to enable him to stand for a local authority election. He was the subject of extreme political patronage.

I am surprised at you. That is not a point of order. I expected a higher standard from you.

(Interruptions.)

Normally your contributions are of a much higher standard. I am disappointed in you.

That is a fact and I am bringing it to the notice of the House.

I am calling on Deputy De Rossa.

It is incredible how much time we have lost in this debate in useless haggling. There are precedents for Fianna Fáil supporting legislation before the House. They supported the Coalition last week and the order of speakers was not raised at all. I welcome the Bill, limited as its provisions are and restricted as it is. It makes an attempt to de-politicise planning. It is quite in order for any Deputy to support or oppose any measure before the House regardless of which side of the House he sits on, whether in Opposition or on the Government side.

Hear, hear.

The Bill de-politicises the appointment of the board. It will speed up planning appeals. I find it difficult to accept the Fianna Fáil amendment which seeks to deny a Second Reading for the Bill. It is unreasonable and foolish because it will serve to harden the attitude of the public in the belief which many have that attempts are being made, behind closed doors, to ensure that political patronage will be maintained in relation to An Bord Pleanála. The Fianna Fáil amendment has three paragraphs. It would seriously undermine procedures for physical planning in the country. I have not heard yet from the Fianna Fáil benches their grounds for suggesting there would be serious undermining of existing procedures. The Bill does not meet all the matters I would like to see in the Bill and my party will propose on Committee Stage an amendment to try to improve the procedures. The existing procedures which Fianna Fáil are anxious to maintain need to be changed and updated.

On the second point in relation to the repercussions on the standing, prestige and effectiveness of Government boards and State-sponsored bodies, I should like all members of State boards and bodies to be selected independently of Government Ministers. I do not agree that the appointment of persons to State boards should be in the hands of a particular Minister or Government. They should be appointed independently by an independent body on the basis of their expertise, their knowledge and their ability in the area to which they are appointed. We have had people appointed to various State bodies and semi-State bodies who had no obvious expertise for the boards to which they were appointed.

The third point raised by the Fianna Fáil amendment is that the Bill pre-empts the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Building Land which under its Orders of Reference is required inter alia to examine the operations of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts. I am not a member of that committee, but I assume the concern of that committee is to find ways to ensure that the price of land is controlled so that vast profits are not made when it is zoned or re-zoned for industrial development or housing development, and to ensure that there is an orderly development of the environment, and that any value which accrues as a result of re-zoning and inflated prices following re-zoning is fed back to the community.

I cannot see that this Bill, which attempts to provide an independent or semi-independent system of appointing members to An Bord Pleanála, and to tighten up the appeal decision process, can have any effect on the deliberations of the Committee on Building Land. I have not yet heard in the contributions made by Fianna Fáil any justification for the point made in their amendment.

It must be accepted by all sides of the House that there is growing public disquiet about the composition and working of the State planning body. I said in the past and I repeat that the board should be disbanded. Depending on what system of appointment is decided by the House, the members should be re-appointed if they are found to be suitable, and if they are nominated by the various groups and bodies designated in the Bill which may or may not be passed in the House.

There is public disquiet, and there is a need to ensure, in the interests of politicians themselves, that there is no taint of jobbery or influence in any State body. Every effort should be made by this House to ensure that we distance ourselves from bodies set up to adjudicate on matters which do not have a direct political relevance.

This board was set up initially to do precisely what Fianna Fáil are now objecting to, to de-politicise major planning decisions. Because of the rumours and stories which surrounded the appointment of various members of the board over a period of years, it is now recognised that the system of appointment is not the right one. The nature of the appointments made to the board by successive Governments—and I am not talking only about when Fianna Fáil were in office; previous Coalition Governments also appointed members to the board—has led to the widely held conviction that at least some members were chosen more for their party political affiliations than for any knowledge or expertise in planning and development.

I make that point, and I should like to qualify it by saying that I do not know any of the members of the planning board. I am echoing a view held by a vast number of people outside this House that the system of appointment is wrong and that it is open to abuse. We should not allow that to continue. If we allow it to continue and if Fianna Fáil succeed in preventing this Bill going through even in its present state, we are perpetuating a situation in which Members of this House and politicians in general are held to be less than honest. Having said that, I should like to dissociate myself from the remarks made by Deputy Skelly about city councillors and county councillors. It was a deplorable attack on democratically elected members of local bodies.

Hear, hear.

A clear distinction must be drawn between democratically elected members of local councils, who have been put there by the electorate to make decisions on matters on which they have power to make decisions under the Local Government Acts, and the planning board or any other board appointed by a Minister and not answerable to anyone but themselves once they are appointed. That is why we are anxious that a new system should be developed to ensure that when people are being appointed the best possible people available are given the job, and that-they are above any suspicion whatsoever that they hold their positions because of some political affiliations, or that they are in any way open to political influence.

On the question of the speed with which appeals are dealt with, at a recent meeting with the construction industry committee of the ICTU the point was made very strongly to us that there was an urgent need to clear up what they see as the planning mess which exists. They made the point that the present backlog in the hearing of appeals by An Bord Pleanála and the uncertainty about the whole planning area were major factors inhibiting the revitalisation of the building industry. We all know that in that industry there is very serious unemployment running around 40 per cent at the moment. In Irish terms that is a disgrace, given the number of people who are in need of homes and in need of employment.

In Finglas in my own constituency people have been informed that the IDA have not sufficient industrial land to develop the region and provide jobs for the population in the area. The whole question of inter-relating the planning of an area and ensuring that there is coordination between the IDA who need industrial land the population who need housing and employment must be looked at. The planning authorities at local level and the planning appeal board must be aware of the needs in various areas.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn