Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 6

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.—Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick(Cavan).

Mr. Clinton

Before we reported progress on Wednesday evening last, I had said all I intended to say, nearly all I wanted to say, on this important Bill to amend present planning legislation. I had indicated the widespread concern there was about the present position in relation to planning appeals and had also stated that I was aware of considerable demand for reform in relation to the method of dealing with planning appeals.

Since last Wednesday, in fact only last night, I had additional evidence of this, if additional evidence were needed to prove that this is a very desirable measure. In the Minister's constituency out in Clondalkin, I, in common with the other public representatives for the area, was invited to a meeting of the local parish council. There were a number of items for discussion but one item which took up considerable time was an appeal decision made by the Minister in respect of a certain area in Clondalkin.

As we all know, throughout the county and throughout the country, in the various areas, particularly areas like Dublin city and county where so much planning development is taking place, various areas are zoned for various purposes, either residential or industrial. The area in question in Clondalkin was zoned as a residential area. It is a thickly populated area and the roads in it are narrow. A certain individual—"individual" may sound derogatory: I do not know his name— made application for permission to build a factory in what is and what could not be doubted as being anything but a residential area.

The application was considered in the normal way by the local authority and it was turned down as being the essence of bad planning to permit industrial development there. In Clondalkin there has been considerable industrial development but it is all in one area. This application went on appeal to the Minister. The residents and the parish council were aware that the original application had been made for an industrial purpose and they knew it had been turned down by the local authority. They were as happy as Larry. They were completely unaware that it had gone on appeal to the Minister.

It is only now that the people are beginning to be wary of this. They admit they were caught napping. They made no representations to the Minister in relation to their feelings on it because they were unaware that the appeal had gone to the Minister. The Minister reversed the decision of the local authority and allowed this industrial development in this residential area. All I am sorry about is that the Minister was not invited to this meeting to explain to the people there why the decision of the local authority was reversed, allowing industrial development there.

This is the kind of unsatisfactory situation that has been arising under present legislation. The Minister makes the decision; he is advised by a certain group of technical people. The local authority are advised by a group of technical people similarly qualified but with the added advantage of having local knowledge, but their decision is reversed. In such circumstances, can you blame people for immediately saying: "This is obviously the essence of bad planning. The local authority say it is bad planning. There must be some political influence or pull behind this."

This suggestion is thrown up whereever this happens and I hope the Minister will find time to explain to the people in his constituency why he did this. We all realise the importance of finding employment for people in industry. It is difficult to stop industries, but there is no point in zoning areas and in having good planning, if it can be reversed by one man, by the decision of a person who has not to give any reason why he reversed the decision of the local authority. It is a most unsatisfactory arrangement.

The provisions of this Bill whereby the findings of an impartial tribunal will be available for inspection by people interested and concerned is an extremely important thing. We are in an age when the State is regarded as the almighty benefactor, when everything and anything is given out in the form of package deals that people cannot understand. We have a package deal for 3,000 or 1,800 houses. We have a package deal even for the referendum on proportional representation. Every appointment, from a High Court judge to a man working on the roads, is made by political influence or ministerial influence.

Therefore, at a time like this, when the people are concerned seriously and fed up with the situation, anything that can be done to dispel their anxiety and their suspicion of politicians generally should be welcomed by the Minister. I hope this Bill will be accepted. The Fianna Fáil speakers who have contributed to the debate have spoken against the Bill, saying there is no necessity for it, saying in effect: "We do not want to lose this political control. We have the backdoor; we have the ear of the Minister. The Opposition have not got it and it is an advantage to us". In the interests of society and of politicians generally, wherever they may find themselves, this is something that should be changed.

Another point that comes clearly to my mind is that somebody said the Minister can and does give permission with conditions. I have known such permission to be given in the constituency I represent. There is one case that immediately comes to my mind in relation to a builder's yard. Permission for this yard was refused in a residential area, and quite rightly refused. I am not telling any secrets when I say that the person concerned is a well-known friend of the Government. He is a man who comes out openly at by-elections. He is a man whom I am friendly with myself, and a man, in fact, for whom I have intervened to get a factory where I thought it should be.

He got permission to set up a builder's yard in a residential area where the people looked out their windows and saw objectionable builders' rubble and everything that is inevitable in a builder's yard. This decision of the local authority to refuse this permission was reversed by the Minister at the time and he was allowed to set up this builder's yard on certain conditions—that he would erect certain buildings and would maintain certain standards. He never put up these buildings and never maintained the standards. The answer we got from the county manager was that these conditions were imposed by the Minister and "we have no authority to enforce them."

This is a serious situation and it is not one that should be overlooked in an effort to reform the present planning legislation. The members of this Party expressed concern when the Planning and Development Bill, 1963 was going through the House. We had amendments down and they were rejected. We see how unwise it was to have rejected the amendments proposed at that time. We are very concerned about it.

That concern is not confined to members of this Party or the Labour Party. It is widely felt and the sooner the Minister appreciates it the better. He has evidence that the municipal authorities have passed a resolution asking for the impartial consideration of appeals and I do not know what further evidence the Minister or the Government require. We cannot do any more than produce the evidence. We cannot do any more than propose the remedies. There may be better remedies. There may be alterations to the Bill before the House, alterations that might be accepted by the mover of the Bill, but we want to hear, very soon I hope, what the Minister has to say as to his objections and whether, if he intends not to accept this Bill, he has an amended form to propose or what are the objections he sees to it.

If the Minister wants to hold on to the almighty power he already wields over the lives of many people and which seriously affects the lives and fortunes, good or bad, of many people and has done so already, there is nothing there is greater scope in than in this whole question of planning and development that will either make or break the individuals concerned. I feel that people have been made and broken already. It is time that power were taken out of the hands of a politician, taken out of the Minister's hands, and put into the hands of this impartial authority which it is proposed to set up under this Bill presided over by a judge.

Whatever we may feel about the judiciary of this country there is still great respect for their impartiality and nobody will be suspicious of their word. Besides, the work arising under planning appeals has increased, and it is impossible for any one individual to deal with it while at the same time carrying on all the other important functions of the Department of Local Government.

As we all know, the Department of Local Government have been enlarged considerably and the functions it is performing have been increasing as the years pass. It is difficult enough for a Minister to do all the other work of his Department without this enormous task of bringing judgment to bear on so many appeals. I believe the number of appeals will increase considerably as the years pass and as the people become more aware of the planning that is necessary, the development that is needed and which is bound to take place if the country is to advance and prosper as we all hope it will.

Mr. Booth

I do not agree with Deputy Clinton at all in his remarks in connection with this Bill. I am very sorry that he should have digressed from the main arguments to level the usual Fine Gael accusation that every conceivable person and that every conceivable job is selected through, and processed by, political contact. Deputy Clinton knows that, too, and I do not know why he made such a statement.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Clinton knows it is true in large measure.

Mr. Booth

He knows it is not true in large or in small measure either. Let us get down to the question of planning. I disagree with Deputy Clinton, too, on the question of the confidence of people in planning authorities and planning appeals. We have to face the fact that every one of us is in favour of planning only in so far as it stops somebody else from doing something that we do not want him to do. Planning is essential for my protection. I resent—and I say that not because I am myself but the same as everyone else—not being allowed to do something because of the decision of the planning authority.

That is where one comes up against it. No matter how many appeals tribunals and commissions you might set up, the fact remains that people wish planning to be an endorsement of their own ideas as to what shall or shall not be done. I feel that local planning authorities are very much at fault, too, in that they are far too apt to refuse permission in cases where they know and secretly hope that the Minister will subsequently grant an appeal against that decision. It is very much easier for a planning authority just to refuse permission and give a few general grounds for that refusal, whereas a local planning authority comprised of people who are living and working in the area may well feel that they would create great antagonism if they granted such permission.

There is one case in my own area in Dún Laoghaire, a topical case which comes to my mind. There was a proposal to build a new CIE hotel on the site of the present railway station at Dún Laoghaire. Permission was refused by the planning authority and, as it turned out, the decision of the planning officer was improperly debated in Dún Laoghaire Corporation, and quite improperly because they had no power in the matter, not having invoked the necessary formalities. It was decided by a majority of the corporation to support the decision of the planning officer and to refuse permission for this new hotel.

That is no harm and it should be put on record that the Fianna Fáil and Labour councillors joined to give the maximum support to this proposal, a proposal which obviously would add to the amenities of the borough and which would give substantial employment in the area as well. The Fine Gael councillors voted against the proposal and made it perfectly clear they did so on the assumption that the Minister would reverse the decision in any case so that they would win one way or another. They did get the hotel. A proposal such as that to build a new hotel on the sea-front will produce some local objection. We had plenty of those local objections when there was a proposal to put the car ferry on the East Pier in the harbour. Those of us who were active in the area received numerous approaches from the various pressure groups producing all sorts of seemingly highly technical reasons why the car ferry on the East Pier would produce traffic hazards of almost immeasurable proportions and do grave damage to the whole amenities of the borough.

This small minority group worked very hard on the public in the area until there was very marked opposition to the whole project. In the end the car ferry did come to the East Pier and has provided so far one of the greatest tourist attractions, as well as being the means of bringing into the country tens of thousands of tourists who would never otherwise have arrived here. Similarly, in the case of this new hotel reasons have been given why permission should be refused. The same old reason that we had with the car ferry, that it would produce intolerable traffic hazards, was produced. That, of course, is nonsense. Anyone who knows the locality would know that. This hotel would be dealing primarily with passengers just disembarking from the car ferry or passengers who are spending the night in Dún Laoghaire prior to embarking in the early hours of the morning. The idea that 150 or 300 cars will arrive simultaneously at the door of the hotel or that the total capacity of the car park would suddenly debouch on to the main road at the same time is quite ridiculous.

It has also been suggested that a beautiful view of the harbour from Crofton Road would be spoiled by this very tall structure. That was a stupid comment that could only come from somebody who did not know the area because, standing on that road, you cannot see the harbour now. The station is blotting out the view completely as it stands and, except for the rather ornate frontage facing in an easterly direction, most of the structure of the station itself is an abomination and is in the last stages of disrepair. Where you get a case like that where permission has been refused by the local authority quite unreasonably it is absolutely right that as a matter of national policy the Minister should have the right to review the whole matter and, if he is satisfied, to reverse the decision.

I can appreciate that at times the action of the Minister may offend certain people. It is very hard to make any progress in any direction without walking on somebody's toes but there are always people in any area who are so opposed to progress that they will object to anything. I have had cases in my own area where I pleaded with residents' associations to take a more reasonable view of certain proposals for development but many people are just opposed to change in any circumstances. People would almost prefer to see a piece of waste ground which has been used as an unofficial rubbish dump left there rather than have it used for some useful purpose simply because they have become so accustomed to seeing that piece of waste land that they object to anything new going in.

One of the difficulties about planning is that it takes a long time for the developer to get his plans considered in the first place and to get appeals heard and decided one way or another in the second place. I see no reason to believe that the Fine Gael proposal will speed up matters in the slightest and I can see that it would be quite possible for this appeals tribunal or commission to be influenced unduly by local pressure groups in such a way as to oppose general national policy on national development.

It has been suggested by Deputy Clinton that Fianna Fáil Deputies have the ear of the Minister at all times and the Deputy alleges that we slip in through the Minister's back door using improper influence to gain consent to proposals which would otherwise be thrown out. That certainly has not been my experience. I do not believe in making representations as such but where a matter is brought to my attention and I believe there is danger that certain relevant matters may not have been fully considered, I believe it is my duty to make sure that those matters are brought to the attention of the Minister and will be before him when he decides the appeal. I have had cases where I thought I put up a very good case. It was not a question of the political affiliation of the developer concerned but purely a question of a person wanting to do something in my constituency which appeared to me to be reasonable and where, to my mind, the developer had not put his case as well as he should have done and I assisted him to the best of my ability. I put up matters to the Minister which had not been previously raised with him and the Minister refused the appeal. I have had a number of such cases where I did my best for a constituent fully believing in the reasonableness of his proposal but they were turned down by the Minister. I do not consider this a reason for me to say that I have lost confidence in the Minister any more than if there was a case in court that went against me I would say that the judge was prejudiced or biased or had been asleep during the proceedings.

This is something one must accept. There is every reason to believe that the Minister in dealing with these appeals will deal with them on a broader basis than any expert commission. This is a political decision— I use the word in the best sense—not a Party political decision; it is a political decision taken by the Minister in the name of the community. I would hope that the Minister would review the whole question of the activities of local planning officials because I believe that they are far too apt to refuse permission and rely on him to reverse the decision. That alone is the reason.

Mr. Corish

It is the easiest way out.

Mr. Booth

It is, exactly. That is why the Department are so gummed up with appeals and why the Minister is being burdened with appeals which should never have been referred to him. I cannot help feeling that there is a lack of real sincerity behind this proposed Bill. I can see no way in which it would improve the present procedure and Deputy Clinton and others who have spoken on behalf of the Bill have not done any service to the community by their advocacy of it. They have alleged all sorts of improper practices without any item of evidence. When Deputy Clinton was concluding, he referred to a man who he alleged was a Fianna Fáil supporter and who was allowed to have a builder's yard. Of course, the Fine Gael argument always is that if you are a supporter of Fianna Fáil, you should not get anything other than a kick in the teeth, you should not be allowed to have any appointment. While I do not regard membership of Fianna Fáil as a qualification for an appointment, I do not think it should be a reason for disqualification either.

I have every confidence that any Minister for Local Government will look into appeals in a reasonable way and will judge those appeals on a national level in the name of the whole community, but I would be very frightened that any specialised commission of laymen, even though presided over by an impartial judge, might be influenced by all sorts of completely irrelevant considerations which would be in direct contravention of total national policy. I am always sorry when an appeal goes against someone I have been trying to help but I would like to assure Deputy Clinton, and any other Deputy who spoke along the same lines, that there is no truth in the rumour that a Fianna Fáil Deputy can get exactly what he likes out of the Department of Local Government or out of the Minister. Certainly, that has not been my experience. I have not done an actual tot because my records are not adequate enough, but I certainly feel that there would be far more cases where the appeal has been refused than where the appeal has been allowed. In each case I have explained to the applicant, where the appeal was successful, that there was at least every probability that the appeal would have been decided in that way in any case.

There are, I know, Deputies who will claim credit for an appeal being granted. It is time we exploded that myth. I do not believe that any Minister for Local Government has been seriously influenced by any member of his own Party. I would be very sorry if he was. My contention, therefore, is that the system as it stands is right. We must not hand ourselves over to so-called experts, or artists, or people who have particular axes to grind in dealing with these appeals. We are far safer in leaving the matter in the hands of the Minister who must answer, sooner or later, to this House for any decisions which he may give.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Deputy Booth regards everything which is suggestive of a change as being ridiculous. He is quite happy with things as they are. He would not like anyone, or any board, to take from him and the Minister the power they now have. Deputy Booth, pleased and happy with things as they are, feels that he is interpreting what the people believe.

Mr. Booth

It is not the power; it is the responsibility which he has.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The power that the responsibility gives to Deputy Booth and his kind is what he is anxious to hold on to. The right to carry the key to the Minister's office in his pocket, to be able to consult——

Mr. Booth

Would the Minister excuse me if I go?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——with the Minister, this is the kind of situation Deputy Booth wants to retain. I should like to say that so far as we in Fine Gael are concerned, we have been patient for far too long in relation to a matter which at times has approached almost the dimensions of a public scandal. There has been grave public disquiet about the operation by the Minister for Local Government of planning appeals. There are from time to time rumours current around the city and county, and throughout the country, about why a particular appeal was allowed and why a particular concession was given to a particular person. I have sufficient faith in the standards of honour of Ministers, irrespective of what their Party may be, to believe that these rumours are not well founded, but I am concerned that a system which is at present in existence permits suggestions to be made which in the end are destructive of confidence in our institutions.

It is quite wrong that so much power should be vested in one fallible individual. The whole purpose and idea of justice is that it should not only be done but it should appear to be done, and we have known from experience throughout the centuries that in a public court, before the eyes of everyone, disputes should be settled and a decision should be given on evidence that can be heard by all, with a judge giving reasons which can be known to all. It is for that reason that our system of public courts has, irrespective of individual aggrieved people, satisfied public conscience.

Here we are concerned with something that under the Planning Act, 1963, involves a decision given in secret with the reasons never announced. For that reason, the people in Mountpleasant Square, and in the area around it, are concerned at the moment with regard to a concession given by the Minister, the reasons for which are not announced and, apparently, a decision given in the teeth of what was held by everyone in the area as being sound commonsense. Of course, when you find that happening, the worst possible constructions are put on the Minister's intentions and on the decision which he made. In my respectful submission, you cannot continue a system like this without causing continued public disquiet and without sapping confidence in our present institutions.

We have been patient. When the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act was going through this House, we sought by amendment to bring home to the then Minister the possibility of this kind of problem being created. We suggested that in relation to these planning appeals, he should not exercise jurisdiction, that they should be handed over to the courts. The Minister would not accept that amendment or would not accept that view, and sought to preserve the situation in which he and he alone had the power and the right to determine these matters as between one citizen and another. The Planning Act went into operation. We now have three or four years experience of it and when one finds that recently the municipal authorities who represent the different public representatives and authorities throughout the country, who are concerned vitally with the operation of this system, when they meet and consider the problem and recommend that a change should be made and that an appeals board to deal with these matters should be set up, that is not an opinion that should be just swept aside.

Of course Deputy Booth would say it is ridiculous. Deputy Booth would say we must not allow an appeals board to be set up because responsibility will be given to people who will be concerned with local interests. In the name of heavens, what is a more proper concern in relation to a planning appeal than the consideration of the particular district and the particular locality in which the project concerned is situated? Who is the all-wise Minister who in our fallible society can bring instant wisdom to bear on each one of these appeals? Even if I were an admirer or a supporter or a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, which I am not, I do not think I would be so carried away as to suggest that in that Party there existed such a man. What is involved here is that merely because a member of a political Party is made the Minister for Local Government, he alone, among all the people of our community, knows just what is right to do and what is the proper thing to decide. Was there ever such arrant nonsense uttered in this Dáil?

In 1965, 979 appeals were presented to the Minister for Local Government. In 1966, 1,125 appeals were submitted to the Minister for Local Government. In 1967, 1,322 appeals were submitted to him. How many of these did he ever see? Only the special ones that he was asked to interest himself in, I am going to suggest. What did he do with these appeals? In 1965, 979 appeals were submitted: 437 of them were decided, about half the number submitted. In 1966, out of the 1,125, 862 were decided; in 1967, out of the 1,322, 991 were decided. What had the Minister to do with these appeals? I am going to suggest that in respect of 95 per cent of them, all he did was to sign his name on a blank space on an order already prepared by the officers in his Department and it is they who decided the appeal, it is they who went into it, whether they are competent to do it or incompetent; whether they knew what they were doing or whether they did not know it. The plain fact is that they were part of the process that churned out the decision.

The small number of appeals the Minister interested himself personally in were perhaps those that Deputies approached him about and generally they would not be Deputies from this side of the House. The plain fact is that when we talk about a Minister deciding these appeals, what in fact we are saying is that they are going to be decided by nameless civil servants for reasons never specified, on grounds that will never be disclosed. That is the system we have set up.

We have had experience of this kind of thing in relation to many other items of legislation that have gone through this House and there has been a general reaction against it in relation to a variety of matters on the social welfare side in relation to employment, in relation to people's rights of one kind or another. There has been an insistence more and more that appeals should be decided by a designated board who will be known and who will be in a position to state their reasons and it is in these circumstances that we put forward this proposal which I submit is eminently reasonable.

Deputy Booth says that in putting forward this proposal we are not serving the interests of the country. He is entitled to his opinion in that regard. I feel we are. I feel that this proposal put forward by the Fine Gael Party is a proposal which has not been hastily contrived, which is put forward in no vindictive way, a proposal which is put forward by us because we recognise the need for planning; we recognise the margin for grave error which at present exists and we want to get the whole element of planning appeals removed entirely from political control. Why should Deputy Booth say we do not serve the interests of the country in making this suggestion? Why do Fianna Fáil Deputies proceed to was so impatient when it is sought to remove a matter of this kind, of prime importance as between citizens, from the control of the political head of the Department? In my submission, the very fact that the Fianna Fáil Party oppose this measure, the very fact that they have resisted this Bill, is indicative that things are not as right as they should be.

I do not believe we shall ever have any Minister I suppose in any Government who will be canonised as a saint. Certainly there is no living saint at the moment in the Fianna Fáil Cabinet, but if there were a saint and he was Minister for Local Government, I would not trust him with this power. It is too much for one man. There is too much involved, too much at stake. If he were to give all his attention, all his time to a proper consideration of appeals, he would be doing nothing else. In 1967, 1,322 appeals were submitted. There are 365 days in the year. That would mean that a Minister working on nothing else every day throughout the year would deal with no more than about four appeals a day. If he were to do it properly, he should go and see the area involved; he should discuss and entertain opinions of people in the locality; he should make himself perfectly aware what the objections to the proposal are and what the arguments in its favour might be. If he did his job properly, I doubt if he would do more than one or two appeals a week. But, still, Deputy Booth says that we must trust this all-wise Minister and he says, above all, do not let us get anybody else, above all, a judge and one or two experts, because they will have motives for their decisions which will appear strange to Deputy Booth.

Sooner or later this is going to be done. I do not believe that the patience of the public will long tolerate a system whereby a planning decision is given, often after public debate, often after public consideration, and that decision is reversed by a nameless person, a faceless official, who can state no reason because he is not permitted to do it and from whose political chief here in the Dáil or elsewhere no explanation can emerge. That is not just. It is not right. I have no doubt that this change will be made sooner or later. It is better to do it now. It is better to do it when so many of our planning activities are in the embryo stage, when there is still a considerable fund of goodwill behind good national planning. This is the time to set up an appeals board. May I say that on the figures I have available here, it is inevitable that the Minister will be forced, by reason of the large number of appeals, into doing something about it,

As the Opposition in this House, we have put forward this Bill which has been drafted by the Fine Gael Party. It is put forward as a worthwhile effort to take a significant step forward in this whole problem of planning. We do it with a sense of responsibility. We do it because we are concerned with the public disquiet in regard to planning. Let no one say that disquiet does not exist. We do it without apportioning blame to anyone. We do it because it appears to us wrong that any one individual should have this very great power in a region in which so much is involved.

I should like to feel that the proposals in this Bill or the sense of this Bill would eventually prove acceptable to the Minister and to the Government. We in these benches have been accustomed to so much of our policy, so much of our ideas, being, in fact, put into operation by the Fianna Fáil Government in recent times that for the Minister to adopt this Bill or the idea in it certainly would be nothing novel or strange. But I do hope we are not going to be faced with a situation in which the Minister and the Government will say: "No. We will have no change at all because we want to hold on to the power we have. We want to resist any intrusion by any outside person or any outside authorities in relation to this field." If the Government do that, I want to assert that they will be doing a disservice to the confidence which our citizens should repose in organised, legitimate government in this country. They will be doing a disservice to the whole idea of planning and they will be continuing a system which I regard as wrong and faulty, a system which permits rotten rumours and speculation to surround what may be a perfectly valid exercise of administrative power by a Minister or a Department. This should not happen. If things are to be done properly and above-board, if justice is to be done, it should appear to be done. I can see no reason whatsoever why a public hearing of these appeals should not be entertained, why a board such as we suggest, with its numbers added to, if necessary, should not sit publicly and deal with all these matters. If that is done, I believe all the disquiet will disappear.

Mr. Harte

I do not wish to delay the House but I do wish to add my voice to what has already been said by my colleagues in the Fine Gael Party. I often wonder what the former Minister for Local Government had in mind when he introduced the Planning Act as we now know it. The generally accepted concept of good administration is that things are made easier for people to avail of the services provided by the Government and by local authorities. Now, when a person applies to a local authority for planning permission of any major nature, he would need to be a university graduate to be able to fill in some of the application forms and to answer some of the questions, only to be told eventually that he may not proceed to carry out the project because his application contravenes some Planning Act.

The legislation which was in operation prior to the Planning Bill introduced by the former Minister for Local Government may not have been the ideal or desirable legislation that one would dream of. When the former Minister for Local Government introduced his Bill, he went to great pains to explain to the people that this was his concept of the approach to planning. Indeed, when he took full credit for introducing this legislation, little did he think that some of us would eventually discover that this was but a good piece of legislation introduced by the Greater London Authority to tackle some of the problems which are more in keeping with the conditions of Greater London than the constituency which I represent. I wonder why the present Minister has not changed the attitude of his Department in relation to this matter? When we examine all the details of the present Government administration, not alone in Local Government, but virtually in every other Department of State, we find, as Deputy O'Higgins has just said, that very often it is more than rumour. We find a certain vein running through each Department which can definitely be described as tending to be, if not completely, Tammany Hall.

It is political control of virtually everything the individual does. It is remarkable to note that in practically every county in Ireland the number of appeals which the Minister refuses is basically the same. Deputy Molloy, I think, brought out the point that 50 per cent of the appeals from County Galway were upheld by the Minister. Roughly the same percentage can be quoted for Donegal. I wonder what given right the present Minister for Local Government has or what extra powers he claims he possesses to have a planning appeal either upheld or rejected. I do not think the Minister pays that many visits to Donegal. Indeed we would be glad to see him more often.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You have enough of them.

Mr. Harte

Yes. In a manner of speaking, we have too many of them. When an applicant is refused planning permission by Donegal County Council and when he is told his right as a citizen of this country is to appeal to the Minister, what extra evidence does the Minister require? Does the Minister go to any part of the constituency of North-East Donegal, does he ask any of his staff to go to North-East Donegal or does he merely contact the local planning authority and ask them for their further observations? Then, having discovered those, and undoubtedly he has discovered whether the person concerned is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party or, if it would be possible that if some extra consideration were given to his application, he would become an active member of the Fianna Fáil Party. Those may be rash remarks. I do not think we can be accused of being political scandalmongers on this side of the House if we level those charges at the Minister, the Government and his Party because it is remarkable that if an appeal is lodged with the Department of Local Government and the person concerned is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, his appeal is granted.

I have never had the occasion to visit the Minister's office, either the present Minister or the former Minister, at the request of any constituent of mine. In fact, any person who has ever approached me to complain that his planning application has been rejected by Donegal County Council, I usually advise him to renew his application by modifying the plans and, failing that, to appeal to the Minister or wait for 12 months, and if he is a good loyal party supporter, Deputy Cunningham or the two Ministers in the county will make representation to the Minister for Local Government and all in the garden will be rosy. If this is not political corruption, I do not know the meaning of the term. It is for this reason that the Fine Gael Party gave long and detailed thought to this proposal. It is why we moved it in the name of certain Fine Gael Deputies and it is why I feel I should support it because I believe any individual in this country who obeys the laws of the land and who does not go into conflict with the laws of the land is entitled to certain rights.

He should not, if he is entitled to those rights, have to go on bended knees, with cap in hand, to any politician, be he Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. If he is entitled to those rights, he should be given them and he should be under no obligation whatsoever to any political Party or any particular Member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. The present arrangement, irrespective of what Government Deputies have said, lends itself to political abuse. There have been many Parliamentary Questions addressed to the Minister for Local Government over the past two or three years relating to certain planning applications. Indeed, political commentators in the national press have often commented, either by direct comment or by inference, on some of those major applications.

I have no problems such as this in the constituency I represent, but I feel that the individual who makes an application to a local authority either to extend his business or improve his home is just as important to me as a magnate in the city of Dublin who is prepared to join Taca or is prepared to give a substantial sum to the Fianna Fáil election fund or to the Fianna Fáil Party. However, the situation is simply different. This individual who controls a lot of power in the city, in many cases more power than the backbencher Deputies of the Government Party, can persuade the Minister for Local Government to give more favourable consideration to his appeal than the humble citizen in rural Ireland who feels, by the standards of commonsense, that he is doing what he is expected to do, that he is living as a good citizen, that he is providing a living for his wife and his family, that he is building a business. But, for some petty reason, very often a reason which is difficult to understand, an application by him is rejected by the planning officer and his only alternative is to appeal to the Minister for Local Government. That appeal may lie with the Minister for Local Government for as long as he feels it should stay there. Out of frustration, or for some other just reason, the person may be driven to the point of having to consult with a public representative.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that this person is not of the same political persuasion as the Minister or the present Government. Let us say that he consults with a Deputy from the Opposition Parties who, in his own interest, tells him either to amend his application or to talk kindly to somebody close to the Minister. That person can be put into the position of having to use all due influence on the Fianna Fáil Deputy: by that I mean not that any financial reward should take place but that he might persuade the Government Deputy that, from now on, he will support him when, in fact, he has no intention of doing so. This, to me, is not alone bad planning but is creating a situation where an honest-to-goodness hard-working individual may be forced to tell a lie in order to succeed with a planning appeal. I question the morals of it.

Mr. Molloy

That would not worry Deputy Harte too much.

Mr. Harte

I am sure Deputy Molloy has as good a knowledge of morals as I have. Thank God, I live a good Christian life. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I was sent here by people to represent them and I shall do that as best I can until such time as they select someone better. In the meantime. I do not want any lecture from Deputy Molloy about morals or anything else. Let him be a good boy and sit up there on the back bench and "keep in" with the right wing of the Party and not make the same mistake as he made the last time and then someone might invite him down a bench or two. Let Deputy Molloy not forget that some of the people who send their appeals to the Minister for Local Government consult with people who are not backbench members of the Fianna Fáil Party nor, indeed, are they Members of this House at all but, in many cases, they have a lot more influence with the Minister for Local Government than, perhaps, Deputy Molloy has. I should hesitate to name a few of these individuals but eventually they will be discovered and they will be named. When that time arrives, I hope Deputy Molloy's morals will be as clean as he would have us believe they are at the moment.

As I was saying, the number of planning appeals dealt with by the Minister is approximately 24 per week. I wonder how often the Minister inspects any of these appeals. I wonder if he does it all in a particular week or if these applications are dealt with as they come forward to his desk. I wonder what the position would be should the appeal of somebody in Waterville, County Kerry, be on his desk together with that of another individual from, say, North Donegal. Would the Minister get into his State car and head off for a drive to the Ring of Kerry and then head back to Bloody Foreland in County Donegal just to inspect the subjects of these applications? I am quite sure that when he signs his name to the order he signs it to the proper order, either to reject or to uphold the appeal. What information has the Minister to guide him before he puts pen to paper? Has the Minister any information whatsoever other than that of his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party —as I say, strong supporters of that Party who are not Members of the House? Is this the only information that is required? Is this the standard of merit on which the Minister for Local Government bases his decision on a planning appeal?

It is not unreasonable to suggest that if a commission were set up, and if this body were continually to examine planning appeals, they would amass a large amount of information which would guide them and one would not have to belong to a political Party or to be "well in" with the local TD or with any other person who might have influence with the Minister for Local Government in order to ensure that his appeal was upheld.

The present system is undemocratic. It does not help towards an improvement in our modern society. It has nothing to commend it. In fact, the reverse would be the position, in my opinion. I, therefore, appeal—vainly, no doubt—to the Minister for Local Government to reconsider this whole aspect of the matter. I ask him to give serious consideration to the acceptance of this motion. If he does so, I shall perhaps be able to avail of an opportunity to congratulate him on being fair-minded.

As I have already said, I consider that the present system is not a good one. It is too open to abuse. It is too open to charges of political corruption, be they correct or incorrect. It shakes the confidence of the average person in the street who finds that, for some unknown reason, his appeal has been rejected while, on the other hand, the appeal of some neighbour has been upheld. They cannot understand why these things should happen. If there is no reason but the reason of political corruption, I would not blame them for using it, particularly in view of the record of the present Government Party.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Did the Minister for Health speak on behalf of the Minister for Local Government?

Mr. Donegan

I would have thought that the Minister would have been extremely glad to get rid of this difficult business. I do not want to impute any sort of skulduggery or favouritism or partisanship to the Minister, his predecessor or anybody else, but inevitably with the 1963 Act now becoming operative and taking into account the complexity of modern planning, such criticism cannot be avoided. There is the old maxim that not only should justice be done but that it should be seen to be done. Even if the Minister were a paragon of virtue or like God Himself, were somebody who never made a mistake, because of the complexity of the problem and the number of decisions to be made—largely by his officers and only signed by the Minister—the probability is that there will be criticism on the basis or unfairness, or worse, by the Minister.

I would have thought that this suggestion of ours to have a judicial appeals body with representation by the Minister would have met with his complete approval and, since he would have a vast majority in this House to back him, that he would have immediately adopted our Bill. I do not know whether it is a case of being a trifle petulant and small boyish, deciding he will not play with our football, but whatever the reason, he has not accepted. I do not know what kind of defence he can produce against this proposal. There does not seem to be any logical defence. We examined the situation carefully before introducing this measure.

One of the reasons why this proposal is important in the existing situation is that the Department of Local Government or a local authority is often an interested party in the decision of an appeal. I can quote an instance where a local authority refused a planning appeal for the construction of flats because there was some minor building outside the existing building. If the plan for the particular area had been carried out, the building to be renovated and adapted to make flats would have been demolished. The line taken by the local authority officials was that if the plans that had been adopted meant anything, let the Minister for Local Government produce whatever the figure might be, £5,000 or £10,000, in order to demolish this building. The appeal lies with the Minister for Local Government and the whole thing hangs in the balance for at least 18 months.

I confess to a personal interest in the matter. I want to make my contribution without criticising him, but I believe it is wrong that he should be put in the awkward situation of being an interested party, the person to whom recourse would be had for money if there is arbitration, and at the same time, being the judicial person who eventually signs his name to the appeal decision, granting it or otherwise. That seems to me to be in contravention of the normal practice of the law and fraught with danger and injustice. I want to make it quite clear that in this instance there is no thought in my mind that there is any injustice. Nothing could be further from my mind either in regard to the local authority or the Minister's office. At the same time, it would appear to the uninitiated person not acquainted with these matters, a person who is not a member of the Dáil or of a local authority, that there is full circumstantial evidence of injustice. The Minister must suffer because of that circumstantial evidence, not merely in one case but in a myriad of cases all over Ireland.

Let us face it: the Planning and Development Act, 1963, is going to create a multiplicity of these appeals. We are right in the middle of this. The upsurge in the number of appeals and rejections is going to be fantastically enlarged in the years to come. Another question arises similar to what we have been discussing. If, for instance, a dutiful officer of a local authority desires to create a site for building and get an entry to a particular place, we find extraordinary powers are given to county managers under sections 77 and 74 of the Act. But, apart from that, there is the refusal of an application for permission to build. If an individual is in the position that his house is in the way of development and if he has applied for a reconstruction grant and permission to provide another bedroom for his enlarged family, then if the local official feels that this is to a certain extent prejudicial to future development—the development he desires but which may not even be at the planning stage—he can refuse this application. Again the Minister becomes an interested party because if this opening was made at this place, perhaps local authority houses could be built, and the Minister would not like being criticised for not building houses when people need them. Therefore, he is an interested party. On the other hand, a judicial body might decide that that local authority official was wrong and might tell him: "You could have made this entrance 50 yards further up the street and you could have built your houses without interrupting this man building an extra bedroom for his family."

If there are interested parties, it means that power is thrown into one hand, and that hand is a political hand. I am sure the Minister signs as many political letters as I do a week— anything from 150 to 200. These people are suppliants to politicians who in many cases can do nothing for them except tell them, as a solicitor would, the exact legal position. If the Minister is to have this number of suppliants in a week, it is incorrect that, at the same time, he should be in a judicial capacity in respect of this question of appeals. The whole structure of the law would not allow this. I am absolutely certain that if I signed a political letter or made a political phone call an behalf of a constituent to a circuit court judge or a district justice, that district justice or judge would be inflamed beyond belief, would regard my act as most improper and as something I should not have in any circumstances done. Yet the Minister must receive his political letters and representations, as I and every other Deputy do, and at the same time act in this judicial capacity. Why he does not want to get out the side door and leave this extremely difficult job to somebody else who could act in that judicial capacity and without the difficulty of influence, I cannot understand.

Again there is the question of appeal under section 74 and section 77 of the Act. I should like to draw attention to a case in my constituency where our county manager—and I am chairman of the county council myself—has indicated he wants to acquire a portion of land from a businessman and hand it to another businessman. If that is to be done, there could be action under section 4 by the county council or there could be an appeal; in either case, the man who sits opposite to us would himself act in a judicial capacity. In my view, that is quite improper, and the Minister should accede to our request.

Debate adjourned.