Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1963

Vol. 203 No. 3

Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1962: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In subsection (1), page 11, lines 52 and 54, and in page 12, lines 2 and 6, to delete "or other land" where they occur in those lines.— (Deputy Jones.)

In this country over a long period, in relation to land tenure, there has been great interest in and indeed usage of what is known as "squatter's title". The land pattern in this country down the years was that a great many people were in occupation of land while very often their title to it might not be written. At times, that may have been due to their own failure to have the records in regard to land amended so as to write into them their right to the title of the land.

The Minister is well aware, as are most Deputies, that it is common practice that when the ownership of land passes from the head of a family, on his demise, to a member of the family, the question of title is not dealt with at the time. My concern about the use of the words "or other land" in the section is that a county manager acting for the planning authority could be subpoenaed in case of dispute in regard to a property and could be obliged to discover documents which might have the effect of disclosing information which might adversely affect a claimant to title to the land in question.

We ought to be very careful to protect the right of the individual in this respect. On several occasions during the debate on this Bill, I have referred to what we regard as the paramount right of the individual to property and have urged that nothing should be done which would in any way weaken that right. I want to suggest to the Minister on this occasion that in respect of this type of legislation, we should be sure that the right about which I now speak is protected. There should be written into the Bill a protection for the individual from disclosure of information which might be prejudicial to his right.

I have in mind at present the case of a householder who, having built a home, is unable to produce title to the land on which his home stands. The local authority involved could not produce documents to show the ownership of the property although the person concerned did have permission from the local authority at the time he built his home. To protect the interest of such person, the words "or other land" in subsection (1) of Section 9 should be deleted. It is easy to understand the reason for the subsection, which says:

A planning authority may, for any purpose arising in relation to their functions under this Act, by notice in writing require the occupier of any structure ... or any person receiving, whether for himself or for another, rent out of any structure or other land to state in writing to such authority, within a specified time....

How are the rights of a person who is in the type of occupancy which I am now speaking about under a squatter's title, to be protected in this matter if at a later stage somebody produces information that may come by way of leakage from the local authority or some official thereof to suggest that the title of that person may not be as well founded as he would like it to be? The county manager could be subpoenaed and obliged to produce documents for the purpose of showing whether the person in question had a right to the property or not. I would invite the Minister's comment as to how he proposes to protect the right of the individual in this matter. As the Land Registry would show, a large number of folios in family settlements have not been written up and with the passage of time and the passing of the ownership of property and the change over from the old landlord code, there is quite a large amount of property which at the present moment is by virtue of squatter's title in the occupation of people who have never gone through the expensive process of moving to the High Court to secure to themselves a declaration of their interest in the property. Either by accepting the amendment or by inserting some other safeguard which he might suggest, the Minister should take the necessary steps to protect the rights of individuals in this matter.

If the position were as outlined by Deputy Jones, I would agree to his request but the section is merely a reiteration of Section 10 of the Act of 1934. The whole purpose of the section is to facilitate the planning authority in carrying out their statutory obligations. The seeking of information as to who is the occupier or what interest a person may have in land, is not in any way for the purpose of determining who has a valid title; it is merely to determine the person with whom the planning authority is obliged under various sections to communicate their intentions, to communicate, for instance, that some development is envisaged that might mean the wiping out of a right of way. We want to know to whom we have an obligation through our planning authorities to notify that a development is likely to take place and that, for instance, a right of way is being abandoned.

It is not a matter of trying to take something from these people. It is merely to enable the local authority to establish as best they can the person with whom they are to deal, on whom they are to serve notice, whether for their own local authority purposes or in the interests of the interested party. For instance, the abolition of a right of way could be an important matter to the land owner.

We might get a few other items taken at random through the Bill where this section has some effect. For instance, there is Section 25 (2) (f) and (g). These provisions may require a planning authority to inform certain property owners of applications for permission to develop land and of decisions in such applications. We may get, through planning authorities, applications for permission to develop property in certain ways.

What the local authority is being obliged to do under this section is to ascertain from the applicant, for instance, whether he is in fact the owner, what his interest is in the land, whether he has the right, if he got permission, to go ahead with the development, and to put an onus on him, under penalty, to give the proper information as to who has the right, so that the owner may be notified of a proposed development in respect of the land of which he is the owner but which he may not be occupying.

We want to protect the interests of these people just as we may want to facilitate the planning authority. It is not at all, as Deputy Jones fears, a matter of trying to dispossess people merely because they have not title which is up-to-date or have not taken out administration or because they have only a squatter's title. It is not our business to ascertain such matters. It is our business to find out with whom we are to deal so that a person will not be injured because of the fact that he is ignorant of what is going on. It is for that general purpose that we want the protection in the Bill and to make the thing workable. Then in Sections 31, 32 and 33 we deal with notices relating to development carried out without permission or not in accordance with a condition. This is the other side of the coin, where these things have been done which should not have been done.

It is only fair that the planning authority should avail of any opportunity to elicit from the occupier, or some person with an interest in the land, the required information in order to determine who in fact is the responsible person on whom to serve the various notices required by law. We need this power also under Sections 36 and 37 where notices are required in relation to the removal or alteration of structures or discontinuance of use. Compensation is payable and we must know to whom the compensation should be paid. These facilities are required. I have quoted typical instances in which the planning authority must be facilitated and also instances in which the rights of the individual must be protected. There will be an obligation on the authority to make people aware, but, before that can be done, they must know who the interested parties are. That is the intent of this section. It is very far from what Deputy Jones fears. If the situation were as he says it would be, then I would be with him.

Admirable as the purpose of the section may appear to be, will the Minister not agree that throughout the country there are numbers of holdings which are, as Deputy Jones said, in process of acquisition by a squatter's title, really in pursuit of family arrangements? Suppose the local authority tries to determine who is the true owner of such a holding, the only thing they will discover is that the property belonged to Patrick Maurice Roe, who died in 1899; no administration was ever taken out but one of the seven children remained on the property; he has since died, leaving seven children, the third of whom married a neighbour, clann isteach, is now living with her husband on the property and is in the process of acquiring title. But, if you proceed to find out who is entitled to be notified by virtue of his or her interest in the place, you will find there are at least 30 entitled to notification, resident now all over the world from Alaska to Hobart, Tasmania.

The practice in the country is, of course, that these estates remain without any clear title, unless somebody proposes to sell and the purchaser's solicitor demands that title should be acquired. This dilemma is well known and there is a procedure under the land code whereby, on application to the circuit court, title is vested in some particular person. Preliminary to the clarification of title, there is a process of advertising and so on. I wonder—I see the Minister's difficulty—if the situation might not be met by providing that notices, and so forth, should be served on the occupier with simultaneous publication in Iris Oifigiúil or the local newspaper? Far from simplifying the planning authority's position, if the planning authority is fixed with notice that the occupier is not the owner, but merely owner subject to the equity of 30 or 40 other people, may there not arise an obligation on the planning authority to attempt to serve notice on all these people in such a matter as, to take one of the many instances to which the Minister directed our attention, extinguishing a right of way?

If we require the occupier to declare the character of his title to his holding, I suggest to the Minister we will set off in rural Ireland a most undesirable sequence of events, a sequence nobody wants set off; a better purpose would be served from the point of view of the planning authority if we simply require the planning authority to notify the occupier of the premises, giving due publication to the nature of the work in contemplation. The number of cases where the true beneficial owner would not be reached either through the occupier or through publication would be very small indeed. Where the beneficial owner is a person other than the occupier he is presumably a person who rents property. Ordinarily, anyone who does that on a considerable scale has a solicitor who acts for him. That solicitor will normally see the kind of advertisement to which I refer.

The letting of property casually is not a very common proceeding and I suggest to the Minister that the alternative device I offer merits consideration and would avoid the problem to which Deputy Jones has referred, the disrupting of tacit family settlements, which are much more common than many realise for the simple reason that administration has become pretty expensive and a large number will not face the cost of administering, more particularly where the situation is that neither the parents nor the grandparents had their respective estates administered. I do not doubt the Minister knows, as I know, of many holdings where there has not been an administration in three generations.

I do not think the situation is as Deputy Dillon outlined it in regard to the purpose of this amendment and the section. If there are people with an interest, even a part interest in land, structures or anything else, and they are abroad for years and if the interest is something they know they have, then it should be the duty of the local planning authority to make them aware of any changes or developments that may be anticipated or proposed in respect of the property concerned. All the planning authority would ask the occupier under this section is what is his interest in the property in question and if there are, to his knowledge, others who have an interest in this property. There is a penalty if an occupier for his own motives gives false information.

All that is required is the names and addresses of persons having an interest in property, so that appropriate notices may be sent to all of them. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I can see every reason why that should be done rather than that persons with an interest in property should be kept in ignorance of proposals being made, and, therefore, deprived of the opportunity of making an objection to a development which they feel should not be carried out. We are not attempting at any stage to determine as between 20, 30, 40 or any number of people which of them has the right claim or the prior claim. It is merely a provision to ensure that persons interested in property will be made aware by the planning authority of any projected developments in regard to that property.

We appreciate what the Minister has in mind and I am sure the Minister equally appreciates the point I am trying to make in this regard. There has been and will continue to be in this country an intense interest in land which at times occasions disputes and arguments. Compelling a person to put in writing at this stage his claim to or interest in a property and the disclosure of this at a later stage might be prejudicial to that person's right to the property. In a great many cases, the people have not such a clear title that they can indicate it and, indeed, in a great many cases they jealously keep all this type of information to themselves. However, at a later stage in this Bill we are enabling interested persons to have access to development plans and the documents which form part of development plans and by paying the appropriate fee they may be able to get a copy of a particular portion of the development plans in which they express an interest.

What I have asked the Minister to do in this amendment is to protect the rights of the individual in so far as the type of disclosure about which we have been speaking would prejudice his right. We do not in any sense propose this as a hindrance to development but merely to protect the individual against the disclosure of information which could be prejudicial to himself if disclosed by the planning authority to an interested party.

In this country the ownership of land is an interesting subject for everybody, including one's neighbours, and if there should be the type of dispute to which I have referred and if the person with a squatter's title discloses that to the authority, I want to ensure that that will not be used or cannot be used in any way to take from a person's title to the land which he has by reason of occupation at the present time.

Yes, I know what motivates the Deputy in this regard. There is this natural apprehension as expressed by Deputy Jones that occupiers of land may be asked for information which would seem to compromise their own rather shaky title, if it could be called a title. That is a possibility and I know just as well as other Deputies how jealously is guarded the ownership of land throughout the country. However, if the occupier only conveys what he believes to be true and if in telling the truth he is hurting himself I do not see that there is great wrong in that. Should it be that he should be allowed to conceal the truth——

——and hurt somebody else?

No, but the disclosure of the information later——

Is it that the information the person gives to the planning authority as to what he suggests his own title to be might at a future date be extracted and used in court proceedings?

That is something which I do not think can happen and which, if we thought it could, we would take steps to ensure that it did not happen. This bears out what I have been saying. What we really want are the names and addresses of people who may have an interest. We go after occupiers in the first instance as they would be the most likely persons to have that sort of information. If the House wishes, I would give way on the question of stating in any detail an interest or a right so far as the occupier is concerned or his being asked to state so far as he knows the interest or right of any other party and merely confine the section to requiring the occupier to give the name and address of any person who, to his knowledge, has any right or interest in the property, thus confining his own statement to matters that could not in any way be used against him—in other words, names and addresses and nothing more. What we are anxious to avoid is doing any damage to the rights of an interested party. We might notify 12 persons and, perhaps, 11 of the 12 would have no interest. Perhaps only one of those is really interested and has a right to be interested. The section would give us the right to do that and, as I say, the name and address is sufficient for our purposes and we can discuss it again on Report Stage.

I am glad to have that information from the Minister. I mentioned one case which raised this doubt in my mind but there is another. We are suggesting the amendment because of cases that have arisen. There was an individual who built a house having secured authority from the local engineer at the time. At present he is in this place and he wants to extend his home. Approaching the local authority or the Custom House for a grant requires production of title. The local authority cannot give title at this stage and no estate office in the area can give it. Neither can reference to the old grand jury list be of assistance. The individual cannot satisfy the local authority at present. He could not even satisfy the Minister's Department in regard to his entitlement to a grant. Somebody may dispute his right to put his home there.

There is a second case of an individual in somewhat similar circumstances. Eventually, by tracing back to the Land Registry, we found the folio which was originally opened in the 1880s and was never amended. I am afraid this man must give up because the amount of searching involved would be so expensive that he would not know where he would finish up.

Those are two instances of where the rights of individuals might be prejudiced if there was a disclosure of information regarding title where a dispute arises. It is from that point of view I am putting the point to the Minister and the Minister is meeting it by saying that he is satisfied with the names of the people concerned. What I want to ensure is that individuals—and there are many of them in circumstances such as I have cited— will not have their rights prejudiced by the disclosure of information which may come into the hands of the planning authority under this section. Later on we are giving individuals a right to consult these records and obtain extracts from them on payment of the appropriate fee. There are two things involved, one of which could be prejudicial to the other. We do not wish to offer any hindrance. We can see the necessity for the section and I am glad that the Minister intends to look at it again. If he does that between now and the Report Stage and tries to deal with the problems on which the amendment is based I think he will find a solution to the type of difficulty we have in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.

I move amendment No. 45:

In subsection (1), page 12, line 18, after "regulations" to add "or orders".

I think this amendment might be discussed with amendment No. 46. In Section 10, it is provided that the Minister may make regulations for prescribing any matter referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed or in relation to any matter referred to in this Act as the subject of regulation. There is also the question of orders, and under this Bill, planning authorities are given extensive powers in Part 5 which deals with orders made by the planning authority. Sections 42, 44, 45 and 48 enable the planning authorities to make orders dealing with various things. Section 42 deals with scenic amenities; Section 44 deals with hedges and the serving of orders on owners of hedges. Section 45 deals with trees, groups of trees and woodlands in respect of which the planning authority may make orders. Section 46 deals with flora and fauna and Section 48 with public rights of way.

When the Minister makes orders or regulations under this Bill when it becomes law he will lay these orders before the House for confirmation and they will be reviewable by the Oireachtas but the planning authorities' regulations or orders, which are far more important to the individual property-owner, will not be reviewable. If it is felt that the Minister should submit his orders for review, if, shall I say, he is not to be lightly trusted in the matter, is there any reason why the House should trust county managers and not provide that their orders should be reviewable or subject to any restraint?

Several bodies set up by the Oireachtas such as Bord na gCon, the Incorporated Law Society and the Pharmaceutical Society make regulations which are binding on individuals and restrain them in various ways and these regulations are subject to review by the Oireachtas. I suggest there is no good reason why the type of order or regulation which may be made by a county manager, for instance, as the executive authority of the planning authority, should not be equally subject to review. These orders which may be served on individuals are very wide in their impact on the property of an individual and his rights. A person's right to a hedge is called in question by the planning authority and he is ordered to remove the hedge. A right of way is claimed over a person's property. The retention or removal of a group of trees, the retention or removal of flora and fauna of any kind falls to be dealt with by the planning authority. Yet the regulations which would be made would not be subject to review.

At an earlier stage, the Minister indicated that the regulations he would make in regard to the operation of this Bill would be laid before the House and would be subject to review by the House. I invite the Minister to compare the treatment his orders are going to get with that of the orders which may be made under the aegis of the planning authority. I am not suggesting that any or all of these orders will be wrong, but the possibility is there of an order being made which interferes seriously with the rights of property. Where this concerns a large portion of the area of any local authority, that should not happen without a review; and I want to suggest to the Minister that the type of regulation envisaged in this respect should be subject to review also. In the amendment, therefore, we wish to add to the word "regulations" the words "or orders".

So far as amendment No. 46 is concerned, this is simply bringing into line the normal procedure the Minister proposes to adopt in regard to his regulations. I believe this is something which would add to the respect everybody would have for this Bill. If the planners of the future feel the orders they are going to make are reviewable by the Oireachtas, I believe their approach to planning will be sound and not in any way capricious. This will entitle them to the proper respect of everybody. The rights of even one individual may, therefore, be vindicated in this House by bringing the order under review here.

One must have a certain amount of sympathy with the principle Deputy Jones is trying to establish with regard to the treatment that should be given to regulations such as might be contemplated under this legislation by the Minister for Local Government. The principle whereby regulations must have the direct approval of this House before being implemented has been debated here long before I came. The principle Deputy Jones is trying to establish has been advocated by all Oppositions. I well remember when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition they, too, in respect of some legislation introduced tried to have established a principle of having regulations directly approved rather than a Deputy having to seek to have them annulled.

While I have a certain amount of sympathy with that principle, frankly I think it is impracticable and impossible for this House to treat of regulations in the way Deputy Jones would like us to. Dozens or even hundreds of regulations could be made under this legislation. It is impossible to deal with all aspects of town planning by way of legislation. It is impossible to provide for all the things which concern Deputy Jones and every other Deputy in a Bill like this. Under the Road Traffic Act, the Minister has power to make regulations. The Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, particularly the Minister for Transport and Power and to some extent the Minister for Finance—practically every Minister must take power unto himself, with the approval of the House, to make regulations.

I know it may be said that what is everybody's business is nobody's business, and that that might apply to putting the onus on a Deputy to seek to annul a regulation. If these regulations are made and are brought immediately to the attention of the local authority concerned, then they are their business. There are Deputies on practically every important local authority. If they are concerned, the obvious thing for them to do would be to seek to have the regulations annulled. I do not want to appear like Tadgh an Dá Thaobh—on both sides at the same time. If every regulation made by every Minister had to have the direct approval of the House, we would be sitting 24 hours a day for the whole year—and even that would not be long enough.

While it might be a good thing to accept the principle of having a regulation approved by the House, it would be impossible. Under the Social Welfare Acts, for instance, dozens of regulations have been made and many more will be made. While some of them may appear to be trivial, they could provoke a debate here of an hour, two hours or even a whole day. From that point of view it would be impossible.

Where a regulation is made and is laid on the Table of the House, that does not mean a copy goes to every Deputy. I would be satisfied if we were to establish the principle whereby every Deputy would receive a copy of the regulation or order made. If the Minister makes regulations under this legislation, I should like to see him ensure that they are sent to the local authority immediately and sent not only to the manager but brought to the attention of the members of the local authority.

Deputy Jones in his amendment refers to the inclusion of the words "regulations or orders." I assume he means orders of the manager? This section deals merely with regulations made by the Minister and I think it is up to the Minister and to the members of local authorities who are also members of this House to ensure that local elected representatives will not be by-passed and that if and when a city or county manager makes an order under this legislation, it will be brought immediately to the notice of the members of the local authority concerned. Throughout this Bill, there is bypassing of elected representatives and this piece of legislation will not and cannot succeed if it is a fact, as it appears to be in a good part of the Bill, that the members of local councils are by-passed and that planning and development matters are functions to be assigned to managers, architects, engineers and the like.

What Deputy Jones is advocating has been advocated in respect of many pieces of legislation in the past. To ask the Minister to change the general principle now might be a little too much, since the principle is being operated in respect of every Department of State and by every Minister. Again, let me say that to bring every single order before the Dáil for approval would be impossible as a practical proposition, in view of the fact that you could have very long debates on numerous orders and a lot of the time of the Dáil would thus be taken up discussing individual orders which would be of little interest to Deputies generally.

The discussion as proceeded with by Deputy Jones on amendment No. 45 would seem to be directed almost entirely to orders made from time to time by a local authority in the person of the manager and to the argument that such orders should in fact be laid before this House He suggests that such orders should be treated in the same way as an order by the Minister. Of course there is a great difference, in that these matters we are legislating for now may be appealed to the Minister and therefore are subject to review. When the Minister makes an order, there is no such review except through the Dáil. The local authority, in the cases mentioned by Deputy Jones, are covered by the safeguard that there may be an appeal by aggrieved or interested parties to the Minister and oral hearings can then be established to debate, discuss and put forward the reasons why it is suggested the order of the manager should not be gone ahead with.

That is the general way of looking at it. In a specific way, this question of amenity area order is dealt with later in great detail in Sections 42 and 43. This type of order would arise subsequent to the making of a planning scheme. That scheme would have shown the area in respect of which it was proposed to make an amenity area order. As part of the published plan, due notice would have been given to the general public so that they would know all about it in advance. In addition to that, of course, the elected members of councils would have every possible opportunity of bringing the views of the people who elected them to the notice of the council in general session. The council would then have an opportunity of deciding whether the proposal should include this or that area, or not.

As Deputy Corish pointed out, an impossible situation would be created from a practical viewpoint if all these orders were to be brought before the Dáil, particularly in the initial stages of this new law. I mentioned earlier that these orders will be subject to review, in the last analysis, by appeal to the Minister by aggrieved or interested parties after they have had a real airing at the local authority meetings. Taking those safeguards together, particularly the prospect of review by the Minister on appeal and, in most cases, by the general body of local representatives of planning authorities, there is real coverage in respect of those orders made by managers. I have no fear whatsoever in regard to the matters in respect of which Deputy Jones was prompted to put down his amendment. I submit the safeguards are adequate.

Amendment No. 46 proposes to delete the subsection and substitute another. The subsection as it stands is nothing new. In fact, it is one with which we are pretty well conversant in its terms and intention. Regulations do not change or expand the law and this is really a safeguarding provision. There is nothing new, nothing revolutionary about it, nothing about it in fact which we have not had experience of in the past. Under various sections in this proposed new law, as in many enactments of the past, it is true that certain powers are vested in Ministers to do things by way of regulation and there is not much point in giving them control if you set about having a debate or a review, after which the Minister concerned will operate the power given to him.

I submit it is sufficient, and probably a much more practical approach, to allow the present subsection to stand so that the matters dealt with in any such regulations will stand as prescribed in such regulations unless they are annulled, rather than to have in the subsection a provision that Ministers should seek the actual approval in each case. If such were the position, in a matter of urgency particularly, we would find the whole section completely valueless. As I said earlier, the regulations will not change the law or expand it. They will merely exercise a right enshrined in the law. If some Minister should step out of line, then the regulations he would have made would assuredly be annulled by this House and his work and the work of his advisers in that respect would go for nothing. There is that assurance as a protection against the madness of the Minister. If it is wrong, the House will throw it out without doubt.

There is no guarantee of that so long as Fianna Fáil are in power.

There is, unless the House goes mad at the same time. I do not think we would all strike the wrong chord on the same date. The Minister also has his advisers and they would have to be correspondingly mad on the date on which he made up his mind to go beyond his powers. There is the safeguard that no Minister will come to the House with a regulation which is likely to be thrown out. There is this type of provision in several other Acts and there is nothing in it about which the House should have any fear.

I do not want to anticipate, but under subsection (3) of Section 22, the Minister may require a planning authority to do this or that and "... thereupon it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the requisition." The Minister's regulations will be laid before the House, but what if the Minister is making orders such as I have already mentioned? What if the Minister is superseding the planning authority? Will the Minister's orders be subject to review? Subsections like subsection (3) of Section 22 give the Minister power to require planning authorities to do what he envisages. I presume the intention of the subsection is to ensure that such developments as the Minister thinks fit will be carried out. If the Minister finds himself in the position of making orders, will those orders be subject to any review? The Minister cannot appeal to himself. A person aggrieved by the decision of a planning authority can appeal to the Minister, but the Minister can hardly appeal to himself.

I do not want to anticipate other sections for the purposes of this amendment, but I suggest it is valid because in subsection (2) of Section 10, the Minister proposes to submit regulations for review by the Oireachtas. Deputy Corish mentioned the question of regulations made by the planning authorities. I can see that there is a review of those regulations by the Minister, but if the planning authority have not complied with the Minister's directions as envisaged in subsection (3) of Section 22, the Minister may find himself making orders, and I wonder if they are subject to any review? I invite the Minister's comments on that aspect of the situation.

We must remember that the plan from which this danger may arise is not subject to the Minister's approval. That is the way we are providing for various good reasons, but it does make less of the argument if the Minister, if he thinks fit, can change a plan which has never been approved by anyone other than the local people. It sounds strange that such an onerous task should be brought before the House because it will only arise directly or indirectly as a result of an appeal to the Minister by an aggrieved applicant who failed to get permission locally. If the local plan debars him from a particular usage of certain land, and if he thinks that is unreasonable, he can appeal to the Minister, and the Minister, having due regard to good and proper planning, as he is required to do in certain sections of the Bill, could then, and only then, find in favour of the appellant.

Very few cases of this kind will arise, and the Minister, whoever he may be, will be obliged to have due regard to proper and orderly planning. He may not, because he likes the appellant or dislikes someone else, direct the local authority to change their plan in order to allow the appellant to do what he wants to do. That type of order would arise only in relatively few cases. After a lapse of time, it could happen that the local authority themselves might be of opinion that the change should be made, but they would have to go through a lot more hoops than the Minister to attain their ends without injury or injustice to anyone.

Would the Minister care to comment on subsection (2) of Section 22 where in a dispute between two local authorities, the Minister may decide to require them to do certain things in regard to the development plan. If he found disagreement between them, the Minister could order certain things to be done by at least one of the local authorities.

On that matter, I do not think we are departing in any way from existing law. This would have regard only to the actual preparation and adaptation of the plan. It is only right that someone should be in a position, where deadlock arose, as it could and probably will—some outside party, if you like—to go in and say: "You have to do it this way in order to integrate and have the plan make sense." This could be in relation to a boundary going through a town.

Such an order would not be subject to review?

No, any more than the plan itself is. The direction in this case would merely relate to the production and preparation of a plan. The plan itself, as the House is aware, is in no way sacrosanct. It is to set out generally what is to be done and what the intention is for the next five years. A dispute as between two local authorities would be in regard to the plan or plans and the direction is not sacrosanct either, so that there is no great danger, if anything wrong was done by way of direction, that it could go on for ever. I am not saying that a wrong is going to be done.

I do not want to delay the House on this amendment, and as I say, we can discuss this matter later when we come to the sections. The fact that we included orders in this amendment is to cover the point that it may be found that the Minister is making orders instead of the planning authority. Regulations are subject to review but the orders, in this subsection, are not. I want to put the point that is foremost in our minds. I do not think that our intent is fully known in this matter, that is, that the right of ownership is in question in a number of sections. Everybody accepts that the greater good of the majority is paramount but the right of the individual at any stage is equally sacred. The regulations which the Minister will make under this will be subject to review and so far the House does not seem to see any difficulty about the orders. The Minister has dealt with our amendment No. 46 and he says that there is no danger to the ordinary normal procedures that exist at present. If that is the intent, and I accept the Minister's assurance, then I feel I can withdraw the amendment. In regard to amendment No. 45, I shall take the opportunity of dealing with the matter at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No 46 not moved.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

I wonder if the Minister could give the House any indication of what is envisaged in regard to the administrative expenses of this Act? Has the Minister in mind the departmental administration or the administration as it will fall on the local authorities? Has any estimate of any kind been made of what this will mean in respect of the rate in the £ over the country at large? Will it be a uniform amount or will it bear more heavily on one place than on another? In my opinion, it will. I presume that in the urban areas, particularly in a place such as Dublin, and to a lesser degree, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Sligo and the built-up areas, the impost will be heavier.

Also, could the Minister give any indication of what staff is envisaged in relation to the administration of this Act? It is a new departure and the Minister has a small section, I take it, in his Department which is dealing with this problem and he has been making provision by way of courses and lectures and by inviting outside authorities to come here. I presume his intention will be to send people abroad in regard to the question of the administration of the Act. Could the Minister give any indication of the expense which may be involved in this section, first and foremost, centrally, and then decentralised, in so far as particular areas are concerned? What staff does he envisage for a planning authority? I am sure the Department have estimated what will be necessary in that regard and have decided what minimum staff will be required to operate this Act.

We know that town planning, the planning of amenity areas and so on, will require both outlook and skill and that the Minister envisages that competent, trained staff will be made available for the purpose. I do not want to tie the Minister to any figures at this stage but I am sure he has some idea, certainly in so far as Dublin is concerned, which I take it would normally be the area which the Minister would tackle first. Anybody who has seen Sir Patrick Abercrombie's plan of greater Dublin, and who has read the report of the United Nations planning experts, will see that the problem is wide and large and will be extremely complex. As I said on Second Reading, nobody could give me anything like a firm estimate of the ultimate cost in Dublin alone, but I am sure the Minister with his resources has at least had a preliminary survey made of what is envisaged.

I am availing of this section to ask the Minister to tell the House what estimate has been made. If he cannot give it in regard to the country, which I assume would be a very onerous task to impose on anyone, prior to a proper review of the country by planning authorities, then perhaps he could let us know for Dublin and what would have to be done with regard, say, to the planning of new roadways and the re-location of industry, the rehabilitation of the centre of the city and the envisaged new type of arterial roadways which would be necessary, with parking space.

I know the Minister has been giving thought to this matter. Equally, I am sure some estimate has been made in regard to it. It would be interesting if the Minister could tell the House what these expenses are likely to be and if any estimate has been made of what the impact on the rates might be by the implementation of this plan in whole or in part in the immediate future. I appreciate that the Act will gradually be brought into operation and that even in the development plan for any area there will be priorities. I appreciate also that the Dublin traffic problem has been engaging the attention of the Minister.

I am glad the Deputy appreciates the almost impossible task of providing for the House at this stage any sort of an estimate of cost. Many things depend on the activities of the various planning authorities. Therefore, just as the Deputy has probably anticipated, the overall answer is that it is impossible to say at this stage what these costs would be.

In so far as the local authorities and the Department are concerned, we have sought to get an additional four posts filled in the central authority. These will be technical people with qualifications to deal with this matter. Undoubtedly, more than that will be needed throughout the country. It is our intention to try to assist the local planning authorities, by way of technical assistance, from our Department. If we can get them, well and good, we shall try to make them available in a helpful capacity to the local authorities. Add to that the fact that all local authorities, with few exceptions now, are operating planning legislation to some degree.

The activities that may generate later and that could be said to be part of our town and regional planning, but which probably would take shape if there never were a plan, can be costed only when they arise and can be argued in the future to be part of the cost of the plan. I am sorry I cannot be more explicit than that. I feel the House will accept that it is impossible to detail these things at this stage, always remembering that the Department's Estimate, as it arises from year to year, would be the place where expenses and moneys provided for these purposes would be enumerated and on which we could talk in great detail— that is, if the Department and the Minister for Finance had already had their say about it.

I appreciate that. The Minister speaks of four planners being added to his Department. Does he envisage one for each local authority? What would be the position where they are conjoint as, for instance, Cork Borough and Cork County, Limerick Borough and Limerick County? Has any decision been reached on the Abrams Report in regard to Dublin alone?

No. We should keep in mind that Dublin is out of context as an example because they already have a planning staff of fairly reasonable proportions. They would not be starting off from scratch by any means: far from it.

Does the Minister envisage that moneys provided by the Oireachtas would be made available as part of the expenses to local authorities for the implementation of this legislation?

It is not in the Bill. I would be sympathetic in that direction.

Will the Minister ensure that another couple of million pounds will not be spent on planning for small areas, as happened in a previous attempt?

We shall depend upon Deputies to see that that does not happen.

You may be sure of that.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

The purport of the section is that the cost of implementing development under this Bill would become a burden on the local authority at that stage. The local authority solely would be contributing to that work. Take roads which would be considered necessary under new planning or the development of parks, green belts, amenity areas or amenities of one kind or another which may be desirable in any local authority area. Will the funds be made available from the Exchequer for such development under this Bill or will it solely be the concern of the local authority, not alone from the point of view of aesthetics but of finance? If the local authority alone will be dealing with this problem of development, it may become hamstrung because what may be desirable may not always be feasible.

On a point of order, have we been discussing this Bill without the assistance of the bell?

The Chair felt that the bell was not required until now.

Who came in?

The Minister has not been able to say, for instance, what expenses may fall on the Central Fund in regard to this Bill. I quite appreciate that it is difficult to assess the expenditure that may fall on a local authority. Certainly, we can anticipate that local authorities will have to provide technical staff to implement this legislation. Under previous legislation, local authorities were to carry out certain functions but they got rid of the obligation by not passing the necessary resolutions. That was the position under the 1934 and the 1939 Acts. Under this Bill, the local authorities will have no option: they will be bound to implement the legislation and will have to employ a planning authority. I take it that where two or more local authority areas have a conjoint interest, a single town planner will suffice for a region rather than have one in each local authority area. I assume that it will be necessary to employ a staff. I am sure that all these matters were borne in mind when the Bill was being drafted.

In connection with good planning, there is bound to be expense. It is the intention to create a more aesthetic outlook, to create a proper background for the housing estates, which possibly will mean the provision of suitable playing fields. There is the question of providing green belts in urban towns, swimming pools and other amenities. All these matters will fall to be dealt with under this Bill. In that connection, it is appropriate to ask the Minister what assistance will be forthcoming from central funds for a local authority implementing this Bill. In County Limerick, a penny in the £ on the rates produces about £2,020. In some towns a considerable amount of rebuilding is required. The provision of amenities and the creation of a proper environment for housing estates would involve large-scale expenditure. If roads have to be made, will they be classified as new roads and qualify for grants? Will amenities created under this Bill get the type of support envisaged in other legislation, such as, for instance, the legislation in regard to derelict sites? Does the Minister intend that local authorities will receive in respect of the implementation of this Bill the type of assistance that has been given in respect of previous legislation or what is the meaning of the section which states that the expenses of the planning authority under this Act should be charged on the country? That would seem to imply that the entire cost of implementing this measure will be a burden on the rates.

I would hope that that is not the case. The burden of rates at present causes a great deal of comment, to say the least of it. It is felt that burdens are being imposed on the rate-paying community which are beyond their capacity to bear. If by the passage of legislation, burdens are to be imposed on local authorities for various necessary and desirable developments, without any assistance from the Exchequer, we will not get very far in the matter of development. We may have the adoption of the Act and the creation of a plan but the development may be very long deferred.

I hope we do not continue to defer, as we are doing. The situation is that we all have accepted at a very early stage and have welcomed that planning means economy for the future, the basis of that belief being that proper planning means more and better work, with a saving of money. That is the basic idea behind planning and is accepted by this House. If we are going to do things better and do them more economically than would be the case if there were no plan, we must write off expenses we can visualise arising under the plan costs which would have arisen if there had not been a plan.

Under this Bill when it becomes law, if there is a planned programme, the probability is that such a plan will result in a lessening rather than an increasing of costs. If we are to start now discussing who should pay for what, we will never get anywhere. We must provide for costs arising under this Bill as a result of planned development but it should be pointed out that this will be superimposed on the existing schemes of financial assistance for housing, roads, amenities, the clearance of derelict sites, the building of vocational schools, hospitals and so on. There is a certain pattern of financial assistance at the moment and in talking of costs that may arise, it has to be remembered that this enactment will be superimposed on the existing pattern. If, for some reason, a major change takes place to the disadvantage of local authorities, if road grants disappeared or housing subsidies were removed, the provisions in so far as financial arrangements are concerned would, without question, have to come up for review.

The financial assistance in the future will be the same as the financial assistance in the past. The fact that we may improve the appearance of our houses need not necessarily mean that they will cost more. It could well be a question of more economical planning and better lay-out. A great deal of the work which will be regarded as planned development in the future will be funded and the fact that the development is planned should make it more economic rather than add to the cost. Special provision is made at present and that provision will continue in the future and will be funded under the various Government assisted schemes.

In the bigger centres of population —Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and so on—we may have to shift from the development of estates and the laying of new roads to renewal of the worn-out parts, dealing simultaneously with the problem of congestion. All that will have to be integrated in a planned approach on an overall basis. Urban renewal in city centres, particularly in Dublin, would make the sites much more valuable than they are now. At the moment many of these sites are not used as they should be and ought to be. I visualise an increase in value when obsolete buildings are removed. Urban renewal should show not an initial loss but a gain. Cleared sites in central city areas subsequently properly developed should be a commercial success and a profitable undertaking. Moving out from the city centre to the less valuable sites, there may no longer be a gain in urban redevelopment. Prudence will dictate that every effort must be made to redevelop the most profitable centre city areas, later taking care of the less profitable areas in which development might entail some loss.

Development on the proper lines will enhance the value of these properties from the point of view of local finances. The Dublin Corporation, through its experts, will be able to estimate just how development can take place at the lowest possible cost. I am hoping that development will work out in the way I have outlined. I said earlier that this question of urban redevelopment and traffic congestion in our built-up areas are matters which will require review from time to time, particularly from the point of view of financing. I repeat that now. I do not think I can say any more at this stage.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that he visualises a great deal of development being done through the medium of Government-assisted schemes. Those were the Minister's actual words. I welcome that statement because it gives reality to a dream I have entertained for years. Development should be done through the medium of Government-assisted schemes. If I may say so, I think a great deal of the money spent on schemes for the relief of unemployment is just so much money poured away. I speak from personal knowledge and experience. In regard to development schemes for housing in areas all over the country I am glad the Minister has in mind that the development would be assisted, I take it, ouside of any grants that would be given towards the building of new houses.

That is what I was taking from it, that the development would be assisted. That would be very good.

It will not be assisted, if I understood the Minister, over and above the ordinary grants for houses, hospitals, etc.

But the Minister actually said a great deal of development would be done with Government assistance to schemes.

As at present operated.

As at present operated, yes.

I was hoping the Minister had in mind the extension of these grants especially when a new road is being created. When such a new road is being created the cost of this road should come straight out of the Road Fund with 100 per cent grants.

That is happening in any worthwhile scheme at the moment.

Not down my way.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 47:

In subsection (2) (b), page 12, line 45, after "having" to insert "as one of its objects".

It is surely not intended that some organisations which have other interests and objects either cultural or educational and who may also be helping in local development should not be assisted in their activities. For instance, there are bodies which promote feiseanna in various places as one of their objects. Subsection (1) seems to limit the type of association which the Minister has in mind for this purpose and it would seem to limit this to one object, that of providing amenities and facilities.

There are other bodies in the country which have interests other than providing amenities and which should be entitled to the assistance which is envisaged in the section. There are bodies which carry out functions of a cultural and educational nature and which are also interested in local development. There are movements such as Muintir na Tíre. I do not know whether that is a body, which is registered under the Companies Act. I do not think it is but it has been carrying out a great deal of development. There is also Bantracht na Tuatha which promotes not only educational and cultural objects but also the type of development envisaged under this Bill. There are also Macra na Feirme and Macra na Tuatha which have similar aims. The Minister seems to limit the provision to bodies which have the provision of amenities as their sole object. If this amendment is accepted it will enable the planning authority locally to give to these bodies assistance towards the provision of amenities and facilities in tourist resorts, and so on. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the type of work which is being done by local bodies other than purely development bodies. Take, for instance, the matter of tidy towns.

Paragraph (b) is confined to companies registered under the Companies Acts and any wider debate would be irrelevant.

What about paragraph (c)?

We are dealing with amendment 47 to subsection (2) (b).

Of Section 14.

I am suggesting that the provision should not be limited to bodies which have local development as their sole object but should be extended to bodies which would have that type of development as one of their objects.

If you take Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme and so on, would they not have to be registered under the Companies Acts?

Under paragraph (b) with which I am dealing they would have to be, whereas under paragraph (c) they would not.

Would it not be better included in paragraph (c)?

There may be some registered but they may have objects other than the provision of amenities. They may be doing cultural and educational work up to now and may not have indulged at this stage in development work.

The Deputy's amendment would not seem to include the ones he has mentioned in paragraph (b).

In so far as any of them may be registered under the Companies Acts.

What about the Inland Fisheries Trust?

If one of an association's objects is the provision of amenities they should be entitled to the assistance that is envisaged in this section.

I find myself in agreement with the aims of Deputy Jones but not in agreement with his reading of the section or subsections or the necessity for his amendment. As I understand it, paragraph (b) which it is proposed to amend is wide enough as now drafted to cover any company having as one of its objects the provision of amenities and facilities at tourist resorts, etc., I cannot imagine any group, company or local development association anxious and willing to do this sort of work not coming within the provisions laid down here and already covered under various heads. On the other hand, I see no real objection to including what Deputy Jones seeks. I think it does not add anything but if it is felt that it is needed, I am willing to accept it. I think it merely pinpoints what is generally provided in paragraph 8.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I am not happy about this section but if my fears are groundless, I should like the Minister to allay them. Even as amended, the section seems harmless enough. Under it a planning authority may assist any of the bodies or persons specified in subsection (2) by helping the body or person in money or kind or by the provision of services or facilities including the services of staff. We then have listed local development associations, companies or bodies concerned with the preservation of amenities. It also provides that a planning authority may get such assistance. It is true that under Section 3 that, before these bodies are assisted, the public representatives must approve of the payment of money. That is good and only right but under the section the officials of the corporation or county council or a planning authority may incur very great expenditure in the assistance provided to a local development association, a company whose objects are such and such and a body or a person concerned with this, that or the other. Any sort of screwball may come to the officials of a planning authority and get facilities in the form of stationery, staff, tools and implements at public expense.

Both sides of the House have expressed concern about rates but the best custodians of the rates are the members of local authorities. Desirable as it may seem in respect of some of the associations Deputy Jones has mentioned, I think it goes too far if we allow officials to decide whether this type of expenditure will be incurred. There is no difference here between kind and money because kind also means money. It could possibly mean that valuable officials would be seconded, so to speak, to any of these organisations to promote their objects.

That is how I read the section. If the Minister can allay my fears in respect of the things I have mentioned, I am satisfied, but, as the Bill stands, the public representatives have no control over any expenditure that may be incurred by a planning authority in assisting in kind the bodies mentioned here.

Perhaps the Minister would also say if a local development association means something in particular. I have been assured by Deputy Tully that there are certain conditions to be fulfilled before a local development association can be established and recognised by Bord Fáilte, the Minister for Transport and Power or by the local authorities. I do not know, but I trust the local development association is not one that can be assembled by a body of people with harebrained ideas and that an association such as is envisaged would have some standing and be representative of the functional area of a local authority in some way. I am concerned about what appears to be happening all down the line, that is, the stripping of their responsibilities and functions from public representatives because in this case officials may determine what facilities shall be offered to the different organisations and these services and other things which they may provide may involve a great deal of expenditure which will be reflected in the rates.

This point of helping in kind is very well taken by Deputy Corish and I propose to have another look at it before Report Stage because I fully agree with him that there is no reason why the screwball would not be handed out value by way of kind just as readily as by cash. If we want to safeguard the handing out of help by cash, there is no reason why we should not also safeguard the handing out of help in kind. This merits further consideration and now that my attention has been clearly drawn to it by Deputy Corish I shall reconsider it between now and the Report Stage.

"Assisting under this section by helping with money shall be a reserved function." That is stated in subsection (3) and when I turn to the interpretation section I find that "reserved function" means

(a) with respect to the council of a county or an elective body for the purposes of the County Management Acts, 1940 to 1955, a reserved function for the purposes of the County Management Acts, 1940 to 1955,

(b) with respect to the corporation of a county borough, a reserved function for the purposes of the Acts relating to the management of the county borough;

Could the Minister interpret that for me and say if it is the county manager who gives out money or is it the council?

It is the elected members of the local authority.

I am delighted to hear it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

This section states:

(1) A planning authority may, within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the Minister from time to time, contribute to the funds of any body which provides for training and research in relation to town and regional planning.

(2) Contributing under this section shall be a reserved function.

What does the Minister envisage in respect of research? Does he mean the type of conference I have already referred to, training development, or does he envisage in respect of research there would be some officers other than the planning officer engaged in it? I take it that any training or research carried out would be done with a broad view of the citizen's rights and duties in this matter.

So far as the contribution towards training and research is concerned, does the Minister envisage confining it to local authorities, or will it be carried out on a more national basis and will the local authorities be required to contribute? I appreciate that the reserved function part of it brings it within the ambit of the elected representative. I want to get from the Minister what he has in mind at this stage. Is it confined to the region of the local authority or is it wider in its implications?

As the House is probably aware, one of our problems is the shortage of fully-trained town planners. This section has that in view. This is not merely a matter of a contribution by a local authority for research into some local problem or for the training of local personnel. It can, of course, apply to any such isolated local project, but I would direct the attention of the House to the much broader aspect of it. Under this we are trying to provide facilities for post-graduate and special courses for our existing technical personnel, and others later, to help them acquire the specialised knowledge of various aspects of planning we would wish them to have in the years ahead. Of course, all this will cost money.

In regard to research, it is again intended to have research on a fairly high level and on a wide scale. That is being actively pursued in my Department at the moment. As yet, however, it has not gone further than my Department, and Deputies will appreciate that I cannot say much more in detail about it at this stage.

The Minister would envisage a contribution from local sources towards that type of research?

Yes. If we are doing research at a high level, the greater the benefits that will accrue, and those benefits will be available to all planning authorities. Therefore, I think it would be fair to seek a contribution. Whether that will be obligatory or voluntary is a matter that has not yet been considered in detail.

I can see from the intent of the section what the Minister has in mind. I can appreciate that a good deal of research in many fields may be desirable and welcome and may in the long run contribute much to the wellbeing of the community. A good deal of research has been carried out by local engineers in regard to road making. At national level, that might provide a solution to some of the problems country areas are faced with in the making of roads. I take it the Minister envisages other things such as housing development? On the Estimate, I shall have something to say in regard to housing development.

I believe it is desirable to have this type of research. I wanted to get from the Minister the type of research he has in mind. Is it at national level and does he envisage visits by personnel to various places abroad? Whether it would contribute to the material welfare of the community, locally or nationally, the intent is to seek a contribution, obligatory or otherwise, from the local authority?

That is broadly the position.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Subsection (1) of this section states:

Two or more planning authorities may make and carry out an agreement for sharing the cost of performing all or any of their functions under this Act and, where an agreement has been made under this subsection, the planning authorities concerned may terminate it at any time if they so agree.

Perhaps the Minister might be able to enlighten me as to how they might terminate an agreement in regard to development? I can understand local authorities in adjoining areas combining with one another for the purposes of this Bill in order to make a development plan in which they would present a homogenous picture to the planning authority acting for the two or more local authorities in the area concerned. But how can they terminate this agreement? If it is considered desirable in the first instance they should combine and have a certain measure of agreement, I should like to hear from the Minister under what circumstances he envisages they might at some time terminate this agreement. Would this mean the termination of the type of development for which they had originally planned, even if they had not implemented it? Having in the first instance agreed on this development, steps would be taken to implement that decision. Under what circumstances does the Minister envisage the same planning authority would terminate the type of agreement he has in mind?

The Deputy may be looking at this a bit too closely and regarding it as a contract between two commercial interests rather than between two local authorities making a joint arrangement for looking after each other's best interests and having particular regard to the best interests of the public. The Deputy asks for an example of how an agreement could be entered into and got out of. Let us take Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council as an instance. They might agree on the development of Portmarnock as a resort mainly for use by Dublin city residents. There could be a situation where the corporation would enter into an agreement with Dublin County Council, not only to improve facilities at Portmarnock strand but also to maintain them in some sort of caretaker capacity.

That might be a procedure that would go on for years, depending on the period written into the agreement between the two—it could be five, ten or 15 years. The agreement could not be broken within that specified time but it could be terminated in a way which would not involve a breach of faith by either party to it. One of them might feel: "This is enough of this"; or one of them might say: "We will do better in the future", or decide: "This is not needed at all in the future", and the partnership might be dissolved. The partnership had come into being initially for the benefit of the public. A different set of circumstances would prevail where a commercial undertaking was involved in a contract and where, if the contract were broken it might mean a loss and involve court proceedings.

I appreciate the Minister's explanation. I was thinking that when this Act becomes law, planning arrangements will be made generally throughout the country and a certain length of time laid down within which plans must be brought into operation. There is also the question of review. A period of three years was mentioned within which a plan must be prepared and then we have the question of a five-year review of these matters. In the meantime, elections take place locally and new sets of elected representatives will come in after the five-year period. You could have an agreement between two planning authorities to carry out certain development in the fourth year. Then, at the beginning of the sixth year, new planning authorities would come in and there might be disagreement immediately between the two contracting parties to the original agreement.

I presume the Minister might deal with such a situation under subsection (2) of this section—that he would at such a stage decide that the planning authority which decided to terminate the agreement would be obliged to pay whatever expenses were involved in the carrying out of the original agreement. It may be said we are inclined to look at these problems too closely, but what we are concerned with is to provide, by way of foresight now, that we will have covered any conceivable point that might arise later. As I have stressed, under our present election system, local authorities change every five years and consequently you might have a measure of disagreement as between two groups of councils in such matters. Perhaps the Minister has something further to add to his earlier explanation.

I may not have been sufficiently clear. If such an agreement exists, it will be for a period and can be terminated within that period only by agreement of the two parties to it.

One cannot terminate it?

One cannot.

They are not allowed to change their minds from county to county?

No. They would be bound by the original agreement, if still current. Unless both agree to terminate it, the agreement would stand.

What about the review provisions in five years?

This has nothing to do with it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Would the Minister say what is meant by the phrase: "The former sum may be set off against the latter"?

Somebody owing rates who was entitled to compensation could have one set off against the other.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.

I move amendment 48:

In subsection (1), page 13, line 37, before "order" to insert "regulation or".

Under Section 18 as it stands, where an appeal is made to the Minister under this Act or under any order of a local authority, the Minister may do certain things. Now, regulations may require a person to do certain things, just as orders may so require him, and we want to have the widest possible right of appeal to the Minister—not alone in respect of orders but also of regulations.

No appeals can arise in respect of regulations so the addition of "regulations" is not necessary.

No appeal against regulations?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 49:

In subsection (1), page 13, to delete all words after "appeal" in line 45 down to the end of the subsection.

This section deals with the question of appeals and what they may involve. Appeals to the Minister, certainly, will cause some cost to the appellants. The Minister has already envisaged the type of appeal that would be possible where a person affected could be represented by counsel. There could be an oral hearing and evidence taken to assist the Minister in his determination of the appeal. The section says that the Minister may direct the appellant to pay the planning authority or he may pay the Minister the appropriate costs of the appeal. When an appeal of this type is made, it is made by someone who is being affected in his property rights. If the appeal fails, the individual concerned has lost so far as his property rights are concerned. His appeal has been dismissed, and whatever it was envisaged to do to his property will then be done. At that stage the Minister would have the right to levy costs in favour of the planning authority or the Minister. We suggest that since the individual has been punished, if you like, and has lost so far as his property rights are concerned, he should not be further affected by awarding costs against him.

In the ordinary way, no one will appeal to the Minister unless his property rights are affected. This will not be a frivolous appeal. Anyone who appears before an appeal tribunal will have had the advantage—at least it is hoped he will—of some type of legal advice. He will have been involved in that cost already. If the appeal should be unfavourable to him—and that is what is mentioned here—and if he has lost what he considered to be his rights, I suggest that to further penalise him by awarding costs against him would be unfair. In an ordinary case when a person has recourse to the courts of law, if he lost his case costs would probably be awarded against him, but I suggest to the Minister that, where an individual is appealing in defence of his property rights against a local authority or a decision of the Minister, costs should not be awarded against him.

The purpose of the amendment is to absolve the individual from having to pay costs on an appeal to the Minister which he has lost, and which has deprived him in one way or another of usage of his own property or some property rights.

When looking at this section the House should take fully into account the vast change that has been made in this Bill so far as appeals are concerned. We have broadened the scope of those who may appeal so much that anyone may make an appeal about anything that is proposed to be done in any part of the country regardless of what interest he may have in it. Anyone may appeal against any decision about any property and any development in any part of the country which is no business of his, just because he may have a peculiar slant about certain things he does not like.

We widened this on purpose to enable every person who genuinely has an interest to come in under it, but in order to do so we had to leave it so wide that people who have no interest can take advantage of it. It is only right that if anyone can appeal against any decision taken by any planning authority miles away, against something in which he has no real concern or interest, we must correspondingly have some safeguard at our disposal to limit that type of appeal.

In addition, we have to remember that these appeals may be made by a person who has no say, good or bad, in a particular property. Appeals need not necessarily—and will not in all cases or anything like all cases—arise from an aggrieved property owner who has been refused permission. They can also arise from a person appealing against a property owner who has got permission to do a job. There may be an objector in an area who will pursue a development week after week, and month after month because such people will now have an opportunity of knowing what the decisions are on any planning by virtue of the register and by asking for excerpts to be sent to them.

Such appeals might fail, be made again and fail again, and the person should be made to pay for that little game or entertainment. Those cases will be rare and the fact that costs can be awarded against them will deter them. It is not likely that expenses will be incurred in getting someone to represent them or advise them legally by the persons I am thinking about. It is far more likely that the person who gets the permission and against whom this type of crank may appeal will be put to the trouble of getting advice and attending the hearing which he ultimately wins. It is with that type of person and that type of situation that we have to deal.

Another type of situation we have to keep in mind concerns the owner of a bit of land. He may apply to do a certain development and be refused and told it is completely out of the question. The same case could come up again, and again, and again, without any possibility of the appeal being accepted the hundredth time any more than it was the first time. The person could keep sending it up time without number. It would be turned down and he could appeal again and demand an early hearing which is given as a right in this Bill. That would cost the taxpayers, the ratepayers and everyone else, time and money, and at some time a halt must be called. If that person insists on having his fun at the expense of the ratepayers and the taxpayers, he should have to pay for it. Such cases will be quite few in relation to the overall appeals, but the fact that we have the power to make them pay will be a deterrent.

As I said at the outset, we have broadened this aspect so much that anyone anywhere can appeal against anything in any area. It is for that reason, and not for any political punitive purpose, that it is put in here. It is a safeguard against unnecessary appeals from people with "kinks".

I agree with the situation as the Minister has developed it, and he has developed it much further than I had envisaged, with appeal after appeal being made. I did not envisage anything of that nature going on. If an appeal was made with regard to a particular property and it was refused, I could not see any sense in appealing against the same thing again. I certainly would not countenance such a waste of time and money. I want to protect the type of person who appeals, in relation to a piece of land or property, against the decision of the planning authority, which is something which affects his right to the property, either compelling him to do certain things or refusing him the right to do certain things which he thinks he should be able to do. He appeals to the Minister and his right to do these things is refused. I want to protect him against any costs being awarded against him.

As the section stands, costs can be awarded against him just as they can be against the agent provocateur, to whom the Minister referred, the person who has not got a genuine interest in an appeal at all, who is not genuinely interested in the type of development which is taking place. I want to protect the interests of the person who is making a genuine appeal and who is being affected in regard to his property or land and who is affected by his appeal being rejected by the Minister. In that event the decision of the planning authority stands and he suffers a loss. I want the Minister to consider that he is a bona fide appellant. There may be good reasons why the Minister would not uphold his appeal but the Minister should not consider awarding costs against him. I know the Minister would not consider doing that but I am endeavouring to have the Minister protect such a person in the legislation. The amendment is not designed to cover the actions of anybody who may be acting in a capricious manner.

The Deputy and the House will probably have realised that because of the broad aspect of this we do need something of this nature. It could have been done in one of three ways. One would be by way of deposit, the second would be to establish a prima facie case, and that there was reason for going ahead, and the third is this method. The question of the deposit could be fair but in certain cases it could be unfair. There could be a poor person with a good case but who had not got the money for the deposit and he could not go ahead with his case. The deposit would have to be of some significance; otherwise, it would not have any meaning. If it were of significance, such a case as I have mentioned could arise and a person could not avail of the appeals procedure. Then the question of establishing in advance that there was a prima facie case would really involve a preliminary hearing by somebody or other to decide whether or not there was a case, and then you would have the appeal proper, as the hearing. For that reason, there would be duplication to a degree in an administrative organisation which, in fact, will be taxed to the limit dealing with appeals directly, without having to determine them in advance or saying: “This is a genuine appellant; we will hear him and we will not hear the other fellow.”

In the last analysis, we came to this particular choice. I think I can allay any doubts which may remain in the minds of any Deputies. In a first appeal it would be the rarest thing if somebody should have costs awarded against him on losing that appeal. I cannot envisage it happening except on the rarest occasion. I would not go the whole hog and say that it would not happen, but I would go near to it and say that it would be most rare. I think that you can almost take it for a certainty that first appeals will be a "free run", let us put it that way. Therefore, the person with a genuine grievance, or who thinks he has a genuine grievance, and puts his case and even though we find he has no case or grievance, I would regard that as a fair exercise of his rights and that he would not come under this section to have costs awarded against him, because he was acting in good faith.

Does the Minister intend to make regulations covering the appeals?

Could the Minister insert some safeguard in the regulations he envisages?

I do not think you could possibly cover it without tying our hands or feet in some way or other, or tying somebody else's hands or feet. I think what I have said, together with the fact that the Minister of the day will at all stages be answerable to the members of the House, is in the last degree the final safeguard I can offer and I think it is a real safeguard.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 50:

In subsection (1), page 14, line 7, after "longer period" to insert "not exceeding two years".

The subsection as it stands reads:

Every planning authority shall, within the period of three years beginning on the appointed day (or such longer period as the Minister may in any particular case allow), make a plan indicating development objectives for their area.

The purpose of this amendment is to limit the time which the Minister may allow for the making of a development plan to a maximum of two years, making in all a period of five years from the appointed day. I suggest that it is necessary to place some limit on the period of extension to avoid the situation which arose in regard to the Act which is being repealed by this legislation, whereby the planning authority preparing the plan after the passing of the legislation had no planning scheme made for periods of up to 20 years.

I asked the Minister last October the number of authorities which had decided to make planning schemes under the Town and Regional Planning Acts, 1934 to 1939. Having got that information from the Minister, I asked him how many planning authorities had decided to make a planning scheme under this Act. The Minister said that while a number of planning authorities made some progress with the preparation of draft planning schemes, only one planning authority—Dublin Corporation—has submitted a planning scheme for his approval. He said, further, that the scheme had not been approved even at that date. The reference is the Official Report of Wednesday, 31st October, 1962, columns 333 and 334.

I know the Minister has nothing in mind by extending the period of time he might allow to a planning authority. However, under the section, the extension could run to any period. I suggest the limit ought to be two years. In the legislation envisaged here, we propose to review development plans every fifth year. Surely it is reasonable to assume that if a plan is made, there will be some date when people may expect it to come into operation. Certainly, when we envisage the review of planning every fifth year, we should not think in terms of time that might go beyond that. That is why we seek to limit the period of further time the Minister may allow to any planning authority to two years, making it, then, a total of five years from the date the Minister decides is the appointed date when the Act shall come into operation in any particular area. At a very maximum, the local authority at that stage would have a period of five years in which to draw up a development plan.

We consider that the two-year period should be added. One thing which is pretty hard to understand is that while the Minister lays down three years, he has already intimated to local authorities that the technical officers should be sent on a two-years' training course on planning techniques. Has he explained how it is expected that the actual scheme can then be drawn up in a year.

The year after this is through.

Two years and a year.

That is, assuming we have the Bill and it is law. There is no bother at all.

If you had succeeded in bringing in a short Bill——

Long Bill, long course —and the regulations as well.

If there are to be two years' training, how is it expected to have the planning carried out in the remaining year of the three years? I do not know whether Fine Gael mean to take out the two years or three years completely and make it five years. We believe five years would be a more realistic approach to the whole thing. I understand Dublin Corporation are in the position that they want to get ahead with the planning immediately. Possibly it might be necessary to make exceptions in some cases.

We do not want to see the same thing happen, particularly in the country districts, as happened on another occasion. We do not want somebody to try to rush schemes through in order to comply with the statutory regulations, with the result that planning schemes are sanctioned which are not a bit realistic and do not face up to present-day problems. We had a particular instance before of somebody starting to plan and, when the planning was finished, the estimated cost of the scheme—almost 30 years ago—was £20 million for a very small area. It is quite possible that somebody wants to start planning now and, without the necessary technical knowledge which apparently the Minister thinks is stored away somewhere and can be taught to those people, we could have a repetition of that situation.

We in the Labour Party feel that five years—with the exception possibly of Dublin and one or two of the other cities—would be a much more realistic approach and possibly that meets with the Fine Gael view on this matter.

It is hard to know quite what is intended—whether it is to speed up the introduction by insisting that a plan be drawn up before a certain date, or otherwise. I am all with those who think it should be speeded up. I am against the amendment in respect of these two years because I am with the idea that we should bring it in as fast as possible. The insertion of the two years here would be an indication for all to read and see that here are two plus three which give you, actually, to the last day of the fifth year before you need shake yourself. I do not want it to get abroad that that is the approach we anticipate.

On the other hand, I would point out, as we already agreed earlier on this Bill, that we have made arrangements and changes in the Bill, in fact, to enable the Bill to be brought in and that the appointed date need not necessarily be the same in all parts of the country. In addition is the facility, and a very real facility it may prove in the bigger centres of population such as the cities, whereby different parts of the plan under the Bill may commence at different times so that we could have roads and amenities or several other things starting on different dates.

As well as the fact that the appointed date when the Bill would come into operation would not be the same in all parts of the country, neither need all parts of the Bill come into operation on the same day in any one given authority if it seems to be that, by breaking it up, it facilitates the getting going of the overall and that you can lay back that which is most difficult and start with that which is the easiest. At the same time, I do not want to be tied to a maximum extension of two years. Neither do I think it is good tactics to put in the two years because people would think that there are two plus three years, which equal five—and I do not want that idea to get abroad at all. For that reason, I am not for the amendment. Although I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of Deputy Jones who has put it down in order to speed things up, I believe that acceptance of the amendment would probably involve the danger of slowing things down rather than speeding them up. For that reason, I am inclined to be against rather than for it.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share