Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Barrett,

Dún Laoghaire): I move:

That, in the case of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983, and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders—

(i) the proceedings on the motion for the second reading and on the amendment thereto and on the motion naming the day for Committee Stage, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. on Thursday, 30 June 1983, by putting from the Chair forthwith and successively the Questions necessary to bring them to a conclusion; and that the Minister for the Environment shall be called on not later than 4.30 p.m. to conclude the debate; and

(ii) the proceedings on the Committee, Fourth and Fifth Stages, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 5 July 1983, by one Question, which shall be put from the Chair, and which shall in relation to amendments include only amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment.

I move this motion with great reluctance. I do not like to have to resort to this procedure because it is not the ideal way of doing business. However, it was necessary because we failed to reach agreement and the Government decided the Bill must go through because it is urgent. I tried during the course of the week to allocate sufficient time for the Second Stage debate and I am allocating all next Tuesday for the Committee and remaining Stages. It has been long established practice that the Whips meet and agree business. Since I became Whip I found this practice extremely useful and I got nothing but the greatest co-operation from the Opposition Whip. Unfortunately we had to depart from that arrangement on this occasion but I hope we can return to fruitful discussions on the conclusion of this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is this agreed?

Mr. B. Ahern

The Ceann Comhairle asked if this was agreed but he knows the answer. It is "no". The point I made on Tuesday was that, unfortunately, a last minute decision was made by the Government to force this Bill through this House. There was no real need for the Minister and his Minister of State to put this Bill through before the summer recess. We had indicated in informal discussions on legislation, which always take place, that perhaps we would agree to the Second Stage being taken, but the Government were not interested in our agreement last Tuesday and proceeded to debate the Bill. We made our arguments on that day and our spokesman, Deputy Molloy, clearly outlined our objections, as did the speakers who followed him. Obviously, even less attention was paid to their objections than there was to our reasons for not wanting the Bill to be discussed this session.

The Government have now decided to guillotine the Second Stage today and, unbelievably, to put the Committee and remaining Stages through in six hours next Tuesday. This is a major Bill to which the Opposition have listed their objections over a number of weeks. We have gone to the Minister and his Minister of State and repeatedly to the Whip's office to make our objections in advance of the Bill being brought into the House, and all that has been ignored. It is obvious that we are being treated unfairly and shabbily. We have more than 40 speakers remaining. We cannot be accused of filibustering because the longest speech on this Bill so far was by Deputy Skelly who filibustered for two-and-a-half hours. We called for quorums on the first day to object to the way this Bill was pushed through, but we did not continue that tactic yesterday.

May I say to the Government Chief Whip, who is a co-operative person, that I have no option but to continue a policy of non-co-operation for the remainder of the session. Like him, I do not like that. We have not yet seen the other legislation the Government mentioned. I assume they are speaking of the Fisheries Bill and the Turf Bill but they have not been circulated. We are told the Government wish to go into recess tomorrow week. We wish to have an Adjournment Debate, which has been threatened if we do not agree to this motion. This is totally unreasonable and goes against the precedents established in this House.

The last guillotine motion in this House was moved by the last Coalition Government in December 1981. At no time in recent years have Fianna Fáil used this tactic. Last year we continued business for two weeks when the then Opposition, the present Government, were in Galway wasting their time, to allow adequate time for debate and ended up putting in Government speaker after Government speaker. We did this to avoid using the guillotine. This Government would not even do that. As I said, we have more than 40 people who genuinely want to contribute to this debate and they are being denied that opportunity. We are being denied the opportunity to deal with legislation in a proper way on Committee Stage.

The committees, which the Government accused us for so long of not taking part in, now cannot proceed because there will be no agreement from us. All-party committees cannot be set up in this session without the agreement of the Opposition. The fault lies solely with the Taoiseach because he tried to put through a guillotine motion. He can answer to the marital groups and to all the other groups with whom we have co-operated to bring in all-party committees. If guillotine motions are used to bring forward legislation and unfairly treat the Opposition then the Opposition have no alternative but to treat the Government in the same way.

Mr. Haughey

This guillotine motion makes another massive dent in this Government's credibility, in their general credibility as a Government but particularly their bona fides on the issue of Dáil reform. We are dealing here with one of the most spiteful pieces of legislation this Dáil has even seen. Not alone do the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste want to bring forward a mean, debasing piece of legislation but they now want to railroad it through the Oireachtas. In order to do that they are prepared to set at risk all the work that has been done so far on the establishment of committees and everything that has so far been agreed in regard to Dáil reform.

I have never, in my time in this House, seen political animus brought to such an extent. I do not think anybody in the country believes that this piece of legislation is being brought forward for the benefit and the improvement of the planning process. It is a dirty piece of legislation. It is a mean, debasing piece of legislation. It has no motivation except party political vindictiveness.

My colleagues on this side of the House have outlined the various defficiencies there are in the measure — the fact that it will not improve the planning process in any way, the fact that it is grossly unfair to a large number of decent honourable people. All these criticisms have been made from this side of the House. Nevertheless the Government persist and we are totally convinced that they are persisting with this simply on the basis of the lowest party, partisan, political objectives.

We on this side of the House are very worried about the attitude of the Government in this regard from a number of points of view. I will mention one of them. In discussions with the Minister for Industry and Energy we agreed to the setting up of a new committee to deal with legislation. We are not totally convinced of the merits of that committee or that it is any way a very valuable initiative or departure. Nevertheless, we, being reasonable parliamentarians, felt that if the Minister concerned was very keen on it and thought there was some merit in it, we would at least give it a trial. We were very concerned about one aspect of it and I mentioned this to the Minister for Industry and Energy on a number of occasions. That was that the legislation coming before this House, which, in the normal course of events, would be fully debated here in open forum with the press and the public present, can be referred to this new committee by a motion of a member of the Government. We were prepared to agree to that on condition that that would be done by agreement. Finally, we came to an informal arrangement or understanding that that agreement would be on the basis of the sort of agreement which normally prevails in regard to the ordering of business here in the House. In view of this development today, the fact that the Government in order to pursue their own base political objectives are prepared to throw out the normal procedures of agreement, I am not prepared to participate in that particular committee at any rate until this question of whether or not legislation can be referred to it by agreement is straightened out. That is the sort of thing that has been put in jeopardy by the Government in bringing forward this guillotine motion.

Our Chief Whip has pointed out that we are not filibustering this piece of legislation. I want to remind the House that on the last occasion we had a major piece of planning legislation before the House we spent I think 11 days on the Committee Stage and Deputy Jim Tully, who was Minister for Local Government at the time, went through that Bill line by line, section by section, in Committee and on Report Stage. He dealt with every argument we put up. He listened to our arguments and accepted some of them, made changes and so on. Eventually we got a Planning Act. This Government and this Labour Minister want to put through a Bill on Committee Stage in four or five hours. I want to attack the Tánaiste's bona fides in doing that. I cannot accept that he has the planning process and its improvement genuinely at heart if he wants to put a major Planning Bill through this House in a five hour Committee Stage.

That is one of the reasons we are opposing this guillotine motion. We cannot see that any useful public purpose will be met by proceeding with what is now proposed. Our Whip has pointed that we have 40 speakers anxious to contribute. I can think of very few things that we talk about in this House, apart from taxation, which more basically affects the ordinary everyday lives of our people than physical planning and the environment. It affects practically every aspect of the daily life of a citizen — the type of house he lives in, the type of estates we are going to build, where our schools are situated, the traffic system. These are all clearly bound up in the question of physical planning.

This business of physical planning and our environment is essentially a social matter. Because it is a social matter it must be a political matter. We totally reject this idea of depoliticising the planning process. The attempt in this Bill is apparently to hand over this fundamentally important social matter to unknown, unrepresentative, self-appointed groups and to take it away from us, the representatives of the people, whether in this House or at local level. The whole process is a fraud and we are totally opposed to the Bill. We are certainly opposed to this undemocratic jackboot attempt to railroad it through this House in this manner. I find it very hypocritical on the part of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to be prating and preaching about Dáil reform and making this House more relevant and involving Dáil Deputies more closely in the whole parliamentary process, in the Government and the executive function, when they do this sort of thing. I ask them, even at this late stage to understand, realise, acknowledge and admit that they have made a major mistake in the matter, that they have done it out of a fit of pique. The story around this House is that the procedures were generally agreed between the Tánaiste, his Minister of State, the Whips and others that this matter could be left over and dealt with more fully and comprehensively when we resumed. However, in some fit of pique the Taoiseach personally intervened and decided that this Bill must be railroaded through before we rise for the summer.

While I am on that subject, I would like to make some comments on something which a political commentator stated in one of our national dailies this morning. He said that the Government are going to drop the axe, the guillotine on this Bill and that they are prepared to keep on dropping it until such time as they get all their legislation through before the summer recess. Perhaps we should make the situation clearer in that regard. This really is the only legislation which the Government have on hands. The rest are of importance, but are not going to cause anybody any difficulty. We are prepared to let them through this House in an hour. There are only two other pieces of legislation on hands. One is the Bill dealing with the flags of convenience — the fisheries Bill and the other is a turf Bill to increase the amount of capital available to Bord na Móna. They are two important measures, admittedly, but two measures which we are going to give the Government without any hesitation. Wherever that story came from, the impression conveyed that the Government are anxious to get some whole legislative programme through before the summer recess is absolute rubbish. It is a long time since any Government of this House approached the summer recess with less legislation on hands. In fact, the only legislation on hands is this loathsome piece of politically motivated legislation to try to assert some mean, vindictive party political policy.

We are totally opposed to this guillotine motion, just as we are opposed to the unworthy legislation which it hopes to implement. We propose to oppose both to the greatest extent possible which the Rules of Order and the Chair will permit, because we see them as unworthy of any Government.

The Taoiseach

I want to reply very briefly. The Leader of the Opposition's reference to me is factually incorrect.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach is not concluding the debate?

The Taoiseach

No, I am not, I assure the Chair.

Mr. Haughey

Then the Taoiseach is out of order.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy has not taken over the Chair yet.

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle

I was just clarifying that the Taoiseach was not concluding the debate, as it is my duty to do. The Taoiseach, on the motion.

The Taoiseach

I wish merely to respond to two things which the Leader of the Opposition has said, Firstly, what he said about me is factually incorrect. Secondly, I note what he has said about the other two Bills. We will press this motion to a division now because it is there and we must get it through and be in a position to ensure that the legislation goes through the House. When it has been passed, I shall ask our Chief Whip to talk with the Chief Whip on the other side. If the Opposition feel that the two Bills in question, the turf and the fisheries Bills, can be put through in a relatively short space of time on Wednesday and still leave time for the Adjournment Debate, which the Opposition wish to have, we could put down a further motion to allow more time for Committee Stage on Wednesday. That is something which we can only deal with when this motion has gone through and the position is clear. Within the limits of what is possible, we wish to accommodate the Opposition in that respect.

Mr. D. Gallagher

Very generous.

Mr. B. Ahern

On a point of order, surely the Taoiseach cannot do that, because this motion has two sections in it and section (ii) provides for the guillotine on next Tuesday. Is the Taoiseach now saying that he is withdrawing section (ii)?

The Taoiseach

No, Sir. I am saying that the motion will be put through.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am not going to negotiate with the Government Whip after the guillotine goes through. If the guillotine is withdrawn, we shall talk about it first.

Mr. MacGiolla

I am reluctant to intervene in this temporary fall-out over the cosy arrangement which has been proceeding in this House since I came into it. This is a guillotine motion. I had not witnessed such a motion before, but it does not seem to be much different, from our viewpoint, from what has occurred on various Bills over the past number of months when, by agreement of the Whips, a guillotine was put on the debate either on Second Stage or on Committee Stage, or both. On the Postal and Telecommunications Bill, which is very major legislation, only two-and-a-half days were afforded on Committee Stage. However, while I believe that ample time has been given for discussion on Second Stage of this Bill, the time allowed on Committee and other Stages is quite unreasonable.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

So does everybody else.

Mr. Mac Giolla

It has the appearance of being a day but, in fact, on Tuesday the House does not sit until 2.30 p.m. and Question Time continues until 3.30 p.m. Then there is Private Members' Time for an hour-and-a-half, which leaves about five- or five-and-a-half hours.

I am very disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that his party may withdraw from the all-party committees as a result of what is occurring here. I appeal to him to reconsider that. It would be most unfortunate, because of the number of committees which are beginning and which could do very useful work but which would be affected if there were no agreement on these at this time.

What has occurred is quite understandable because it has been pointed out that the Government have very little legislation to bring before us and it has been decided — I do not know whether by agreement or not — that we adjourn tomorrow week. There is no reason in the world why we should. If time is required to discuss a Bill, I am against that. We have consistently pointed out that more time should be given for debates on various Bills. If more time is required for this legislation, there is no reason why it should not be given. There is no reason why we cannot sit for another week. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions since the Taoiseach came into office that changes would be made, that we would work longer hours, sit longer, that more work would be done, more legislation brought forward and that the adjournment period would not be as long and so forth. I do not see why all this row has occurred, or the need for guillotines or cutting of the time at all on this Bill, Even if the Taoiseach wants to adjourn on Friday, he still has ample time to give at least up to 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday for Committee Stage of this Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

This has been a perfectly normal debate in terms of parliamentary debates on important legislative measures. We do not deny that. The debate has proceeded along the normal, even tenor of debates in this House on such measures. The Bill was introduced and received a response from this side and contributions from the Members of the Labour Party and The Workers' Party. Indeed, the longest contribution was from Deputy Skelly of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Deasy

And the best.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Deputy must not have read it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I appeal to the Deputies to cease interrupting and to cease being provocative.

Mr. Lenihan

I am certain that the record of the House will bear out what I am saying — that we proceeded in the normal way, had our sos, our Question Time and Private Members' Time and an ordinary debate on this important legislative measure. Why at this stage is this being done? Only the most malicious and vindictive interpretation can be put on the Government's action in this respect, especially when it flows from a Government which has set up alleged Dáil reform as a major plank in its policy programme.

Mr. Wilson

A Deputy is reading a paper.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies should not read newspapers in the House.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

He is reading about Deputy Skelly.

Mr. Lenihan

The guillotine mechanism is one that is used in parliaments only very seldom and very sparingly. This is because it runs counter to the whole idea of parliamentary debate. It is a mechanism to be used only in the last analysis and when there has been an obvious filibuster in progress for weeks. We have not used the guillotine motion for a long number of years. If one goes through the records one finds that this sort of motion has been introduced only by parliaments that did not need reform, parliaments that had common sense and sensitivity. That has been the record of good parliaments since the formation of the State but here we have a sanctimonious Government who, within months of setting up a whole panopoly of committees and of talk and advice on the need for Dáil reform, introduce a guillotine motion in the middle of a normal Second Reading debate on a measure for which no reason has been put forward in terms of urgency or in terms of national interest.

In addition to bulldozing Parliament, the Government are bulldozing the Constitution. In the course of doing that they are removing from office and without stated reason a former High Court Judge. Therefore by implication they are bulldozing also the judicial system. This is the Government of reform that we hear so much about. According to the leader in The Irish Times this morning, the Minister for the Environment has received a letter from a firm of solicitors pointing out the many constitutional implications of this Bill. During the course of my speech on Tuesday I warned the Minister of the serious legal and constitutional deficiencies in this measure. The draconian guillotine nature of section 10 of the Bill would not stand up in any court of law. If the Government persist in bulldozing the Bill through, they will face massive compensation claims from the chairman and members of the board on the basis of their being dismissed without any stated reason. The Government have the temerity not even to suggest in the Bill that there should be stated reasons for the dismissal of the board. There is merely the suggestion that on the commencement of this legislation the chairman and other members of the board shall cease to hold office. The reason for this is obvious. There is no cause for the board being dismissed. In the many offthe-cuff remarks on this matter that the Minister has made since assuming office he has not cast aspersions on any member of the board, a board presided over by one of the leading and most respected judicial personages in the country. Neither did the Minister cast aspersions on these people in introducing the Second Stage of the Bill. The only reason for the removal of the board is vindictiveness on the part of the Government and because the board were appointed by the previous Government.

I was a member of the Fianna Fáil Government in 1977. That was shortly after the establishment of the first planning appeal board by the then Minister, Mr. Tully, and the Government of the day. We did not interfere so far as any member of that board was concerned. We dismissed allegations that were made against some of the appointees. I believe in the basic principle that unless we are to degenerate into a banana-republic type situation, once an Irish Government make appointments of this kind, they should be backed by the succeeding Government except in circumstances of some grave wrong so far as the appointees are concerned. If we failed to act in this way we would be bringing about a lack of confidence in our institutions and in the boards we establish. Sometimes we appoint people of our political persuasion to these boards but they are always people of integrity. I would respect the right of the Coalition to do that also but what they are doing now in dismissing an entire board is very dangerous. It is the first time that this has been done in the history of the State. The Government in this instance are engaging in a highly damaging procedure so far as the fabric of society is concerned. I warn them that by this type of vindictive deed they may be doing enormous damage in terms of the respect people have for the political system. It is very important that people of standing and of integrity in the community are encouraged to work on such bodies as the planning appeals board.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lenihan

That is why the former Deputy Tully as Minister in a decent Coalition Government wrote into the legislation the specific requirement that the chairman of the board should be a High Court judge or a person who had held that office and that the emoluments would be of the same order as those of a High Court judge. The legislation contained the provision that the chairman would have the same services and the same standing as a High Court judge would have. We are not talking about some small board but about a quasi-judicial board who are concerned with very serious and complex decisions. The board must deal with matters that are more important than are 90 per cent of the matters coming before the ordinary courts. In every sense the board are as important an institution as is any of the courts. That is why the previous Coalition to which I have referred, in their wisdom and supported by us, included in the governing legislation the necessity to appoint a person of High Court judicial status.

We support fully the thinking and the intention behind that provision. Since the formation of the board the three chairmen to have been appointed were of such judicial status — Mr. Justice Pringle, Mr. Justice Walsh and Judge Murnaghan. Apart from the public odium that will result from what the Government are doing, the Bill will have the effect of bringing the Government into the courts and it will result in severe and serious constitutional difficulties. I am convinced that section 10 of the Bill is totally at variance with the Constitution. One cannot just dismiss people like that. That kind of draconian, jack-boot treatment is the kind of thinking behind the Government's attitude in moving this guillotine motion. We are only being given five hours for Committee Stage next Tuesday to discuss this measure which is a minefield of Committee Stage problems both in regard to its legal and constitutional implications.

If this Government want to proceed along these lines they will do enormous damage to themselves, which I welcome, because the more damage they do to themselves the better. What I do not like is that in the course of doing that damage they will damage the institution of Dáil Éireann, the profession of politics or the political institutions of the State and the boards on which honourable people serve. However, honourable people will not serve on these boards again if they have to face the prospect of being treated in the manner in which the honourable judge who is chairman of this board and the other members of the board are being treated. Nobody will serve on boards anymore.

With all the Dáil reform and all the committees, the Government will soon be going around in circles and will get nothing done if they behave like this. They will rapidly disappear down the tubes of disrespect. They will have only themselves to blame. I do not mind them going down but it is the damage that will be done to the whole fabric of society and politics that I care about.

I suppose there is no point in asking this vindictive Government to stay their hand at this stage. They are leading us down a path which we in Fianna Fáil absolutely reject. No amount of talk about fancy committees will paper over that big gaping hole of disrespect they are creating. No amount of cosmetic politics at which they are specialists will help to powder over the damage they will cause.

Mr. Molloy

In all my 18 years as a Deputy there are few issues which come before the House for decision which have upset me as much as this one. The more I think about what the Government are attempting to do, the harder I find it to believe that they are actually attempting to make this move. It is extraordinary that a Government would seek to abolish the membership of a board established under legislation passed in the House without giving as much as one valid reason why they are dismissing the chairman and the appointed members. This is an extraordinary move. I do not understand how the Government thought they would get away with this.

The Taoiseach is doing great damage to his reputation by continuing to press ahead with this Bill. All the other members of the Coalition will have to carry the odium of this repressive legislation and the exceptional step of abolishing a board without valid reason. Where is the Taoiseach's sense of fair play or the Minister's sense of justice? Where do they think this legislation will lead us? Right into the banana republic. It is leading us away from respect for the House and the legislation passed here. How can we expect people to respect the legislation we pass if we have no respect for it ourselves and seek to cast it aside without valid argument in favour of doing so?

The Minister sought to denigrate the members of the board. We know why. It is for political reasons. It was because they were appointed by the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government. The Taoiseach is seeking to introduce a dangerous principle. It would mean that people appointed to boards by an outgoing Government could be legitimately thrown out of office by an incoming Government. When we won the election in 1977 we never questioned the many appointments the Coalition made when they had been defeated at the polls but before they went out of office. We never sought to bring in legislation or fire those people. We did not raise a hullabaloo or bring in legislation to dismiss the former Deputy, Brendan Toal, who, when he lost his seat, was appointed by the Coalition as a land commissioner.

Mr. Farrelly

What about Mr. Garvey?

Mr. Molloy

Does the Taoiseach want me to go through the various appointments made? We accept that if a decision is made it stands and the person appointed is entitled to serve for the term for which he was appointed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is of the opinion that if we embark on mentioning names——

Mr. Molloy

It struck a sensitive cord. There are many more.

Mr. Farrelly

The Deputy did not mention Mr. Garvey.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

We can have name after name mentioned with compliments and charges and countercharges. That is not desirable.

Mr. Molloy

I have no wish to enter that area. I am merely giving an example of appointments made which could have been questioned but which were not. The right of the Government to make these appointments was accepted by the incoming Government. These people were allowed to serve out their term of appointment. That tradition is now being abolished by the Taoiseach and the Government. It amazes me that they would seek to implement this Bill.

The Minister and Government Deputies sought to denigrate the members of the board by implying that there were delays in dealing with planning appeals and it was their fault. Naturally there is concern about the delay in deciding appeals. Steps should be taken to improve this. However, during the course of the debate we put it clearly on record that blame for the delays cannot be laid at the feet of the members of the board. I sought to explain the procedures of An Bord Pleanála and stated that, on average, the board take about one week to deal with the planning files which come before them, for decision. The delays are taking place at administrative level, at planning inspector level and because local authorities are slow to forward documents to help in the proper compilation of the files.

Does the Taoiseach and the Minister accept that it is a fact that on average the board only take about a week to dispose of files which come before them? I challenged the Minister on a radio programme yesterday to state whether this was true. He refused to answer the question but gave a different answer. I challenge him now to say whether it is true that delays do not take place at board level. I will sit down and allow the Minister to reply.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Spring)

I will be replying at 4.30 p.m.

Mr. Molloy

Every time I give the Minister an opportunity to answer he avoids doing so. He has made a false accusation against honourable people and seeks to imply that these people have no qualifications for the job. It is not necessary to have some kind of technical qualification. The board have been acting independently and autonomously and the only part of their autonomy which has been interfered with concerns the refusal of the Department to allow the board to take over full control of staff. I will refer to this matter in greater detail on Committee Stage.

The Minister's undertaking in his Second Stage speech is not now to be fulfilled. What are we to accept from that side of the House? The Minister said on Tuesday that the House would have an opportunity of examining in depth the main provisions of the Bill on Committee Stage. How can we do so when we are limited to a few short hours? We had difficulties recently on another Bill in trying to have a short discussion on each section. Members will not have an opportunity to discuss in detail the provisions of this Bill. The Bill does not cover many aspects which should have been included and a flood of representations has come in from the Royal Institute of Architects and other interested parties.

The Bill is being rushed through without any opportunity to improve planning legislation. None of our amendments will be accepted and we have not as yet seen any of the Minister's amendments. When the 1976 Act was being discussed the then Minister, James Tully, stated in his Second Stage speech that he would welcome comments from the Opposition because he fully accepted that all the wisdom did not reside on the Government's side. He said he would be interested to hear the opinions, suggestions, proposals and amendments from the Opposition and that they would get full and fair consideration. The Bill which finally passed through this House was a different instrument to the one he introduced and he acknowledged in his final speech the contribution of the Opposition. Numerous amendments put down by me, Deputy Faulkner, Deputy Haughey and other Members were accepted and became part of the 1976 Act under which this board was established. The Minister now intends arbitrarily to dismiss the board without any valid reason.

Where is the Taoiseach's sense of fair play? How can he justify what he is doing? Why is he not prepared to contribute to this debate and give valid grounds for the Government's desire to dismiss the board? Where is his sense of justice?

The best contribution from the Government's side came yesterday from Deputy Liam Cosgrave who made the only valid case we have heard. He said that what the people were concerned about was the length of time taken to decide planning appeals. The public and those whose projects are held up are concerned to ensure that decisions are made fairly by An Bord Pleanála and as expeditiously as possible. He said that the public are not concerned about the political affiliations of board members. If the board are expeditiously carrying out their duties under the legislation the public will be satisfied. Deputy Cosgrave went on to say that the public are not concerned about the kinds of allegations and innuendos which have been heard.

We who are involved in the political system and represent the people in this democratically elected Parliament should be the last ones to denigrate people because they hold political views or because they were appointed by people who held political office. We have all appointed people when we held office. People of opposing views have also been appointed and I could give examples of judicial and other appointments when the Government were not deterred from appointing people who held differing political views. Why should we seek on this occasion to apply this new principle that if a person was appointed by Fianna Fáil he is not entitled to hold office when Fianna Fáil are not in Government? It is a vindictive political act.

It is amazing that Deputies Garrett FitzGerald and Dick Spring would seek to destroy their own reputations as honest, decent men by proceding with legislation of this kind. I would appeal to them to withdraw the Bill in its entirety or else to withdraw those sections which abolish the existing board and let us carry on with the other provisions which seek to improve the operations of the board. Let us apologise for the false allegations made against members of the board.

I asked the Minister on radio yesterday whether he would agree that the delays were caused by the fact that there is an insufficient number of staff and he replied that there was a direct relationship between the increase in the number of board members and the backlog of appeals. Where is the logic in that? We accept that there has been an increase in the backlog because there has been an increase in the number of appeals received and there is not adequate staffing to deal with them. In 1977 there were 18 planning inspectors but at the end of 1982 there were only 15. Early this year the Minister appointed four more planning inspectors. Why has he not been honest enough to admit that since the making of these appointments there has been a substantial increase in output? I would encourage the Minister to appoint another eight inspectors because the country cannot afford undue delay in decisions on planning appeals. Projects are held up and costings are upset. The appointment of four extra planning inspectors is not good enough and I would ask for at least six more.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair feels that we are having Second Stage speeches.

Mr. Haughey

It is perfectly relevant.

Mr. Molloy

This is about a planning appeal board which is about to be abolished. I am pointing out that the only reason given was the delays in processing planning appeals. I am showing again that that is a false argument, an untruth, and it is wrong of the Minister to seek to convey that impression.

The Workers' Party and others are seeking to put about another impression — that the only reason Fianna Fáil are taking this kind of stand is that we have some vested interest in some appeals that lie before the board. I dismiss that type of innuendo as utter rubbish which should not be entertained for one second. We have absolutely no interest in that aspect of this Bill. We are only concerned with the principle that is being established. We must drive that home time and time again. Why would we waste so much parliamentary time, why would we take this firm stand if we were not worried about the change that is taking place in the traditional method of dealing with planning and development and the way the country has done its business. The Taoiseach can smile and smirk but he will be held responsible for this, he will have to take the blame in the years to come if he insists on proceeding with this legislation. He is not making any valid contribution to Irish society is he continues to push this Bill through. It is the worst piece of legislation I have seen in my 18 years here. I do not give a thrawneen about the appeals before the board. That is only a red herring that is being dragged in to seek to weaken our argument.

I appeal to those who convey to the public what is happening in this House, the media and those who have responsibility to ensure balanced reporting of debates in the House, that they will convey that clearly and not seek to convey the innuendo which the Government's propaganda machine is trying to convey to try to destroy the valid argument we are making. In years to come the results of this decision will be seen and will be regretted.

This process, which Deputy Quinn seems to be exceptionally keen to proceed with, the de-politicising of the planning process, is highly impracticable because it involves the complete re-writing of the planning and development laws. Under the existing Act the role of the county councils is paramount. If the Government go ahead with this total de-politicisation of the planning process they must remove the role of the county councillor. Perhaps Deputy Skelly would like to see that. I was not here when he spoke but from listening to other Deputies who spoke after him know they criticised him and dissociated themselves from his scurillous attack on the role of county councillors. Deputies yesterday got up and dissociated themselves from his comments. Perhaps Deputy Skelly has fellow travellers over there who feel that councillors should not have a role in planning and that there should be complete change, that we should go ahead with this absolute de-politicisation of the entire planning process and remove every elected person from having any say in the planning laws. It is completely farcical and impracticable. Who will take over; who will elect the people who take over? We are about to hand over to some bunch of technocrats who will not be responsible to anybody, who will live in a cloud and make all sorts of decisions which will cause chaos and confusion for this parliament and for all public representatives. They will soon come into disrepute because there will be an outcry for change to ensure that the people responsible for planning will be elected by the people and answerable to them. I make a last appeal to the Taoiseach not to be sniggering and laughing over there. This is far too serious. Maybe he does not understand what he is doing.

Mr. W. O'Brien

What did you do in 1974?

Mr. Molloy

I make a final appeal. In their wildest dreams, they say when they are in Opposition there are things they will do. The Opposition cannot be doing every old thing just for spite. The Opposition have to stand up and defend their decisions, to justify everything they do because it must be based on valid grounds and must be justified before the people. We are challenging the Government to state their valid reasons and answer to the people outside, but do not persist in seeking to convey false, inaccurate and unjust allegations against honourable people who have served their country well. Let the traditions continue and let us not see it destroyed today.

Minister for Health (Mr. B. Desmond)

I will make only a few observations on this matter. It is essential that this Bill should be passed here and in the Seanad and signed by the President before the summer recess. I served in this House from 1969 to 1973 when there was a Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government. During that period decisions on planning appeals were taken by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary. I served in the House from 1973 to 1977. During the greater part of that Government's term planning appeals were determined by the Minister for Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary — Deputy James Tully was Minister then. Therefore, I am familiar with the alleged politicisation of planning between 1969 and 1976 under two different Governments. I was Chairman of Dublin County Council in 1981 and I served on that council from 1974 to 1982.

Mr. O'Kennedy

May we all introduce ourselves like this?

Mr. B. Desmond

Having had direct experience, under two Governments, of the old operations, and having had direct experience from 1974 onwards when appeals were to the Minister, until 1976 and having had experience of the operations of An Bord Pleanála from 1976 to 1982 as a member of a local authority and as chairman of a local authority in an area where we had most appeals and many section 4s, an area of great political sensitivity, I am absolutely convinced — I had to appeal to An Bord Pleanála against decisions on my own account — that there is a necessity to reform the structures and the composition of the board and the method of appointment of the chairman.

Mr. Leyden

Is the Minister getting rid of county hospitals and the Western Health Board?

Mr. B. Desmond

He will be respected for having changed the system and having de-politicised it. The great need is to de-politicise the planning and development process.

Mr. Flynn

What kind of social philosophy is that?

Mr. Molloy

What is the role of the county councils?

Mr. B. Desmond

The game has been given away by the Opposition in their reaction to this Bill.

Mr. Barrett

(Clare): In recent months we have heard many comments from Members of this House and people outside it about the growing lack of respect for politicians and elected representatives. Sometimes sections of the media are blamed in private conversations and publicly, often not correctly. This week we have witnessed two instances of direct attacks on politicians and our political systems by politicians themselves.

Mr. Flynn

On a point of order, is it normal for the Taoiseach to absent himself when the Order of Business is being discussed?

If the people over there who are members of local authorities — or even those who are not — do not want to defend their fellow members in local authorities, there are many people here who are members of local authorities who do want to defend local authorities, their members, are willing to do so, waiting to do so, unlike people on the opposite side of the House. Surely this guillotine motion will deprive them of their rights to do so apart from affecting their right to speak on this Bill. The Taoiseach has said that if the guillotine motion goes through he is willing to reconsider the time factor with regard to this Bill. Now is the time to consider it, not after five o'clock this evening, thereby giving members elected to local authorities and thereafter elected to this House the right to defend local authorities, to defend our political system and, most important of all, the right to defend democracy. If that is to be eroded then we are heading in one direction, towards the style of countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. Kelly

I should like to start my short speech by making Fianna Fáil a present of two points. It is entirely natural for them to complain about a time allocation motion and it would be surprising if an Opposition did not do so. I do not fault the heated tone they have taken up with regard to that. I can remember them doing it with, I suppose, even more justification, or even more naturally, when I was Government Whip and had to move time allocation motions which were a great deal more drastic than this one. In those days the necessity was forced on the Government because of persistent obstruction by the other side which I am glad to say ceased around the year 1975. I must admit that I have not seen anything like it since and would not wish to accuse either side of this House of getting back to the standards of those days which I hope have since been consigned to history. Therefore, I do not object in any way to the Opposition's anger about being closured. I wish it was possible, although it is not always possible, so to arrange Government business and by agreement, if possible, that there was no need for motions of this kind.

I will go further — although I am sure the gentlemen over there will be surprised to hear me say it — I am inclined to dissociate myself from what was said by Deputy Mac Giolla the other evening. I have no doubt there are gougers in the Fianna Fáil Party, as there are in all parties, as Deputy Jim Tully used to say when he was here. But I accept that the meat in the issue before the House here is sufficiently strong to justify indignation on the other side even if there is no concealed motive. I do not think it is fair merely to allege — as others elsewhere in the House have done — that self-interest, nothing but self-interest, and of the basest kind at that, is behind the Opposition's attitude. I disclaim that entirely for myself. Having said that, my only criticism of the Minister in what he is seeking to do now is that he delayed six months too long in doing it. It might have been better had he taken a shorter and quicker way of disposing of the matter he is going to such elaborate lengths to dispose of today. Although very far from being an expert on planning — I am not a member of a local authority and never was, and I would willingly defer to almost any Deputy in the House on planning matters — I consider the style displayed by Deputy Raphael Burke in making the appointments which have caused this matter to be in front of the House today was grossly contemptuous of the public and of the standards which I hope all sides, in sober moments, would wish the people to be led to expect. In saying that I have nothing derogratory to say about any of the gentlemen whom Deputy Raphael Burke appointed. Frankly, I must say I do not think I ever heard of any of them before and still less do I know anything to the discredit of any of them. But, since he appeared to go out of his way — and as far as I can recall in the last——

Mr. Molloy

Did the Deputy never hear of Justice Murnaghan?

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I think the Deputy has not studied this at all.

Mr. Kelly

I am sorry, of course I heard of Justice Murnaghan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzgerald will have his opportunity in a moment.

Mr. Kelly

But the ordinary members of the board were names which were strange to me. It must be said that their associations, which were not apologised for and which were public and evident, were such as to diminish very strongly public confidence in the capacity or willingness of that board to do their job, however honest the individual members may have been, and, since I know nothing to their discredit, I am going to assume that they are.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It is most unlike the Deputy to speak of people he does not know.

That is why a High Court judge or somebody equivalent to a High Court judge should be chairman.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Molloy

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, can a Deputy speak from the lobbies? That is absolutely unprecedented. He should be ordered out of the House.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Cooney)

It is out of order but not unprecedented.

Mr. Kelly

Ever since I came into this House 14 years ago planning has been a terribly sensitive and controversial issue. I remember when I first took an interest in politics one of the most controversial people in the country was Kevin Boland, not because of his views on the Irish language, not because he tried to Gaelicise the Army and Anglicise the voting system — two operations that justifiably might have drawn him into some criticism, both being inappropriate to the subject matter concerned — but because the planning decisions he was then making by himself were the subject of heated criticism for obvious reasons. I remember former Deputy Jack Lynch called Kevin Boland — not long before Kevin Boland resigned as Minister — a "rock of integrity". Perhaps I have grown milder with the years but I have come now to take a view of Deputy Lynch which would lead me to take him at his word when he used that expression to describe Deputy Boland. Deputy Boland was a man as difficult, as crusty and as disagreeable as a politician well could be; but I will accept that it was beneath him and would never have entered his thoughts to enrich himself, or anyone belonging to him, by a halfpenny by anything he did in office and I am perfectly happy to allow that description of Deputy Lynch's to stand. Nonetheless that did not prevent the planning operations conducted by Deputy Boland from bitter criticism. There were no rows in 1967, 1968 and 1969 more bitter than those about the Mount Pleasant petrol station and other cases of that kind. There were rows throughout the length and breadth of the country, rows which were the subject of headlines in the press and programmes on television, bad temper up and down the country and, in order to get rid of that, the Government I first worked for were determined — it took a long time to do it — to get rid of that system and replace it with a system which would be visibly impartial. What we are getting here — I am sorry to say this to the Tánaiste about this Bill — is an attempt to depoliticise the process at two removes. In a way I think it would be appropriate for the Opposition not to complain about depoliticisation, as though it is something that could not be done, but to complain about the process seen here in this Bill, and this is not the only sign of it these days, whereby elected people are passing votes of no confidence in themselves. That is the point.

Mr. D. Andrews

It was a sensible speech with which I do not disagree.

Mr. R. Burke

The Minister in recommending this Bill claims that by firing the existing board and appointing a new one he will remove from the planning appeals system any allegation of political influence and produce a well-balanced board with the qualities and capacity to deal efficiently and effectively with planning appeals.

The clear innuendo — and this has been backed up by inspired leaks from a "highly placed source in the Department of the Environment"— is that some members since the appointment of this board in 1977 have been guilty of corruption, and in particular that the present chairman, Mr. Justice Murnaghan, and the present members have been all so guilty. I could quote from a number of newspaper articles to back up the type of campaign that has been carried on by this highly placed source in the Department. The first was an article in The Irish Times, 14 March, which had a heading “Planning Board to be Dismissed in Reform Move”. It mentioned the overall plan to improve public credibility and operation of the appeal system and went on to mention qualifications, expertise and a highly placed source in the Department of the Environment”. The next day the Minister had to make a statement which was printed in The Irish Times of 15 March. There were articles in the Evening Herald under the headings “Why Spring Sacked the Board” and “Spring Acts on Building Racket”. We had one article after another insinuating that the members of the board were guilty of corruption.

An accusation against one member of the board arose from Question Time in this House when the then Deputy Quinn mentioned irregularities in planning. When asked to produce evidence he brought a so-called witness who made a serious charge against a member of the board. That member had been appointed by the then Minister for Local Government, Mr. Tully. The member was an official of the Department of the Environment and not an outside nominee. This so-called witness made this accusation to the Dublin City Manager and was reported to me as Minister for the Environment. Immediately I contacted the then chairman of the board, Mr. Justice Pringle. The member took leave while the matter was being investigated by the Fraud Squad. After a detailed investigation the good name of the member was cleared, and respect for the board was re-established. Did we see the then Deputy come into this House and apologise for making those accusations? We did not.

The campaign which has taken place since the change of Government last December has not been started by the Minister, Deputy Spring. I do not blame him because it is very clear that he is not involved in the drip-drip accusations and innuendo against the members of this board. This campaign is being led by the Minister of State, Deputy Quinn. I want to make that clear. The Minister of State seems to be obsessed with corruption. Suggestions have been made about members appointed by my Government and by myself when I was Minister for the Environment. I stand over every appointment I made because they are decent honourable men capable of carrying out their tasks as members of An Bord Pleanála. I challenge the Minister for the Environment or any member of the Government or of this House to suggest that members have been less than honourable in their behaviour when carrying out their duties as members of the board. It is contemptible that a Government would attempt to cast aspersions on Mr. Justice Murnaghan, one of our leading jurists, a member of the High Court for many years, who served this country well.

When the 1976 Act was being debated here it was the considered view of Members that a High Court judge should preside over the affairs of An Bord Pleanála because the decisions of the board, as well as the decisions of the local authorities with regard to planning matters, can vastly affect values of land, building and other property. They can affect the value of a site by either reducing it or dramatically increasing it. It had been the considered view of the Members of this House that a retired High Court judge should be chairman of that board because of the fact that he had been appointed by the President and would be above reproach. Nobody has, or should, make any accusations against any of the three men who were chairmen of that board — Mr. Justice Pringle, Mr. Justice Walsh and Mr. Justice Murnaghan. The Government have attempted to cast aspersions on the board and on the honour and honesty of a man like Mr. Justice Murnaghan by way of innuendo or by leaks by a "highly placed source in the Department of the Environment". The Tánaiste in his statement at the opening of this debate said that it was not really necessary to have a High Court judge as the chairman of the board because if legal advice was required legal advice could always be got for the board. The judge is not there for legal advice; he is there so that it can be seen that the behaviour of the board is above reproach. To suggest otherwise is unworthy of any Government and a disgrace.

Motion No. 3 attempts to guillotine this debate. On such a serious matter it is wrong for the Government to guillotine a debate. I am highlighting the reasons this Bill is so important and why it should not be guillotined.

Some highly placed sources in the Department of the Environment and some of our particularly well-known interest groups and pressure groups have cast doubts on the members of An Bord Pleanála and suggested that it has lost credibility and that the members appointed were not qualified, whatever "qualified" is supposed to mean. I should like to run through a number of the names I appointed. This is not as a justification for myself but to clarify the situation. One of them was Mr. John P. Keenan, an architect. Surely an architect is well qualified to hold such a position? I expect that in the list of nominating bodies to be brought forward under this Bill architects will be included. I appointed Mr. Michael Cooke, Dublin County Council. He was involved in the processing of by-laws in the council, very much involved in the planning process. I appointed Mr. Patrick Malone, county council official involved in draftsman's work and generally in the affairs of county councils. The two other appointments I made, with the approval of the Government, were Mr. Daniel Molloy, a businessman and — probably the man who has taken most of the brunt of these accusations and innuendoes — Mr. Tony Lambert, my former special adviser in the Department. I make an apology for the appointment of any of the members. No suggestion has been made in public that they have in any way dishonoured the trust placed in them by the Government. May I quote from the press statement issued when the very first board was appointed by the then Minister, Mr. James Tully. On page 4 of the press statement he said:

In appointing Mr. Seán O'Brien, I had in mind the need to guard against the establishment of an over-specialised board and felt it appropriate to have at least one member from outside the public and professional sectors.

So it is with Mr. Molloy and Mr. Lambert. Mr. Lambert is a decent, honourable man who has worked down through the years on community affairs. He was involved for many years with the Swords Community Council. He had the experience of working as my special adviser in the Department and is consequently very much aware of departmental matters. I find it nauseating that a Government should, by innuendo, try to cast doubts on the decency and honour of members appointed by a previous administration.

The board is to be abolished by section 10 of this Bill. Section 10 is the nitty-gritty of the Bill. The rest of it is padding. In the debate on the 1976 Act the Members of this House were very careful as to how the chairman and members should be fired if it ever arose that their honesty and integrity were in question. What is proposed in section 10 of this Bill is that the Minister shall break contracts entered into between the officer holder and the members of the board.

The Department of the Environment and the Minister for the Environment of the day entered into contracts with individuals and the terms under which they could be dismissed were clearly laid down in the Act. The chairman could be fired only if found to be incapable, through ill-health of effectively performing his duties, or if he had committed stated misbehaviour or if his removal appeared to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance by the board of its functions. No such statement has been made, no such charge has been laid. In my view and that of many others, section 10 will be found to be unconstitutional.

With regard to the removal of an ordinary member of the board:

In the case of a member of the board who is removed from office under this Article, the Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the reasons for removal.

Where is the statement in writing of the reasons for removal? The two cases which I have mentioned, one with regard to the removal of the chairman and the other with regard to the removal of a member, are the only ways under law in which the Minister can remove these officers from office and not, I suggest, by enacting legislation to break a legally binding contract.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy, when I was last in the Chair I pointed out that I thought that the speeches being made were clearly Second Stage speeches. That was particularly undesirable when some of those speeches were being made by Deputies who had already spoken on Second Stage.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is not so in this case.

An Ceann Comhairle

I know. I said that it was particularly undesirable when some of those speeches were made by people who had already spoken. Second Stage speeches are not in order on this motion.

Mr. R. Burke

I am trying to illustrate that this is very serious legislation which does not deserve the guillotine motion which we have before us here. I am illustrating the various reasons, facts and points on this Bill which need to be expanded on. Unfortunately, because of this guillotine motion, time will not allow this.

The Bill before us contains nothing new, except an attempt to breach contracts between the Government and the chairman and members of the board and in particular for the Minister to appoint ordinary members whom he will find suitable to him.

For example, section 1 on definition is irrelevant. Section 2 on the board's continuance is irrelevant. Section 3 has no change except a small reduction in the number of members. Section 4 on the general duty of the board — again no change. Section 5 — the only change here is that in the nomination of two of his employees to the board the Minister effectively controls the appointment of the chairman.

Section 6 concerning procedures at meetings — no change. Section 7 on the appointment of ordinary members — no change except that the Minister retains totally control of the appointment of ordinary members. Section 8 is an interesting section. The Minister has said that he is anxious to remove the political taint from the board. Here we have an additional power for the Minister which was not in the 1976 Act — the appointment of a deputy chairman of the board.

An Ceann-Comhairle

The Chair feels that we are not moving to Committee Stage.

Mr. R. Burke

I appeal to the Chair, in the circumstances of the fact that it was I who happened to be Minister for the Environment at the time, acting on behalf of the outgoing Government. This legislation needs clarification and the time will not allow this in any other way. I appeal for the Chair's liberal interpretation of the rule.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair will bear that in mind.

Mr. R. Burke

That section gives the Minister a power which he had not before, of appointing a deputy chairman. The procedure of appointment of a deputy chairman up to now was a matter for the board members, to appoint one of themselves as deputy chairman. Now the Minister who claims that his desire is to remove this appointment from the political process, takes unto himself the appointment of a deputy chairman to the board and the decision on the remuneration of that deputy chairman.

Section 9, superannuation of members — no change. Section 10, ceasing of office — that is the major breach of contract. It is the nitty-gritty of this Bill. Section 11, meetings and procedures — no change. Section 12, the board's guardians — no change. Sections 13 and 14, the Official Secrets Act — no change. Section 15, oral hearing — an insignificant change which has been gone into in great detail by Deputy Molloy. Because of the type of debate, I shall not go into it now. Section 16, vexatious appeals — that the board may determine these rather than dismiss as at present — no particular change. Sections 17 and 18 are a repeat of section 5 of the 1982 Act.

The Bill is padding, other than section 10. Even that section, because of the structure of the Bill in section 7, ensures that the Minister still controls the appointment of the members, despite what he says in this legislation.

The way in which it is being sold to the general public is that it will speed up in some way the activity and operation of An Board Pleanála and remove the backlog of appeals which are before the board. Nothing could be further from the truth. The operation of the board was clearly spelt out here by Deputy Molloy, that it is only after a long drawn-out process of the appeal being lodged, the views of all concerned being requested, of the local authorities, of the third party appellant, or of the appellant himself if it is a case of an applicant appealing against the refusal by a local authority, it is only after an oral hearing, an inspector viewing the application — after all that long drawn-out process which relates to numbers of staff that the files appear on the desks of the members of the board. It is at that stage that the members of the board decide.

Changing the membership of the board will not speed up the decision by one minute or remove the backlog of cases at present before the board. If the Minister was seriously concerned about speeding up the operation, why did he not meet the chairman of the board, who would have sat down with him and discussed the staffing arrangements? To be fair, the Minister has made some alterations in staffing arrangements. When I appointed the last members of the board I said in the statement at the time that I had approval from the then Minister for the Public Service for the appointment of extra inspectors to speed up the operation of the board and the number of decisions being made. The situation was highlighted by Deputy Molloy, that in December 1977 there were 18 inspectors and in 1982 there were 15, despite the fact that the number of appeals have increased dramatically during that period from 1977 forward.

It is a pity we do not discuss it.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Each of us brings a subjective view to bear on any legislation that comes before us depending on the side of the House we are on. We are only being given four hours to have what the Minister calls a full opportunity to discuss Committee Stage. That is flying in the face of reality. It is flying in the face of what we must do to discharge our responsibility.

As regards the urgency for the Bill, the key to this is to be found in the Minister's speech. He said that without implying any reflection on the persons concerned he would have to say that the circumstances surrounding some of the appointments and especially their timing could have no other effect than to seriously detract from the public perception of the board as an independent and unbiased tribunal. The main urgency apparently derives from the lack of confidence the public would have because of the timing of the appointments. That is the Minister's case.

If it is a question of timing, then the Ceann Comhairle, as a former member of a Government and the Taoiseach, must be very conscious of the fact that if the timing disqualifies in some way in the public mind the people appointed to a board there are a number of people in the Judiciary, in high office, on semi-State boards and so on whose capacity to hold and win public confidence is being questioned by the Bill. I am speaking particularly about the interregnum between the election of 1977 and the result of that election. If they are interested in ensuring that no appointments are made after the people have made their decision and if that principle is being introduced by the Government let them say so clearly. Let them say that for the first time they are suggesting that after an election has taken place no appointments should be made until the new Government comes into office. That would represent a very dramatic change on the part of a Government of which the Taoiseach and you, a Cheann Comhairle, were members who broke all precedents in this area.

There are about five members on this side of the House who were members of the Government in 1973 when the change occurred. I was one of them. I recall very clearly that we made only one appointment in the period between the date of the election and the coming into office of the new Government. The exception was that we appointed a person to the board of the Central Bank. This had been on the Government agenda for two weeks and it was decided that the person should be appointed. We left numerous vacancies unfilled in the semi-State area. That of Master of the High Court, a prestigious appointment, was subsequently filled by a former Member of the House with a Fine Gael interest within about a week of the coming into office of the new Government. Contrast that with what happened after 1977. The Coalition Government at that time had a precedent to guide them. It was the precedent of the outgoing Fianna Fáil Government who did not fill any appointment, with one exception. The Coalition Government, after the people had rejected them, perhaps more clearly than ever before in the history of the State filled many vacancies in a short period before the new Government came in. Among them was a former Deputy of the House who had been defeated in the election. They made many appointments to semi-State bodies and the Judiciary. Before I came to the House from the Law Library I was aware that an appointment was being considered and that on the day before we came back to office.

If the Minister's argument about timing is relevant and if the public have no confidence in the people concerned because of the timing of their appointments, surely that argument extends also to those who were appointed to the Judiciary, State bodies and so on in similar circumstances by the Coalition Government which was rejected by the people. The present Taoiseach was a member of that Government who set that most undesirable precedent. They cannot say that the record of any Fianna Fáil Government enabled them to do this. It was a precedent and an outrageous one. They set the precedent and we are now being told they want to correct the damage they say is being done to public confidence regarding appointments made in the interregnum in respect of the planning board.

On the motion. There is much to be said for the notion that no appointments should be made during an interregnum, as has been the practice of previous Fianna Fáil Governments. The people who began the practice can illafford to imply that because of one particular instance something was wrongly done. I do not accept that it was wrongly done but it followed the precedent established by the Coalition Government.

Before reading this morning's papers I took the opportunity of looking at the legal implications. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, states:

Where the chairman of the Board is a person who formerly held judicial office, the Government may remove him from the chairmanship if he has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing his duties, or if he has committed stated misbehaviour, or if his removal appears to the Government to be necessary for the effective performance by the Board of its functions and in case a chairman of the Board is removed under this Article the Government shall cause to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the reasons for the removal.

There is a similar provision in paragraph 10 in respect of ordinary members of the board. It so happens that the chairman of the board is a person who formerly held judicial office and he is to be removed from his office as chairman. I should like a clear indication from the Minister that not one of the criteria for that removal applies in the case of the chairman or any other member. If timing is their failure, that is not good enough. Has the Minister indicated to any one of these people that he is incapable through ill-health or stated misbehaviour or otherwise? If not, then he is removing people from office in a way that was never contemplated either in this legislation or in the Constitution. He is enacting legislation to break a legally binding contract.

When a person accepts a whole-time position, as the chairman did, there is a clear contract between the person accepting and the person inviting and it can only be terminated in the law. We are being asked to terminate ex post facto a contract by legislation undermining guarantees under existing legislation. The Minister has a certain degree of legal experience, though I may be a bit longer in the legal tooth than he. He does not know the implications of what he is doing. Similar provisions apply to the Judiciary, the board members of semi-State bodies and others and if people are to be removed because of stated misbehaviour it must come before us in this House. If we were to amend various other Acts by introducing legislation because we could not bring forward any valid reasons for the removal of a person or persons, then we would be moving into a dangerous minefield. We would hardly go as far as amending the Courts of Justice Acts because the Constitution would prevent us.

The Minister has no argument to sustain his case. A Minister from our side would probably appoint different people to a planning board than those who would be appointed by a Minister on the other side.

Mr. Spring

That is the very point. I do not want to make political appointments.

Mr. O'Kennedy

A Minister may be faced with a board composed of people he would not necessarily have appointed. I would refer to the recent appointment to the Central Bank of a prominent member of Fine Gael who has a certain interest in a company, Atlantic Resources, which has recently been supported out of State funds through the ICC.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely this is not a matter for a motion dealing with the allocation of time.

It is clear that it is not the procedures of the board that have been responsible for delays in deciding planning appeals. The fault was in the lack of inspectors. That is what caused delays. Matters could have been dealt with more quickly and efficiently if an adequate number of inspectors had been appointed. Such appointments were sanctioned but not finalised. The Minister implied that the delays were caused by the board. The delays were caused by inadequate administrative arrangements and lack of staffing. The Minister should make this quite clear and deny the implication that the board have been failing. That should be stated clearly.

This provision in the Bill was not introduced because the board have been responsible for not getting the appeals out more quickly or because they have been guilty of misbehaviour. It is because they were appointed by a Fianna Fáil Government, and that being the case many people in high offices, judges, commissioners and others, will equally be disqualified. We did not treat such appointees in this peremptory fashion. The Minister must acknowledge these points. In The Irish Press of 23 May last the Minister is quoted as having said:

I believe if this is handled properly we can set up a totally independent board.

There is the implication again that the board are not totally independent.

Mr. Spring

It is not totally independent.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is not totally independent? Why not?

Mr. Spring

For obvious reasons.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Let us hear the obvious reasons in the Minister's reply. This will be important if what we see in this morning's papers is factual. People will want to know in the course of pursuing their legal remedies if there is an implication that they have not been acting in a totally independent and impartial way. The Irish Times of May 23 goes on to say that the board will be selected by a body independent of political influence. The same implication is there.

I want to remind the Minister that, in going for what seems to be superficially an attractive way of doing things and winning, it would appear, a certain amount of superficial popularity at the moment, he is denigrating the political process. Instead of upholding standards he is undermining them, not just in this area but across the whole range of the Judiciary, the Land Commissioners, and so on. He should reflect very carefully before he forces us to do all these things through a guillotine motion. We are being given three hours on Tuesday, the Minister of State said. I thank him very much.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): What three hours?

Mr. O'Kennedy

Whatever it is. All of Tuesday. I want to thank him very much for allowing us that much time to discuss the Committee Stage of such a revolutionary Bill.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): The Deputy was offered more time.

Mr. O'Kennedy

If this is parliamentary reform, it says more for the attitude of the Government to the proper political process than anything else I can think of.

Mr. Wilson

My contribution will be brief. I will start by stating that I am opposed to the application of the guillotine motion because of the serious consequences of the passage of this Bill without adequate time to tease out its implications. Section 10 (1) of the Bill to my mind is the heart of the matter:

The person who, immediately before the commencement of this subsection, held the office of chairman of the Board, shall, on such commencement, cease to be chairman.

That is expressed in the cold words of the legal draftsman. What it conceals of course is that a distinguished judge of the High Court is being sacked from a job for which he was eminently suitable, a job which he was fulfilling with great competence and to the admiration of any unbiased person who knew of the activities of the planning board. Judge Murnaghan was chosen because of his reputation for rugged individualism and integrity. I am proud to say he comes from a strong northern family noted for their contribution north and south to the legal life of the whole country, the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties.

Section 10 (2) provides:

Every person who, immediately before the commencement of this subsection was an ordinary member of the Board, shall, on such commencement, cease to be such ordinary member.

We are asked to guillotine this Second Stage without consideration of the implications of this new legislation, of the precedent which this legislation is about to establish. I served as Minister in a Department which had under their aegis many semi-State bodies. Many members of those semi-State bodies were appointed by a Coalition Government. Without mentioning specifically any one individual, one chairman of a semi-State body came to me and told me straight out that he was not merely a Fine Gael appointee but a Fine Gael supporter. I found him to be a man of the greatest integrity, of the greatest competence——

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

The Deputy was not surprised?

Mr. Wilson

——and the greatest expertise in the field he was dealing with. He was serving on that board practically to the detriment of his own business career.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

That is the spirit in Fine Gael.

Mr. Wilson

All he was getting from the State was peanuts. I accepted that he had been appointed by a Coalition Government. I accepted that he was a supporter of the Fine Gael Party. He was an able man. He was a forceful man. He had expertise which he was deploying for the benefit of the country. There was no way I would countenance interfering with him for the full period of his office in that semi-State body.

What kind of precedent is being set by section 2 of the Bill which the Government are seeking to push through by applying a guillotine? The House knows full well the implications of section 10 for future members of semi-State bodies, whatever their expertise may be, whatever their competence may be, whatever their integrity may be in their field. The point has been made very eloquently and very articulately by Deputy Kelly that we should use all the expertise we can, no matter what people's political affiliations are, for the benefit of the semi-State bodies and eventually for the benefit of the whole country.

What are the implications of section 10 if future Governments start waving their tomahawks as soon as there is a change of Government, and start looking for scalps because they do not agree with the political allegiance of people who are doing a good job in a semi-State body? The whole semi-State sector could be and will be thrown into chaos if this Bill passes through this House inadequately discussed because of this guillotine motion. What do we find facing us in the future? We find utter chaos and an utter disregard for people's competence and expertise in their own field. It will be very difficult to get people to serve if by hint, innuendo and indirect slur this House does not stand by the people who are serving on those boards.

I am sick, sore and tired of this type of statement: "I do not mean to cast any aspersions on the members of the boards as of now." It is reminiscent of the scandal sleuths in the cheap papers: "We wish to deny that it is a fact that Mr. Knickerbocker was seen escaping by ladder from the third floor bedroom at such an address. There is no truth in this rumour." That is the type of innuendo and aspersion we hear suggesting that there is something wrong with a board which has been serving the country well and which is manned by people of integrity.

There are people who want to serve. I mentioned already that many of these people spend their time working for semi-State bodies — I am not talking in particular about the planning board — and the time they spend there for a few ha'pence of directors' salary as far as they themselves and their interests are concerned could be better spent on their own businesses. If we in this House do not stand by them and do not respect them for the work they do no matter what their political affiliations may be, the time will come when we will find it very difficult to get men of ability and integrity to serve on these boards. That is a most important matter which should be teased out on Second Stage, Committee Stage, Report Stage and all Stages of this Bill.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 30 Jun 1983

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1983: Motion.

Deputies

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 30 Jun 1983