Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 May 1988

Vol. 380 No. 2

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Birmingham

To recap on where we were last night. I regard this Bill as a serious attempt to address a serious problem but I have doubts about some of the measures and I hope, if the Bill goes into Committee, to probe those doubts somewhat further. May be those doubts will be addressed by the supporters of the Bill and will vanish, but I hope I might persuade those people to think again about some of the details of the Bill.

In particular I indicated I had some doubts about the enforcement provisions and their feasibility and I suggested some alternatives. I want to suggest two possible approaches which would go some considerable distance towards achieving the objectives the Progressive Democrats have set themselves. These approaches certainly are more moderate in scope but they might be more effective for all that. I had just begun to mention the first of those last night.

The Local Government (Planning and Development Act) 1976, section 27, allows application to be made to the court for an order prohibiting the development of or securing compliance with a planning permission. It was envisaged in the legislation that that order could be addressed to any person. In the early years in which the legislation was in effect it was a matter of course to seek to have that order addressed to the directors or shareholders or to people intimately associated with the development company. Over a period of years the courts took the view that that should not happen as a matter of course and that the order should be directed to individuals only if there was some element of personal culpability. I think that is a fair paraphrase of the net effect of a series of decisions.

We could with benefit return to the earlier practice and provide by legislation that the courts would have a very wide discretion indeed as to whom orders should be directed. That would have a salutory effect on the behaviour of certain rogue developers and makes a good deal of sense. We are not talking here about the normal situation of limited liability where people are seeking to protect their personal assets when they go out to trade in the marketplace. Involved here are people who are guilty of either actual criminal activity or quasi-criminal activity in failing to comply with the conditions of a planning permission which they themselves sought.

Secondly, it would be open to a planning authority considering an application for planning permission to look to the track record of a developer and say, "No, we have had experience of you; we saw what you did out in Kilnamanagh or whatever and you are getting no more planning permissions". I know there are certain difficulties with that. The point will be made that because planning permission runs with the land there will be difficulties of carrying that through in the case of subsequent sales and so on, but the very possibility of finding oneself on a black list would represent a serious deterrent to a developer who was thinking of dragging his feet and leaving an estate unfinished. That is worth taking on board and if this goes to Committee I want to pursue it further.

As I indicated last night, my concern with the measures the Progressive Democrats advance is that I do not think they take into account fully the depressed state of the building industry and in particular the need for builders to have access to finance if they are to develop. Many developments now are constructed on the basis that the sales of the early completions are going to finance the rest of the development. I was particularly dubious about the suggestion that conditions would be permitted to restrict the occupation of any structure without the consent of the planning authority until after full completion. In practice that could well prove a major problem for developers, their financial backers and, more seriously, the general public. It seems probable that financial institutions advancing mortgages to purchasers would be unlikely to advance finance until those conditions had been complied with, yet the developers would not be in a position to comply until final completion. It seems to me that the people putting forward that proposal have not really grasped the gradual nature of a development process.

This new and radical concept Deputy Keating told us about last night of the planning receiver may well be, but will it work? I am not at all sure how it is designed to work. Presumably if the receiver is to be effective he is going to be in a position to give title to the land if he is to sell it off and pay for the default of the developer. That is fine so far, but if he is in a position to give title to the land, where does that leave the financial institution that was bankrolling the whole thing from the beginning? Their interest will normally have been secured by a first charge on the land. Now it seems that one of two things will be the case. Either the interest of the financial security will take priority, in which case the planning receiver will have little practical effect, or the planning receiver really will have teeth and will be in a position to give title and use the assets as envisaged. If that is the case nobody in his right mind is going to advance money for a development that would be subject to such a risk.

I welcome entirely some of the other enforcement procedures, such as the suggestion that the courts should be in a position to give mandatory orders as well as orders formulated in prohibitory terms and also the suggestion of transferring to the Circuit Court. These are very sensible.

Let me go back to compensation. It seems in some cases that the Bill does not achieve all that is set out for it. For example, Deputy Keating told us — or certainly more than implied — that if this Bill had been enforced there would have been no Killiney Hill case. That is just not right. This Bill just lengthens the already lengthy list of cases in which compensation is not payable. In the Killiney Hill case An Bord Pleanála saw fit for reasons of their own to rewrite a refusal of the local authority and, for negligence or worse, decided to do so in language that was not contemplated by the 1963 Planning Act. If in future we have the misfortune to have people of such incompetence around exactly the same results will arise. If we want to avoid such cases we must make accountable people who make that kind of mistake and bring such burdens on to the taxpayer and ratepayer and ask what is the accountability of those people who had the political responsibility of putting such people into positions for which clearly they were not qualified.

There remains the question of what is to be done in relation to this Bill. I was not impressed by the Minister's plea that the Bill be withdrawn and his statement that if it was not withdrawn he would be obliged to oppose it. On a series of occasions in the life of this Dáil we have found ourselves in this situation, with one or other of the parties in Opposition coming forward with proposals for legislative reform and a Government Minister saying we are on the right track and agreeing broadly speaking, with what we are trying to do. However, he then adds that he has to kill the proposal because the Government have legislation of their own in the never-ending pipeline. That happened, for example, in relation to the Adoption Bill almost a year ago. The Government indicated that they could not accept a proposal for changes in the law relating to adoption and instead they proposed to publish their own legislation. They did, in identical terms, and it still is not law. As a result, childless couples continue to live in misery, children live in institutions and are denied the prospect of a secure family environment.

There is a minority Government in office and, because of that, the parties on this side of the House have to exercise particular responsibility and at least some of us have imposed disciplines on ourselves. A minority Government must realise that they cannot expect to exercise a monopoly in instituting legislation. They must be responsive to suggestions for reform. Last night, there was talk about the possibility of the publication of the heads of the Bill and there could also be an agreed timetable for the publication of comprehensive Government legislation. I am not closing any doors but the Minister has a lot to do to convince us of his seriousness of purpose.

Deputy Quinn rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy Lawlor.

Mr. Quinn

I hesitate to interrupt but I understood that the normal practice of the House is that a spokesperson for the various parties would be asked to lead first in a debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has misinterpreted the position as that applies solely in respect of a Second Stage debate. In Private Members' Time it moves from one side of the House to the other.

Mr. Lawlor

I wish to comment on why the Progressive Democrats found it necessary to produce the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1988. Everybody welcomes the thrust and the intent of the proposed Bill but one could be forgiven for forgetting that Deputy Birmingham's party have been in office for about nine of the past 14 years. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, made a speech in Cork on this very important matter after what any logical, fair-minded person would interpret as a very unacceptable court decision. The Minister told the House last night that the Bill is not deficient in a critical way but that there are a number of other headings, areas and issues that can be addressed when one is bringing forward a Bill dealing with planning and development. For that reason, it was a fair point for the Minister to make that the Bill would be withdrawn on the very specific undertakings given by him. Of course, it does not take away from the right of the Progressive Democrats to introduce this Bill in Private Members' Time, which I know is quite limited. Their requests are reasonable and made with the best of intentions. It is a complex, legislative matter and the Minister has been queried about it at various parliamentary party meetings over the past year. He had given an undertaking that the drafting was well advanced and would be available to the House as soon as possible. The Progressive Democrats, in a co-operative and harmonious way, could take the commitment given by the Minister last evening that the best of their Bill will be incorporated in a broader and more expended Bill dealing with local government planning and development.

From contributions made last night, it was clear that some of our eminent legal eagles had played a part in drafting the Bill and assisting the Progressive Democrats. It is to their credit to give of their time in assisting in the preparation of legislation. However, one must also highlight the major reasons for the problems in these areas in the past ten or 15 years. Those same legal eagles have put complex interpretations of the law before various courts and members of the Bench have accepted some of their arguments and made decisions which were contrary to the common good clause in the Constitution. There is confirmation of that in the Explanatory Memorandum on section 5 which states that there have been some suggestions that tackling this problem by legislation might well be unconstitutional and would infringe the property rights guaranteed in the Constitution. It also says that a series of recent Supreme Court decisions have indicated that there is no real foundation for those fears and that planning permission in respect of speculative developments has been described as an enhancement of property rights and a bonus.

In the case of XJS Investments Limited, logic prevailed in the end. However, in the beginning and during the processing of these compensation claims which have given rise to the introduction of the Bill — our colleagues in the media could also be criticised — the millions and millions of pounds claimed were highlighted but the final decisions did not attract anything like the same attention. As the Minister pointed out last evening, out of a substantial number of compensation claims, the grand sum of £84,000 was paid on foot of something in the region of £70 million claimed. However, he said that the potential loss to local authorities, even from the small number of claims made, is extremely worrying. The 130 claims made between 1982 and 1986 amounted to nearly £70 million. The Minister also stated that total compensation paid by local authorities in this period came to just £82,000. We must strike a reasoned balance between the difficulties and problems and the practical solutions.

The Bill probably addresses some of the problems but, because of court decisions on a number of occasions, the members of the Bench are probably a little more attuned to the realism of the common good. Many decisions in the past ten years, which have caused this House great anguish, were — to be kind — very questionable, based on the evidence and facts. They highlighted a type of political ideology coming from the Bench which was an unacceptable interpretation and running contrary to the intent and thrust of legislation on the Status Book. Very often we had to reverse decisions which were, to say the least, surprising. Deputy Birmingham, who is familar with court procedure, referred to one or two of those cases last night. The decisions in those cases caused many problems for local authorities. The Bill attempts to address them and I have no doubt that the Minister in his legislation will seek to do likewise. I hope it will be possible to produce wording that will now allow such a narrow interpretation of the law.

We have reached the stage now where some senior counsel have attracted the label of experts in planning law because of their success in claims for compensation. Senior counsel and not town planners or architects represent applicants at oral hearings before An Bord Pleanála to argue planning issues that arise. An Bord Pleanála appeals are being turned into court sessions with cross-examination of inspectors, officials and planning staff of local authorities. That was not intended in the legislation and I find it objectionable. If it is considered necessary to introduce legislation to protect local authorities, and the general public, it is our responsibility to do so swiftly. I hope the Progressive Democrats will accept our word that we intend to do that. They should have patience and wait for more comprehensive legislation to be introduced by the Minister. The Progressive Democrats will get full credit for the initiative they have taken in introducing this Bill.

The Minister has told us that he proposes to address other issues in his legislation. He said that if he were to introduce amendments to the Progressive Democrats Bill on Committee Stage the issue would become very complex. I have the honour of representing the constituency of Dublin West which includes two satellite towns, Blanchardstown and Clondalkin, designated in the early seventies for population growth to a figure of 100,000 by 1991. Deputy Harney represents the third satellite town, Tallaght. We are aware that local government officials are well versed in the development needs of those areas, as are Members who also sit on local authorities. We must ask ourselves why the planning laws have not worked and why there is a need, in section 7, to provide a more effective remedy for breaches of the planning laws. That section also proposes to give planning authorities an effective remedy for unfinished development, to change the law in relation to the obligation of sanitary authorities to provide sewerage services, and to co-ordinate the duties and powers of sanitary authorities with the duties and powers of planning authorities.

That section highlights our problems. When I first went before the electorate in 1974 Clondalkin was a village of about 2,000 people and Lucan and Blanchardstown did not have as many people. We are all aware of how those areas have mushroomed into major centres of population. Many reputable, conscientious and capable house builders were engaged in work in those areas but a small though active number created a very bad image for builders. That is unfortunate and we must try to deal with that problem. We must try to ascertain how much work remains to be completed. It is important to assess how local authorities can insist on builders adhering to all the conditions in planning permissions.

I am confident that local authority officials have come to grips with the problems in recent years but that was not the case in the mid and late seventies. One will find that planning permissions granted today contain many more conditions such as bonding and financial responsibility for the completion of development work. I am afraid that some sections of the Bill will add more red tape and bureaucracy and I am doubtful about the ability of the proposed planning receiver to deal with all the problems that may arise.

I suggest that we should appoint a development co-ordinator, of the status of principal officer, and that we give him the legislative power to co-ordinate the work of sanitary and planning authorities. They do not appear to work together at the moment, and that is nonsense. As a result of that we have had arguments about compensation and the impression is created that our planning laws do not have teeth. When debating this issue we must consider the great demand for houses in the seventies. There was a great demand for houses in the medium to low price range but there was not a sufficient number of houses to meet it. As a result there was an explosion of residential development. We have all inherited the hangovers of that growth period. Fortunately, today the supply is greater than the demand. Those who do not build a quality type house, who do not complete the development work on the sites will not be able to sell them. House designs and standards have improved greatly.

I should like to compliment the Minister, and his predecessors, on the quality of local authority houses. They have set a headline in my constituency and in many cases surpass the quality of low cost private housing. In the early seventies applicants for planning permission were in the main, house builders. We passed from that to the phase of the major site developer who obtained planning permission in the usual way and then disposed of blocks of sites. There was a breakdown in communication and it was difficult to establish who was responsible for road surfacing, public lighting and the development of open spaces. We had house builders building on licensed sites and a developer responsible for the estate.

The planning department, with a development co-ordinator, should be in a position to cast a critical eye over planning applications in excess of 200 to 250 houses. In estates in excess of that number it is unlikely that the one developer will conclude the work. Many good house builders are criticised and blamed for unfinished work which is not their responsibility.

We need to be practical when dealing with new residential development and recognise the problems house builders must face. However, we should not permit house builders to abuse the system. The Minister has told us of his concern about the number of unfinished estates. Planning permission should be confined to blocks of not more than 50 to 100 units and the applicant should be told that any number of units in excess of that will be approved if certain conditions are met. That would satisfy applicants who are seeking financial assistance from the banks and allow the development to proceed. Those who represent the western part of County Dublin will be aware that planning permissions were granted for perhaps 800 houses and the development was left unfinished.

It is not acceptable that young people making the biggest investment of their lives should be in this position. We have all been at meetings of residents' associations and community councils where this issue has been at the top of the agenda. A major problem for representatives of rapidly growing urban areas is the matter of unfinished estates and the misleading information given to prospective buyers at showhouses. Often they do not know whether there is to be further development in the neighbouring area. It should be a condition of the grant of planning permission that some guideline information be displayed in showhouses. The sales information should be formally submitted to the planning authority in order to establish its accuracy. The local authority are responsible for the overall development plan and if misleading information is given in this literature it could be identified. Housebuilders and people selling property should have some accountability for the manner in which they market their product.

The Shortt case has caused enormous problems in the area of compensation. Dublin County Council decided in 1972 to build an exciting new satellite town in Tallaght. It was proposed to run the various services in the most economical way along the Dodder valley. A landowner in that area decided, with the colleagues of Deputy McDowell in the Law Library, to construct a convoluted legal argument based on some 19th century Act.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy should not blame me. I am trying to stop them.

Mr. Lawlor

Some bench holder accepted the argument and we ended up forking out millions. It was a national scandal which should not have been allowed to happen. I cannot see how a judge reading our Constitution and studying the public health Acts could come to the conclusion that the common good clause of the Constitution could be overridden by this legal argument. That is why this Bill is before the House. The Minister is moving rapidly to produce a more comprehensive and wide-ranging Bill. Legislation is necessary because of the the vagaries of the court system.

Unfortunately this kind of case has succeeded in getting a very bad name for the construction industry. The faults of the few are blamed on the many. Many builders and developers give excellent employment. Their industry, more than any other, uses basic Irish materials and makes a major contribution to the economy. Their bad name is due to a small number of compensation claims and unfinished estates. Those who do not finish estates are the very people who bring compensation claims before the courts. It is quite unacceptable that such an important industry should have its reputation ruined by a small number of those involved in it.

Fortunately we are now in the position where supply has outstripped demand. The late Seán Lemass once said the only way we would adequately control the price of building land would be by servicing more than we needed. That is the case at present and I hope we can maintain that position. We must not revert to the conditions of the seventies when the price of residential and industrial land in County Dublin was sky high. There was a shortage of infrastructural investment but that problem has been adequately addressed. I hope further funds will be made available with the upcoming integrated plan for the Dublin region.

I make a special appeal to the Progressive Democrats to recognise the bona fides of the Minister. We on this side of the House intend to tackle this problem in an aggressive manner as quickly as possible. The Minister stated last night that his Bill would take priority in the queuing list of legislation. Having given that commitment, there is a greater onus on the Minister to produce that legislation if this Bill is withdrawn. We do not wish to have to vote it down. Since the Minister has given a commitment to introduce a Bill it is our duty and responsibility to see that this is done. We accept the thrust of this Bill but our colleague on the Government benches has stated that he will bring forward a more comprehensive Bill.

Mr. Quinn

I had to leave the Chamber for some moments but I listened on the intercom to what Deputy Lawlor had to say and would not wish my departure to have been in any way misinterpreted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might give me the opportunity, not offending Standing Orders, to say that the House might rejoice with Deputy Birmingham who left a few moments ago to go out to meet his new baby son.

Miss Quill

Put him on the register of electors immediately.

Mr. Quinn

The Labour Party have read this Bill and I regret that the period between its circulation and this debate has been so short. The Bill addresses itself on the periphery to a number of very important issues which I understand will be addressed at some stage in some Bill that will be brought into this House by the Minister for the Environment.

Regarding the central question of compensation, I do not believe the Bill goes far enough. As I understand it, it proposes to restrict the areas in which compensation can be obtained. I am subject to correction on this by the party putting forward the Bill. It has always been a point made by the Labour Party since the mid-seventies when we introduced a building control Bill and laterally in 1981-82 when we reintroduced the same Bill that the issue of compensation is not necessarily the main problem but rather the basis of the valuation upon which compensation is granted.

The response of successive Governments, right back to the minority report of the Kenny Committee which is the starting point for modern debate on this issue, has been that unless full and unfettered market value is granted to the owners of property who are having their property, in whole or in part, acquired by a local authority, are given the full potential market value, any other action is deemed or considered to be unconstitutional. Deputy Lawlor referred to the fact that at one stage I was an officeholder in this House and by reference to that, that I am aware of the opinions that successive Attorneys General have given on this question and that the body of political opinion delivered by the law officers of successive Governments has been to the effect — and I think I am correct in this summary — that any attempt to interfere with the method of valuation would be unconstitutional. The dilemma for any person who sits where the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, currently sits, and indeed for the adviser beside him, would be that if they were to seek the advice of the legally appointed, constitutionally recognised law officers to the Government in respect of these matters, they would, on balance, be advised that such a matter would be unconstitutional. They, in turn, are precluded by the Constitution of this State from knowingly introducing legislation into this House that would be deemed to be unconstitutional.

I have argued consistently that this matter must ultimately be tested by the only body within the Oireachtas competent to test it and that is the Supreme Court. It is regrettable that while this legislation in draft form addresses itself to many issues that are relevant and of concern, it does not address itself to the main issue. Quite frankly, it is not a question of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted but virtually, without disrespect to the energy of the authors, of erecting a stable long after the horse has disappeared over the hill. I say that because the problems of urban development confronting our society now are not ones of suburban development, by and large. Deputy Lawlor spoke with some knowledge of his own constituency and Deputy Harney beside me here equally would have some knowledge of her constituency. Earlier today in this House we had the spokesperson from Fine Gael, Deputy Gay Mitchell, talking about empty houses in suburban Dublin built by the local authority. The effective demand, whether it be social or economic, for housing on the periphery of our towns and cities has, by and large, subsided. We can go into many arguments as to why that is the case, but most of us would be drawn inevitably to the rational and logical conclusion that that is the case and is likely to be the case for, I would say, four to five years minimum.

Demographic projections in this area are notoriously unreliable but most recently, in the publication of a book on housing sponsored by the organisation known as Focus, probably one of the best known social scientists in the housing field in this country, Mr. Blackwell, talked about the changing nature of housing demand and the changing composition of households, that is, people looking for houses. They are not the kind of people who traditionally would have sought housing in a suburban location. For a variety of reasons they are people who would seek to be housed in established built-up areas which already have a range of in situ and accessible services, through public transport or otherwise.

The various cases that are cited in the explanatory memorandum, the authorship of which it would appear from yesterday's debate is disputed and certainly not necessarily connected with that of the legislation, are, in the main, suburban cases of complaint and contestation in our courts, with respect to compensation. The reason I am saying, respectfully, to my parliamentary colleagues in the Progressive Democrats party that this is not the central issue is that this legislation per se will not address itself to the essential problem of how property in the already built-up areas of our society which have existing urban use can be acquired and how individual parcels of property, which of their own account do not constitute a development potential but which, taken together, could constitute such, can be acquired by either a private individual or the local authority, or some intermediate body such as the Custom House Docks Authority, or any other such body. All such bodies, I would put it to the House, ultimately must operate through the compulsory purchase legislation and within the framework of the 1919 Valuation Acts. From my knowledge and it is, shall we say, an informed amateur's knowledge — I would not profess it to be any other — over the years the weight of political and legal opinion has come down through the Custom House and the legal advisers there and in Government Buildings as being to the effect that full market value and only such can be given and can be offered by the arbitrater, at the end of the process, to the owners of that property.

We have a living example of that in my constituency in an award winning scheme of houses on City Quay, facing the office of the Minister for the Environment, where what was once and always had been a coalyard prior to the arrival of the Vikings, was trading as a coalyard and valued as such and written into the books of the coalyard company of the time— Doherty's, if my memory serves me right. Suddenly, when the local authority, because the coalyard in question had merged with other coalyard companies to form the CDL and had moved downstream, wanted to acquire it for the purpose of housing, this property ceased to be a coalyard and ceased to be valued as such. It was now being valued as an office development site, even though the owners of that site had never sought or attempted to get planning permission for an office block on that site because of market conditions. Although in theory it was zoned as capable of being an office block, the reality of existing market conditions effectively was that in no way would one be able to let or sell an office block on that site. As a consequence, because the State, operating through, in this instance Dublin Corporation, were obliged to or decided through the process of CPO to sanction the purchase — the Minister would have been perhaps Deputy Molloy or Deputy Boland — that site was acquired as if it was a site equivalent to one in Ballsbridge which could be an office block.

The nub of that problem and the reason that the arbitrator operating within the framework of the 1919 valuation legislation was obliged to recommend that and exercise, in his professional judgment, his duty and the reason that the local authority — and therefore we, the taxpayers — were obliged to expend the money in question was because there was no effective way of saying that existing use value should and could constitutionally prevail over the potential market value of that site. That is a summary of a much more complex argument and I think that Deputy McDowell, who is quite knowledgable in a legal and political sense in these matters, would accept that it is a summary of an argument on something which is much more extensive.

The reason I respectfully suggest to the Progressive Democrats that their measures do not extend far enough is that their Bill does not address itself to the core issue of valuation. That is a core issue because the thrust of urban development and urban renewal in the next five to ten years and for the rest of this century must be in our existing urban areas, whether it is in the centre of Portlaoise, the centre of Tullamore or of Limerick, Cork or Dublin. It is not sufficient for us as the previous Administration has done and as the existing Administration is carrying on, to simply say that we should designate an area and give it beneficial tax incentives. The private property developer or the local authority cannot assemble property in a sufficiently viable parcel to enable a realistic development to take place. If the local authority moves in, the process is too slow and the price is exorbitant. If a private individual comes in, the process remains slow and in some instances the deal cannot be concluded in terms of acquisition because the nature of tenure is indecisive or in some cases simply incapable of being established.

For those reasons the measures in the designated area package of tax incentives are defective, unless clear title can be given to the property in question. That is the core of my argument in relation to the question of compensation. Of course, the introduction of some of the measures which the Progressive Democrats feel would curtail areas of compensation would be an improvement and it would be churlish of me to say otherwise. That improvement however would not be significant to justify us going through the process of using scarce parliamentary time in enacting this Bill. The Progressive Democrats have missed the boat. I will not speculate why they have chosen to draft this legislation in this way or why they have addressed this issue. It is for them to respond to the points I have made.

This is an issue about which I have been concerned over a number of years. I regret that when this House had the opportunity to vote on the net issue of existing use value versus hope value, to use the auctioneer's phrase, the majority of Deputies voted against the possibility of existing use value on very spurious grounds. Deputies Molloy, O'Malley, Harney, Keating and Wyse voted against the Labour Party measure, the Building Control (Land) Bill, which would have enshrined in law the question of existing use value as distinct from hope value. By that, I mean the reference to the coalyard argument of City Quay. That is my first point and it is at the core of what is at issue here today.

I congratulate Deputy Birmingham whose parenthood we should all celebrate. As the father of a 17 year old I would tell him that the joys are soon to be replaced by other concerns but let him enjoy the joys while he can.

Deputy Birmingham talked about the impracticalities in relation to the idea of a planning receiver. As somebody who has practised as a consultant architect and with experience of dealing with local authorities, not just the Dublin one, I know there are numerous administrative impracticalities. I find it somewhat contradictory that the Progressive Democrats should propose to assign additional responsibilities to a local authority in relation to the monitoring of planning developments in a way that is more extensive than is currently the practice, at a time when that party are calling for extensive reductions in public expenditure, and one of the areas earmarked for a reduction in public expenditure by the Progressive Democrats is the public service. The public service covers such areas as planning control. For Dublin County Council or Dublin Corporation to administer the minutiae in real terms of what is proposed in the relevant sections of this Bill, they will need additional staff and perhaps expertise that they currently do not possess. In order to meet their legal obligations the first impulse of a civil servant and properly so, is that they would block, delay, and seek additional information. That has been the response in relation to the existing planning legislation. Therefore, instead of enhancing development and economic activity, which I presume is paramount in the minds of the Progressive Democrats, this would be a barrier which would impede development. I see this series of sections in the Bill as being contradictory to the general thrust of what I understand to be the Progressive Democrats political and economic philosophy. Unless they are prepared in another context to advocate extra resources for local authorities——

Mr. McDowell

The property tax.

Mr. Quinn

I would support the party's property tax, but I am not so sure the Deputy's own supporters would. Deputy McDowell has anticipated me. If in the context of what I have said the Deputy is indicating that he would see additional resources becoming available to local authorities, then my reservations in respect of the comments I have just articulated would have to be withdrawn.

I will turn now to the response of the Minister for the Environment against whom no comment of any acerbic content can stick. The Minister has out-performed President Reagan in this regard. The Minister's statements, as I read them from the record of the House last night, in relation to his bringing forward of his own Bill, were a series of protestations that I simple cannot accept. I would remind the House that the same Minister has no Committee Stage, a Bill called the Building Control Bill. It has been there for some time and the Minister has consistently refused to give it floor time or to seek floor time in this House. That Bill would address many of the issues which this legislation seeks to address. The Minister despite an enormous amount of work that has been done in relation to the draft building regulations and so on, including the horror of the Stardust disco fire nearly seven years ago, has repeatedly refused to seek time for that Bill. I invite the Minister of State here to correct my information if it is wrong. This legislation has gone through Second Stage and it is not contentious in terms of political ideology or partisan support but it is absolutely essential because at the moment every fire officer in the country has a different set of standards as to what is acceptable in relation to proposed developments, and a developer proposing any measure enters into some sort of bureaucratic lottery when he engages with a fire officer of any local authority on what is an acceptable standard. Before the Minister promises more legislation, perhaps he would advance Committee Stage in relation to that measure. Through my Whip, Deputy Brendan Howlin, I have invited the Minister to set up an all-party committee so structured that no adverse partisan votes that would embarrass the Government could take place. I did this simply to advance the progress of this legislation. There are no kudos to be gained or votes in getting this measure through, but it would be good common sense to enact this Bill. So far the Minister has refused. That is item No. 1, a Bill already at Committee Stage.

Item No. 2 is the Housing (Miscellaneous) Bill, more popularly known as the Homeless Persons Bill. After a year plus, it was redrafted from the previous Bill. It was watered down because of the internal arguments either within the Government or the Department. It is not for me to speculate, but comparing the Bill which has now been published with the Bill which previously had been on the floor of this House during the term of office of the previous Government one can see that there has been a watering down in relation to the statutory obligations on a local authority in respect of the homeless. If my memory serves me correctly, that Bill was published immediately after Easter; but it has not yet been ordered for Second Stage and, as far as I can see, there is no possibility of it being taken during this session, despite a co-ordinated campaign by the religious orders throughout the country and other organisations such as the Simon Community, to have it taken. Let us have a bite at that Bill before we proceed with something else.

The other legislation is the legislation which has recently been circulated, the legislation in regard to multi-storey dwellings, but which has not yet been ordered for Second Stage and which, having regard to the amount of legislation promised for this session, is unlikely to have completed Second Stage before the end of this session, which I gather will be at the end of June. Therefore, what is the real reason behind the offer of the Minister for the Environment to the Progressive Democrats, who are the third largest party in the Dáil, not the Oireachtas — I like to make that point——

Miss Quill

The Deputy is very precise. He is well trained.

Mr. McDowell

That is the stuff of which moral victories are made.

Miss Harney

The Deputy is aware that we do not regard the Seanad.

Mr. Quinn

I know that, but when you are all running for it you will be converted. I would remind the Progressive Democrats that legislation is enacted by the Oireachtas and not by the Dáil. The request of the Minister for the Environment to the Progressive Democrats, who have used scarce parliamentary time to introduce legislation which addresses itself to an important issue, was patronising in the extreme.

Miss Quill

Exactly.

Mr. Quinn

To request the Progressive Democrats to withdraw their Bill on the grounds that somehow or other the Minister for the Environment would come forward with another Bill which would be given due priority was extremely patronising, particularly having regard to his record. He will go down in history as being the most antagonistic Minister for the Environment there ever has been and he cannot be trusted. He is the man who abolished An Foras Forbartha, with the consent of the Government, and he reduced by £30 million — from £81 million to £51 million — the allocation for local authority housing, and he is the man who has initiated the housing crisis of the nineties. In three years' time we will talk in this House about the crisis of the nineties. He has the gall to stand up in this House to say that he regarded himself as being the best Minister for the Environment there has ever been because some nun had told him so because he had promised £1 million over three years to deal with the question of homelessness. Without being personal, but nevertheless perceptive in relation to the perceived track record of this man over the 15 months he has been Minister for the Environment, he has published three Bills but we do not know when any of them are going to be taken. He is requesting the Progressive Democrats not to move their Bill but rather to take it away and that he will introduce another Bill in its place.

Mr. McDowell

He said the same to the Deputy in respect of the Woodlands Bill.

Mr. Quinn

Indeed, and Deputy Quill yesterday reminded him of that fact. They do not like being reminded about these things, which is probably why the Deputy is in the party she is now in and no longer with them.

Miss Harney

The Deputy cannot say that to Deputy McDowell or to Deputy Keating.

Mr. Quinn

The question of the method of evaluation, which is at the core of how we deal with urban expansion, is one which our society has to come to grips with. In a period of rapid suburban expansion we made rich overnight many individuals who had the good fortune to live on the edge of our cities and in the process we made many property developers and housing developers very rich. By the same token — and I say this particularly to Deputy Lawlor, who has left the House — that many such developers went bankrupt. It was a lottery of a kind in that there were losers and winners, but the winners gained very handsomely and their rewards are still being paid for every month of every year by all of the people who are struggling to pay their mortgages. In many cases we have not received the benefit of the transfer of resources within our society because many of the so-called developers bought race horses, pubs or apartments in Spain.

I believe that that period of suburban expansion is now over in terms of economic and demographic demands, but I also believe that we are into a new period of urban renewal and regeneration and that this is critical to the development of the fabric of our cities and towns. Indeed, Patrick Shaffrey, who wrote the definitive book on the Irish town in the late seventies, talked about an incipient crisis in every Irish town because of the age structure of those properties which are to be found in the centre of every town — and I am not talking about my own constituency or the inner city of Dublin but about Tullamore, Portlaoise, Thurles, Nenagh and so on. If one drives through those towns and looks above the neon signs one will see in many cases that the top floors are no longer occupied.

We are facing a crisis which can only be resolved by having a system which will enable the community, through either local authority, private developer or a joint venture of both or any other combination, to acquire and develop parcels of lands at their existing use value. Nobody would buy a burnt out Volkswagen and pay the going rate for a brand new vehicle of the same kind on the basis of what you see it is not what you get, what you see could be a new car and therefore you should pay the going rate. Any commodity, be it fruit in a supermarket at 4.30 p.m. on a Saturday or fish on a Friday, has a market value related to the demand of the time.

I suggest to the Minister that that is the core of the issue in respect of planning, compensation, acquisition and redevelopment. Whatever Bill he may have in mind is going to be struck on the anvil of whether it is constitutional or not and no matter how much he wants to change the system of valuation he will be told repeatedly that it is unconstitutional. That is the sincere and considered view and I am not imputing that there are any spurious or malevolent motives behind this view. The Minister can read such views in such extensive publications as the Kenny report on Building Lands, which was left on the desk of the incoming Minister for Local Government in 1973. We need to get a definitive case into the Supreme Court so that it can make a ruling which in turn would enable whoever happens to be the Minister for the Environment to bring in legislation which we could all support and which would enable us to deal with this problem.

Mr. T. Kitt

I would like to respond to some of the points which have been made by Deputy Quinn. First of all, I acknowledge the interest he showed in this area during his term as Minister and his expertise in this area, but I have to respond to some of the points he made in regard to my own Minister. I believe the Minister is sincere about introducing comprehensive legislation not just in this area but also in regard to housing. I am aware from the statements which he has made and from questioning him that comprehensive legislation is on the way. I accept there is the old argument about what did you do when in power. I was not in this Chamber when Deputy Quinn was a Minister; if I had been I would have been able to prod him about proposed legislation, which he is quite good at doing on the Order of Business. The Deputy has repeatedly asked for legislation in this area and on housing.

As the Deputy has rightly said, the Kenny report was left on the desk of the Minister when he took up office and simply nothing happened. It is a difficult and complex area and I am critical that nothing was done, but it is unfair to criticise the Minister in that manner in regard to this legislation considering that he has been in office for just over a year. In saying that, I welcome the fact that the Progressive Democrats have produced this Bill. I support the Minister in what he had to say. I have said the same to the Fine Gael Party in regard to another Bill that has been discussed here recently, the Intoxicating Liquor Bill — I know I am beginning to sound repetitive — because I believe his Bill is more comprehensive. He has the full weight of the office of the Attorney General to support him in putting this comprehensive legislation together. That, in itself, is a very strong argument. I am aware that the Progressive Democrats have very strong legal advice within the party and I commend them for putting so much time into producing this Bill. I would ask them, as the Minister did last night, to allow for the Minister to produce his Bill and I, too, hope that this will not take very long.

I have been a member of Dublin County Council since 1979 and many of the cases mentioned — for example, the Shortt case and the Viscount Security case — refer to my own constituency. I know that many of the speakers who have contributed so far represent local authority areas within Dublin County Council. This is the key area that is affected by this legislation. We all accept that there have been abuses of the planning laws and that speculators have been allowed to take advantage of these abuses. The question of compensation being sought where the local authority refuses permission is a most critical problem. I know that the Bill refers to the ongoing problem of estates that are uncompleted. As a member of Dublin County Council, I know that we have to come to terms with that to some extent in that we have put in very stringent conditions with regard to the development of estates. I accept that this is a problem we must tackle, but I think it is really a problem of the past. The planning department seem to have come to terms with this matter by ensuring through very strict conditions that developers put in place what we call the infrastructural support mechanisms before, or at least alongside, the building of houses.

As a member of the council who has witnessed in horror, along with my colleagues, cases such as the Viscount Security case and the Shortt case, I am very concerned about this matter and I welcome the debate. The planners in Dublin County Council have had to do deals with developers and that is something that has not been itemised in monetary terms. Reference has been made to the cost of compensation, but it is important that we also take account of the deals that have been done with developers under the threat of compensation. What that has meant is that there have been inferior type developments. We have not built up County Dublin — I refer to County Dublin because I have some knowledge in that area — as we would like to have done because the planning laws have not been changed for the last 25 years.

Much has been said about compensation. In some cases amounts awarded as a result of compensation claims have been substantially lower than the amounts claimed. I am sorry that some of the claims have not been pursued. Reference was already made in this debate to the Killiney case where compensation amounting to £2.37 million was claimed, but the amount awarded was a relatively paltry sum of £150,000. The Minister referred to the payment of compensation and said that the compensation paid for nine claims amounted to £82,000. That was the total compensation paid by local authorities in a given period. As I have said, this does not take account of the many deals that were done. County Dublin is a prime residential and commercial development area. I am concerned about this area and I know there is need for this legislation. I hope the Minister will follow up, as he committed to do last night, by introducing legislation.

Credit is due to the officials in Dublin County Council because they have managed to come up with very imaginative proposals under tremendous pressure. As I have said, the end result in many cases might not be desirable, but they have managed to come to some agreements with developers. Sadly, we have lost open space and planning permission has been given in an ad hoc manner.

I have a newsletter from the KRAM group, the Keep Rovers at Milltown Group, and the picture on that newsletter tells its own story. It is a photograph of Glenmalure Park at Milltown, the grounds that have been vacated by Shamrock Rovers. That is very much a sporting matter but, as Deputies are aware, it is quite relevant to this debate. In this case a very valuable amenity, a football field, has been left to waste away and the grass on the playing field is overgrown. A developer is waiting in the wings to put in an application for development of a possible shopping centre or apartment block. Down the road from this football ground there was a rugby club, the Palmerston Rugby Club, but they have moved out and an apartment block now towers over the surrounding residential area. This is very much central to the debate that is taking place. Here is a congested residential area. A planning application will, I presume, be sent in soon and the people from the football club are obviously concerned. This is a corporation issue and, being a member of the county council, I will not have an input at planning level; but councillors are literally waiting for the inevitable and can do nothing about it. It is a real problem. This is a zoned amenity area, and the owners are aware of this, but because it can be serviced it is inevitable that construction will take place on this site. I have spoken to the Minister for Sport in regard to this matter and I have brought a deputation from the football club to meet him. The Minister for the Environment is aware of this matter, as well as many other contentious issues in Dublin, and I hope he will address them when putting together his legislation. But I hope time does not run out in this case.

I recognise the very good intentions behind this Bill and in particular Deputy Keating's statements when introducing the Bill to the House. A lot of work was put into getting this legislation together in an attempt to address the compensation issue and to achieve a balance between the rights of the property holder and the common good. This is a real test for the Minister in putting his Bill together. I understand that in the last 25 years 500,000 houses have been built in this country and mistakes have been made, particularly in County Dublin. Mistakes have been made in regard to development plans also. There is now a greater environmental awareness among councillors and members of local authorities. They feel more responsible when it comes to looking after the environment and to orderly development, and that is to be welcomed.

I listened to what the Minister had to say to the House last night and I believe it is worth waiting for the legislation which he will introduce. He has given us some guidelines in this regard. As I have said, he has the advice of the Attorney General at his disposal and that is most important. We have waited for 25 years for legislation in this area and we should ensure that we have the best possible legal advice. The general thrust of the Bill has been approved by the Government and as the Minister has said, it is with the Attorney General for priority drafting.

I am glad the Minister intends to take up some of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Building Land. They stated that relevant Acts should be amended to restrict the right of connection only to development that has been granted planning permission. That is straight language and I believe it will give an amount of control to the local authorities. Their hands are tied at the moment. At the end of the day what we want to see is local autonomy, more power to the local authority and to the people on the ground who know what is happening.

The deficiencies in the Progressive Democrats' Bill have been pointed out and they are worth repeating. As the Minister said, this Bill would leave the law unchanged on undertakings between the local authorities and private developers, and these laws are defective as they are. It does not review the present rules for determining the amount of compensation awards made by the property arbitrator. I understand that one proposed amendment to section 56 (1) (a) of the 1963 Act under section 3 (a) of the Bill — arising from the judgement of the Viscount Securities Limited case — may go too far and could lead to constitutional problems and to the total exclusion of compensation. This would be worrying.

Some arrangements for compensation in our planning code are inescapable. This problem has not been addressed for the last four years. A balance must be achieved and there will have to be some compensation included. Reference was made to the Kenny report and many of the recommendations in that report would now be obsolete. The Minister has a tremendous task on his hands and is rightly anxious to include in his Bill the preservation of amenity trees. I recall that Deputy Quill played a very active role in the debate on the Trees and Woodlands Bill. This is an issue in which I have a particular concern. It is a positive element of the proposed legislation and it is important that we include it.

Miss Quill

The Deputy cannot see the wood for the trees. He should address himself to the Bill.

Mr. T. Kitt

At the time, the Minister said there was a threat of compensation under section 45 of the 1963 Act and this created a problem. During the debate on the Trees and Woodlands Bill, 1987, the Government gave a commitment to a general review of compensation revisions of the Planning Acts. Some proposals have been included in the Programme for National Recovery. That is a start it is a definite commitment and, as I said, at the end of the day we want to get it right.

The Minister referred to the lack of a transitional provision in this Bill. I would have expected that provision on an issue with such deep implications for property rights would have been included. It is obvious that the Bill should have addressed the question of dealing with the rights of compensation arising under existing legislation up to the enactment of the present Bill. What I am saying is that there should be demarcation lines between the old legislation and the new to cover this transitional problem.

The issues the Minister said he will address — and they are with the Attorney General — are, first, the separation of the planning compensation code from the compulsory purchase compensation code and the tightening up of the market value and the basis of assessment of compensation. This will be welcomed by developers. Let us face it: we are talking about a number of speculators who will not welcome this legislation but it will be welcomed by local authorities, courts and many environmental groups who have been feeling so helpless over the years and were open to ridicule under the present legislation. Secondly, the Minister wants to allow planning authorities much wider powers for granting planning permission on the grounds of deficiency of water supplies or sewerage facilities without incurring a liability to compensation. This will be welcomed by Dublin County Council because it will help them ensure more orderly development.

Third, the Minister's Bill will remove the liability for compensation in a case where the refusal of permission is on the grounds that the proposed development would conflict with an objective of the development plan. This happens all the time in our authority. We should give more guidelines to local authorities when it comes to introducing development plans. As I said, mistakes have been made. Deputy Lawlor referred to the fact that we have plans for three satellite towns — Tallaght, Blanchardstown and Clondalkin. Sometimes I worry about the rigidity of our plans. We plan for huge shopping centres and we seem to dictate where we will place our people in society. Our authority have been getting proposals for smaller developments but we have to take account of the market. There should be more flexibility when it comes to the areas in which we place our people. We should not be so rigid.

Fourth, the Minister wants to regulate the right of connection to public mains services and to widen circumstances in which permission can be refused without incurring a liability to pay compensation. That is a most important provision. The Minister also wants to amend the laws on the preservation of amenity trees.

As regards unfinished estates, much has been done in this area in recent years. The Minister spoke about the need for enforcement. By imposing conditions Dublin County Council have ensured that all work in open spaces, on tree planting, roads, footpaths, lighting, etc., goes hand in hand with development. Dublin County Council use the certificate of compliance and they will not release the certificates until these conditions are met. This is a most useful mechanism. I do not believe this section is as contentious as other sections of the Bill. A survey showed that 300 estates were unfinished throughout the country and that the cost of the work was £4 million. In many cases the builders or developers are in liquidation or have left this jurisdiction and cannot be pursued through the courts. The local authority then seek a court order to compel the defaulting developers to comply with the permission. This is a very tedious procedure, as I know from experience. The enforcement of the court order is a problem. The Minister wants to see a vigorous enforcement programme by the planning authority and an imposition of appropriate conditions in the permission to ensure the completion of infrastructural works.

I have often felt account should be taken of the history of the developer. I have said this at local authority level. There are a few rogue developers and when we are granting permission we should look at a developer's history. Those developers who have made a mess of our country are well known throughout County Dublin. This is a competitive market and that is why I said earlier it is really a problem of the past. I welcome the involvement of the Construction Industry Development Board who were asked by the Minister to comment on the survey to see how these problems might be dealt with.

The Progressive Democrats talk about a sequence of development in the planning permission, amenities before houses, etc., but that is in line with what I have been saying because many of these things are being done at least by our local authority.

In conclusion, I welcome this debate. This area concerns anybody living in the Dublin County Council area and I ask the Progressive Democrats to wait until we see the details of what the Minister will be putting before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling Deputy McDowell. The Deputy has a few minutes before he moves the adjournment, because we will conclude this debate at 8.30 p.m.

Mr. McDowell

Apart from establishing squatters', or speaking, rights, I propose on the next occasion to share my time with Deputy Quill, if you agree.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory to the House? Agreed.

Mr. McDowell

There are several things about this Bill deserving close examination. The first is the Ministerial response to it and, second, the response of the various parties in this House. The Minister's response, which was anticipated to some extent, is simply this, give me time to bring in a more general Bill, this is too particular. That would be all very well if one year ago the Minister had not said, in relation to a Bill brought forward by the Labour Party in relation to woodlands: give me time to bring in a general Bill, this one is too particular. On that occasion he stated that he had a Bill in course of preparation, that he had proposals to bring before this House, in the general area of compensation. Nothing took place for a year.

Deputy Lawlor castigated Members of the Judiciary for what he considered to be inexplicable decisions in relation to sewerage. The strange thing is that, in one case, the judge stated that the law, as he found it, compelled him to give the decision he did.

Debate adjourned.