Liz O'Donnell (Dublin South, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I raise this matter in the light of acute public concern in my constituency of Dublin South. It relates to the fact that the former county manager of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Mr. Derek Brady, has recently taken up a senior position with a development company, Alburn Limited, which is responsible for the former M. J. Flood site in Sandyford Business Estate, where planning permission was granted on 27 July this year for a development, including 259 apartments and a 24-storey tower rising 162 metres over sea level. It will be the highest structure in the south of the county.

This proposal has understandably been highly controversial, resulting in over 100 opposing submissions to the council, including one from me. The matter is now the subject of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. The basis for the objections, the scale, height and general inappropriateness, were largely ignored by the council, which went to some lengths to facilitate the proposal, including reversing the present one-way traffic system to a questionable two-way flow. Mr. Brady was the ultimate deciding officer at the time when permission was granted. Three months later, he has taken up a senior and highly paid position with Alburn. The perception of Mr. Brady having been in a conflict of interest regarding the development is compelling and requires investigation by the Minister.

The matter arises at a time of great desperation among residents of my constituency about the planning process and their capacity to influence it. It is also a time of massive development there. Several major proposals have been granted permission in the teeth of public opposition, and at times decisions have appeared inexplicable to both residents and elected representatives. Residents and Members are treated with disdain by the council and our views disregarded. Increasingly, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council appears driven more by revenue and rates than public interest or the proper planning and building of sustainable communities.

My constituents and I are not against development. They are sensible citizens who in the main are benefiting from our thriving economy and greatly improved infrastructural developments in Dublin South, including motorways and the Luas. However, they have the right to participate in a meaningful way in their area as it develops and modernises. Currently they feel that they have no say and no power, and as their Deputy, I feel the same.

I have written to the Minister in detail outlining my concerns about the scale, density and ad hoc nature of high-rise development in Dublin South, particularly in the Sandyford and Stillorgan areas. The Minister's reply, understandably, is to refer me to the local authority. However, in my experience of dealing with the council over the past few years, it has been an exercise in frustration, and that must change. Perhaps the new manager will bring about a new culture of real democratic consultation. However, the appointment of Mr. Brady so soon after he had in his gift the granting of permission to his future employer raises the most serious issues, not least the integrity of the planning process. What are my constituents to think?

This requires urgent investigation by the Minister so that public fears can be allayed. When was Mr. Brady approached regarding his appointment to Alburn? Was it prior to the granting of permission, on 27 July this year? What, if any, was the true relationship between Mr. Brady and Alburn Limited when the application was being considered by him and the local authority? Was it such as to confer favourable status on the development? Is there a link between the granting of permission and Mr. Brady's new job? Does the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 apply to this matter? Surely the public interest must be protected from such conflicts arising in local authorities throughout the country. Have we learnt nothing from the tribunals?

As the local Deputy, I formally request that the Minister initiate an investigation into this matter, and I will, of course, accept its outcome. If Mr. Brady and the company in question have nothing to hide, I am sure that they will co-operate with an independent investigation. It is surely not in Mr. Brady's interest to have such a cloud hanging over his long record in public service.

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. The public is entitled to expect the highest standards of conduct from all local authority employees. It must also be said that local government personnel have, by and large, a long tradition of honest and committed service to their communities. The core values underlying that tradition are integrity, impartiality and dedication to the public interest. The Local Government Act 2001 made provision for a new and comprehensive ethical framework for those involved in local government. That built on much longer-standing ethical requirements on local authority councillors and staff under planning legislation.

Part 15 of the Local Government Act, which entered force in January 2003, provided for the preparation by the Minister of codes of conduct for employees and councillors, which were subsequently developed and published in June 2004 to coincide with the formation of new councils of elected members following the local elections. The code of conduct for employees, which is a major step forward in local government, includes disclosure requirements concerning employment by serving personnel outside the sector and addresses situations concerning a conflict of personal or public interest.

Deputies will be aware that the tenure arrangements for county and city managers were changed in 1991. Managers are now employed on seven-year contracts, with provision for extension up to ten years. That raises the prospect of their retiring at a relatively young age. Therefore, it is to be expected that some managers will seek to pursue a career in the private sector once their terms of employment expire. I am sure the Deputy will agree that there is nothing wrong in that; they must be entitled to pursue employment opportunities after retirement. However, the issue is one of avoiding undesirable conflicts and the perception thereof.

The question of senior local government officials accepting outside appointments or consultancies following resignation or retirement is not subject to the code of conduct at present. Provisions of that kind were introduced to the Civil Service code only in September 2004, that is, some months after the promulgation of the new local government code. The Standards in Public Office Commission has made observations regarding the matter, including a suggestion for a moratorium on the take-up of employment by senior local authority personnel in consultancies or other areas of the private sector to which they could bring access or information gained in local authority employment.

The code is under active review in the light of experience since its introduction and as part of an assessment of the effectiveness of the regime. It is clearly now appropriate that the review also considers the acceptance by local authority employees of outside appointments and consultancy engagements following resignation or retirement. The Deputy can be assured that the Minister will bear in mind the general concerns raised this evening and that this debate will assist us in the review of the code. Perhaps the public concern, which I understand, will allow the matter to go forward and to be clarified quickly.