Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 May 1988

Vol. 380 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Local Government, (Planning and Development) Bill, 1988: Second Stage.

Mr. Keating

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

It gives me very great pleasure to move this Bill on behalf of the Progressive Democrats and I hope it will receive support from all sides of the House. The Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1988, is not just timely but long overdue. This evening I want to extract, if I can, from all sides of the House a clear commitment that the Bill will be accepted and enacted at the earliest possible date.

During the years there have been a number of obvious and glaring abuses and scandals in planning law and the current Minister for the Environment is as aware of these as I am. One of these abuses, which has been the source of public scandal and which has added to the burden on the taxpayer, is the extraordinary anomaly in planning law which allows often spurious and speculative developments to obtain from the public purse compensation which is completely unjustified in so far as it appears to award compensation to an applicant because of a refusal of planning permission. In some cases these people must have known that the application they were making was in definace of development plans, of any legitimate expectations of what reasonably could be conceded by local authorities and in some cases against the common good. Nevertheless, they were awarded massive sums in compensation and that has been the source of scandal. It is an abuse which should cease.

There are other abuses which this Bill seeks to deal with. One abuse which some builders, a minority I hope, engage in is on having built estates of houses and on having sold them to young couples who quite often are hard pressed to raise the money they clear off leaving essential work undone. In some cases they set up similar companies down the road to replicate this kind of cowboy operation. We are all aware of those who do not fulfil their obligations to those with whom they have been doing business. The local authorities have found themselves powerless to act against these people and successive administrations have ignored the plight of such people. This Bill offers a clear and immediate way of dealing with this problem.

Those scandals, and they are no less than that, which over the years have obtained in planning law and which were a form of speculators' charter in some cases are represented, as I have said, by the present bizarre entitlements to financial compensation from the hard-pressed taxpayer arising from the turning down of often spurious planning applications and the shirking of responsibilities by some of these builders — I stress a minority — who on pocketing the proceeds from the sale of houses walk away from their responsibilities to finish off the estates they leave behind.

Those are key elements in this Bill. I want the Government to accept this Bill as it is in the public interest that these abuses cease and that measures identical to the measures contained in this Bill are enacted as a matter of urgency. These abuses have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and have created major social and economic discomfort. Our Bill will end those abuses and deserves to receive support from all sides. I do not anticipate any particular problems from either the Government or Fine Gael. I do not anticipate any problems in terms of support from the Government because in this context the Taoiseach was quite explicit during the recent general election campaign. At a conference in Dublin city centre organised by the Dublin Crisis Conference he said that he accepted that there was a problem in the law which needed to be dealt with. His exact words were:

It should have been done long ago but it has only come into acute focus in the last couple of years and quite frankly I don't think anybody ever anticipated that the Supreme Court would hand down the sort of decision it did in the Dún Laoghaire case but we are all agreed now that it will be dealt with one way or another immediately.

In replying in writing to a questionnaire sent by that organisation to all parties to elicit their responses to the need for policy initiatives in the city centre Fianna Fáil said and I quote:

Fianna Fáil is committed to introducing new legislation to close the loophole which has led to recent High Court decisions awarding large compensation sums to developers. We do not accept that it is necessary to amend the Constitution to achieve this but instead we will concentrate on (a) amending section 56 of the 1963 Planning Act so that zoning of land is a non-compensatable reason for refusal and (b) amend the 1977 Planning Act so that An Bord Pleanála will have a code of practice requiring it to specify non-compensatable reasons for refusal where these apply.

I do not anticipate any problems in getting support from Fine Gael because, quite frankly, we on this side of the House have been quite breathtaken by the degree to which they have in recent days endorsed our policies in a number of respects — taken aback might be more appropriate — and accordingly we expect an immediate and very warm embrace for this most recent policy emanation from our party, similar to the embrace for our taxation proposals which initially were given a bit of a hammering by the side who yesterday announced that they are now delighted to welcome the same principles.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is now stirring it.

Mr. Keating

I will not go down that road any further as it would be too provocative and because this is a night on which we should all unite behind a reasonable and sensible measure. The principal proposals in this legislation include the ending of the open-ended right to compensation for often speculative developments which the taxpayer currently has to pay for arising out of the legitimate refusal by a planning authority of planning applications which in their judgment contravene their draft development plans.

This measure, when enacted, will also remove the definite pressure that exists on local authorities to grant such planning permissions against their better judgment, under the threat of large compensation claims. Many of us are aware of instances where such permissions have been granted reluctantly and against the better instincts of local authorities because they feared they would receive a massive compensation claim and that is a shame. Once again this penalises those who play by the rules and who accept the verdict of planning authorities or of An Bord Pleanála in these matters and apparently rewards those who believe that you can and should ride a coach-and-four through these pieces of legislation.

The second major measure in the Bill is, as I have mentioned, the appalling abuse of unfinished housing estates all over the country. Although for some reason this has not caught the public imagination in the same way as the first abuse has, it has caused probably the same, if not more, distress economically and socially to many couples already hard pressed to try to raise money for mortgages and for their ordinary day to day needs. Under this Bill that will end because local authorities will be given the power to insist on a sequence of development in their planning permission which will ensure that the essential infrastructure or basic facilities which are necessary in any community will be put in place before the houses are occupied. It is quite wrong that some, the chancers engaged in this activity who are unfortunately a reflection on the legitimate builders and are detrimental to the interests of all right-minded people who are interested in seeing the developments coming on stream, have not just done this once or twice but continue to replicate their anti-social activities. Despite the promise of Fianna Fáil a long time ago that action would follow immediately, nothing has happened to date. This Bill, therefore, has to be a watershed in that respect. It points the way forward to ensuring that that abuse ceases.

There is also a provision in the Bill that where a developer has not completed a development in accordance with the terms of a permission, a planning receiver who will carry out that work and ensure that the developer pays the cost can be appointed. The concept of the planning receiver is, like much of what this party put forward, new and radical. It proposes a system which will not rely on the labyrinthine processes of out-dated law in order to bring about the progress that is necessary. It is a measure which, if the local authority fails in the normal way to insist on proper standards, will allow them to go immediately to the courts to have the receiver appointed, to have him or her do the job and pursue the developer for the costs. They are not going to pussyfoot around for years while some developer rides a coach-and-four through the courts and exercises an infinite appeal to the courts for an effective delay, wearing down the patience, not just of the local authority but also of the unfortunate residents who in many cases at present have to band together in order to insist on minimal standards of environmental provision and facility for their families. That abuse exists at present and is being over-seen by the Government as it was over-seen by their predecessors. When the Minister intervenes in this debate I want him to commit himself to accepting the Bill for that reason. He is the recipient, as is everyone in this House, of pleas from people who find themselves in that situation.

The third measure is very important from our point of view, as a party who believe that there should be easy and relatively inexpensive recourse to justice for any citizen and for local authorities. The whole process of pursuing those who behave in this anti-social manner is made, in this Bill, easier and less expensive. A Circuit Court will be given the powers, under the appropriate section of the Bill, to deal with requests for planning injunctions, rather than the High Court as heretofore. That recourse to the High Court is available and has worked but is unnecessarily cumbersome and expensive and therefore, particularly in view of the relative paucity of funds which this Minister has made available to local authorities, is likely to be less utilised than has been the case up to now. There is no reason the Circuit Court should not be given the opportunity of making an adjudication on applications by local authorities for planning injunctions where such urgent action is required. That is reasonable and in the common good. Therefore, quick and inexpensive recourse could be had to the law and the courts would have power to make orders which are mandatory in character. That would be a significant and effective change in the legislation. It would ensure not just that there is a cosmetic exercise of going through the legal motions but that the court will have real power to make public policy which will stick in a case like this. We can see no valid argument, therefore, for not granting to circuit courts the powers to operate in this area in order to ensure that the kind of fly-by-night operator, which this Bill is designed to get at, is dealt with quickly, efficiently and as inexpensively as possible.

Under this Bill the bizarre situation at present operating in relation to the obligation on sanitary authorities and local authorities to provide various essential services, such as sewerage services, to developments, even when they are illegal, is removed and the onus is shifted to where it should be, in favour of the local authority and the taxpayer. It is quite preposterous that somebody who has proceeded illegally with a development is, in the eyes of some people, still entitled to exact from the taxpayer and the nearest local authority a service for the disposal of sewage and so on from his or her development. That is clearly nonsensical. Some of us might suggest that in other areas of law we might go a little further, if we are serious about such illegal planning developments, and say that no service which the State has an influence in providing should be made available to those who contravene the law. That is perhaps another day's debate and I do not want to unnecessarily widen this debate. This Bill makes provision to deal rapidly with another area of abuse at present on the Statute Book.

We want to make clear that we are still on the side of protecting the fundamental rights of people who own property and land. We are not suggesting that we should rewrite that fundamental principle or indeed rewrite the Constitution in any way. We are simply saying that people with property have obligations as well as rights and that we are endeavouring to redress the imbalance which has been allowed to develop over years of neglect politically and from a legislative point of view, to the extent that local authorities consider themselves to be under this kind of pressure. In this respect at least we have no intention of rewriting the Constitution. The rights of individuals are still important to us, although I have to add that there are other areas in which we are quite happy to rewrite the Constitution and, if the Whips of the House allow it, we will be quite happy to debate that some other night. However, that is not an issue in this area.

I do not want someone to raise the perennial red herring of constitutional difficulty that is raised whenever someone does not want to do anything, as a reason for inaction in this case. That will not wash for a number of reasons. If the Minister has taken the trouble, as I am sure he has, to read paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill he will see that there are a number of legal cases, the details of which I do not intend to go into but which show that the courts have once again been nudging the arm of Government to do something in this area. Those cases clearly indicate that there is no rational basis for any concern in this respect. The 1989 case of Pine Valley Developments Limited v. Minister for the Environment clearly indicated that there was no real foundation for any such fears. It is no harm to point that out lest someone may use it as an argument for dodging or weaving away from the essential issue. Planning permission in respect of speculative developments has been described as an enhancement to property rights and a bonus in that case. In that case also the Supreme Court held that a property developer could not sue for breach of constitutional rights when a planning permission was declared invalid by the courts as there was no constitutional right to planning permission in respect of such speculative developments.

The court went beyond that in the X.J.S. Investments Limited case when it actually queried whether "legislation which appears to authorise such a use of public funds is constitutionally proper" in itself. In other words, in so far as the courts have given any indication in these matters, they have said quite clearly and explicitly that the present mechanics which operate are probably in breach of the Constitution. I do not want this argument trotted out here because whenever anybody wants to give a excuse for doing nothing, they invariably mention the Constitution. The Constitution is not an argument against accepting this Bill and it should not be so produced.

We are quite happy to assert that the land owner still has the right to receive compensation when a refusal of planning permission effectively means that he cannot develop his land within the reasonable and lawful expectations which he would normally enjoy under the development plan for his area or under any reasonable expectation in terms of the zoning for that area or under any other relevant criteria. We do not believe that someone who has land, and whose application for planning permission is turned down because it is in open conflict with the development plan for the area, should get compensation relevant to the notional value of the permission for which he or she applied. That is what we are aiming at in this Bill. I want to emphasise that there is no suggestion of undermining any constitutional right in the matter. The constitutionality of this has been dealt with very comprehensively in our Explanatory Memorandum which sets out clearly the reasons there is no basis for any suggestion that this Bill can be challenged on these grounds.

With your permission, Sir, as is normal procedure, I wish to allow Deputy Martin Cullen to take the remainder of my time. I appeal to the Government who were explicit last February when they were in a givish mood, and they were particularly givish in this respect and put it in writing. I am not one who waves documents in front of people because that sort of thing is over-played as a political device, particularly when there is a library of such documents which could be produced on occasions like this, but the vehement and explicit commitment of the Taoiseach on that occasion was a joy to behold. I was present at that debate and there was no suggestion of equivocation, ambiguity or any wobbling which occasionally occurs. The Taoiseach said there would be action "immediately", and he then put it in writing that his party, Fianna Fáil, did not see a problem constitutionally and would go further, and he went on to say precisely how they would deal with this. When we considered the issue we were happy to be able to embody some of the thinking in that expressed commitment in our Bill. If the Minister says this is a good Bill and he accepts it, I will be very interested to hear what excuse he produces for any kind of prevarication.

I am overcome at Fine Gael's enthusiasm for accepting our policies and I am looking forward to their warm endorsement of this Bill. I do not see any inhibition on their part in endorsing our policies these days, and we welcome that even if it is a latter day conversion and if, in some cases, our bruises are barely recovering from the hammering we got during the election when we suggested certain radical ideas in the taxation area, which are now to be the basis of a broad political consensus. I remember taking some stick from my erstwhile colleagues — and, who knows, ideologically identical colleagues on this issue at least — when I mentioned that during the elections. I am looking forward to their support.

If the Minister says tonight that he thought about this Bill and is in favour of it, but that it is flawed and he has a better Bill on the stocks — that has happened on previous occasions — part of me will be elated but another part of me will be deeply suspicious. Like Thomas when Christ appared to him I need to see the wounds. I need to see the heads of the Bill chapter and verse and I need explicit commitments on the date of introduction before we suggest even considering whether we should make any kind of gesture in terms of conciliation to this Government who, by and large, have neglected and ignored this area. We are not unwilling to listen to any reasonable offer from a Minister who, now and again, has proved to be quite reasonable in his approach to these matters. I want to see in black and white, or even in technicolour, precisely what the Minister has in mind. I would possibly want to see it in triplicate before I would be satisfied.

I will ask my colleague, Deputy Harney, to answer this debate next week. In the meantime I have no doubt a number of my colleagues will want to contribute. I formally move the adoption of this Bill by the Dáil. I appeal to all sides to accept it. We all know the principle is right. My party are not hung up about dotting an "i" or crossing a "t" if an amendment is appropriate. We are not pretending this is the last word on these matters but we can claim truthfully it is the first word in any real sense in trying to do something about this problem.

On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I have great pleasure in commending this Bill to the House. I will ask my colleague, Deputy Cullen, to continue.

Mr. Cullen

I expect this Bill will receive the support of the House. There have been many discussions about the recognition and need for this type of Bill. As Deputy Keating said, the Taoiseach, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have spoken on this issue on many occasions and all have commented on the need for up to date legislation in this area. Sadly, that is all there has been, discussion and more discussion, "the need for,""in the event of", and "another review" and "We are considering," until tonight when at last some party in the Dáil — again the Progressive Democrats — have come forward with an initiative in this area.

We are dealing with a fundamental issue which affects many people in this country, particularly young married people who are our future. I speak on this Bill as a victim of what existing legislation has been doing. Some years ago as a young married man facing his first mortgage I ended up in an estate where all the problems we are facing today were an issue. It is wrong for politicians to go on talking about doing something in this area while, at the same time, being patronising to those directly affected. There is no need for any further long debate on this issue.

We have brought forward a Bill which encompasses directly many of the issues which are fundamental to planning and development. Our Bill is designed specifically to encompass immediately those areas which need to be dealt with. We are not saying it is something which has to be laid down in tablets of stone, but what I am saying — and what my party are definitely saying — is that this Bill should be passed by this House and the waffling should stop. If, at some future date, there is a need in other areas, we will not wait for the Government or anybody else to do something about it. We will be to the fore in updating that legislation. I hear rumours that the Minister has another Bill on the stocks. Perhaps we will welcome it, but that should in no way prevent the Government accepting this Bill.

The thrust of this Bill is crystal clear. Local authorities should not be liable to pay either individuals or companies compensation in all cases in the event of planning permission being refused either by the local authorities or by An Bord Pleanála. We are all only too aware of the massive funding problems which local authorities are facing at present and the added burden of implied blackmail, when they refuse planning permission and leave themselves open to a substantial payment of compensation, is wrong. This is something which the taxpayer who ultimately foot the Bill should not have to bear.

We have seen far too many cases where local authorities, because of their financial state, had to grant planning permission. They feared what the cost of the compensation would be, and they could not afford to pay money in this area. Even if a development was blatantly not in the interest of a particular area, they succumbed and let it go through. That is not the way planning in an even and proper way should proceed. It is contrary to the way a small island should want to develop. We have a natural amenity infrastructure which must be protected and which can be of great benefit to us in the long term.

Haphazard building developments carried out in an unplanned way take greatly from the natural beauty and amenities that are on offer. The existing legislation is far too broad. It greatly favours the interests of the individual or company rather than the interests of the local authority or indeed the local inhabitants. This Bill will narrow greatly the areas of entitlement for compensation. When the Bill is enacted the balance will be weighted much more fairly. It will still allow for compensation to be paid where planning permission is refused for a development which is similar to the existing use and generally compatible with the development plan for the area.

This is an extremely important issue. Where genuine plans are submitted which are directly compatible with the objectives for the area, the local authority or indeed An Bord Pleanála should not be allowed at their whim to knock this type of development. Obviously developments which are within the confines of the requirements for the area should be allowed to go ahead and if the local authority, for peculiar reasons, refuse permission, then compensation should be granted in those cases. But that certainly redefines the grounds for which compensation should be paid.

Granting the Circuit Court the full powers to handle this matter is also an important point in the Bill. This will be of great benefit to local authorities in terms of the cost and speed with which the claims can be dealt with. At present the cost involved in going to the High Court is unnecessary and is an extra burden which had to be borne in mind by local authorities when considering such action. I have no doubt that the Circuit Court will be able to deal fully and effectively with these matters. It is obvious that those directly involved in the area of planning and indeed in the pursuit of proper development could be greatly hindered by the cost of going to the High Court, the slowness of that procedure and the consequences of what that means. That is patently wrong. There is no reason why matters of this magnitude should not be dealt with by the Circuit Court.

There is another very important issue dealt with in the Bill. At present if a builder blatantly knocks down a building without having permission to do so, the only powers available are to stop him going any further. At present there are no powers available to actually force him to replace the building he has destroyed. That is completely wrong. In this day and age a JCB can wander on to a site in the middle of the night and flatten half of it and there is no recourse to the law to make that person replace the building. There is only recourse to prevent him from going further. That is not right. This Bill deals with that issue, and in my opinion quite rightly so. I have seen examples of this in my constituency and I am sure there are many more around the country. In my constituency of Waterford a specific example occurred where the facade of a beautiful building was totally destroyed and nobody had recourse to the law to have the facade replaced. The builder was prevented going further with his demolition job but the damage had already been done. Ultimately when the hot issue died away the builder achieved what he had originally intended; that he would do the initial damage, put up with the ballyhoo in the meantime and eventually carry on regardless. It should be greatly welcomed that the Bill deals with this issue.

One of the most imaginative and necessary aspects of the Bill is that it allows the planning authorities to have real control over the sequence and duration of works to be carried out on a particular site. We are only too familiar with housing estates scattered throughout the country — and my own constituency is no exception — where builders have blatantly failed to bring the roads, footpaths and lighting up to a reasonable standard. This is clearly an appalling and dangerous state of affairs and leaves new residents in a hopeless situation with regard to having the infrastructure of their estates completed.

I honestly believe that bona fide builders will be pleased with this aspect of the legislation, because many of them adhere to this standard. The cowboy or fly-by-night builders abuse the system and thereby wreck the reputation of builders in general. I would like to see this remedied in the very near future. I am sure the Minister has seen estates on the Continent where the roads, footpaths and lighting are completed before a house is built on the proposed development. We are not going that far at present. But it has been shown quite clearly that these standards can be adhered to and there is no reason we should not aspire to similar standards. This would immediately do away with the builder who is under-capitalised, and chancing his arm on having a go. He then walks away at the end of the day leaving huge problems behind him. This is totally wrong.

Another practice creeping into the estates being built at present, particularly the larger ones, is that the builder also develops a small shopping area. This is generally located at the front of the estate and is usually developed by the same builder who is building the houses. On numerous occasions the shopping area has been pitifully developed. Some of the units are taken up but the whole landscaping and infrastructure at the front of the estate is left undone. This is totally abused. That is dangerous. It is a danger to the residents, generally young couples and their children. There is no proper development of the infrastructure in many of these estates and the way the front of the estates are left is a serious consequence of the unplanned and wide-ranging facilities for builders to proceed with.

The Bill lays down quite clearly a staged process of development giving the local authority real power to have them implemented and to actually prevent the builder developing further and selling the houses if he has not adhered to the proper infrastructural development on the stages as agreed when planning permission was granted.

The introduction of a planning receiver is a very imaginative step forward. This will give the courts a tangible course of action to prevent the maverick builder or developer from abandoning one development and starting another, and to repeat another substandard development, which is the curse of residents in new estates. I think this is a very forward-looking provision in the context of legislation. It certainly allows and gives real meat to prevent builders from doing a half-baked job and abandoning the estate and going elsewhere. The full weight being given to the planning receiver by the courts to go in and to prevent that developer developing elsewhere or indeed getting involved in any other development is extremely important because it puts a definite onus on him or her to complete the housing estate. That needed to be looked at. I think the way it is put forward in the Bill encompasses the thrust of what is desired. I think it should be wholeheartedly welcomed.

The obligation placed on local authorities at present with regard to public sewerage systems puts an open-ended strain on the purse of the local authority irrespective — I think this is very important — of the merits or demerits of the development being carried out. I believe it is right that there should be some financial contribution from the developer towards the cost of providing the sewerage system in the development. This will have the added effect of providing proper sewerage facilities in the first instance rather than the ad hoc arrangements which sometimes pertain at present. The Minister will know the state of local authority funding better than I do, in circumstances in which local authorities have allowed new developments to be linked into existing sewerage systems. I can cite one glaring example of a new estate having been built at a much higher level than an existing sewerage system which served an older estate below its level. The net result was that houses of original residents in that area were absolutely flooded. The whole system collapsed, destroying the whole area. That is the type of practice being allowed at present. It is a problem which must be addressed.

The provisions of this Bill are sufficiently imaginative to address such problems. While Deputies might smile at the example I have given, I contend that the provisions of this Bill are a relevant——

Acting Chairman (Mr. S. Walsh)

I might remind the Deputy that his time has expired.

Mr. Cullen

——and effective way of alleviating the problems encountered by such people. I believe this Bill should be welcomed by all Members of the House. They are imaginative and are an important step forward in everybody's interest.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

Ba mhaith liom tréaslú i dtús báire leis an Teachta Keating as ucht an Bhille seo a chur romhainn. Is trom agus is práinneach na fadhbanna a bhaineann le cúiteamh i gcúrsaí pleanála, agus is cuí an díospóireacht seo leis an cheist a phlé go hionraic.

The remote origins of a formal system of physical planning in Ireland go back to 1934. The modern planning system, based on the 1963 Planning Act, is now some 25 years old. Planning, of its nature, involves a trade-off between the rights of private property and the requirements of the common good. It is not surprising that controversy and difficulty have attended its operation. It is not surprising either that there should be widely different views about the value of the planning system, with developers tending to emphasise its restraining effect on development and cost to the economy and that conservationists should be critical that it has not realised their goals more clearly.

Given these divergent views, it is possible to wonder if any demonstrable good at all has come of our 25 years' experience of modern planning. Certainly the system has its faults, which have been addressed periodically in successive amending measures. But it is surely beyond doubt that, in the most dynamic quarter century of physical development in the history of this country, the existence of formalised planning has stood between us and physical chaos.

Throughout the period in question, land has been absorbed for development at the rate of 4,000 to 6,000 acres per year; nearly a half million new houses have been built, together with the greater part of the industrial warehousing now in use in the State. Urbanisation has also proceeded at its fastest rate ever.

Despite all criticisms of it, the planning system has channelled this massive development process into orderly paths. Development has been broadly contained within the areas planned by local authorities for servicing and major road lines have also been held against encroachment of development. By thus avoiding the need for duplication or proliferation of public services, the planning system has done a good job for the taxpaying public.

Irish planning legislation has, necessarily, been framed with an eye to the qualified guarantee given by the Constitution to the rights of private ownership. Given that the virtual raison d'être of the planning system is to regulate and restrain development rights in the common interest, this means that some arrangements for compensation are inescapable in our planning code. How exactly these arrangements should be drawn or delimited is a matter for legitimate debate. But it would not be defensible, as a matter of principle, to exclude a compensation facility from Irish planning law.

It is striking that, while there have been many changes in planning law as the system has evolved since 1963, the provisions on planning compensation included in the 1963 Act have undergone very little change in 25 years. Section 55 of the 1963 Act lays down the general principle that if, as a result of a decision to refuse planning permission or impose conditions, the value of a person's property interest is reduced, that person shall be entitled to compensation from the planning authority in the amount of the reduction.

However, while this general statement of principle is technically correct, in practice it is rather misleading. The exceptions laid down in section 56 to the general right to compensation are so extensive that no widespread rights to compensation arise in the administration of planning control. For instance, of the 183,000 planning applications decided by local authorities between 1982 and 1986 claims for compensation arose in 130 cases only. Only nine of these claims have actually been paid, in most cases on the basis of a reduced compensation award. Total compensation paid by local authorities in this period came to just £82,000.

It is relatively difficult, then, to adduce strict quantified or statistical evidence that planning compensation is a widespread problem. However, the potential financial loss to local authorities even from the small number of claims made is extremely worrying. The 130 claims made between 1982 and 1986 amount, on their face, to nearly £70 million.

There has been a growing consensus in recent years that compensation is posing invidious problems for planning authorities, in major urban areas in particular. Certain well publicised cases on their face have suggested that the present legal provisions on compensation are open to exploitation by speculative interests and that planning authorities are being unduly hampered in exercising necessary planning control by the fear of inflated claims for compensation being sustained against them. In this sense, statistics may not show the true or full picture. There is a widespread perception that the threat of incurring heavy compensation liabilities is inhibiting the proper exercise of planning judgment in certain cases.

The problem of planning compensation, and the associated one of the right of connection to public sewers, has been clearly identified by this Government and targeted for remedial action. Our pre-election document on Construction and the Environment dealt with it extensively. It was underlined again in the Programme for National Recovery. I am pleased to inform the House that work on the complex issues involved in my Department has now advanced to the stage where a general scheme of a Bill has been approved by the Government and sent to the Attorney General for priority drafting. Therefore I expect to be in a position before long to circulate comprehensive legislative proposals on compensation to the House.

Against this background, I acknowledge the timelines and the conscientious intent of the Bill before us. It makes common cause with the Government's stated proposals on a number of important questions, notably on restricting further the entitlement to compensation where a proposal conflicts with objectives of the development plan and on better regulation of access to public sewers. Reluctantly, however, I have to regard the Bill before us as deficient in a number of material respects.

For example, it would leave the law unchanged on undertakings between local authorities and private developers, even though as a result of the Grange Developments v. Dublin County Council decision, the provision involved has been found by local authorities to have extremely limited effectiveness. Neither does the Bill in any way review the present rules for determining the amount of compensation awards made by the property arbitrator.

In addition, the advice available to me is that the basic legal premise of the present Bill may also be too simplistic, and that the wider definition of "use" for the purposes of section 56 (1) of the Planning Act, 1963, is unlikely to resolve compensation problems to the extent claimed for it in the Explanatory Memorandum. More precisely, I have some concern about the possible effect of the amendment proposed to section 56 (1) (a) of the 1963 Act under section 3 (a) of the Bill — this amendment is proposed arising from the judgment in the Viscount Securities Limited case. My concern is that the amendment may go too far and in so doing could give rise to serious problems leading in turn to constitutional difficulties. It seems to be very far-reaching in that it could lead to a virtually total exclusion of compensation where it applies.

I would find it regrettable also that a Bill to resolve planning compensation problems should not address the preservation of amenity trees in woodlands.

Miss Harney

You voted down the Bill on that.

Mr. Flynn

The Coolattin situation brought difficulties to light in seeking to achieve this kind of preservation and it was the threat of compensation under section 45 of the 1963 Act which created the problem. During Second Stage debate on the Private Members' Bill titled "The Local Government (Trees and Woodlands) Bill, 1987", I pointed out that the Government accepted that there was a need for a general review of the compensation provisions of the Planning Acts and that we intended that this review be carried out as quickly as possible.

As I have just said, this work has now advanced to drafting stage. It will, of course, propose a solution to the preservation issue in line with the commitment which I gave last year.

Finally, the present Bill is silent in respect of the kind of transitional provision which is customary and necessary in a measure such as this. What is to happen in relation to rights of compensation arising under existing legislation up to the enactment of the present Bill? Are they to immediately close or will they be claimable under the provisions of the old legislation? I am not seeking to impugn the considerable efforts of the drafters of this Bill or to dictate a particular solution to these transitional issues. The Bill's silence on them is, however, a technical deficiency unacceptable in a measure of this kind.

I should like to outline briefly the main elements of the general scheme of the Bill prepared in my Department which is now with the Attorney General. It goes to sever the present link between the planning compensation code and the compulsory purchase compensation code and tightening up the market value basis for assessment of compensation. It also goes to restore the law on "undertakings" to the position which obtained prior to recent court judgments and will strengthen certain aspects of it. It will allow planning authorities much wider grounds for refusing planning permission on grounds of deficiency of water supplies or sewerage facilities without incurring a liability to compensation. It will remove the liability for compensation in any case where the refusal of permission is on the grounds that the proposed development would conflict with an objective of the development plan. It will amend the law on tree preservation orders to allow for better protection of amenity trees. It will regulate the right of connection to public mains services. It will also widen the circumstances in which permission can be refused without incurring a liability to pay compensation. It is a comprehensive package to deal with the problems we all agree exist.

I would, therefore, request Deputy Keating, in the most constructive spirit possible, to withdraw the present Bill on the grounds that it is deficient. I assure the House, as I have already stated, that I have a comprehensive framework in hands which will deal with the problem of compensation and related issues. I offer the further assurance, here and now that when the Bill is debated, I will be open to all reasonable amendments for its improvement. I believe that is in all our interests.

Mr. McDowell

The Minister can put down his amendments to this Bill.

Mr. Flynn

If I were to do that it would make a nonsense of what is being sought by Deputy Keating. There would be a whole lot of amendments that would virtually rewrite the Bill.

Mr. Birmingham

The Government tried to do that with our Judicial Separation Bill.

Mr. Flynn

That is not the way to do it and it would not be the best way to achieve the results this Bill seeks to achieve.

Mr. McDowell

So long as there is no problem with the long title the Minister can do it.

Acting Chairman (Mr. S. Walsh)

The Minister without interruption.

Mr. Flynn

Although planning compensation is the central issue of the present Bill, it contains a number of other proposals for improving planning administration on which I would now like to comment. Section 4 proposes to add access to the Circuit Court for an injunction against unauthorised development to the present access which the Planning Acts give to the High Court only. This idea has been mooted for some time and on its face it has certain attractions. It is a fact, however, that the High Court provisions have worked quite well and we should be careful about changes in this area.

In addition, provisions similar to those of the Planning Acts are now also contained in other major environmental legislation, that is, the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977, and the Air Pollution Act, 1987. If we are to adopt the amendment proposed by section 4, it would be consistent to apply it to these other enactments also. I am certainly prepared, however, to consider the intentions of section 4 in a more general review of miscellaneous provisions of the Planning Acts but I do not think this is the way to do it because it applies to many other statutes also.

Sections 5 and 6 address the problem of unfinished estates. This is a matter which I feel deserves some comment. The provisions in the Bill are basically too particular, and better administration and practice and more vigorous enforcement seem to me to be the key to tackling this problem. Conditions regarding the sequence of completion of works on estates are common practice and my Department's Development Control Guidelines which were circulated in 1982 recommended such an approach for large, schemes. Some planning authorities have arrangements where they will not release a "certificate of compliance" with the planning permission unless they are satisfied that planning permission conditions are fully met. The lending institutions generally require this and the planning authorities find it a useful tool in securing satisfactory completion, although as we all know the cash buyer or the buyer on bridging finance very often takes up occupation without requesting a certificate such as this but the person buying could request such a certificate. However, in general, buyers in the large housing estates require the certificate of compliance and this enables the planning authority to keep a reasonable degree of control.

I recognised that problem on taking up office and my Department have recently completed a survey of unfinished estates from returns furnished by the planning authorities. The survey has shown that there are about 300 estates countrywide which remain unfinished with work to be done at an estimated cost of £4 million. One of the most significant facts which the survey has shown up is that in a substantial number of cases the developer or builder is either in liquidation or has left the jurisdiction and cannot be pursued through the courts. This is a very difficult problem to resolve. The powers already available under section 27 of the 1976 Act are quite strong and enable a planning authority to seek a High Court order to compel defaulting developers to comply with development permission and this procedure is frequently used quite successfully by local authorities.

Enforcing the court order is where the problem very often lies. If there is an immediate cash flow problem for the builder or developer a planning authority may hold off in the hope that matters will improve and the necessary works will be finished. If they press too hard the builder or developer may be forced into liquidation in which case the court order is of little or no value, so in practice the planning authority has to strike a quite difficult balance on when to exercise pressure and when to hold back.

Quite frankly I find it difficult to envisage how the concept of a planning receiver could work. It might appear to offer a solution to the problem of unfinished development but in practice its effectiveness is questionable. Most builders of good repute want to preserve their reputation. Those cases where a planning receiver might have a role would seem to be fairly limited and the danger that the planning authority would ultimately have to foot the bill is quite real. I am at present examining the results of my Department's survey to see what measures can be taken to minimise the problem. The kind of measures I am considering following the returns having been received include early action and a vigorous enforcement programme by planning authorities; the impositions of appropriate conditions in permissions to copperfasten the provisions of adequate security for completion and new approaches and initiatives in the area of security which have been adopted with apparent success in some areas.

I have informed the Construction Industry Development Board of my Department's survey results and I have asked the board for their advice and recommendations on dealing with the problems encountered.

As I said already, there are aspects to this Private Member's Bill which are consistent with the Government's stated proposals and which I can accept in principle, but because the Government's own proposals are more comprehensive and have taken all aspects of the compensation code on board, I have to ask the proposer to withdraw the motion for a Second Reading. I accept that there is genuine concern over this problem and that there are strong reasons for this concern. I can assure the House that the Government's own proposals have been given a priority status and that they will be published as quickly as is possible. I think my remarks cover most of the matters raised by Deputy Keating and Deputy Cullen. I felt that the thrust of what they were doing was they wanted to and saw the need to do the thing right, rather than bringing in a measure that would go only part of the road to settle the business. Our measures will do more effectively the job they want done.

Mr. Keating

When will that Bill be introduced?

Mr. Flynn

All points raised by the Deputies have been considered in that measure.

Mr. Keating

Will it be introduced today?

Mr. Flynn

Deputy Keating published this measure only a couple of days ago. Surely he is not suggesting to me that the matter erupted suddenly just because of that. The measure was in train for some time following my commitment in the matter.

Mr. Keating

The Minister cannot reasonably expect us to withdraw the Bill on the basis of a spurious promise.

Mr. Flynn

Also I told the Deputies when Coolattin and the Trees and Woodlands Bill were being debated here there was need to do something, that I was going to have a survey carried out on the unfinished estates. I did. That survey was completed only quite recently and I have asked the construction industry board to tell me the best way of dealing with it. If it can be done under existing legislation and if we can get the right result, without doing anything extra by way of new legislation, fair enough. If it cannot, then so be it.

Mr. Keating

When will we have the Bill?

Mr. Flynn

It was implied twice in the Deputy's contribution that he wanted the Bill — fair enough — or measures similar to those in the Bill to be enacted immediately. Those were the words he used. Also he suggested he was suspicious the matter might be longfingered and he would have to be guaranteed that the heads had been drafted and the draft was with the Attorney General. I am confirming that to him. We agree with him that there is a problem and that legislation is necessary. The Taoiseach gave that commitment and we have committed ourselves to it on a number of occasions, publicly and in writing. What the Deputy put forward is a sensible and reasonable measure to address that situation. He has done a good job, the best he could, in dealing with it but, as is the traditional way of doing things, the Government take the overview, get the legal officer's advice in the matter, put a Bill forward and then the Deputy can put down amendments. I do not see this as a shouting match across the Floor but as a negotiated matter across the Floor between me, the Deputy and the other Opposition spokesmen in the matter. I see nothing wrong with that. I think it is the right way to do it. We get a measure then on the Statute Book that satisfies everybody. It has been teased out here and amendments can be put forward if Deputies think it is not going far enough, but I think my measure very much the more comprehensive. It does not seem to be defective in any way. It addresses some measure extra to what the Deputy contemplated and it poses the question that some elements of what he has suggested might not stand up. In all our interests it would be better to get it right if we are doing it at all. The heads of the Bill are cleared by Government, it is at drafting and it has priority rating. I cannot tell the Deputy openly that he is going to have it this day week but — as he knows since he was in Government himself and as his Leader knows very well — priority rating is quite a thing to say in the House because it means you get the legislation in a pretty short time.

Mr. Keating

Before summer?

Mr. Flynn

I would like it tomorrow. Is that good enough for the Deputy?

Miss Harney

No.

Miss Quill

It is exactly 12 months since Deputy Treacy stood in that same place and made the same statement in relation to Coolattin and the Trees and Woodlands Bill.

Mr. Flynn

I accept there can be delays in matters not just in legislation but in referral for constitutional assessment as well. A package of measures has been cleared to deal with the matter and we are satisfied that no constitutional dimension will militate against it. For that reason we have come down the road. We are going to have it and it is very reasonable for me as the Government Minister responsible to say to the Opposition spokespeople on all sides, if a Government measure is coming forward and the Government are not about to leave office——

Mr. Keating

You can never be too sure about that. May I ask the Minister one question? Would he be willing to ensure that the heads of the Bill are provided to us before the conclusion of the debate next week?

Miss Quill

That is very sensible.

Mr. Flynn

I do not think that is normal practice.

Mr. Birmingham

It happened in the last Dáil on a number of occasions.

Mr. Flynn

I put it on record that the heads are cleared.

Mr. Keating

That is no use to us. Unfortunately, other priorities could be dictated on and we could find the matter deemed less important than the Minister unquestionably believes it to be. We are concerned about getting the Bill in here now. If he can show good faith by giving us the heads of the Bill before next Wednesday we might be able to do business.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy has my commitment in good faith to this measure. I do not see it as controversial——

Mr. Keating

It is the other 14 I am worried about.

Mr. Flynn

I see this matter as being done properly here so that we can all say there are measures to deal with compensation, preservation and other related matters.

Mr. Keating

The heads are in existence. Why not show them to us?

Mr. Flynn

I am advised that it is not the practice to do so.

Mr. Keating

There are precedents in this regard.

Mr. Flynn

Do not press this matter beyond this evening because I may accommodate the Deputy. However, if it is not the practice——

Mr. Keating

I assure the Minister that there are precedents——

Miss Quill

Will the Minister give us an answer next week?

Mr. Flynn

I have to seek advice in the matter. I should like my Bill to be introduced in the House, given a good run and, if necessary, amendments tabled although I do not think amendments are necessary. I will be reasonable if amendments are put down because I want it to be seen as an agreed measure of the House, taken unanimously.

Mr. Keating

We want it in law before the summer.

Mr. Flynn

I cannot accept the Deputy's Bill because I am advised that it is defective in certain matters and that it does not address the problem in other ways. The intent is good but to get the right job done I must ask the Deputy to withdraw the Bill. I will talk to him further about the heads.

Mr. Birmingham

I commend the Progressive Democrats for the initiative they have taken in bringing this matter before the House because the issues with which the Bill seeks to grapple — compensation, the difficulty of achieving a balance between the interests of the developer and the property owner and of the wider community — are ones of great complexity. They have been discussed by at least one committee chaired by a High Court judge and also two committees of the House. It is courageous and ambitious for a party in Opposition to decide to use Private Members' time to address these issues.

It is fair to say that they probably would not have been in a position even to contemplate addressing issues of this nature if they were not able to draw on the expertise of some of their voluntary party members who are prepared to give their time and talents. I say that because the public may not realise the extent to which, in our under-funded democracy and party political system, all the parties in the House — more specifically the parties in Opposition — are heavily dependent on people who are prepared to make their expertise available.

If I were to be churlish or sceptical about the way the Bill is presented, it would be on the difference of approach between the Bill, which seems to be a serious attempt to grapple with issues of considerable subtlety, and the approach taken in the explanatory memorandum. I cannot believe that the same author is responsible for the Bill and the explanatory memorandum——

Miss Harney

He is.

Mr. Birmingham

In the case of the explanatory memorandum, it seems there was a fairly clear decision to sacrifice accuracy for punchiness. Certainly, the explanatory memorandum adopts a considerably more polemical tone than is the fashion in this House. That willingness to sacrifice accuracy for colour was perhaps a feature of Deputy Keating's speech. He is not a man to be worried by a few million pounds here or there, a decimal point or a zero here or there. At one stage he was talking about millions of pounds and at other stages it was tens of millions of pounds. The Deputy will, no doubt, tell us which figure is right.

The explanatory memorandum suggests that it might be unfair to describe the Planning Act, 1976, as a speculator's charter. It certainly would be unfair to describe it in that way and if it is unfair and if the authors of the explanatory memorandum think it is unfair, it is hard to see why they introduced the term. Difficult issues of balance are involved here and the owner of property has a reasonable expectation of being able to develop his property. He will ordinarily feel that he should be in a position to secure compensation if he is frustrated in proceeding with a reasonable development.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that the existence of generously framed compensation may open the door to people whose anxiety is to make a fast buck. The task is to draw up legislation which affords compensation where justice requires it and which does not penalise the ratepayers or the taxpayers in cases where compensation would not be just, equitable or appropriate.

The authors of the Planning Act, 1963, attempted seriously to address those issues against a background of the Constitution which itself draws a somewhat hesitant and uncertain balance between individual property rights and the exigencies of the common good. My recollection is that at least one commentator on the Constitution said that the private property provisions of our Constitution scarcely go further than those of Yugoslavia. However, the 1963 compensation code has given rise, in some instances, to speculative gains and to claims for compensation which are barefaced and impertinent. The reaction to that has been one of widespread public indignation. Of course, that indignation is increased when they see claims — and in some cases awards being made — at a time when the financial resources available to local authorities are barely adequate to allow them to provide basic services to those who dwell within their boundaries. It is appropriate that the issues raised by the Bill should be addressed by legislation and that there should be a very wide consensus in the House in this regard.

We must also maintain a sense of proportion. The 1963 Act has not served as a speculators' charter. I understand, for example, that in 1985 a survey by An Foras Forbartha showed that in that year compensation claims amounted to £17.5 million but that the awards totaled only £24,095. Equally, a number of the cases which have given rise to particular indignation — and I suspect which have given rise to this Bill — show a very sharp divergence between the very dramatic claims made and the much more modest awards that have followed. Let me give two examples. In the Killiney Hill case the compensation claimed amounted to £2.37 million but the award amounted to only £150,000. In the Cooldrinagh case, reported as McKeown v. Kildare County Council, the amount claimed in compensation was £3 million but the divergence was even more sharp as the award was £12,500.

Mr. McDowell

What about Red Rock in Howth?

Mr. Birmingham

I know there are problems and the example which Deputy McDowell referred to shows that they must be addressed. However, there is a need to maintain a sense of proportion.

As I understand the position in the case of the open spaces in Killiney, the local authority had for many years an offer to purchase all the open spaces for about £40,000 but they spurned it. If they had accepted that offer, there would never have been an application for planning permission nor for compensation, excessive or otherwise. I say that because there are problems in our local government system over and above those in our planning Acts and compensation charter. Some of the problems could be addressed with a little more foresight by those involved, at elected and administrative levels. I am struck by the contrast between the approach taken in the explanatory memorandum and the Bill.

Mr. Keating

They are different.

Mr. Birmingham

The explanatory memorandum suggests that compensation follows the refusal of planning permission unless there are exceptional circumstances, for example, where the proposed structure would create a traffic hazard. I do not think many people would regard that as a fair summary of the present law. The fact of the matter is that there are a wide number of grounds on which permission can be refused by local authorities without that refusal giving rise to grounds for compensation. I should like to quote what some of them are. I will not quote from the Act because there is a substantial degree of cross-referencing between the sections and the Schedule but I will quote from the standard text on the subject, "Irish Planning and Acquisition Law" by Philip O'Sullivan. I imagine that Mr. O'Sullivan can be regarded as an authority by Deputies of the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. Flynn

I would say that he had a finger in this Bill.

Miss Harney

If the Minister only knew.

Mr. Flynn

I would say he wrote it. I hope he did not give the Progressive Democrats bad advice.

Mr. Birmingham

In his book Mr. O'Sullivan states:

Examples of cases where compensation will not be payable for a refusal to grant planning permission include cases where the development consists of or includes the making of any material change in use; or where the development would be premature by reference to a deficiency in water supplies or sewerage facilities or because a road lay-out for the area has not been indicated in the development plan; or where the development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road-users; or where one of the reasons for the refusal is the necessity to preserve any view or prospect of special amenity value or special interest; or where the development is in an area to which a special amenity area order relates; or where a reason for the refusal is that a development comprising any structure or addition or extension of a structure would infringe any existing building line, would be under a public road, would seriously injure the amenities or depreciate the value of property in the vicinity, would tend to create serious traffic congestion, would endanger the health or safety of persons occupying or employed in the structure or any adjoining structure or would be prejudicial to public health.

Further, compensation will not be payable if the development would contravene materially a condition attached to an existing development permission.

There is also a long list of conditions which preclude the operation of the compensation provisions. This list is to be found in section 56 of the 1963 Act and in the Third Schedule (parts 2, 3 and 4) and is too long to be set out extensively here. These conditions relate to good building and design standards, conditions relating to zoning, congestion, planning and services, and amenities generally including conditions relating to preserving land for public parks, dumps, rights-of-way and conditions relating to the preservation of items of archaeological and historical interest, preserving ruins and preserving woods, trees, shrubs, plants and flowers. In addition, no condition relating to a matter in respect of which a requirement could have been imposed under any other Act or statutory instrument without liability for compensation can attract compensation.

That is a fairly lengthy list of grounds on which a local authority can at the moment refuse planning permission. To suggest that the 1963 Act is a speculators' charter is wide of the mark.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I ask the Deputy if he gave the appropriate references for the record?

Mr. Birmingham

I did.

Mr. McDowell

The quotation was so long that he has forgotten.

Mr. Birmingham

It was from the admirable work by Philip O'Sullivan, "Irish Planning and Acquisition Law". I was very careful to give the reference.

Mr. Keating

One thing the Deputy has not given is whether he is for or against the Bill.

Mr. Flynn

The same man wrote the document before us.

Mr. Birmingham

The Bill decides to address the problem by focusing on two decisions of the Supreme Court and, effectively, decides to reverse them. That is certainly one way of approaching it but it is not necessarily the only way. It seems to me to be not altogether clear that the appropriate course of action is to address the grounds on which compensation is or is not payable rather than to address the methods by which compensation is to be calculated. That is a subject for future debate. The first case the Bill addresses is the Viscount Security case to which Deputy Keating made reference. There is no doubt but that any layman would have to say that the decision in that case was more than a little surprising. It must have come as a surprise to the local authority, and to most other people, to be told that a green field that was suddenly to sprout some 240 or 280 four-bedroom bungalows did not represent a material change. That, one has to say, was a somewhat surprising conclusion to have reached.

It is understandable that the Progressive Democrats would wish to see that decision reversed. However, we should be aware of what the impact of reversing that decision would be. To find out what the effect of taking an alternative view of what the word "use" in the planning Acts mean one can look at the judgment of Mr. Justice Finlay in that case. He said:

If the interpretation sought to be placed by the Planning Authority in section 56, (1), (a) were valid then combined with the other provisions of section 56 and with the provisions of section 57... would have the overall effect of making the case in which an owner refused development and suffering a reduction in value in his interest by reason thereof was entitled to compensation a rare or unusual rather than the general case.

Mr. McDowell

An exception.

Mr. Birmingham

I wonder whether we wish to go that far. I want to make a present of this to the sponsor of the Bill, I accept that what we are trying to do is to strike a very difficult balance and I do not pretend to have the last word on that. I would say this to the sponsors, they have got closer to striking the balance than the present legislation, It is for that reason that I am well disposed towards the measures they have before the House.

Mr. Keating

Does that mean that the Deputy will be voting for it? Can we qualify that?

Mr. Birmingham

The Deputy should wait until the end of my contribution.

Miss Harney

Fine Gael do not vote, as the Deputy should know.

Mr. Keating

I am accustomed to hearing of people being "well disposed".

Mr. Birmingham

One has to say that for a party that is seeking support Deputy Keating is being more than a little provocative. Good luck to him on that.

Mr. Flynn

He is smiling at least.

Mr. Birmingham

The second leg of their attempt to restrict the areas in which compensation is payable is when they address the question of the availability of sewerage. In that regard they seek again to overturn the Supreme Court decision. In doing that they have the advantage that the court said at the time that they thought legislation was required. Notwithstanding that, that was a good many years ago, legislation has not been forthcoming. In fact, that is one of a series of cases where the courts have drawn attention to serious anomalies in legislation, have urged amendments and where this House has neglected its responsibilities. That has happened in the area of industrial relations where the Supreme Court gave important judgments, for example, in the Gouldings case, and there was not a whit of response from this House. It has happened, and this is addressed in a Private Members' Bill in my name on the Order Paper, in the area of the expiry of time under the statute of limitations. In that instance I have no problem at all with the approach adopted by the Progressive Democrats.

On the first objective of the Bill, of moving the balance in relation to where compensation is paid and not paid, while I do not pretend that the Progressive Democrats have necessarily got it absolutely right they are in the right direction. The Bill deserves to be supported on that basis.

The second substantial issue that is addressed by the Bill is the question of enforcement and, more specifically, the question of unfinished estates. Deputy Cullen told us of his own background and his own knowledge of the problems facing young married couples. Let me add my twopenny-halfpenny and say that I have knowledge of the problems of living in unfinished estates and in estates that have not been taken in charge. Some Members in the House can vouch for the fact that I have had that experience over a number of years. There is a serious problem in regard to this and a need for further legislative action.

It is the case that section 27 of the 1976 Act provided a very worthwhile and useful remedy and it has been used to considerable effect by local authorities and aggrieved individuals. That is worthwhile. There is substance in the Minister's comment that more effective management would have an impact and I would like to see that happen but I am not convinced that the existing legislation is adequate. There is a need for further legislation in this area. What the Progressive Democrats seek to achieve in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill is altogether admirable. Where I have some difficulties is with their practicability. Deputy Keating suggested that, like much that emerge from the Progressive Democrats, their proposal to address this problem was new and radical. I have to say that it seems to be like much that emerges from that party, it may well be new and radical but it is very doubtful whether it is practicable.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Birmingham

Their sections which suggest the making available of extra remedies to local authorities do not take into account the state of the construction industry. I have no doubt that those sections would work very well given a thriving construction industry and a thriving economy, but we all know the construction industry is on its knees and that the actions of the Government, who promised them £250 million, have inflicted blow after blow upon them. Builders are struggling to survive and in those circumstances I have doubts about how the measures proposed would work. I will suggest a couple of alternative approaches which would meet the situation adequately and which, if this Bill goes to Committee Stage, I will invite the Progressive Democrats to consider as possible amendments.

In the early years of the 1976 Planning Act it was certainly the practice for orders to be made against directors of companies. That is no longer the case.

Debate adjourned.