(Cavan): Here you have an array of lawyers on the Front Bench but the tribunal I suggested should be set up has precedent to recommend it, has precedent to defend it and precedent to support it, because the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission are lawyers, whether they are appointed by Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. Some may never have had much experience in land but they give fair decisions. One of the characteristics of lawyers is that once appointed to a judicial position, whether they are appointed by Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, they behave as judicial persons and are not influenced by political pressure one way or another. The Minister for Lands does not decide what lands are to be taken over; his Lay Commissioners do, and they have given absolute satisfaction.
There is another very important statutory quasi-judicial officer, the arbitrator who assesses compensation for lands which have been acquired under the Land Acquisition (Assessment of Compensation) Act. He is not a lawyer; he is an engineer, but he is independent and he sits on these cases and decides how much compensation will be paid. His decisions are never questioned but are accepted as fair and reasonable. There is no public disquiet about him, notwithstanding the fact that he has been operating for the past 50 years.
You also have the Special Commissioners of income tax, a number of whom are lawyers and some of whom are not, but they are all independent and discharge their duties fairly and give satisfaction. I wonder if Fianna Fáil Deputies have forgotten the arbitrator they appointed to adjudicate on applications for pensions under the Army Pensions Acts? Judge Sheehy acted and some other judges acted, but they went around the country in an informal way, heard these cases and decided who was entitled to receive compensation and who was not. They gave absolute satisfaction. There was no barrister or lawyer appearing before them. The thing was informal and inexpensive and gave every satisfaction.
I want to repeat that one of the proudest boasts of the legal profession is that when judges are appointed, no matter who appoints them and no matter what their political affiliations were before they were appointed, they act fearlessly and impartially and honour absolutely the oath they take on their appointment. I have no fears in handing over to a judicial officer, whether he be a Circuit Court judge, a High Court judge or a Supreme Court judge, the duties of determining appeals under this Act. However, I am not tied to a judge. I want somebody appointed who will have the independence of a judge, who will hold office on the terms of a judge, somebody who is not subject to political pressure, whether from Fianna Fáil cumainn, a Fianna Fáil TD or a Fianna Fáil subscriber.
The next point I want to make in favour of transferring these duties from the Minister for Local Government to a quasi-judicial tribunal is that I consider the present holder of the office of Minister for Local Government temperamentally, politically and traditionally quite unsuited to adjudicate in a fair, unprejudiced and unbiased manner. We heard him speaking on this Bill for seven hours —I will return to that again—and anybody would have to come to the conclusion that he is a most politically-minded man and by that I mean Party politically-minded. He acts as director of elections in practically every by-election and in that way he must get to know many political people in many towns, whether they are supporters of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael or any other Party. How could that man be expected to go back to these towns in which he presided as director of elections and adjudicate impartially on a planning appeal between some known friend of his and perhaps some known enemy?
It is asking much too much. It is something that could not be expected of anybody. The man who is deciding these appeals should be well qualified to determine, a man well paid for determining, a man with no other obligations and no other commitments, a man who is not dependent on public popularity to keep him in public life, a man who is independent and who, when he signs his name to an appeal, does so in the sure knowledge that whether it pleases anybody or displeases anybody, he has done his best, and having done his best, his conscience is clear and he is not afraid that it will cost him or his Party either money or votes in the next general election.
That is the appeal I am making to this House and to the country. I am not discussing the Minister personally. I do not know him socially—perhaps he would not wish to know me—but I do say from observing him in this House that he is charged, electrified with political emotion. He thinks politically; he acts politically; and, as Deputy L'Estrange says, he speaks politically. I do not blame him for that, but it is asking much too much of human nature to expect him to be an impartial judge in matters of this sort. That is the case Fine Gael have made for introducing this Bill. These are the grounds upon which I recommend it to the House.
It is my duty now to consider briefly the case the Government have made against the Bill. It is their duty to make such a case if they consider the Bill a bad Bill or one which does not deserve the support of the House. We had two Ministerial interventions in the debate. The first came on 31st January when the Minister for Health, Deputy Flanagan, intervened. He paid a number of compliments to me as, indeed, did the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy P. Brennan. At column 101 of volume 232 of the Official Report the Minister for Health said:
When Deputy Fitzpatrick suggests a simple procedure it is a praise-worthy sentiment. I agree with many of the things he said with regard to the present appeals system. He cites the case of the objector who has no right of audience. That is something that should be remedied. In general, most of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Fitzpatrick seemed to me to be well thought out and worthy of serious consideration.
That was what the Minister for Health had to say and, in the light of that, it was hard to follow the next Ministerial intervention which came from the Minister for Local Government. It took him seven hours to make his speech. I heard a great part of it but, over the last two days, I read it tediously and painfully and I have no hesitation in saying that no speech made on either side of this House justified this Bill more than did the speech of the Minister for Local Government.
We believe that the appeal system is wrong and that it should be taken away from the Minister for Local Government and given to an appeals tribunal. The Minister for Local Government spent at least half of his seven hour speech making oily innuendoes against a former Minister for Local Government, Deputy P. O'Donnell. Although, in a roundabout way, he suggested he was not making charges, it was obvious that he was making charges and accusing Deputy O'Donnell of having made wrong decisions or made decisions for the wrong motives. Surely, if the Minister for Local Government thinks that, that is justification for this Bill? Surely, if he thinks that he himself is an archangel, notwithstanding Kilbarrack and notwithstanding Mount Pleasant Square, the charges he made against a former Minister for Local Government are more than justification for accepting the proposals we have put before the House.
I sifted the speech made by the Minister for Local Government in the hope that I could find something into which to put my teeth, something to grasp. This was the theme of his entire speech: Deputy O'Donnell was a ruffian and he, the Minister for Local Government, was infallible, two extraordinary assertions but two assertions which, in my opinion, completely justify this Bill.
The remainder of the Fianna Fáil contributions, apart from that of the Parliamentary Secretary, who dealt with a few technical matters, were a little odd, to say the least of it. Deputy Molloy said he was dealing with planning appeals at the rate of half a dozen a week and he was the best fitted to deal with them. He wanted to hold on to his power. Deputy Lemass said he was consulted——
