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.