I move:
That the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (Licensing) Regulations, 1964 be and are hereby annulled.
I should like to recall the situation in regard to the Planning Act when it was before the House. Everybody agreed it was desirable to have control of planning and development in the future and during the progress of the debate, time and again, by amendment we sought to protect what we regarded as the essential interests of the public in the matter. While moving many of the amendments, I adverted to the fact that we were very concerned about the interference with the rights of the public and argued that they should have recourse in many cases to the protection of the courts. It is also worth mentioning that one of the earliest Ministerial amendments was one seeking permission to bring the Act into operation at different times in different parts of the country. The Minister, I think, felt it would be desirable, or even essential, that there should be available locally planners to ensure that the Act would be capable of implementation when brought into operation.
Deputy Briscoe appealed to the Minister to ensure that if there was to be postponement so far as the country was concerned, the Act should be allowed to operate in Dublin at the earliest possible time. When we came to the section dealing with regulations, we had other amendments down. There were Ministerial and county manager regulations; I think amendment No. 46 dealt with Ministerial regulations. Not everybody could agree with my point of view at the time that the Minister should bring in these regulations in draft form and secure approval from the House. I was concerned to ensure that the rights of individuals would not be capriciously dealt with and at column 398, volume 203, of the Dáil Debates, I said:
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.
When the Minister dealt with that amendment at column 403 of the same volume, he said:
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.
The Minister went on to say:
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.
When the Minister came to make the regulations following the passage of the Act, he brought the Act into operation over the whole country on the same day. It turned out that he did not need the powers he had earlier sought from the House by amendment, in regard to introduction of the Act. He made other regulations under section 10 and section 89 but I am mainly concerned tonight with those made under section 89. Some regulations deal with compensation, some with exemptions and some with the subject-matter of the order I am dealing with. There was an explanatory memorandum issued with the regulations.
One of the first items dealt with in the regulations now made by the Minister was in regard to the 1925 Local Government Act which had remained unamended since the time the first regulations were made. Under the Act they have now been repealed and the new regulations take their place. I want to point out that when the Minister made these regulations in S.I. No. 218, 1964, Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 (Licensing) Regulations, 1964, he certainly availed of the full scope of section 89 and he extended the list to which licences would apply in future and it is now a long list.
During the passage of the Bill, we had said that one thing necessary would be that the public should regard as desirable control of undesirable development in either planning or development. What has happened, I suggest, in these regulations is that the Minister has used them not to control —I should be very glad if he denies what I assert here — undesirable development, but to raise money.
Originally the one thing which seemed to be licensed was a petrol pump. A permit had to be obtained to place a petrol pump and the 1925 Act stipulated what the amount of the licence fee would be. In a rural area it was one guinea; in urban districts of population not in excess of 3,000, it was two guineas; in urban districts with a population exceeding 3,000, it was three guineas; and in a county borough it was five guineas. It would take a good deal of examination to find out what exactly was in the mind of the Minister when he framed these regulations governing the licence fee to be applied to petrol pumps in the future.
Part I of the Schedule deals with petrol pumps and they are described as "Appliances and structures for servicing vehicles". There is (a), (b), (c) and (d): (a) covers a petrol pump oil pump, air pump or other appliance and the licence fee is £8: (b) movable pump or other appliance for dispensing any oil or oil derivative or other mixture thereof; (c) a delivery pipe or hose attached to a petrol pump, oil pump, air pump, water tap or other similar appliance or structure which is erected in any permanent position and which is neither wholly nor partly on, under or over a public road; and (d) a petrol, oil or other storage tank (including any associated manhole, inlet, outlet or pipes for connection with a pump) and the licence fee is £4 for each 5,000 gallons capacity or part thereof.
What exactly is expected of a person who has a petrol pump? How much is he expected to pay? We have parts of a pump. A hose is part of a pump. It is no good having a pump standing on its own without a hose to carry the petrol to the car. Is this doublebarrelled? There is not much good in having a petrol pump if one has not got a tank to supply the petrol to the pump. If a man keeps, as he must keep nowadays, the two grades of petrol—premium and ordinary—what will he have to pay annually by way of licence fees for these pumps? If I am not correct I shall be glad if the Minister will correct me, but if it is £8 for a pump, £8 for a hose and £4 for the tank——