Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 4

Private Members Business. - Planning Appeals Bill, 1967: Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Yesterday, I rose with some reluctance to intervene in this debate on the proposal put forward by the Fine Gael Party that planning appeals should be determined by an independent authority other than the Minister. I did so as one who deals extensively with people who find themselves in some difficulty with their local planning authority. I do not know whether this is peculiar to Galway but certainly we have had growing-pains in the introduction of planning in the County Galway area. People who have run into difficulties have not always been able to proceed with their plans. Naturally, they turn to their local representative for his support in trying to get the necessary permission. They would ask him to see what objections there are and whether the objections can be overcome. They would ask him to see whether there is any possible way in which the development could be allowed and thus meeting the objections that are put forward in certain cases.

I am convinced that Fine Gael's intention in putting down this Bill has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with trying to provide a better or a more efficient or even a fairer system of dealing with appeals. I am now firmly of the opinion that it is their sole intention, in introducing this Bill, to use it as a platform from which they can launch all the usual abuse, falsehood, and every type of rumour they can possibly think up and throw at the Government. They do this quite often. They were doing it long before I became a Member of this House. They continue to do it in the hope that, if they throw enough mud, some of it will stick and that somewhere, some place down the country, somebody will read only their side of the story and accept that as the truth.

As a firm believer in Fianna Fáil and in all that this Government are doing, I feel an obligation to stand up here and, in whatever way I can, to try to expose what I see Fine Gael doing. It is a very poor reflection on Irish politics that, in this day and age, this method is still employed by the major Opposition Party. They are doing a great disservice to Irish politics. One cannot understand how it is that they have not yet realised that only they themselves are suffering from the methods they are adopting and that none of it is rubbing off on the Government. After 36 years, during six of which they had an opportunity themselves and for 30 of which this Party have been returned by the people as a Government, surely it should be sufficient proof to Fine Gael that the Irish people do not like dishonesty, do not like falsehood and will not stand for rumour-mongering: it has not been our nature. The result of it has been seen in the manner in which Fine Gael have continually been rejected at the polls.

I should like to see a good Fine Gael Party. I should like to see a good Opposition. It distresses me to think that this is what we have as an Opposition. This is doing no service to the Irish people, to the Irish nation, and it is doing no service to those of us who come here to devote our lives to politics. I think the Irish people can be saved from ever having Fine Gael in government but that concerns the will of the people and we are prepared to accept it. We know what the will of the people has been up to this. We see how Fine Gael are carrying on. I cannot foresee any great change in the immediate future.

I will go even so far as to say that if Fine Gael had seriously thought there was any possible chance that this Bill would pass, they would never have brought it into this House. They would never have introduced it in such circumstances because they know, from their dealings with people, that the system that operates at the moment is the only system that can operate fairly. The majority of them, the backbenchers certainly, would be the last people to want to hand over the deciding of planning appeals to a judicial body—one suggestion was to have a judge decide planning appeals. In the first place, they are not qualified for that kind of work at all. In the second place, we know that whatever delays there are at the moment— despite the expeditious manner in which the Department are trying to deal with the large number of appeals; and I know this and I know that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have often spent long hours into the morning trying to clear planning appeals — in the light of the hours judges work, we know how long it would take for planning appeals to be decided. They are coming through now in from three to six or seven months: some may take longer than that. However, with a judge deciding appeals on the basis of a few hours work a day, people would have to wait years to discover whether or not they might add a room to their home or build a factory which would provide employment, or build a hotel which would help to develop the economy of an area.

This whole question is tied up too much with the development of the economic life of our people and the matter must be left in the hands of those who are elected by the people to be dealt with by them. If there are any complaints to be made about the manner in which planning appeals are being decided, then the Dáil is here and the challenge can be laid down in the Dáil. We have the Parliamentary Question. If we go back through the list of Parliamentary Questions put down in the past two years, we shall find that there were very few queries about decisions given in planning appeals. If great concern is felt by Fine Gael, where is the proof of it? Where is the proof of misuse of power by the Minister in deciding appeals? How many times have they challenged this decision in Parliamentary Questions? How many times have they used their democratic rights here as representatives in this House? I would safely say that I put more questions down regarding planning appeals than the majority of the Members of the Opposition.

There is no proof of any need for this measure at all and I firmly believe it is put down purely as a gimmick, purely to launch untruths and falsehoods and every type of mud they can sling, in the hope that some of it will stick. That is their dying wish. Where are the facts and where is the proof? Lay them on the Table of the House. Use the instruments of this House. It is an abuse of their privilege to put down Bills like this to use for this type of purpose.

The idea of having a judge as a member of an appeal board may be very suitable in one way to Fine Gael. It would of course be another way of helping to make fatter the wallets and the bank accounts of their members in the legal profession. They twist into everything. They opposed the Occupational Injuries Bill for the same reason. They want everything to be decided in this country by the legal profession and we only have to look at their own Front Bench to see that. They come in here in the evening when a lot of the work of this House is done, having ensured that their own private profession comes first and the country comes second. You will never get some of the senior counsel members in the Fine Gael benches making a speech here at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock in the morning.

I do not think this arises on the matter before the House.

I am illustrating how attractive it seems to them to have a judge. They could benefit, for one reason; they could help to fatten their pocket books by creating their own costly legal appeals. One only has to see in the Planning Act that there is compensation for anybody who feels that a decision of the planning authority or any part of the plan for the county area affects their property, its value or can affect their business. If it does, there is a clause which says they have a right to apply for compensation.

One has only to look back and see how many applications for compensation have been lodged. Very few, because the ordinary person just cannot afford this costly legal process which is involved in going through an application for compensation. The only cases I heard of are cases of very large business firms who can afford it as a business expense. But it is no use to Johnny or Mary down in the West who see that it is no good being offered the £500 they were offered a few years ago for a building site when the Planning Authority come along later and forbid any building on that land. There is no use in these people consoling themselves with the fact that there is a clause in the Bill which allows them to apply for compensation. They do not want to go near judges or courts; they cannot afford it.

I deal with quite a lot of planning appeals. Each week they run from three to six at least. Even today I had to deal with three separate planning appeals. This naturally causes me some inconvenience but I am certainly going to put up with any inconvenience it causes me as a Deputy, as long as I can ensure that the ordinary individual gets a fair crack of the whip, and he is getting a fair crack of the whip now in the method of appeal which is used at the present time under this Bill.

No Fine Gael or Labour Members— who have also opposed this system and have made speeches here with great innuendo of all sorts of corruption— will admit that what I am about to say is true. When a member of the public comes to a local representative, the first question you ask him is not what political Party he belongs to. If he is a member of the community—if he is a constituent of mine anyway—I will go out of my way to ensure that anything I can do for that man will be done for him. On numerous occasions I have made representations for members of the Fine Gael Party, and supporters of the Fine Gael Party, equal to the efforts I have made for members of my own Party, and this is true of all Fianna Fáil Deputies, and what Fine Gael think they are doing in putting down this Bill I do not know because the same facilities should apply for everybody. If they have any great grouse, it has not been generally evident over the past two years and they have not used the proper means to question these matters.

(Cavan): If the same opportunity is there for everybody, why do Fine Gael supporters go to solicit your help?

More and more people in my constituency are opening their eyes at last. They come to me in their hundreds and they are in order in coming to me. If it is a footpath outside their door, anything to do with social welfare, a grant for a house or a boat, or anything else, I will help them. You know the result. You know you are slipping because you do not work; your Deputies are too lazy.

We control 15 county councils out of 27; you control only seven now.

A combination of Fine Gael and Labour.

It is childish of Deputy L'Estrange to be referring to the number of votes any particular person gets, but as he has raised the matter, I want to say that in my area, in the county council elections, a Fine Gael man always headed the poll, but in the last election, a Fianna Fáil man headed the poll and you can draw whatever conclusion you like from that.

(Cavan): What about young Mannion?

What section would this come under in the Bill?

There is another matter which some members of the Fine Gael Party referred to. I have heard it said on platforms that the Minister should not alter the decision of the planning authority. If this is so, surely they must agree that the elected members should not have the power to alter the decision of the manager which is the same as the local authority, but they will not say why. They make a half-statement, and hope in doing this that the poor innocent people, which is what they think everybody is, will think there is something wrong with the manner in which these things are being dealt with.

In Galway recently along a certain road two acres were required to build a house. People applied and were turned down because they could not acquire land to meet the regulations. They were turned down on appeal because the Minister had to uphold the regulation.

Why has he to uphold?

He has to agree with the plan laid down by the local authority especially where such a plan has been adopted. This case was on appeal at the time of the change to one acre and the Minister was informed that the council no longer required two acres so he granted the appeal on the one acre. What Fine Gael are saying is they want to make that man go to the trouble of making a completely fresh application and waiting another two months before he gets permission.

Quite recently in my own area a certain gentleman—he was a foreigner, a Mr. Prager—applied to Galway County Council for planning permission to build a holiday home in Roundstone. This man was refused permission by Galway County Council so he took the only course open to him: he appealed his case to the Minister for Local Government. The Minister in deciding the appeal decided in favour of the applicant and outline permission was granted on certain conditions. For some extraordinary reason or other, a great furore broke out in one of our Irish national newspapers. The Fine Gael bright boys at the Galway end of the stick thought this was a good thing to latch on to—anything to embarrass a Minister of the Fianna Fáil Government. So they drummed up as much agitation and disturbance as they could and shouted loudly and loudly, and it began to stick, which is part of their policy.

I have seen articles in the Irish Times about this matter, questioning the Minister's right to give this man permission. Furthermore, I attended a meeting in Roundstone village last Sunday evening. It was a wet and windy day and a long way from my home. I decided I would get to the bottom of this. I arrived in a packed hall where there were a lot of people at the top of a table, a certain number of whom were prominent Fine Gael people. They were stating that everybody in the area was completely opposed to this man getting planning permission. They were asking the local representatives there to seek to support all of their colleagues to oppose this outline permission which the Minister had granted.

I stated when asked that I could not give any opinion because I did not know where the site was. The chairman of this meeting, the man loudest in his condemnation of the Minister's action, said he would bring me to the site and show me. I was brought to a site where there was one huge rock on the side of the road and a large field dipping away off down into a hollow. The man said: "I think this is where he is building the house." I said to him: "Are you telling me you do not know where this house is to be sited on this piece of land?""I am not sure," he said. If it was up on the rock, there was something in it. It might have interfered with the view if you were in the top storey of a double-decker bus. But down in the hollow it interfered with no view.

The Minister gave his outline permission on condition that the house is built in accordance with the surroundings and that it would not interfere with the view. It would not interfere with the view down in the hollow. But here was an effort to frighten this foreigner out of this place. The people who were doing all the shouting did not know where the house was to be built on the site. The Irish Times published a photograph which was most misleading. It did not show the full site and it did not show the exact location of the house. Not alone did they publish it once but they published it twice. As well as that, “Seven Days” from Telefís Éireann were down in Roundstone last Sunday and one of their commentators, a Mr. Patrick Gallagher, was down in Roundstone 50 miles beyond Galway——

Is it usual, Sir, to allow men to be attacked who are not here to defend themselves?

As far as the Chair can see, the Deputy is not attacking anybody.

I never attack anybody. I said to Mr. Gallagher: "What in the name of God are you doing down around Roundstone on this cold winter's evening, on a Sunday of all days?" He said: "The Irish Times asked us to cover it.” I do not think he got much film there, however, and I do not think it will be shown on “Seven Days”.

It now transpires that the Irish Times are going to influence whether or not a man gets planning permission. I would like to question their right to force their opinions on the people of this country. Every national newspaper, be it daily or otherwise, has the full right under our Constitution to express its opinion, but it has not got the right to try to force its opinion down the throats of the people as being the only opinion that is right. I say this because it has further transpired that a certain employee of the Irish Times has a personal interest in whether or not this house is built down in Roundstone. You can talk about influencing the Minister's decision but a paper can influence a lot of people's decisions by printing one side of a story.

I spoke quite a lot at that meeting. The meeting was reported in Monday's Irish Times but not one word of what I said appeared in Monday's paper. I know now why not. Where a national newspaper stoops so low as to use its own privileged position as a newspaper in a country to influence a particular decision because one of its own employees could be favoured by this decision—Well! how low can you go? That is all I say. I am all for the present system of dealing with planning appeals. The Irish Times or any other paper will not dictate to the Irish people. We have here legitimately elected public representatives. If there is anything to be discussed that is considered wrong, it can be brought out in this House by Parliamentary Question or otherwise. I regret that this type of method is used.

I fully oppose this lame duck effort on the part of Fine Gael to provide themselves with another platform to launch falsehoods and untruths upon a Party that has despite all this opposition stood by its guns. The people have stood by it. The Government and the Deputies behind it have worked hard and well and will continue to do so as long as we are privileged to be elected here.

Deputy Fitzpatrick in introducing this Bill indicated in considerable detail the reasons which compelled us to draft a measure of this character and introduce it to the House. The position is that under a number of statutes which have been passed here over the years, certain defined functions are withdrawn from the discretion of a Minister and of the Government and handed over to an independent body of persons appointed in various ways. Particular tribunals which come to mind are the operation of the Land Commission in respect of the selection and allocation of land to tenants, the Special Commissioners in respect of income tax and, more recently, under the Redundancy Payments Act, a redundancy tribunal has been provided for and was recently established. Outside these bodies, the case of grants to industry is decided by an independent body—although appointed by the Minister or by the Government, nevertheless, independent of the Minister concerned.

It has been said in the course of this debate that certain work that is involved in planning decisions may mean the establishment or non-establishment of a factory, with a sort of gloss put on it that if a tribunal were deciding it, it would decide against it; in the much more frequent case where the establishment of an industry depends on a State grant and where the approval for the proposal has, first of all, to be sanctioned by a statutory body, this decision has been expressly handed over to it by an Act of this House originally passed when we introduced many years ago the Industrial Development Authority, and since amended by Fianna Fáil Ministers, which body continues to exercise responsibility for deciding in what cases and where industries will be established and to whom grants will be paid.

These tribunals were established because it was recognised that the important thing in issuing decisions in cases of the type we have mentioned in the course of this debate is always to ensure not merely that justice is done but that it is also seen to be done. Many years ago, in a number of cases, the ones to which I have referred and more recently those relating to industrial development, this House established independent tribunals to deal with these matters.

Planning, as we know it, is in this country a relatively new matter in the extent to which it now affects local authorities. Admittedly there was a Planning Act in being since the early thirties, but 25, 30 or 50 years ago planning permission and planning arrangements, in the main, depended on whether facilities were available, and if the essential services were there it did not matter what character the development took; nobody objected and no controls were exercised in respect of it. In all the earlier years the original Planning Act lay virtually dormant, either because of the intervention of the war or because in some cases the operation of the Act was found not to be in accordance with the statute as originally laid down.

In recent times—and this, of course, applies more especially to urban areas, though there are certain cases where major planning decisions may be concerned with rural problems as well— when the Local Government Planning and Development Act, 1963, was going through the Oireachtas, Deputy Jones, on behalf of this Party, proposed that there should be an appeals tribunal of some sort. It is of interest that when the original Redundancy Payments Bill was introduced here there was no provision in it for an appeals tribunal, and as a result of an amendment brought forward by Deputy Jones on behalf of this Party, the Minister for Labour, Deputy Dr. Hillery, accepted the proposal and a redundancy tribunal has been established.

We all know that modern planning is very complex and that there is a wide variety of matters to be dealt with. It is an undoubted fact that planning decisions can, particularly in urban areas, inflate or deflate, according as approval may be given or modified or refused, the value of property. Anyone who has any responsibility for planning or who is in contact with the Dublin Corporation, the Dublin County Council or Dún Laoghaire Corporation is aware of cases in which the planning authority decides in a particular way and, on appeal, the Minister either reversed the decision or modified it or confirmed it. What we want to establish is that, where a decision is reached, and particularly where the planning authority recommend in a particular way, when a contrary decision is reached, the reasons for that decision will be published and made clear.

Our scheme of arrangements does not envisage—and Deputies know it does not envisage—any kind of expensive procedure. No one is suggesting that the procedure which will be adopted under the Redundancy Payments tribunal or the procedure which the Special Commissioners for Income Tax operate involves great expense. The procedure in respect of the Land Commission is there for the simple reason that where the question of title arises almost invariably the applicant is represented by a solicitor or by a solicitor and counsel. That is when complex questions of title arise, and any applicant who had regard to the value of his property and the importance of his interest would appreciate and understand that it was essential to have competent advice on it. However, so far as this is concerned, we envisage a speedy, inexpensive, impartial tribunal not composed of lawyers but composed of a judge as chairman and assessors appointed in the way in which the Bill provides, one selected by the Minister and one selected by the Local Appointments Commissioners, who will give technical advice on the matters concerned.

It is quite obvious to anyone who has experience that at present, certainly in the larger centres, in Dublin —indeed, I believe in most local authorities, but the Dublin area is the most complex—the planning staff is inadequate to deal with these matters with reasonable speed, and most people who have contact with it appreciate how greatly overworked the planning officer and all his staff in Dublin are. The great bulk of these matters would be no problem; they would go through automatically in the same way as those in which people apply to Government offices for licences of one kind or another. Anyone who applies to build a house with the necessary services would get automatic approval. However, concern is felt and has been expressed at cases where decisions taken by the planning authority have been reversed on appeal by the Minister or have been altered.

I can give some examples without mentioning areas or individuals or anything else: an area of ground is passed by the planning authority for a particular housing density. Subsequently the appeal is taken to the Minister and a much greater density is allowed. There may be valid reasons for this, but surely the public are entitled to be told. It is suggested that Parliamentary Questions can get the answer. Parliamentary Questions can get the answer that the Minister decided the appeal this way, and he is not obliged to give any reason to the House or to anyone else.

When property is purchased, the planning authority, with the technical experts they have available to them, examine it and inspect the site and decide that a particular density of houses is appropriate for that area, and subsequently on appeal, the Minister, possibly on the advice of his technical advisers, may change that decision. Here again, we talk about decentralisation and devolution but one of the most frustrating things for any local authority is to find one set of officials making one recommendation in respect of a particular project, and a separate set in the Custom House making a contrary recommendation. On appeal to the Minister, the value of the property can be greatly inflated, or the reverse. Properties and sites are purchased in the belief that they will be approved for a particular line of development, whether it is a factory, a hotel, a housing scheme or a petrol station. Undoubtedly most people nowadays will not purchase properties unless they expect to get approval.

I am aware of one case in my own constituency where at the junction of two roads there was a petrol filling station already established which had access to both roads. Although the residents objected and the local authority refused permission, on appeal, permission was granted to build another petrol station. Justification for decisions of that character is not obvious. We believe that this problem is complex. A number of major decisions have to be reached. There are the ordinary run-of-the-mill decisions which can be decided on the simple form of application. In a few cases an issue might arise and an oral hearing would be a simple and speedy matter. Many applications are made by the applicant in person to the district court, or to Government Departments, and the formal issue of a certificate or an authority, as the case may be, is a completely simple matter. The procedure is laid down. An application form is provided. Under the Planning and Development Act, many major questions are involved, large-scale developments of one kind or another involving very considerable sums of money in the sense that the site value for the proposed capital development can be greatly inflated or deflated depending on the decision.

We believe it is essential for these cases that an independent authority should be established. If anyone can suggest a more expeditious type of tribunal, or categories of technical or specialised advice, other than those provided in the Bill, we are not wedded to the actual form in the Bill and we are not convinced that it might not be possible to improve it. At the moment no matter what decision the planning authorities give, the Minister has absolute power to over-rule them. We believe that this tribunal should be established. There is a clause in the Bill which reads:

Any person who has made an objection to the granting of a permission, approval or licence or who, not having made such objection, applies to the Board to become a party and who, in the opinion of the Board, has a genuine interest in the appeal...

will be entitled to be heard.

It is suggested that there is no demand for this. At the annual conference of the Municipal Authorities of Ireland last year, this resolution was passed unanimously:

That the Minister for Local Government be asked to amend the Planning and Development Act, 1963, so as to provide that planning appeals should be heard by the judiciary instead of the Minister for Local Government.

We have not gone so far. We believe these are matters which could appropriately be heard by some form of independent tribunal. Unless the tribunal is appointed directly under the Local Appointments Commission or the Civil Service Commission, the appointment of a judge as chairman is generally acceptable. His tenure of office is fixed and he would have the advantage of technical or specialised advice which would be available from assessors appointed in the manner which we suggest in the Bill.

I believe there is sufficient public concern and that there are sufficient precedents under the Acts and the procedures I have mentioned to establish such a tribunal. Its method of operation would enable these matters to be dealt with expeditiously and would clearly indicate the high standards laid down in respect of a number of public matters in which any Government or any Minister might be open to pressure and where the Minister is not obliged to give any reason for any decision which is absolutely at his discretion.

Nowadays with the complexity of modern developments, it is essential, if progress is to be made in housing and roads and other schemes, as well as in industrial development, that planning control should be exercised and decisions made in relation to a variety of problems, which in the past rarely concerned the local authorities or concerned them only to a limited degree. That situation no longer obtains and it is essential that the public should be satisfied that not merely is justice being done but that it is seen to be done. We believe that is an important principle.

I need not elaborate on or repeat the facts and figures put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick. A great many planning appeals are of a routine nature. It is possible that as time goes on a number of them will cease to be problems for Government Departments. It is the case at present with so many planning authorities in existence and with different systems operating that there is a lack of uniformity in many of these matters, certainly so far as the major urban areas are concerned. The need for the establishment of some independent and impartial tribunal is, we believe, publicly recognised and because of that, we urge the House to accept this Bill or, if the House sees fit, to modify it in any way in which it can be improved. We would be prepared to accept that but we believe there is a need to divorce a political Minister from decisions of this nature, just as Ministers have been divorced from decisions in respect of industrial grants, Land Commission proceedings, income tax and taxation appeals generally. In each of these cases, the Minister has been divorced from decisions by express act of the Oireachtas and we believe a similar decision should be taken here and this form of Bill commends itself to us as a method of achieving the objectives we have in mind.

Before Fine Gael published this Bill, they should have asked themselves: what is the purpose of the Planning Act of 1963? This is to make provision for the proper planning and development of cities, towns and other areas including urban and rural districts, to make provision for the improvement of amenities and to make certain provision for land acquisition. This Bill is in direct conflict with the purpose of the Planning Act. I say there is not so much concern throughout the country regarding decisions on appeals as there is regarding the operation of the Planning Act in general and the reason for the concern about the operation of the Act is that there is so much development taking place at present In most counties you have large-scale developments being initiated and taking place. Particularly in the great scenic areas, there is great demand for building sites for holiday homes and for people who would like to come and live in our country.

One of the fundamental principles in the Planning Act, and one very important matter in regard to this Act, is that there are so many sections in it and so many decisions to be taken in the operation of the Act, which are reserved functions of the local authority; in other words, the local representatives have such a big say in the development of the future pattern of the economy in their own areas. It is not right when local representatives, who are politicians, have such a say in this development that the Fine Gael Party should find fault with the manner in which planning appeals are dealt with just because the final decision is taken by the Minister.

I think Fine Gael had not studied the Act properly before drafting the Bill because Deputy Fitzpatrick said that the Act provides that any question which arises as to whether development is exempt or not should be referred to the Minister for a decision in the case of a dispute, and then he goes on to say that it is proposed to bring these decisions within the ambit of the proposed appeals board. In section 5 (2) of the Act, there is provision for an appeal by an aggrieved person against the decision of the Minister to the High Court so that the Minister has not the final say on the question of whether a development is exempt or not from the provisions of the Act.

We hear much talk about the Minister having so much work to do and being overburdened with responsibilities and also much talk about the number of planning appeals. During the year ended 30th September, 1965, 979 planning appeals were submitted. In the following year, the figure was 1,125 and in the next year, 1,322. But what about the officials of the planning authorities? What about the county managers of the planning authorities who receive approximately 1,000 applications a month in the normal daily operation of the Planning Act? Consideration of these appeals is an executive and, therefore, a managerial function, and the managers have to make decisions on the recommendations and advice of their planning officers and county engineers. Also, these managers have to carry out other duties relating to housing, health, assistance and many other services operated by local authorities. We hear nothing regarding the taking of decisions on planning applications even though approximately the same number of applications are being received and considered annually by some local planning authorities.

One of the greatest problems is that local planning officers do not discuss planning applications with applicants. If you had more liaison between planning officers and the public, you would not have so many appeals. Many planning applications are rejected for trivial reasons and it is ridiculous that an applicant for planning permission should be forced to appeal to the Minister just because there is a dispute between himself and the planning officer as to the number of feet he should keep back from the public road or boundary, or something like that. I say these things merely to point out to the Opposition that it is not necessary to have an appeals board to consider all these appeals.

Some Opposition speakers referred to the Lay Commissioners and the Land Commission, to the appeals officers in the Department of Social Welfare and to the Appeals Tribunal provided for in the Redundancy Payments Act, but the Lay Commissioners deal entirely and solely with land acquisition and subdivision; the appeals officer in the Department of Social Welfare deals entirely with applications for services and works within well-defined regulations and is confined entirely to social welfare. Similarly, the Appeals Tribunal under the Redundancy Act will be confined to matters under that Act, but the position is entirely different in regard to planning because planning concerns so many different Departments and even different sections of Departments. It would be impossible for a judge and two officials constituting such a board as is proposed by the Opposition to co-ordinate the activities of all these Departments and at the same time, ascertain and have a thorough knowledge of Government policy in various Departments, such as the Department of Lands, Transport and Power and Local Government. Many of these planning appeals will have to be considered from the point of view of tourism and discussions may have to take place with forestry officials. Many of these appeals could receive the attention of Bord Fáilte.

Again, the Department of Local Government must take cognisance of whether water and sewerage services will be provided within a reasonable time in a certain area or on a certain site. For this reason, I believe it would be impossible for a judge, or a board such as the one now proposed, to have a thorough knowledge of the policies of the various Departments. I could see no hope of co-ordination but only confusion as a result of the setting up of this board. I do not agree that a judge should be chairman because these appeals relate to planning matters, to development matters and to matters relating to services for which expenditure is involved. Judges should confine themselves to judicial questions merely. I think it was Deputy Molloy who mentioned that the public would be very slow to appeal to a board whose chairman was a judge without engaging the services of a solicitor and counsel. If such a board is set up, no person would dream of appealing if he thought a final decision would be taken by a judge, or that he would influence the decision, without engaging a solicitor and counsel. This would impose extra costs on the applicants, even for small developments such as houses, and it would prevent people from appealing and exercising a right to which they are legally entitled.

Some of the Opposition speakers stated that the Minister has not given reasons for granting permission. I cannot see why it should be necessary to give reasons for granting permission. It is provided in the Act that reasons must be given for the refusal of planning permission. That is reasonable and fair, but I cannot see why reasons should be given for the granting of permission because it should be assumed that permission is granted because the person who granted it thinks the applicant is entitled to get permission. For instance, an applicant for a medical card whose application is granted is not told why the application is granted. Neither is an applicant for a housing grant informed why his grant is awarded; neither is an applicant for a loan told why his application has been granted. They are told why their applications are refused. I suppose we all know that too well.

Another important matter is that a planning authority, when considering an application for planning permission, is restricted—as is the Minister when he is considering an appeal—to the question of considering the proper planning and development of the area in question. Having regard to all the thought, the work and the investigations which went into the initial operations of the Planning Act, it would now be virtually impossible for any appeal board to bring themselves up to date with the proper planning and development requirements of the various areas. The Department of Local Government have gone to a considerable amount of expense in providing courses and seminars for planners and local engineers who are engaged in the operation of the Planning Act and it would not be right that all this work should now be cast aside and the responsibility for appeals handed over to a judge who would have no experience whatever of planning and to officials who would have to be initiated into the planning law and regulations and into what the local representatives, whose responsibility it is to prepare the local plans, have in mind.

I believe that there are too many planning authorities at the moment. There are 87, and I should like to see the stage reached when all the plans would be prepared by regional planning boards who, from their establishment onwards, would consider planning applications in their own areas. With a certain amount of liaison with the public, it would considerably reduce the number of planning appeals. It has been stated by the Opposition that it is not fair to the public, or to the Minister, to have the Minister decide all planning appeals where land acquisition is concerned, where values can change as a result of such decisions. I should like to refer to the confirmation of compulsory acquisition orders under the Housing Acts and to the confirmation of compulsory orders under the Sanitary Services Acts. This is a far more serious and more onerous responsibility than the determination of planning appeals, where a man's land is taken from him. We hear no mention of a special board or tribunal to confirm or refuse compulsory purchase orders in respect of the acquisition of lands.

In addition, a Minister determines appeals relating to superannuation and to conditions of employment of local authority officials. As well as that, other appeals are determined by a Minister in cases where land is concerned, which could change the value of land and where personal property is concerned, where a decision could either make or break a person. I do not see why, therefore, the Fine Gael Party should pick on the Planning Act for a special appeals board. They may derive a certain amount of propaganda as a result but I do not think it will do them any good in the long run. I feel it should not take a judge to decide whether it is necessary to have a proper sewerage scheme for the development of three or four housing sites or whether each house could be served by a septic tank. As well as that, an appeals board would be an authority without any responsibility whatsoever. For that reason I do not agree at all with this Bill.

As I am speaking on this, I shall mention something which comes within the ambit of this debate. There is an attitude being adopted by planning authorities and by public representatives who do not wish to take an unpopular decision themselves to refuse the application and say: "We will let it go to the Minister and we will let the Minister do the unpopular thing." If planning authorities were more manly and faced up to their responsibilities, we would have few planning appeals and would not have the present delay in the determination of the appeals. Anyway, I feel that the number of appeals will be substantially reduced when the final plans are prepared and I want to say again that I am totally opposed to this Bill.

It is obvious from Deputy O'Leary's contribution that he values the political influence that is given to him through the present Planning Act and indeed he does not value it half as much as Deputy Molloy. I am sorry that Deputy Molloy has not decided to remain in the House. He spoke at some length on this Bill. I should not say he spoke on the Bill; in fact he spoke about anything but what is in the Bill. He spent his time more or less in slagging the members of this Party and then he immediately gets up and leaves the House. One of the statements made by Deputy Molloy which I could not forget and which I made a note of was:

It would be disastrous for me if this power was taken from the Minister and handed over to some judicial authority.

It would be disastrous "for him".

Why would it be disastrous for him? I have as much connection with planning applications as Deputy Molloy has. I am the present Chairman of the Planning Committee of Dublin County Council and have been on a number of occasions before, and I have been a member of the County Council for 12 or 13 years. I certainly have had as much to do with planning applications as Deputy Molloy but it would not be a disaster for me if this power were taken out of the hands of the Minister. It makes one listen a bit more to things like what I was told a few days ago. Somebody rang me up and said that he had just been at a certain meeting which a member of the Fianna Fáil Party had attended and he disagreed with what the residents of that area wanted. He said: "I will see that you will not get this and I have the back door into the Minister's office and I am in a position to see that you will not." I am suggesting now that it is obvious to the House that the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken have, in fact, the back door into the Minister's office and that their only objection to this Bill is that they see that power and that back door being taken away from them, if this Bill goes through.

There is no denying the fact that political influence is being used and has been used on many occasions in deciding planning appeals. Deputy Fitzpatrick in moving the Second Reading of this Bill gave a clear and detailed outline of the present position and I believe that he made a very convincing case for the Bill and for the setting up of this independent tribunal presided over by a judge. I feel it is right to say that the job has become a completely impossible one for any Minister—I do not care who he is. The present position is, as we know from the records, that a Minister is now called on to pass judgment on approximately 1,000 cases per year, and in fact more. That number will increase; and if the Minister has got himself an impossible task, he made it for himself. I am referring now to the former Minister for Local Government, not the present occupant, because it was not he who piloted the 1963 Act through this House. I want to make it quite clear that I am not accusing the present Minister of improperly using the power he has under the present legislation because I appreciate the pressures that inevitably will be brought to bear on any politician, no matter who he is, to give a decision in a certain direction or in favour of a certain person.

Is it right for a Minister, as under the present Act, to grant an application where thousands of pounds may be involved, where the value of property may be enhanced to an enormous extent, where, as Deputy O'Leary says, he can make or break any individual—I am asserting here that he has both made and broken individuals with this power? I d onot want anybody to misunderstand me. On many occasions I was very pleased that we had a second authority to pass judgment on planning applications and I am sure that in 50 per cent of the applications that were reversed, when appealed to the Minister, I would have agreed with him. In the other 50 per cent, there were some I had considerable doubt about, and in some of them I was quite satisfied that there was an element of political influence operated to bring about the particular decision.

Deputy Cosgrave spoke about a specific instance in relation to density. A clear case came to my mind where a certain farm came up for sale. It was known for a considerable time that in this particular area, the density was one house per three acres and several applications for a greater density than this had been turned down. This came up for auction and the bidders at the auction were aware of this situation and knew that they could pay a certain price for exclusive development of that kind. However, there was one bidder who is a well-known supporter of the Government. He bid higher than anybody else and he got the property. He knew, of course, that he would be turned down at local level. He put in his application and he was duly turned down. He appealed it to the Minister and the Minister reversed that from one house to three acres to three houses per acre. That made an enormous difference—I think anybody can see that. This is only a specific instance that immediately comes to my mind.

I cite again the case of the petrol companies. There are in a short stretch of the Naas Road about 16 petrol stations. Only four of those were permitted by the local authority. The other 12 got through on appeal. I have other cases in mind. I know a man who on two occasions bought land on which to erect a petrol station and on both occasions he was refused permission and his appeal failed. The land changed hands over to the petrol company and permission was given. It might have been a fresh application inasmuch as they might have erected a dwarf wall in front or decorated a pier differently but sufficient was done to enable it to be said that it was a new application. Anybody can see the amount of suspicion that immediately arises and the amount of conviction when the person concerned happens to be a well-known supporter of the Government.

I cannot see the objection to the setting up of an impartial body. Many such bodies have been set up especially to deal with grants of one sort or another. This, in fact, is a grant and it can be a very handsome grant but it is left to a politician to make the decision and the effect of that for a political Party or political individual is enormous.

It is obvious that the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken here want to hold on to that power and are determined to hold on to it. If we had access to that sort of influence it might be said that we would be on the same note. We are not on the same note and do not intend to be on the same note. We want to see that justice is done in relation to planning. There is far too much involved here and it is totally wrong that it should be left to the political head of a Department to make these decisions.

As I have said, the Minister made a lot of his own difficulties. At the time the 1963 Planning Bill was going through this House we were assured by the then Minister for Local Government that it was his intention that the Act would be brought in on a regional basis and that he had no intention of attempting to give blanket cover throughout the country. What has happened as a result of that? We have not the people qualified to deal with town planning in most local authorities and, as somebody has said, if they meet a complicated case they say, "We will throw it over to the Minister and let him decide it". They are not living up to their responsibility. Worse than that, what has happened is that because of the fact that they were so understaffed and unable to procure staff and unable to deal with the volume of work coming into them, when the statutory two month period was about to expire they had to turn down the application or had to send out some foolish query in order to hold the application for a further two months. That was done for a period until applications accumulated. As a result, there are thousands of applications going on appeal to the Minister. It is clear that a Minister, no matter what his capacity, could not possibly read all the files even in the most condensed form and must entirely depend on the officials who make the recommendations on the files. So, in fact, it is not the Minister who makes the decision except in cases where pressures of one sort or another or influences of some sort or another have been brought to bear or where big issues arise. Then the Minister will come in to pass judgment.

There are 87 planning authorities. There are appeals coming in from all of them. Development has only started to take place and people are only beginning to become aware of their rights under the Planning Act and the objections that they can raise. This thing is only in its infancy. As time goes on the Minister will realise that he has undertaken an impossible and fantastic task. He will be supposed to be carrying out his responsibility but it will be physically impossible for him to do so.

When that point is reached, the Minister has an obligation to himself and the country to say that this is no longer possible, that there are all the other ministerial responsibilities that he has to discharge, that he is only an ordinary human being, that these planning appeals are something on which he cannot bring his normal judgment to bear, that he has not got the time, that the day is not long enough. In the long run he will have to agree that either he is not doing it or that he is not fit to do it because it is just not possible.

There is an immense amount of concern and dissatisfaction in regard to the present situation. Everybody is unhappy about it. There are many cases where permission has been granted and many cases where refusals have been given by the Minister where the people perhaps wrongly, suspicious that political influences have been at work, but it lends itself to that and to nothing else. All over the place people have begun to say that politicians are suspect for this, that and the other reason. They leave themselves open to this sort of suspicion. It is bound to arise. The Minister has an obligation not only to himself but to the country to remove this suspicion and this concern.

Personally, I am very unhappy about some of the decisions that have been made. The last thing I want to do is to come into this House and sling mud at anyone but I am well aware, having been a public representative for some time, of the pressures that can be brought to bear on a Minister in relation to planning transactions and all the objections that arise. I know that the present Minister has taken steps to reduce the number of appeals that come before him—quite definite steps—and that this has had an effect and, certainly in the area of the local authority of which I am a member, he has reduced the number of appeals. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that under the Planning Act a man cannot change the colour of his house without planning permission and when that applies over the entire areas of 87 planning authorities, what can the Minister expect but that the number of applications will increase as time goes on, as development increases, as it must increase, if the economy is to expand and improve as we all hope it will?

The Minister has set himself an impossible task. He has put himself in an invidious position. It is too bad that Fianna Fáil speakers should come in here and say that it would be disastrous for them. I am glad Deputy Molloy is back. He said it would be disastrous for him if this power was taken away from the Minister and handed over to some judicial authority.

I did not say that exactly.

I will give you your exact words: I wrote them down. "It would be disastrous for me". Deputy Molloy can take up the Official Report.

Disastrous to give over this power to a judge.

"Disastrous for me".

Do not try to throw the muck.

No muck at all.

You are about the dirtiest thing that ever came into this House.

On a point of order, it has always been the accepted practice that, if a Deputy says he did not say something, it is accepted.

What I meant to say —I was really sincere about it—was that I do think the whole thing would be disastrous.

The Deputy means that to him it would be disastrous.

To me, it would be disastrous.

If Deputy Molloy meant something else, then I accept that.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share