Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 15, subsection (1)(b), line 29, after "Oireachtas" to insert "or of a local authority".

My amendment will probably shock some of my colleagues in the House. Our usual practice when faced with sections such as this in legislation establishing State companies is to argue against the ban on Oireachtas Members being members of the board. On this occasion, I propose for a number of reasons to extend the ban to include local authority members. I fail to see the rationale for distinguishing between politicians at national or EU level and a local representative. A better argument could be made for excluding the local politician as he or she is more likely to be affected by local aspects of something going through. We should remember that the most blatant examples of corruption unveiled in recent times were at local rather than national level. We should consider this in regard to future State boards. It has particular relevance to this Bill.

This is a project of national importance which will take place in a local framework in one particular area of the city. This is reflected in the requirement for the board of the agency to include the Dublin city manager, or his or her representative. That is surely all the more reason, especially because of the property implications of the agency's remit, that we formally exclude from membership any elected member of the local authority. I imagine there will be an outcry from local authority members at this suggestion. In this case, taking into account the debate we had last week, it seems important that we exclude local authority members from the board.

The Minister may say it is not his intention to do so, but I believe that is how it should be. Recent developments show that this would be a good amendment to any Bill setting up a State agency. In this case we have a double reason for including it. I urge the Minister to give it serious consideration.