Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Jul 1963

Vol. 204 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1962—Report and Final Stages.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, to insert in line 3 "(in this definition referred to as the principal land)" after "land" and to delete in lines 5, 6 and 7, "or consisting of such land together with other land contiguous or adjacent thereto" and substitute "together with such land contiguous or adjacent to the principal land as, in the opinion of the planning authority, is necessary for the satisfactory development or user of the principal land".

This amendment follows from our discussion here on Committee Stage wherein it was pointed out, and I agreed, that the Bill as it stood could be interpreted in a wider sense than was required in regard to contiguous land. This amendment has the effect of restricting what could be regarded for the purpose of the Bill as contiguous or adjacent land.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 11, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following new subsection:

"(4) Where a notice or copy of an order is served on or given to a person by affixing it under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section, a copy of the notice or order shall, within two weeks thereafter, be published in at least one newspaper circulating in the area in which the person is last known to have resided."

This to meet a point made by Deputy Jones when we were discussing section 7. It provides that, in addition to whatever safeguards by way of notice and publication we might give, there would be published a notice in a paper circulating in the area where last the person to be served with the notice was heard of.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 11, line 48, to delete "order." and substitute "order and that dispensing with the serving or giving of the notice or copy will not cause injury or wrong".

This is a further safeguard which we thought necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 11, line 53, to insert "served or" before "given".

This is a minor drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 12, lines 33 and 34, to delete "address, and the estate, interest, or right" and substitute "address".

This also arises from agreement we reached on Committee Stage and is to restrict the information which may be sought by a planning authority to seeking the name and address of the person rather than, as it is in the Bill, getting further information which would probably be detrimental to the interests of the person from whom the information was obtained.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 13, line 31, to delete "by helping with money".

This is to make assistance of any kind under Section 14 a reserved function.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 14, to insert "development" before "plan" in line 34 and line 40 and to delete "under this section" in line 34.

Both this amendment and amendment No. 8 are drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 15, to insert "development" before "plan" in line 2, line 6, line 9 and line 42, before "plan, being" in line 16 and before "plans" in line 20, to delete "under this section" in line 2, line 10, line 14 and line 42 and to insert "subsection (1) of" before "this" in line 48 and line 51.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 16, line 17, to insert "(which shall incorporate particulars of the provision)" after "notice".

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would probably go together. This again is the result of what was said on Committee Stage and make more clear what may be called for under this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 16, line 22, to insert "(which shall incorporate particulars of the provision and a map indicating the right of way)" after "notice".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 16, to insert "and" after "accordingly)," in line 34 and to insert between lines 34 and 35 the following new paragraph:

"(c) that any ratepayer making objection with respect to the draft may include in his objection a request to be afforded an opportunity to state his case before a person or persons appointed by the planning authority (and such opportunity shall be afforded to such objector and his statement shall be considered together with his objection),".

This makes provision for oral hearings for objectors which was not included in the Bill as it was before us on Committee Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 16, line 40, to insert "twenty-one days next following the" before "period".

This extends by three weeks the period in which an appeal may be made to the circuit court against the inclusion in a development plan of a provision for the preservation of a right away.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 19, line 37, to delete "not" and substitute "neither earlier than the 1st day of August, 1962, nor".

This is to meet the views of those who spoke in the discussion and, in particular, was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 13a:

In page 19, line 38, to delete "commencement of" and substitute "grant of permission for".

This has arisen because amendment No. 13 was brought along. In the Bill as it was before the House on Committee Stage there were certain words included and, as a result of the drafting of amendment No. 13 which is now before the House inadvertently the words which we had proposed in the earlier amendment which was withdrawn had not been brought in with the new amendment No. 13. Because I believe it is desirable that the words of the old amendment which I withdrew in the House should now be inserted this amendment is proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 21, line 31, to delete "of" and substitute "specifying".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 27, line 7, to insert "at any time before those works have been commenced or, in the case of works which have been commenced and which, consequent on the making of a variation in the development plan, will contravene such plan," before "at".

This amendment is to make it clear that once works have been commenced, the relevant permission may not be revoked without adequate reason.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 27, after line 40, to insert the following new subsection:

"(8) The revocation or modification under this section of a permission shall be a reserved function."

The effect of this amendment is to reserve to the elected members of the local authority the power to revoke or modify permission under Section 30 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 28, lines 32 to 35, to delete all words after "authority" down to the end of the subsection and substitute: "may apply, in the case of land where the rateable valuation thereof does not exceed £10, to the District Court of the area where the land is situated and in the case of land where the rateable valuation thereof exceeds £10 to the Circuit Court having jurisdiction in the area where the land is situate, for an order requiring the owner to comply with the notice and the court, if satisfied that the owner should comply with the notice, may order the owner of the land to comply with such notice upon such terms as to the court seem just".

The Minister already knows why we have been moving amendments of this type and we do not think it will take any power which the Minister and the planning authority may need in regard to good planning. All that is being asked is that when a person's property is affected the planning authority may not move into the person's land without seeking the authority of the court. In the case of land which is of a valuation less than £10 the district court is available to the planning authority and in regard to land over that value the circuit court is available. The Minister has met my proposition in regard to where a person obstructs the entry to land and what I am asking here is not to put the citizen in the position of having to obstruct at all. If the planning authority adopt the legal process which is open to them there can be no grievance on any side.

Mr. Blaney

Much as I should like, for the sake of a continuance of the harmony that has been so noticeable during the entirety of this debate, to accept the amendment, I am afraid I must repeat what I have said all along, particularly on Committee Stage. In so far as planning policy is concerned, I still assert — rightly or wrongly; I think, rightly—that this is a function for the Minister and his administration, while the determination of the law is and will remain a matter for the courts. I thought we had reached general agreement on these principles. In a later amendment, amendment No. 31, we are providing that which I promised to provide in response to the specific request of the Leader of the Opposition who said at column 1896 of volume 203 of the Official Report:

... what we are seeking to assert here is not the right of the courts to determine whether a plan is good or bad. All we want to assert is the right of the court to determine where circumstances exist which would justify forcible entry on a citizen's property in order to vindicate the purpose of the plan.

We will, I think, succeed in meeting that in amendment No. 31. In that amendment, I believe I am keeping faith with the promise I made. I have not changed my mind in relation to the amendment under discussion, but I have gone a reasonable distance to meet the demands made on Committee Stage.

Mr. Jones

This is in relation to whether or not a condition imposed has been observed. It is not in relation to planning?

Mr. Blaney

It is really the same thing. The Deputy mentioned a person being forced into having to take physical action to repel an invader. That is not the intention. That is not the spirit behind this legislation. A person need only say: "We will not have you in," and the planning authority will then have to go to court in order to go in legitimately.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 28, line 49, after "thereon" to insert "and a court order requiring compliance with the notice has been made".

This amendment is consequential on No. 17. I seek the provision of a court order requiring compliance with the notice that has been made. Will the Minister accept this amendment?

Mr. Blaney

I am afraid I do not see the point in this. The fact that this is consequential on the Deputy's previous amendment ought to be sufficient answer.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 29, to delete all words after "authority" in line 49 down to the end of the subsection and substitute: "may apply, in the case of land where the rateable valuation thereof does not exceed £10 to the District Court of the area where the land is situated and in the case of land where the rateable valuation thereof exceeds £10 to the Circuit Court having jurisdiction in the area where the land is situate, for an order requiring the owner to comply with the notice and the court, if satisfied that the owner should comply with the notice, may order the owner of the land to comply with such notice upon such terms as to the court seem just".

The same principle is incorporated here in regard to the individual seeking the right to have a matter determined in court. One person may interpret the conditions, or compliance with the conditions, in one way and the planning authority may interpret them in another way. We are not concerned actually with good planning at this stage. What we are concerned to ensure is that, where there is a conflict, the planning authority will seek the permission of the court before going into a person's property.

Mr. Blaney

I suggest that that is covered by amendment No. 31.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 20 not moved.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 32, to delete the words after "authority" in line 20 down to the end of the subsection and substitute: "may apply, in the case of land where the rateable valuation thereof does not exceed £10 to the District Court of the area where the land is situated and in the case of land where the rateable valuation thereof exceeds £10 to the Circuit Court of the area where the land is situate, for an order requiring the owner to comply with the notice and the court, if satisfied that the owner should comply with the notice, may order the owner of the land to comply with such notice upon such terms as to the court seem just".

Here we are dealing with the enforcement of planning control. I reminded the House on a previous occasion that the original Town Planning Acts contained a provision under which a resolution could be passed in relation to planning. Various authorities passed a resolution, but did nothing further. They did not make a plan; they did not make any regulations. The fact that a local authority passed a resolution in regard to planning did not give any rights to that authority one way or the other, since no conditions were laid down with regard to planning. I am advised that there is a constitutional defect in this Bill and, if this Bill goes through in its present form, any planning authority entering on property will be acting unconstitutionally. All the efforts which have been put into this Bill, the admirable qualities it contains, will be completely nullified by the effect of going into a person's property in these circumstances.

We are dealing with the unauthorised structure. The only way in which these structures will be unauthorised is by planning control having been deemed to be in existence. If a resolution was passed bringing the Town Planning Acts into force in a particular area, but having done that, the local authorities failed to lay down any conditions or standards or to issue directions by which the individual might be guided, then at that stage there was no standard by which an individual could be compelled to erect a structure. In this case, if the planning authority, in pursuance of this, were, having served notice on the person, to move in to the property or interfere with it, I am advised it would be unconstitutional and that this Act would certainly be challenged at that stage. It is held that it would prove to be unconstitutional.

It is because of this, and because we do not want to see an imporant piece of legislation which we believe to be defective going through the House, that we tabled this amendment. We would be failing in our duty if we did not point this out. The planning authority, be failing to seek the order by the ordinary recognised process which is available would, by entering on a person's property, be doing something they are not entitled to do, and the person would be protected by the Constitution. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment so that when this becomes law the efforts which the Minister and his advisers have put into it will not be negatived in that way.

As I say, I have been advised that since the various authorities did not make any plan, or regulations, or lay down standards under the previous Town Planning Acts, they are now protected and the power which they would claim to have would not entitle them to give directions against an individual and move into his property or home and carry out alterations or remove a structure. I do not believe the Minister or the House wants that. What we want in this legislation, which is admirable from every point of view and with which we have agreed from the beginning, is something on which the country might build securely for the future. I suggest it does not cost the planning authority anything; they protect themselves by seeking the interpretation necessary from the courts in respect of this matter.

Mr. Blaney

I should emphasise that every section of the Bill was vetted with a view to its consitutionality long ago and on many occasions during the course of the discussions. As regard the Act of 1934 about which Deputy Jones has spoken, the passing of a resolution under that Act obliged the planning authority to make a planning scheme. Anybody who put up a structure was knowingly running a grave risk that it could be removed without any compensation. What we are proposing is no more and no less than carrying into the new legislation the obligations and duties imposed under existing law.

In regard to its constitutionality, we have examined this and every other section minutely. The amendment really deals with Section 35 which enables planning authorities to deal effectively with the developer who leaves an estate unfinished, who leaves footpaths in a bad state, roadways broken and potholed, water surface drainage uncatered for and litter-strewn corners on sites unprotected and in a mess. These are matters we intend to deal with and everyone will agree that every possible step should be taken to ensure that that type of situation is not allowed to go unchecked.

It has already been evident in various parts of this city. We have listened here time and again to complaints by Deputies from all sides of the House about this type of situation and about the difficulties of house purchasers in not having the services they thought would be provided. That is a very necessary and desirable section without which this Bill would not be a very effective measure. The amendment would not in any way help to do something that many of us wish to have done. In fact, if anything, it would seem to condone the inaction of these developers who have failed to do their job, misled people into believing that they would do a certain job and then washed their hands of the whole estate and left things unfinished. I think none of us wants a recurrence or a continuation of that. I put it to the House that we should not amend the section and that the powers in it are desirable and very necessary.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister recognises that the atmosphere that surrounded the discussion of this Bill precludes the suggestion that there is a desire here to frustrate the general purposes of the legislation. I am prepared to concede now that we have discussed the merits of certain matters on Committee Stage and agreed to differ about them. However, in respect of these two amendments, Nos. 20 and 21—although we are on No. 21 and No. 20 has been disposed of—I should like the House to look at the two together. It is purely the aspect of constitutionality that induced us to bring forward these amendments and to press them at this stage.

We on this side of the House recognise the amount of work which has been put into this Bill and the spirit in which it has been discussed. We want the Bill to work but we live, for good or ill, under a written Constitution. We are all familiar in our experience with pieces of legislation which appeared good to this House but which, tested in the High Court and Supreme Court within the framework of the Constitution, were declared unconstitutional, whereupon we found ourselves without powers which the Oireachtas thought the Government should have. Not infrequently, it was in respect of a relatively insignificant element in the Act that the whole Act was declared unconstitutional and the whole work of the legislation had to be begun again and in the meantime things got done which it was the clear intention of the Oireachtas should not be allowed to be done.

I have no doubt the Minister has taken elaborate precautions to check the provisions with his advisers as to their constitutionality. However, I do not think it is necessary for me to reinforce what Deputy Jones has already said. We have taken advice on it not primarily for the purpose of coercing the Minister to accept our view but really to avoid the possibility of an Act so laboriously enacted being destroyed on its first reference to the Supreme Court by some interested party. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that our advice from persons not unfamiliar with constitutional litigation of this kind has been that without the remedies proposed in amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23 it is their considered opinion that a coach and four could be driven through this Bill, when enacted, on constitutional grounds.

If it was our purpose to frustrate this Bill our best bet would be to say nothing, to sit back and simply say: "It is all right. This can be blown sky-high as soon as it is enacted." On the contrary, our purpose is to advise the Minister of what we believe to be the genuine danger to the Bill and what we consider to be the minimum amendment which will correct the constitutional defect so that if the Act is subsequently challenged it will survive any challenge based on the Constitution because we believe that the Bill in its final form will truly represent the consensus of opinion in this House albeit that in respect of certain details we have been constrained to differ.

It is on those grounds that we press these amendments on the Minister—I shall not say for his own protection but for the protection of the piece of legislation which he played his full part in bringing to what we hope will be a satisfactory conclusion. I suggest that perhaps the Minister would review this Bill further, in the light of the information we have given him, with his legal advisers and save the Bill in the Seanad if it transpires that there is any doubt.

Mr. Blaney

I am suffering somewhat from a disability in that, on this stage of the Bill, I am not entitled to talk several times. Having talked once, I am out. I should say I am aware of what the Leader of the Opposition has now informed us—that his Party did take advice—and I am aware of what that advice was. Being aware of it, we have renewed our review and consideration of that which is said to be objectionable. Having done so, in the knowledge of the advice which the Opposition Party received, I still say we are satisfied it is all right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 32, to delete lines 24 to 29, inclusive.

This amendment is analogous to amendments Nos. 23 and 24, their purpose being to point out a difficulty which we are advised is in the Bill. The Minister says that at this stage he cannot move from his position, in the light of the information he has received. Our desire is to save the Bill. I trust that between now and the time the Bill goes to the Seanad, the Minister will review this matter.

Mr. Blaney

I assure the House that I shall look at it and re-look at it between now and the time the Bill reaches the Seanad.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 39, line 33, to insert "rare species of flora or fauna of any area or to preserve from extinction any species of" before "flora".

The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that the section applies only to rare species of flora and fauna and does not include, for instance, game. I feel that game is protected in other ways and by other Government agencies. Therefore, we direct this specifically to rare species in order to prevent them from becoming extinct.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 40, to insert between lines 16 and 17 the following new subsection:

"(10) The making of an order under this section and the revocation or variation of any such order shall be a reserved function."

The effect of this amendment is to reserve to the elected members of the planning authority power to make a conservation order under the section. I feel it is a necessary and desirable additional safeguard.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 42, line 24, to delete "ratepayers" and substitute "persons".

The effect of this amendment is to enable proceedings to be taken under Section 51. We discussed this provision at some length. Deputy Jones felt we should not restrict its operation to ratepayers only and he suggested, I think, "adults". I promised to have another look at it and I come forward now with "persons" rather than "ratepayers".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 51, between lines 53 and 54 to add new subsections as follows:

"() An appeal shall lie from every determination of the arbitrator under subsection (1) of this section to the Circuit Court having jurisdiction in the county where the land, or part of the land which is the subject of a claim for payment of compensation, is situate.

() Rules of Court shall provide for appeals under subsection (2) of this section."

The acceptance of this amendment would give an individual who is aggrieved in the matter of compensation offered to him for his land which is being taken from him or being interfered with the right of appeal from the arbitrator's decision to the circuit court. This is a right that the individual should have. When the section was under review, the Minister mentioned the framework in which arbitration is set in this country. Could the Minister tell me now if these arbitrators are paid a fee only?

Mr. Blaney

They are on salary.

Mr. Jones

In regard to an arbitrator who makes an award in these cases, and I know the word "arbitrator" connotes acceptance of what he decides, there is the case of the individual who places a higher value on his property than the arbitrator may place on it. What we want to provide in this amendment is that the individual who feels aggrieved by the award should have the option of appealing to the circuit court. We do not think it unreasonable to write that into this legislation.

We have not provided in this Bill for many appeals to the courts but we feel that where a person's property is concerned and where you may take it from him, the award of compensation made should be the subject of review by the circuit court which operates in the area and which is well qualified to deal with this question of values in that area. We feel the individual should be free to exercise that right. If the arbitrator is wrong in his decision, and individuals can make mistakes, at least there is then the right of a review. I do not feel that the fact that we put this into the legislation now will mean that every individual will move from the arbitrator's hearing the circuit court.

After all, if the individual feels that his rights are being interfered with to the extent that he is not getting what he feels he should get, he will not lightly go to the courts because, should his action be mistaken and should the courts find that the compensation offered to him is fair and just, he will find himself footing, not only his own costs, but the costs of the planning authority as well. We feel that this is something which ought to be put into this legislation and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment so that the individual who is justly concerned about the measure of compensation being offered to him will have the right to appeal to the circuit court. It is a fundamental right that an individual should be able to appeal to a higher authority when he feels he has a grievance. I strongly urge on the Minister that he should put such a provision into the legislation so that we can respect the rights of the individual who feels aggrieved.

Mr. Dillon

We have agreed to differ in regard to certain matters where the Minister has felt that certain types of appeal which we recommend for inclusion in the Bill would amount to giving the judiciary authority to review the work of the planning authorities. This proposal does not fall within that area of disagreement between us because it does not propose that the courts should have the right to determine the propriety of the decisions of the planning authority. All we seek here is that when these matters have been disposed of and the consequences referred to the arbitrator for the determination of compensation, if the person whose property is being sequestered feels that the arbitrator's award is inadequate, he should have the right of appeal to the judiciary.

I want to suggest to the Minister that in our human experience, no matter how excellent a man may have been who is chosen as arbitrator, his attitude to the claimant for compensation may create in the mind of that claimant, perhaps unreasonably or unjustly, the belief that the arbitrator has leaned excessively in the direction of the valuation proposed by the planning authority and that he has unduly rejected the estimates and submissions made on behalf of the proprietor whose property is being acquired.

I would suggest to the Minister that to leave such an impression on the mind of an individual is objectionable from the point of view of good government and a sense of justice fully done. As Deputy Jones pointed out, probably in 80 per cent of the cases, the person will come to the conclusion that, by and large, the arbitrator has given him a fair award. But let us not forget, and I think this is tremendously important, that we should envisage the circumstances in which we are legislating. Certainly the planning authority and property owner will try to reach agreement without going to arbitration. It is only when there is disagreement and the owner feels that the planning authority are offering him much too little that he is likely to go to arbitration.

It is not impossible that the owner may be unreasonable and may be assessing his property as worth far more than any reasonable person would value it at but that is the feeling with which he goes to arbitration. The arbitrator is chosen by this strange machinery which provides that the President of the High Court, the Chief Justice and a representative of the chartered accountants society or some such body chooses a panel of persons. In practice, it has been one person. The owner feels his property is being taken from him rather than purchased. He feels the planning authority are proposing to take it for less than it is worth. He arrives before the arbitrator, makes his case, produces his witnesses, presses his claim—and is bitterly disappointed by the arbitrator's award.

If we are to make this good law, surely that person ought to be entitled to a second opinion? When he goes to the arbitrator, he is advised—and believes—that his property is worth £10,000. The planning authority say: "We think it is worth £3,000, but we are prepared to consider £4,000." The property owner revolts from such a proposal. He goes to the arbitrator. The arbitrator says: "I think the planning authority have been generous in this matter. I shall not go below what they expressed themselves prepared to give, although I believe £3,500 is the proper sum, and I award £4,000." The property owner, ablaze with indignation, comes out of the court and declares he has been wronged.

On whom do we place the unbearable burden of saying that an individual in that state of mind shall be entitled to take the legal advice open to him and go to the circuit court? At present, if I put my house and garden on the list for valuation which comes up in March for the Valuation Commissioners to determine whether the valuation is to be raised or lowered, I have the right to go to the circuit court from the decision. That is a decision which may affect only 30/or £3 in my liability for rates. Here is a case where a person is being asked to part permanently with his property and, reasonably or unreasonably, believes he is being offered half the value. Full of indignation, he goes to the arbitrator, only to be told: "We think you are getting plenty for it." Is he to be denied the appeal the ordinary ratepayer has from the Commissioners of Valuation?

In how many cases need we apprehend that such appeals will be made? Am I not right in saying that more than half of such cases will never even get to the arbitrator? They will be settled by agreement. Any prudent adviser to a property owner will advise: "Settle this if you can", and the planning authority will always go a little beyond its true value in order to avoid litigation. Of the remaining 40 per cent, half at least, if the arbitrator improves the price a bit, will say: "That will settle that."

Possibly one-fifth of all the cases may get as far as the circuit court in the initial stages while the public are familiarising themselves with the general working of the Act. But I believe after the Act is in operation for a protracted period, experienced solicitors and valuers will be able to tell clients with a very high degree of certainty: "We have seen exactly similar cases which went all the way to the circuit court, and that is probably what you are going to get." Having given that advice, they will say: "That is what the planning authority are offering you. If you take our advice try to get £10 or £15 more, and if you get it, take it." In the initial stages, we may get 20 per cent of the cases going to the circuit court. Who is going to be terribly hurt by that? Nothing will be held up. Everybody will go on about their business while the narrow question of compensation is being determined.

I put it to the Minister that, if that concession is made, a very major defect in this Bill, as we see it, will be removed. I would be prepared to say if such a concession were made to the property owner, which is no more than his right, there would be very little legitimate scope for a sense of grievance in regard to the compulsory acquisition of property under this Bill.

Mr. Blaney

Listening to the arguments just made and isolating oneself from all other legislation, one might be convinced that the argument has a certain amount of right, but when one looks around and realises that this measure is only a small part of the arbitration in regard to land values that annually takes place, one must ask why no effort has been made over the years in respect of all the other cases. In the Sanitary Services Act, the Land Acts, the Drainage Acts and the Housing Acts this whole basis of arbitration is enshrined.

Mr. Dillon

Surely not in the Land Acts?

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Is there not the Land Court?

Mr. Blaney

It is enshrined in the Land Clause Act of 1845.

Mr. Dillon

That is a very ancient instrument.

Mr. Blaney

The more ancient it is, the more noteworthy becomes the fact that this has not been changed. There was an excellent opportunity to do something about this when the Property Values (Arbitration and Appeals) Act was before this House in 1960; yet nothing was done in that direction. However, if we were to take cognisance of Deputy Dillon's views, I suggest there should be a far wider approach to the matter, and all other Acts likewise should be brought before us for change.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister could give a splendid example.

Mr. Blaney

I do not agree we should set the example. I am not convinced of the merit of Deputy Dillon's argument, but I concede that, if one took cognisance of his argument, the problem should be approached on a wider basis. The whole matter would be far better discussed on the broad general basis of amendments to all such Acts dealing with land values fixed by arbitration. I should probably still oppose it, if I am here, but that does not mean that Deputy Dillon or his Party should not take up the idea on the broad basis and let us have it decided once and for all.

In regard to this amendment, the arbitrator is acting in each case in what one would regard as a judicial capacity, unlike the inspector from the Valuation Office. He is present and hears the evidence on which he does not give advice to somebody else who makes the decision as the Valuation Commissioner does. In each of these cases, the arbitrator of valuations coming under review under this Bill will hear the evidence, try to elicit the facts and finally make a decision which he is in a definitely advantageous position to make because he is a specialist in this field. He has been appointed because of his specialisation and is without question—and this is no reflection on anybody—far better qualified as a judge of land values in any part of the country than any member of the judiciary. He is selected by a committee composed of the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, and the Chairman of the Surveyors Institution, Irish Branch. Neither the local authorities nor anybody here has any say in his selection. These three eminent people when called upon appoint a man who is without question a specialist in the knowledge required and no committee could be better for the purpose or more aware of the need for a real specialist in this matter.

When the arbitrator sits on a case, you will have probably the best specialist available in this field in the country. This is his job whenever he sits, year in, year out. He must acquire as he goes on more knowledge and information and must become an even greater specialist—and he began probably as the best man procurable. It is he, after hearing evidence personally, after eliciting all the necessary information, who makes the decision and I should assert that decision, without doubt, is likely to be the fairest and most just decision one could get in matters like this.

Another point about going to the courts is this. Have we sufficiently considered the fact that the planning authorities themselves would be enabled to take these cases to the court? They could and might well do so frequently without the same burden being imposed on them in the way of costs as would be imposed on the other party to a dispute, who might not wish to go to the court. Such a development might not be so welcome to many of those who will be parties to land value disputes. It is only a thought but it is worth considering.

The system of arbitration is an oldestablished one and the procedure is well known down the years. The primary purpose of arbitration, to my mind, is to avoid going to the courts and the attendant additional costs. It is also there on the basis that the best procurable specialist in the country is the man who from time to time must be relied on by the authorities and individuals who may feel aggrieved. That type of man has given first-class service all along under the various enactments I have mentioned and many I did not recall. I believe the movement of these disputes to the courts would not be likely to be to the advantage of the individual landholders who may come before the arbitrator.

For those reasons, I do not feel that even in this isolated instance, in the measure before us, I could subscribe to the idea of having the findings of the arbitrator subject to court proceedings. When we examine other legislation and enactments that have enshrined the arbitration system and try to discover whether as a result of experience the arbitration system has failed, I assert it is shown that it has not failed. Since that can be said after so many years and so many difficult cases, I feel any effort to change the system should fail at this stage.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 56, line 17, to insert "any site of geological, ecological or archaeological interest" before "or any".

The purpose of this amendment is to remove any doubt as to whether any planning authority may take steps to secure the preservation of any site of geological, ecological or archaeological interest.

Mr. Dillon

We are with you on No. 1 and No. 3.

Mr. Blaney

But you are not with me on No. 2. I was in the same position until I inquired about it.

Mr. Dillon

What is it about?

Mr. Blaney

Ecology is defined as that branch of biology which deals with the relations of living things to their environment and to each other.

Mr. Dillon

I thought it had something to do with sea shells.

Mr. Blaney

Probably in certain circumstances it could.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 57, to insert between lines 33 and 34 the following new subsection:

"(2) A planning authority shall not prosecute in a case in which an offence under section 53 of this Act is alleged to have been committed in relation to an advertisement unless the advertisement is exempted development and they have decided that the advertisement would injure the amenities of their area and, in the case of an advertisement advertising a public meeting, unless the advertisement has been in position for seven days or longer after the date of the meeting."

This was put down to allay the fears expressed on the Committee Stage by a number of Deputies in relation to Section 53. It will make clear that the planning authority may prosecute under this section only in respect of advertisements which constitute exempted development and, accordingly, are not otherwise subject to control.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 57, to delete lines 46 to 54 and substitute as follows:

"81. —(1) Where (in the case of occupied land) the occupier or (in the case of unoccupied land) the owner refuses to permit the exercise of a power of entry conferred by this Act on a planning authority, the authority shall not exercise the power save pursuant to an order of the District Court approving of the entry.

(2) The following provisions shall have effect in relation to an application for an order under this section:

(a) the application shall be made, on notice to the person who refused to permit the exercise of the power of entry, to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district court district in which the land or part of the land is situate.

(b) the application shall be granted unless the proposed entry is to be made pursuant to section 31, 32 or 33 of this Act on a structure and the said person satisfies the court in a case of noncompliance with a condition, that the condition was complied with or, in any other case, that the structure is not an unauthorised structure,

(c) an order made on the application may require that entry shall not be effected during a specified period of one week or less commencing on the date of the order.

(3) Any person who, by act or omission, obstructs an entry approved of by order under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds; and if in the case of a continuing offence the obstruction is continued after conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the obstruction is continued."

The effect of this amendment will be to delete the section which made it an offence to obstruct the planning authority in the exercise of any power of entry given under the Bill, and to substitute this new section. It means that if the occupier of a property to which the planning authority wish to gain access under the terms of this Bill objects—and I do not mean physically obstructs—we shall take care to see that is clearly understood—then the onus will be on the planning authority to go to the court to seek an order that would give them the right of entry to that property.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 58, line 16, to delete "six weeks" and substitute "three months".

This is consequential upon the amendment of Section 5 already dealt with and brings this provision into line with the period that was specified in Section 5 for bringing an action to the High Court.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 58, line 34, to delete "oaths." and substitute "oaths, and a person giving evidence at any such hearing shall be entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness before the High Court."

This is a very slight drafting change. It is an identical amendment with that proposed by Deputy Jones on the Committee Stage. As I then said, my advice was that witnesses were protected against claims for defamation through statements which have been made in all good faith and honesty but, having considered it and recognised the weight which the Deputy and his colleagues put on this matter, we feel we can without in any way reducing the powers or the uses of the section agree to this addition.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration".

Mr. Timmons

I wish to raise one point for clarification in relation to this Bill, now that it has reached this stage. It concerns the submission of the Dublin Corporation some time ago in regard to the taking over of laneways for resurfacing. I understand that the corporation town planning committee made a recommendation to the Minister suggesting permission should be given to the authority——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is out of order in raising it at this stage.

Mr. Timmons

I merely raise it for clarification.

Mr. Blaney

I understand what the Deputy is seeking to have discussed here and I agree with the Chair that it is not relevant to this measure. However, I shall write to the Deputy fully on the matter as we have been in correspondence with the corporation for some time about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass.".

Mr. Jones

I am pleased we have had a great measure of useful discussion on this Bill. We hope this legislation will do all the Minister intends it to do and that it will be an effective instrument of good planning. There is just one thing I would ask the Minister to do at this stage and that is to provide a handbook in simple nontechnical language which would be available to the public for reference. When planning reaches a certain stage in various areas and when the town planners get together, no doubt a map will be on display at the various county council offices. That will be helpful but I would also ask the Minister to publish a handbook explaining the provisions of this Bill in simple, nontechnical language so that the public will have an idea of what concerns them in regard to planning.

Mr. Dillon

I would like to say a valedictory word on this Bill before it leaves the House. As an experienced parliamentarian, I have participated in a very minor and insignificant way in the discussions on this Bill but I have been a close observer of its progress in this House. As an experienced politician, I accept the principle that it is never expedient to praise a member of the Administration but, subject to that reservation, we have reason to congratulate the Minister and Deputy Jones for a very fine performance in the enactment of a formidable piece of legislation which, we are all probably agreed, has been improved by its passage through this House.

It would be only becoming for me here to express fully my admiration for the manner in which Deputy Jones has dealt with this piece of legislation on behalf of our Party and the Opposition. His encyclopaedic knowledge of it and his unfailing diligence and skill in bringing before the House those aspects of the legislation which we thought were susceptible of improvement have resulted in very valuable amendments to this Bill. That, in turn, resulted in an accented demonstration of the perfection of parliamentary legislation. That, I freely admit, could not have happened if Deputy Jones's efforts had not been met by the Minister, and when I speak of the Minister I speak of him in the widest sense of that term, in the spirit in which he has met them.

At the conclusion of the discussion, there are certain matters outstanding between us on which we are constrained to disagree. I think the event will ultimately prove who were best advised but, in regard to most essentials, substantial agreement has been arrived at. For that I think we have every reason to be grateful from the point of view of the functioning of our own Parliament. Would that every piece of legislation were dealt with by Dáil Éireann in the same way that this Bill has been dealt with.

Therefore, Sir, because I can afford to view these matters with equanimity, I think this is an occasion when the Third Estate may with propriety say a word to the Fourth Estate. I have seen this Bill carried through the long and tedious examination involved in this legislation. Outside of this House, I do not suppose one hundred people know the vast volume of meticulous work that has gone into this legislation for the benefit of the people as a whole. But let half a dozen Deputies here lose their tempers for ten minutes and it makes the front page of every national newspaper in the country. I think that is something we here in Oireachtas Éireann are entitled to deplore. There is a lack of proportion in it, which is most unfortunate from the national point of view. It operates to denigrate our institutions not only in our own eyes but in the eyes of the people. Ninety-nine per cent of the time of this Dáil is taken up with the tedious process of the review of legislation and the questioning of Ministers as to the due performance of their responsibilities.

To our eternal credit, 99 per cent of our time is taken up by that deliberation and by the appearance here of every Minister of State, from the Taoiseach down to the youngest Parliamentary Secretary, to answer faithfully to each individual Deputy in so far as that Deputy considers it to be his public duty to interrogate him. If, on occasion, the deliberative atmosphere of this House is ruffled by transient storms, this would not be a human institution at all if that were never to happen. I hope that in the years that lie ahead those concerned to draw a true picture of the functioning of our institution will dwell no more than equally—that is all I ask— on the kind of work that culminates with the passage of this Bill and the kind of passing tempest which all too frequently is excessively advertised.

Mr. Blaney

I am more than happy that we have reached this juncture. I am happy not merely because of the pleasant words from a rather unexpected quarter but particularly gratified because of the feeling I have had ever since this Bill was introduced. From the start of this measure I felt that no matter how excellent it was, how good or how bad its provisions might be, it could only get off to a good start if it were agreed, or as near to being agreed as is humanly possible.

We have had many long sessions on this Bill on all its various stages. We have dealt with something in the region of 300 amendments. Not once during the disposal of these amendments was the division bell rung. That represented to me the fulfilment of the wish I expressed at the outset that we would get as near as possible to an agreed measure. While we still have certain reservations and certain opinions as to what ought or ought not to be contained in the Bill, we have, by and large, completed in this House a Bill which can be said to be almost agreed, if not in all its details certainly in most of its provisions.

Those who contributed to the debate and who participated in the various discussions—here I refer in particular to Deputy Jones, who as has been mentioned, gave a great deal of time and thought and study to the contents of the Bill; some of his proposals have been added to the original text—are to be commended. This Bill comes on the heels of a rather exhilarated exchange which took place here in the past few days, which was much publicised, and the publicising of it is something I deplore just as much as does Deputy Dillon.

It is a happy omen that we should finish this evening on a definite note of accord. In so far as the matters mentioned by Deputy Jones are concerned, he will be happy to know that the handbook he suggested might be prepared is actually in course of preparation. I gave instructions a few weeks ago that it should be prepared for the benefit of the ordinary public and particularly for the benefit of planning authorities throughout the country. In addition, lectures will be arranged in the next few months similar to those which proved so successful last year. It is our intention to have in the future a summer planning school at which planning matters can be discussed. No doubt other subjects may be discussed as well.

This Bill will clear the way for urban renewal and redevelopment, particularly in the case of our bigger centres of population, such as Dublin city. When we started out it was not evident that this urban renewal and redevelopment could be carried out without very grave financial burdens on local authorities. I am now aware that there is a very real interest in this matter on the part of the big financial houses and the big financiers. They want to participate in this urban renewal. I have very clear evidence of this interest. I am glad that it should have been aroused because it will mean that local authorities will not be alone in carrying the financial burden of such urban renewal and redevelopment. They will have coming to hand offers of financial assistance, offers to take over obsolete areas and developing them privately. Above all, there will be ready to hand, even at this stage, quite substantial amounts of money which will go to supplement the finances of any local authority, particularly in our cities, who wish to get on with this vital renewal work of our city structure.

If there is to be any real result from this Bill that is the first result I am anticipating. I believe it can become a reality at quite an early date. It will be good for all of us but particularly for the cities which due to the age of their structures and the changing times and patterns of our life, have become obsolete. That is something to which we can look forward and something on which in the Seanad I may say more.

Finally I should like to express something which I have not yet expressed and which I seldom express and that is appreciation of my own officers and advisers who have done trojan work, unrewarding work if you like, but who, when the finished article emerges and the developments arising from this measure take place, will have their reward then. I should like to thank them for the unceasing work which they have put into preparing this measure. I say that and I mean it in this case because I seldom say it in any other case and I say it because I believe it and it is not a mere formula. In case anybody might have any doubts about who I am referring to I mean my own Department of Local Government officers. I think I should refer to one person in particular—not by name—and that is the Parliamentary draftsman. I think that at times he did not get much sleep as a result of the occasions on which matters were referred back to him either by myself, the Opposition members or my officers I do not think he has had a great deal of peace in recent weeks. I should like to thank him publicly. If the Bill does anything like half of what we believe it is capable of doing then the work of all those who have taken part in this— members of the House, the officials, the draftsman and all others—will be well rewarded and well repaid in that we will have a better and more ordered life in our community.

Question put and agreed to.