Amendment No. 75 is consequential on amendment No. 13 and we have been discussing amendments Nos. 13 and 75 together, by agreement.
Local Government (Planning and Development) (No. 2) Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 6.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 13:
In page 5, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
"6. —(1) No person shall be entitled to make a claim for compensation who has failed and is still failing—
(a) to fully comply with the conditions of another or previous planning permission,
(b) to provide security for such completion,
(c) to fully comply with a notice served under section 35 of the Principal Act, or
(d) to fully comply with any court order obtained against him arising from a failure to comply with the conditions of another or previous planning permission.
(2) For the purpose of this section a person shall include a company which is a subsidiary of or an associate company of any such person.
(3) For the purpose of this section each Local Authority shall prepare and maintain a register in respect of all persons who have failed—
(i) to comply with the conditions of another or previous planning permission in connection with the completion of a housing estate,
(ii) to provide security for such completion,
(iii) to comply with a notice served under section 35 of the Principal Act, or
(iv) to comply with any court order obtained against him by a Local Authority on foot of a planning permission.
(4) A register maintained under this section shall be made available for inspection free of charge by members of the public at all reasonable times.
(5) Upon a person named in the register for failing to comply with planning conditions imposed fully complying with such conditions, such a person's name shall be removed from the register in so far as it relates to the particular devlopment in respect of which planning conditions have been complied with.".
—(Deputy Shatter.)
We have already debated amendment No. 13 at some length and I will respond to some of the statements made. I emphasise that this is a most important provision. It proposes an innovative way of tackling the problem of unfinished housing estates left by developers who have not met their obligations to the people who purchased houses there. This is a problem confronting urban areas and many local authorities throughout the country. All the houses in an estate having been sold, and the developer having been paid for them, he has then abandoned the estate without having properly completed the roads, the lighting and the landscaping of open space areas. Residents and local authorities have in some cases been fighting for years to have the developer comply with the planning permission and conditions originally imposed. We are not talking about the majority of developers who operate good building firms and are interested in maintaining a good public reputation. Many excellent housing estates are fully and properly completed. A minority of developers have created major problems in different parts of the country. As a member of Dublin County Council I am all too familiar with the difficulties within the county and I am familiar also with problems in various estates outside Dublin.
In Dublin south-west, in the Tallaght area, there has been an endemic problem of a certain developer and his subsidiary companies not fully and properly completing estates. Ongoing litigation has been brought by Dublin County Council over many years to ensure the Kilnamanagh estate and the Aylesbury estate were properly completed. In my own constituency in years gone by, Dublin County Council had to bring proceedings in the High Court against a number of developers for their lethargy in completing estates and not carrying out work promised not only to the purchasers of houses but required to be carried out on foot of planning permissions.
Then we had what I regard as the ultimate scandal of the Grange Development Company being awarded compensation of £2 million which Dublin County Council had to pay, while that company, or the group of companies with which they were associated, were the most litigated against by Dublin County Council for failure to comply with planning conditions. The law at that time, which will remain until this legislation is enacted, was grossly defective. No local authority should have been required to pay compensation to a company against whom that local authority had to regularly litigate to compel them and their associate companies to complete estates. In some instances estates had not been properly completed for in excess of six or seven years. One saga went on for 13 years and, to my knowledge, is still ongoing.
The amendment I propose to this legislation seeks to insert a new section 6. It is designed to provide a protection for the general public and for the consumer so that a couple or an individual who wish to purchase a house in a new estate will have a means of checking the planning record of the developer. What I am suggesting is that we put in place a planning sin register, that each local authority maintain a register which would name those developers or development companies who have failed to comply with planning conditions imposed on them and in respect of whom the local authority had to commence proceedings to force them to comply with planning conditions. In that way, if the developer is building another housing estate, there would be an easy point of reference for any house purchaser to discover the developer's record. That would provide a very real protection for the consumer and would provide a very real incentive for the minority of developers who create these problems to get their act together. In the event of the developer properly complying with the planning conditions, his name would come off the planning sin register.
This is a long overdue reform. It would provide the general public, the house buyers, with information to which they are entitled, it would enhance the reputation of good development companies who would never find themselves on this register and it would ensure that there was an incentive for developers to properly complete estates rapidly so that they would not become embroiled in the legal process. I had hoped the Minister, having had an opportunity to consider this proposal since we last had this debate, would come to this House with a different attitude.
The amendment would have another important impact. It would mean that a developer whose company was named on that register could not make a compensation claim against a local authority on foot of any planning decision made. The scandal, in the legal and moral sense, that the law allowed such a claim to be made by Grange Developments was legally correct; as the law stood, the company were entitled to claim compensation. It was a scandal that the local authority had to make a payment without even being allowed to deduct from that payment the large expenses they had incurred over the years litigating against that company and their subsidiaries. If the amendment were accepted and if a developer found himself on this register and sought a further planning permission, the local authority could turn down that application and would not be liable for compensation.
I suggest that the events of the last few days might have convinced the Minister of the worthiness of this proposal. I have not had access to the report of the environment research unit of the Department of the Environment on their study of the planning processes in which it has been discovered that 44 per cent of new developments are flouting planning permissions. The Minister or his officials, in response to that report, said many of the instances of flouting planning permissions were of a minor nature. I accept that some of them were but some were of a major nature. I have not had sight of this report and I do not know whether any of my colleagues in this House received a copy but as Fine Gael spokesperson on the Environment, I would have expected, as a matter of courtesy, that this report would have been made available to me. However, as I have not seen it, I can only rely on newspaper reports. It seems that this report confirms that there is a need for a new approach to deal with the non-completion of estates.
The Minister said the last day that he was concerned about the non-completion of estates. He said he was sympathetic to the idea of new legislation but that this is not the Bill in which to deal with it. Deputy Quinn very adequately dealt with the Minister's response in the context of a supportive comment on this amendment which he made last week. We may not be able to deal with all aspects of the problem because of the limited nature of the Bill, but we can deal with the aspects of it I have detailed in this amendment. I would again invite the Minister to accept the amendment in the interests of protecting the position of the good developer and the consumer — in this instance, most often the young married couple whose major investment is the purchase of a new house. They are entitled to this protection. It would also protect the position of local authorities who, if this provision was in place, instead of having to waste their limited resources on continuous litigation against bad developers, would be able to divert those resources to other uses. It would also be in the interests of preserving the integrity of the planning process. I invite the Minister to accept the amendment.
As I said — and I was supported by other Deputies — if the Minister wants to put something even more comprehensive in this area into the legislation, I would be fully supportive of him coming back to this House on Report Stage with such a provision but this provision will tackle a major part of the problem. It makes no sense for the Minister to say he understands there is a problem and that he is sympathetically disposed towards it while at the same time opposing the amendment. That type of approach is a return to the old style politics we get from majority Governments, which has not been the hallmark of the way the Minister has dealt with this Bill. We should use the legislative process to bring in this reform. I invite the Minister to accept this amendment and allow the measure to be incorporated into the Bill.
I wish to say one or two words in support of what Deputy Shatter said. While we were discussing this amendment last week a letter arrived on my desk from a residents association in my constitutency — Blackrock, County Dublin. It is a fairly typical letter from a residents association complaining about works that had not been completed on their estate by the developer, listing matters such as the provision of adequate lighting in the cul de sac, the entrance to the estate, planting trees in open spaces and the state of the entrance connecting the estate with another estate. The letter goes on to state that this is due to the failure on the developer's part to complete the estate and to submit deeds of dedication. The residents association sent me copies of the correspondence they had with the county council. One of the letters states that the estate is one of a number of estates which were developed by the Brennan & McGowan Group, which has been the subject of section 27 proceedings. This is highly relevant to the amendment Deputy Shatter has tabled because the Brennan & McGowan Group were the recipients of the single largest payment of planning compensation in the history of the State, the famous £2 million payment that was made almost a year ago. They have an incredibly bad track record for leaving unfinished estates all over Dublin.
The Minister was quite negative about the amendment last week. I hope the Minister has had a chance of reflecting on it since and that his position may have changed somewhat because this is a very good amendment, simply saying that developers like that should not in turn benefit from compensation for refusal of planning permission for another development. It has often been said that the incidence of developers who do not complete estates is very small. I accept that there are many good developers who complete their work properly and that of the 44 per cent of developments which not have been completed, many require only minor work to be done. However, the point that must be borne in mind is that 44 per cent of developers are not fully complying with their planning permissions. The incidents may be minor in some instances but they are often very irritating incidents for the residents who have to live there and who have paid to have the estates completed. The fact that there is not adequate legislation to crack down on developers who do not complete estates and the fact that those developers in turn can claim compensation for refusal of planning permission in another development, is encouraging developers to be less than perfect in completing their estates. I support the amendment.
My constituency is the most blighted area of the country due to this practice of not finishing estates and for that reason I support the amendment. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position he advanced the last day. The Minister says that the Bill is about planning compensation and not about unfinished estates. Because of the pace at which legislation goes through this House it will take us a long time to introduce comprehensive legislation to deal with this scourge. I appeal to the Minister to take on board the advice of his own Department if he refuses to heed the pleas of the Opposition parties on this matter.
Wearing another hat I negotiated with the Minister to establish the environmental research unit in his Department. The abolition of An Foras Forbarthas was a bad decision, but the Minister has a lot of regard for the professionals who are now working under the aegis of his Department in the environmental research unit. The information to which Deputy Shatter referred has been published since we had this discussion on the last day and it bears out in a striking way the extent of this problem. I submit that if the Minister were to take a look at the situation in my constituency, Dublin South-West, and if the ERU were sent to do a survey in Dublin South-West, they would find that a great deal more than 44 per cent of the developments are unfinished. I cannot adequately communicate the gravity of this problem in Tallaght and Clondalkin, where an area of great natural potential has been blighted and the quality of life undermined by the refusal of developers to finish estates. There are areas without roads, footpaths, trees or landscaping. In a vast area like that this really undermines the quality of life of ordinary people who have made the major investment of their lives, having bought the brochure presentation of these developers and assumed that they would be living on an estate where this basic infrastructural work would have been done. It is especially galling that in the case of Dublin South-West one company, its subsidiaries or associates who are responsible for a good number of the estates, should get £2 million of taxpayers' money in compensation while the largest housing estates in Ireland are left unfinished in my constituency. Deputy Shatter instanced the case of Kilnamanagh where 13 years later the residents' association and public representatives are trying to have the estate finished. In Aylesbury last summer we once again had to go to the High Court to get a distributor road put in. Kilnamanagh has 1,590 houses and Aylesbury has more than 1,000 houses.
Dublin County Council on almost all occasions when dealing with this developer have had to go to the High Court to get basic compliance with the planning conditions. I put it to the Minister that if he would take on board the thrust of Deputy Shatter's amendment it would have an effect on developers. If developers knew that the inclusion of this section had the compensation implications proposed for them, they would be more careful about leaving unfinished estates.
In Dublin County Council there is now a backlog of estates to be taken in charge. I suspect that it suits the local authority to some extent, for financial reasons, to have this backlog. We have some 40 major estates in Dublin County Council areas waiting to be taken in charge for three, five or seven years after completion, because the local authority have the excuse that the developer has not complied with the original planning conditions. As a result, there is no onus on the local authority to do the basic work for which residents associations are lobbying. They are not required by law to do it and therefore we have a backlog of estates to be taken in charge. Residents who went in from two to five years ago expecting the basics one would expect in a living environment find that the basics are still not there and there is little they can do, because the local authorities say that original planning conditions have not been complied with.
In view of the contents of the ERU report and the manifest feeling in this House about the extent of the problem, will the Minister take on board if not the precise amendment, at least the thrust of it and will he give an undertaking to come back on Report Stage with a considered amendment which would at least encourage developers to be more careful and which would improve the rate of properly finished estates?
I have sent for some copies of the ERU most recent report. The Development Control System, 1989, to be brought over today so that Deputies might have them. I regret that the Deputies did not get a copy because I expect it will be the subject of questions next week on the Order Paper. It is a useful document and sets out the situation that existed in the survey of 1986. It states that, in so far as developments are proposed, about 46 per cent of the applications were sited in rural areas. About one-third of the applications were for dwellings, 60 per cent of those rural and mostly isolated. A further third of the applications were for residential extensions.
Deputies made the point that about 44 per cent were not fully in conformity with the permissions granted. On the 1983 figures the figure was 42 per cent. Half the 44 per cent of non-conforming development were classed as "significantly not conforming". However, lest one would get the wrong idea about the figure the ERU survey states that half the non-conformity is not considered significant and some are very minor deviations in plan and possibly even beneficial in their outturn. The report gives examples. Under the heading of "traffic safety" it mentions that the car park of a premises was not marked or lit up to the specifications in the schedule under planning permission. Under the heading "effluent disposal," it mentioned a case where the rain-water was not separately disposed of. These were the significant non-conformities referred to; the nonsignificant ones relate to effluent disposal in rural areas where the septic tank was off site but on applicant-owned land. Under the heading of "traffic" there was an example of where the recess was not as big as had been suggested in the planning permission. That was not too serious but note must be taken of it. As many of these were minor infringements I do not think the sin bin register should apply to the developers in question. It would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
We had a full discussion on these amendments on the last occasion and I made my position clear at that time. I did my best to try to get Members to appreciate the measures which might be undertaken by the planning authorities to significantly reduce the difficulties which residents' associations had experienced in relation to unfinished estates. I was very supportive of the views expressed by all concerned and I appreciated their anxieties.
I see these amendments as being primarily concerned with the enforcement of planning law and I share the concern expressed by all the Deputies that planning requirements should be adequately enforced and seen to be observed. In response to those concerns, I have offered to bring forward the new legislation as soon as possible. That is not an idle promise; I mean it. However, because these problems deserve a serious and systematic approach and response, I am unwilling to accept the amendments in isolation from the whole range of complementary and supporting measures required to make them work. There must also be substantial reservations as to whether the measures proposed in the amendments would be workable, either from a constitutional or practical point of view.
As well as being premature in relation to wider planning issues, the amendments would also presuppose a more developed concept of connected person if they were to apply effectively to companies. This matter is being addressed in the Companies (No. 2) Bill which is now in special committee. For these reasons — and because of the other reasons stated previously — I cannot accept the amendments.
The last time we debated the Bill I made a substantial contribution on this amendment, which I support, and I withheld my comments until I heard the Minister. I am aware of the Minister's difficulties in this regard. In a perfect legislative world the avenue he outlined would be the best one to travel because it would deal not only with compensation matters relating to unfinished estates but other matters.
In the 13 years I have been in the House our legislative world has disimproved. Comparatively speaking, there has been a reasonably productive output of legislation but in this case it is too long to wait for that kind of legislative remedy. Perhaps the amendment in the name of Deputy Shatter infringes on some constitutional rights in so far as it does not give a person proposed to be named in a register any right of appeal to a court — it also proposes that a local authority may act as judge and jury — but I am positive that there could be a further amendment on Report Stage to take constitutionallegal defects on board if they exist. It would, for example, perhaps be appropriate between subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed amendment to insert a clause requiring the local authority to inform a person that the authority propose to put them on a register and to give them the right to appeal such an intention or such a proposed decision to the District Court or the Circuit Court, whichever is appropriate, and to allow the court to adjudicate as to whether the local authority were entitled to put that person on the register in the first place. This would mean that a bureaucratic judicial decision could not be made without a right of appeal. In layman's terms that is one of the ways in which a reasonable, argued objection to the legal-constitutional effect of the Fine Gael amendment could be met.
Deputy Rabbitte elaborated this morning on the malign — I use the word advisedly — refusal to listen to repeated requests, over a long period of time, by residents associations to developers to comply with planning permission and conditions. For that reason, I am again asking the Minister to accept this amendment. It may not be what all of us would like — I am sure that applies to the Minister as well as to Deputy Shatter — but we are confined by the constraints of this Bill to focus exclusively on matters relating to compensation. Because of that, this is the only narrow angle shot we have at a much wider problem.
The Minister should bear in mind the failure to date of certain legislative measures to be implemented. I do not say this in a negative way because I appreciate the existing constraints. However, two years after useless legislation was passed in a panic measure in response to the Raglan House explosion it still does not operate. There are about ten to 20 cases in my constituency, of which I am directly aware, of people who cannot sell or buy property because officials in the Department of the Environment have not finally arrived at an agreed form of certification in relation to the operation of that Act. This House has completed all Stages of the building control Bill but it has yet to go through the Seanad. I predict that it will be 18 months before the provisions of that Bill are in operation. A building advisory committee has to be established. The forms of certification have to be agreed and the question as to who certifies the certifiers has to be dealt with. The method of approval and certification must be implemented. I could go on in relation to other legislation. For example, the Air Pollution Act must be amended and the Minister will have to return to the House with that. I do not think we will see that before July. The water pollution Bill is meandering slowly through the House. It has dried up at this stage.
Do I need to remind the Minister that two and a half years after his announcement of his intention to establish a national roads authority the heads of the Bill have only been cleared by Cabinet and it will be another year before that legislation will be on the Statute Book? It is against that background of clogged up legislation in the Department of the Environment that I am making those comments. It must be remembered that the Department is a first division Department. It is long established, has excellent personnel who have a wide range of experience and had for many years the benefit of their own legal adviser. They did not have to await delayed responses from the Attorney General.
The argument I am putting forward is not a philosophical one, it is a practical argument. We made a similar offer to the Minister's junior Minister, a person whom he rarely meets if one is to believe reports in the newspapers. We told her she had an ideal opportunity to accept on Second Stage the Fine Gael Environment Protection Agency Bill so that it could leap frog the clogged up queue of legislation. The Minister has told us that his reason for refusing to accept the amendment was not that he does not accept the principle involved, not that he has some reservations about the constitutionality of it but that he wants to do something more comprehensive. The Minister will probably be in Opposition by the time the Department of the Environment get floor time in the House to debate such an issue. It will take him a long time to get to the head of the queue in the Attorney General's Office. In the meantime, the outrageous abuses of financial power that have been put on the record will continue.
I invite the Minister to reconsider his position in regard to the amendment. Having spoken to the Minister about the matter I accept that he is not the type of person who will try to create one impression but do the opposite. I do not think the Minister will disagree with what I said about the legislative queue. If the Minister can say that he will have the Bill through the House by June, or June 1991, bearing in mind the other legislation that is in the queue in his Department or wandering between the Office of the Attorney General, the parliamentary draftsman and the Custom House, then I will consider his views on the amendment. However, I do not think he can give that undertaking because of the log jam that exists. It is because of those circumstances that I urge the Minister to consider taking on board the sentiment, if not the precise wording, of the amendment.
The small number of rogue developers are not only inflicting injury, damage and hardship on those who were unfortunate enough to be conned into buying their properties, but are undermining standards in the construction industry. They are causing a lot of internal problems for developers who are keen to do a good job. The latter are frustrated because while they try to comply with the law the rogues can with impunity break it. What is proposed would be an effective warning shot across the bows, not a lot more. As Deputy Shatter indicated the effect of it would be to create a register for consumer interest. People would be forewarned before they buy into such estates. For the pragmatic reasons I have outlined relating to the ability to deliver legislation that will operate, I urge the Minister to reconsider his attitude to the amendment.
I should like to deal with the Minister's comments this morning. He told us about bringing other legislation before the House and I should like to make two simple points in regard to that statement. The Bill before us was debated in the House in November 1988. On Second Stage I deliberately raised this problem in some detail and I invited the Minister to bring forward the necessary legislation to tackle it. However, 18 months on we still do not have the necessary legislation. The Minister did not bring forward the required amendments. If he had any drafting problems in regard to the amendment he, and his Department had 18 months to deal with them. The Government's legislative programme, as published, to carry us through to the summer recess does not mention planning legislation other than the Bill before us. There is no prospect of the Minister introducing such a Bill and having it passed by the House this side of the summer recess.
As far as I am concerned, this is an urgent problem and it has been one for a number of years. The Bill before us provides a vehicle for tackling a part of the problem. As the proposer of the amendment I am not willing to accept the Minister's approach that he has good feelings about what we are at and he supports us. He said that what we are proposing will have to be done in different legislation. That is avoiding the issue and ensuring that for at least another two years we will continue to have the problem. I do not wish to rerun any old debates, but in the context of the Government promises listed by Deputy Quinn they, despite all the brouhaha about legislation and their opposition to the Fine Gael Bill last week, have not had the capacity to publish their own Bill on that topic. To save face, to preserve some degree of credibility in the context of the so called green Presidency, one would have expected some form of a Bill to have been produced by the Government on that issue last week or this week.
A Government who do not have the capacity to produce legislation of that nature in such embarrassing circumstances of voting down a Bill designed to provide environmental protection are certainly not going to regard the problem and the scandal of unfinished housing estates as a priority for further legislation. With all due respect to the Minister, and all his aspirations for changing things, it is important to point out that there is a legislative log-jam in his Department which it appears he cannot overcome. The Minister has committed his Department to legislation which to date he has not been able to deliver. Putting a statutory roads authority in place and establishing an environmental protection agency are different to talking about them, particularly when the Minister voted down legislation to establish the latter. The Minister cannot produce the legislation he has promised. I do not accept that there is any possibility that the Government will tackle this issue. The scandal of unfinished housing estates should be dealt with.
While I accept that my amendment will not deal with all the problems, it will go some way towards doing so. We must remember that this is a confined Bill. Had I drafted a broader amendment the Ceann Comhairle would have been forced to rule it out of order. If my amendment is accepted the public will have notice of who the bad developers are. As other speakers have emphasised, we are talking about a minority of developers. We should not lose sight of the fact that when talking about that minority we are talking about small building companies who build three or four houses. The minority of developers include the group of companies already mentioned who have been involved in multi-million pound developments of housing estates. They have made massive sums of money. People have paid out large sums of money for houses on foot of promises that they will have a pleasant living environment with properly landscaped open spaces on which their children can play, with proper roads, with decent lighting and that they will not be left living in a concrete jungle that some developer, having taken the money for the houses he has built, has run away from. That is a very real problem. Many difficulties have been created for young families living in urban and newly developed environments that lack the basic essentials to make their housing estates a liveable entity where they should have a pleasant environment in which to live.
Buying a house involves more than buying bricks and mortar, it involves ensuring that one's children can play safely on the road, that they can kick a football on a grass area, that when one walks down the street at night lights are available so that someone from outside the area is not lurking in a dark corner waiting to assault and rob by taking advantage of the failures of developers to complete an estate. There are all sorts of things in the essential living environment which ordinary people require but of which they have been deprived by a small group of developers. In County Dublin one particular developing company have made millions of pounds on their developments and have failed to meet their legal obligations.
We have a duty in this House to tackle that problem. This amendment provides a vehicle by which to do so. Deputy Quinn raised the possibility of amending some aspects of this provision. Throughout the debate I have said that if we could incorporate this amendment I would be happy to take on board any further amendments that the Ceann Comhairle accepts are within the bounds of this legislation, on Report Stage. I do not believe there are any constitutional infirmities about this section because of the way in which it is drafted in the context of existing planning laws and the bringing of proceedings.
We should not lose this opportunity to tackle the problem that has plagued the lives of thousands of people in this country. Many people now living in housing estates that have not been properly finished for the first two or three years after moving into their houses suffered a great deal of stress and worry and experienced significant difficulties that were only resolved after the local authority took the developer to court. There are other people — to whom Deputy Rabbitte referred — who many years later are still involved in litigation or on whose behalf the local authority are involved in litigation to ensure that they have a decent environment within which to live. I intend to put this amendment to a vote. I regret it is necessary to do so. I had hoped we could incorporate this measure in this Bill without the House dividing.
One thing we have all learnt since coming into this House is the inevitability of gradualness. One can apply that to many activities that are perpetrated here. While the inevitability of gradualness can apply to many situations we have a reasonably good record in so far as the promotion of legislation in the Department is concerned since I became Minister. It is also interesting to note that we still have a legal adviser there and one who is very effective.
But he does not have an assistant.
He may not have an assistant but his predecessor did not have that assistant either for a long time and it did not hinder in any way the promotion of legislation such as the building society legislation, which was a monumental piece of reform legislation, and should not be forgotten. In so far as environmental legislation is concerned the environmental impact assessment legislation, which some Deputies thought would never see the light of day, did become a reality and is mandatory since 1 February.
A year and a half later.
The legislation as promised by the Minister has been produced and has been promoted successfully through the House, as well as the derelict sites legislation.
The Minister had no choice in that because he would have been taken to the European Court.
As Deputy Quinn stated, the Building Control Bill, 1984, was around for a long time before I appeared and nobody had either the courage or the dedication to duty to see it through.
It needed some help.
It needed some help and it was willingly given. I am conceding the point that it was willingly given by some. In relation to the National Roads Authority, the heads of the Bill are drafted but it will take a little while longer. We are also committed to the Environment Protection Agency before we rise in June. I have always regarded this compensation as very important. Many thought people would have had singed fingers getting near it but I have willingly taken it on board. I have also dealt with the water pollution Bills. I have a few other items of legislation that I will be introducing before long which will be of interest. We have had a large programme. Some of the items of legislation have yet to be finalised but it cannot be said that I have been in any way tardy in providing legislation or in promoting it.
What we are talking about here is the general question of planning law enforcement rather than planning compensation. The issue of planning enforcement is a comprehensive one and needs to be dealt with in a different way. We are talking here about compensation and let us not forget that. In my humble opinion the question of compensation will be a rarity, subsequent to the planning legislation having been passed by both Houses. Therefore, much of what the Deputies have said could not and will not arise. Consequently I ask that the question be put.
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted".
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.
NEW SECTION.
We now proceed to deal with amendment No. 13a.
I move amendment No. 13a:
In page 5, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
6. No person shall be entitled to make a claim for compensation who has obtained by the use of improper means another or previous planning permission or building bye-law approval.
Like the previous amendment, this amendment seeks to prevent compensation being paid or being claimed by persons who have a bad track record in the planning area and deals specifically with cases where it has been shown that the people concerned improperly obtained planning permission or building by-law approval in other cases.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but may I ask if he is agreeable to taking amendment No. 31a with amendment No. 13a as they are related?
I am.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
Amendment No. 31a deals with cases where compensation has already been paid and where it has been shown that the person to whom it has been paid obtained, in other cases, by improper means, planning permission or building by-law approval.
The House will be aware that for the past 12 months or so the Garda have been investigating alleged corruption and irregularities in the planning process in Dublin city and county. There has always been one prosecution and it is widely reported that there may be further prosecutions.
I trust the Deputy will steer clear of matters likely to be sub judice.
I was about to say that for obvious reasons I do not intend to comment on those cases. However, I would like to deal with the question of irregularities in the planning area. Unfortunately, this is an issue which has not been addressed to date in the House even though a number of attempts have been made to raise it. It would have been in the public interest to have had such a debate on the issue in the House and for the Minister to have made a statement on the matter on which my party called for a public inquiry. It is a matter of regret that the Minister did not see fit to hold such an inquiry. Therefore, we are confined to dealing with the issue in the context of the Bill before us and, specifically, in the context of planning compensation.
If it is established in the Garda investigation now proceeding and in any subsequent court case that certain persons improperly obtained planning permission or building by-law approval those persons should not be entitled to claim compensation from the planning authority in the event of being refused planning permission subsequently. I reiterate the call for a public inquiry into this matter which is the subject of a Garda investigation. There is considerable public concern that because of the complexity of the issue and the length of time the investigation has been going on there is a danger that the Garda Síochána may not be able to get to the bottom of the matter. Therefore it is in the public interest, in the interests of ensuring that the integrity of the planning process is maintained and is seen to operate and in the interests of those who work in the planning area, that the matter be cleared up as quickly as possible. I repeat the call for a public inquiry and I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to respond.
If a public inquiry takes place and it is found that there are cases where planning permission or building by-law approval has been improperly obtained, planning compensation should not be payable in the event of a refusal to grant planning permission in a subsequent case. It has been alleged that a ring, involving a small number of builders, politicians and planning officials is operating in Dublin. If the existence of this ring is confirmed and it is shown that some people have benefited then the beneficiaries should not be eligible for compensation. In the interests of maintaining the integrity of the planning process all suspicions in this area should be cleared up as quickly as possible. There are grounds for concern. As a member of a local authority, I have seen the close relationship between planning, property and politics. Information brought to the attention of my party which would give grounds for concern has been passed on to the Garda.
It is not possible, within the scope of this Bill to deal with the wider issue of irregularities in the planning area but the very least we can do is prevent a situation arising whereby people who had improperly obtained planning permission would be eligible for planning compensation. Equally, if planning compensation was paid it could be recovered if it were found that those people were involved in any irregularities. I am not suggesting for a moment that those to whom compensation has already been paid would in any way be involved in the irregularities I am talking about.
If these amendments are accepted they would help to deter planning applicants from engaging in improper conduct. I appreciate that we are talking about a tiny minority of applicants. I acknowledge that there may be some technical deficiencies in the amendment but if that is the case I am willing to accept that and have the amendments dealt with accordingly. We should, however, address the principle that where it is established that there has been improper involvement on the part of a person in the planning process that person should not be eligible for the payment of compensation.
This is a very interesting amendment which requires a lot of consideration. It is within the framework of other legislation where a person who has clearly misbehaved forfeits the right to continue to participate in certain activities for the foreseeable future.
Because this relates exclusively to compensation, Deputy Gilmore has been obliged to confine himself in a manner not dissimilar to when we were debating a previous amendment. The principle, however, is quite clear. If it finds that an improper planning permission was granted, no court, will be able to revoke that planning permission and any particular gains or advantages that arose from that planning permission to any participants, particularly the applicant, will be historically left in place and cannot be retrospectively repossessed. There is little we can do now other than, as Deputy Gilmore suggests, provide that if a court finds that an applicant for planning permission had obtained that planning permission by improper means, and it is alleged that such improper means had included the corruption of individuals or the proffering of bribes to individuals, such applicants will have disqualified themselves from being eligible for compensation on foot of a planning permission refusal in the future where there were grounds for compensation.
That is the intent of the amendment and the fact that this amendment is put forward reflects the considerable frustration of Members on this side of the House with the continued silence on the part of the Government in the House when the laws of sub judice do not apply, no court case having occurred yet. We are not even informed as to the outcome of Garda inquiries; there are rumours as to whether it is or is not completed. There is a separate and totally unrelated case in relation to the operation of building bylaws that has nothing to do with the allegations of improperly obtained planning permissions or refusals for planning permissions which subsequently result in compensation being paid. As this matter is now legitimately on the floor of this House, perhaps the Minister might avail of the opportunity, when replying to the amendment, to put the facts on the record so that this House and the wider public who read about our deliberations can get an up to date official account of where things stand and not have to rely on information from the media which cannot be verified.
As in the previous amendment we are now trying to deal with a broader problem in a confined way. I would take the very simple view on the broader issue which is that if a planning permission has been obtained as a result of the use of improper means, such as a bribe, our legislation should contain provisions to nullify that planning permission. We should certainly ensure that a person who so behaved does not derive any financial benefit from that behaviour.
Deputy Gilmore cannot deal with the entirety of the problem in the context of this amendment. He is dealing with it in the context of compensation. I do not know whether there are people who have obtained planning permissions who currently have any basis for looking for compensation. One is normally looking for compensation because one has not obtained a planning permission. I appreciate that Deputy Gilmore has raised this as a vehicle to deal with the issue. The point he is making is that if one does not get a later planning permission one is seeking, one should not be allowed to claim compensation on foot of that refusal if on a previous occasion one got a planning permission by the use of improper means. I do not know whether there are people seeking to make a compensation claim against a local authority who previously benefited from getting planning permissions by the use of improper inducements but it would seem to make sense to ensure in our legislation that if someone is at some stage convicted of bribing a planning official, that person should be debarred at a later stage from processing a planning compensation claim on foot of some refusal. Having abused the planning process they should not be entitled to use it to their own financial advantage.
The debate we are having today is circumscribed by the provisions in the Bill. The Bill is about improving our planning laws and for almost 12 months now there has been a cloud hanging over the integrity of our planning processes, particularly in Dublin, because of the ongoing Garda investigation. On various occasions in this House different Members have invited the Minister to make a statement about the course the investigation is taking and to furnish this House with the necessary information so that we and the general public may be assured that the integrity of the planning process is being preserved and the investigation is proceeding unimpeded. I appreciate that any statement the Minister may make will be circumscribed to ensure that if prosecutions are processed he will not say anything that could in any way prevent a fair trial taking place, or could be regarded as being prejudicial.
However, I believe, considering the length of time this investigation has been going on, that there is an obligation to inform the House about where it stands at present, whether the investigation is complete or still continuing, and the numbers of people against whom charges have been brought. We are reading reports in the newspapers, though none of us knows whether they are accurate. There is an obligation to inform the House whether it is envisaged that there is a possibility that additional people, who currently have not been charged, may have charges brought against them. The time has come for the Minister to break his silence on this. He owes it to the people, particularly to people in Dublin, who are concerned about the planning process. He owes it to some of the very excellent planners we have in Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council who carry out their work with integrity and who feel they are under a cloud they should not be under. He owes it also to the staff working in An Bord Pleanála who carry out work with integrity. If some individuals have behaved improperly, that does not mean that all the people who work within those areas should in any way be tarred by the behaviour of those who behaved improperly. Therefore, there is an urgent need to clarify the position and to ensure that people know that our planning process is working properly.
I ask the Minister in the context of this amendment, which obviously is tabled to elicit information about the current position, to respond to the queries that have been raised.
Finally, it should not have been necessary to raise this in the context of this Bill. The Minister should have made a statement in this House well before the Christmas recess on the position as it pertained. If the statement had said nothing other than that the investigation was still continuing and it would take a further number of months for it to be brought to finality, at least Members would have known the position. I hope the Minister will clarify it for us.
This amendment, like the previous one, is an attempt to deal with an issue that possibly concerns persons with a very poor record in this area and therefore it does not deal adequately with the major question under review. However, it deals with a matter, in so far as is possible in these circumstances, which I attempted to raise in this House on a number of occasions. I feel constrained not only by the subject matter we are dealing with but by the fact that it is possible that court action is contemplated in respect of a number of persons. It would help to lift the cloud that is over the planning process if the Minister would address himself to that question and give us some facts.
I am a member of the Select Committee on the Companies (No. 2) Bill, 1987 and we have been dealing now for some time with the very thorny question of insider trading. In so far as I am competent to judge, the Bill if and when enacted will close the loopholes that exist in that area at the moment. However, any examination of the scope for abuse and scandal offered by the extent of property speculation over the last 20 or 30 years would suggest that the real abuse has taken place in the area of land speculation and associated development rather than on the Irish Stock Exchange. I think a great many people believe that a small number of people have become very wealthy as a result of insider knowledge on the question of land speculation.
It is necessary that the Minister address himself to the question of whether there has been or is in existence a ring operating for the very specific purpose of subventing the planning process for enormous personal gain. It would seem that this ring operates on the basis of people with insider knowledge in a position to purchase land in the certain knowledge that rezoning that land if necessary will be an obstacle that can be overcome, who can then apply for planning permission. If planning permission is not recommended by the planning managers and officials that also can be overcome and if all fails in certain cases they can expect a rather surprising decision from An Bord Pleanála. That is the gist of the allegations that have been drawn across the public pages of the print media with no rebuttal from the Government, the Minister for Justice, or the Minister of the Environment. Perhaps the people in the media have not put together the ring as totally as that, but I suggest that is what has been happening. For example, the growth of the city westwards has provided several opportunities — rather than endless — opportunites for such abuse.
Let me give the House an example of the kind of thing I am talking about. Information came into my possession concerning a particular house in west County Dublin which, although it had a physical existence, had no legal existence because there was no planning permission or by-law approval for the house in question. It sat there for some 17 years and suddenly an application was made for what we call — the Minister will understand — planning retention. Amazingly, compensation was paid on a deal concluded by the local authority on behalf of the developer — it was a private development — before the retention was granted. On investigation it emerges that the house was or was likely to be on the route of a major motorway. It seems to me it is stretching credulity a bit far to expect the ordinary taxpayer to believe that an application for retention should suddenly have been moved after 17 years coincidental with a motorway being planned to pass nearby. I am now advised, but have not had an opportunity to check it yet, that it was not necessary to purchase the house for the motorway, and I intend to check that out. However, I know, because I found out the hard way, that £136,000 was paid out and the deal concluded before the retention was granted.
It seems extraordinary that one is expected to believe that there was no insider knowledge in that case. It is an example of the kind of thing we are talking about. Where the insider knowledge would come from is a matter of speculation. It seems that people involved include planning and other officials, even persons concerned with An Bord Pleanála and politicians. That provides all the ingredients for the kind of subversion of the planning process I refer to. This amendment may be a very inadequate way of dealing with that situation but it is about as far as is permitted by the subject matter of this Bill.
It is felt, without any great evidence ever having been adduced, that there are politicians, some having held or even holding very powerful positions, who have benefited from land speculation in the past. In the absence of satisfactory statements ever having been made, it is very difficult to comment on that. Certainly it is believed by the man in the street and it is a reason behind the cynicism very often felt by the public in respect of the practitioners of politics. Any spokesperson for any party in this House would be very foolhardy to advance himself or herself as some kind of purer than pure version of the practitioner of politics. I am not so sure that any of us on any side of the House can say how the present investigation will end, provided it is being pursued, as I hope it is, with all the diligence, resources, conviction and commitment required in an investigation like this. I hope the Minister can give us an assurance in this regard. I do not think that any of us, because of the axis Deputy Gilmore spoke about between planning, property and politics, can presume what the outcome will be.
Notwithstanding that, we have an obligation in this House when the opportunity presents itself to take what measures we can to ensure at least that if it is established that there are persons abusing their position or persons who by the use of improper means or the giving of bribes have secured planning permission, they should be ineligible for compensation for any such development in the future.
There is much concern in the local authority of which I am a member, Dublin County Council. It is not very long since the Attorney General had to prepare a file on the alleged possible conflict of interest of two politicians connected at that time with Dublin County Council. It is really expecting an unusual degree of gullibility on the part of voters to believe that in some of the cases where planning permission was refused it could have been done in a manner that left the local authority so blatantly open to compensation claims. There are many unanswered questions about the past 25 years of growth associated with the area of Dublin County.
I agree with Deputy Shatter that it is incumbent on the Minister to avail of this opportunity to give the House some factual information on how the investigation is proceeding and when it can be anticipated that it will be completed. It has now been under way for almost 12 months. Notwithstanding the complexity of the matter, that seems to be a reasonable period. In addition, it is entirely unacceptable that the overwhelming majority of dedicated public servants and others connected with the planning process should continue to work under this cloud, people whose integrity and record of public service is not at issue. In their interest it is important that the Minister should give these assurances. The public do not quite know what is going on. The public fear that some junior officials may well become the fall guys for the real ringleaders in the alleged abuse and subversion of the planning process to which I refer. It will be a tragedy if that is the outcome. People want to see this matter cleared up as quickly as possible.
I very much welcome the support of the spokespersons for the Labour Party and Fine Gael on these amendments from my colleague, Deputy Gilmore. Having regard to the extent of public concern, the least we can do is avail of the opportunity presented here to cause to have enacted this minimal protection for the future. I do not think that is in any sense an adequate response to the scale of the problem which it is suggested we have. We must accept that this will have to await the outcome and finalisation in the courts of the current investigation before it can be dealt with comprehensively.
These amendments seek to debar a person from claiming planning compensation or to make any compensation paid recoverable from him or her where that person has obtained another or a previous planning permission or by-law approval by the use of improper means. Unlike Deputy Shatter's amendments Nos. 13 and 75 which we have just disposed of, these amendments do not relate to breaches of planning law but presumably to the commission of other criminal actions or offences. The amendment seeks that, over and above the penalties in criminal law appropriate to such actions, the guilty person should also be penalised by depriving him of planning compensation in any circumstances. I do not believe planning law is the appropriate place to deal with what we might call common criminal actions which can arise in a wide variety of circumstances. It is for the criminal law to deal with such actions and, if appropriate, to impose special sanctions where these actions arise in particular circumstances. The real consideration involved in these amendments is how common criminal actions should be penalised when they impinge on planning administration. My view is that this consideration is properly a matter for criminal law and not for planning legislation.
I share the Deputies' concern that the highest standard of propriety should apply to planning administration and I will continue to insist that this should be so. I do not consider that the amendments are appropriate to this Bill and I ask that they be withdrawn. That seemed to be inherent in the contributions of all the Deputies on these amendments. They recognise that this is not really the vehicle that should be used in these matters but they are taking the opportunity afforded at this time to comment on matters that are not related to the legislation, except in a peripheral way, and they are seeking further information concerning matters on which it is not appropriate for me to comment here. Nobody expects me — and this was inherent in some of the comments also — to comment here on the investigations that are taking place into the planning process. It has been confirmed in the House that such an inquiry is in progress. Questions have been tabled on this matter in the House on previous occasions. On 14 November last year questions were answered on my behalf by the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, and on 13 December the Minister for Justice also answered a question, setting out the factual position as it was at that time.
I am not aware of the content of any documentation that might be with the DPP and I have no information concerning such documentation. I do not know of any cases of refusal where developers are seeking compensation and it would be wrong for me to speculate on any cases that might arise now or in the future. The point made in Deputy Rabbitte's final sentence is the appropriate one, that we all have to await the outcome of these investigations, It would be improper for me to comment any further and I think that is accepted by the Deputies. For that reason I cannot offer any further information.
First, I do not accept that it is inappropriate to have amendments on this issue to the Bill. I accept what has been said, that by including these amendments we would be dealing in a very minimal way with what is a much wider problem. It is regrettable that the only opportunity we have to air this matter in the House has to be in the context of this Bill and that the Minister has not come in here on a previous occasion and given a full, clear statement on the matter. I accept he has answered questions — if my memory is correct I think some of those questions were from myself. The amount of information which was given in reply to those questions was very scant and was certainly less than what was already commonly known and available through the public press.
We have to look at this issue in its totality. Very serious allegations and suggestions have been made about the operation of the planning system in Dublin, suggesting that a ring has been in operation which has been described as involving a small number of officials, some politicians and some builders who have operated on the basis of providing each other with information and maximising their position. There is widespread public concern about this. I do not think it is acceptable that the Minister can simply say there is a Garda investigation going on and we have to await the outcome of that, in the same way as if there was a Garda investigation about an accident.
There are issues raised on this whole matter which require a much clearer statement by the Minister and a much clearer airing. We are dealing firstly with a very complex area. The whole planning area, as we have acknowledged in the course of our discussion here, is legislated for by very complex legislation. The procedures dealing with a planning application are very complex. There might be several planning files involved in a particular development. There might be a first application for outline permission, another application for full planning permission and a further application for some variation of that. It might involve a material contravention of the development plan. There might be a whole series of procedures and files which have to be dealt with.
What is available to the public? Under the present legislation all that is available is a public file which provides the public with a certain amount of minimal information such as the advertisement, the plans and basically the decision that is ultimately reached. The material dealing with reports from technical staff and reports from individual planning officers as to what they thought of the planning application are never made available to the public, nor indeed are they made available to the members of local authorities. The members of local authorities are presented with the same file as the public can get when they walk into the public office.
It has to be acknowledged that the Garda investigators have a very difficult job to do in this case. I do not envy them the task of trying to sift through a whole jungle of files and planning procedures in order to establish the extent to which there has been corruption or subversion of the planning process. It is for that reason that my party and other people have called for a public inquiry into this matter. In that way the public could see, first, whether or not there is substance to the allegations that have been made and, secondly, what is the full extent of the problem. It does not take a great deal of imagination to see where a problem can arise. The decisions made by local authorities to rezone property, for example, involve a benefit to the people concerned, very often in the region of millions of pounds.
At a recent meeting of Dublin County Council there were motions on the agenda for material contraventions of a development plan for a total of 914 houses, all of them up-market developments. In my estimation and from my limited knowledge of the property market I reckon it would have added in the region of £50 million or £60 million to the value of the properties concerned. It is not difficult to see that the public are entitled to raise questions as to the interrelationship between the planning process, politics, local politics at county council and corporation level and property. It is easy to see how the public could have grounds for concern as to whether everything is in order. This concern was there before the publicity about the present allegations of corruption ever arose.
The fact that there was concern, that there have now been widespread reported allegations of corruption, that the Minister responded by simply saying quite blandly that there is a Garda investigation going on and that we will have to await its outcome, is not good enough. We require a more comprehensive statement from the Minister as to whether we should have a tightening of the legislation in that area, as to whether planning permission acquired through improper means should be struck out and whether legislation is required to tighten up the procedures so that the public have better access to knowledge of what is going on in the planning area. We need to know that from the Minister and we need a decision to establish a public inquiry. Aspects in this whole area would be impossible for Garda investigators to unravel no matter how competent they were. We need the skills of people experienced in planning law to find out whether there is substance in the allegations.
It is interesting that when the Minister replied he did not say there was anything wrong with the amendments. His only response was that they were inappropriate and that the issue could be better dealt with by some amendment to the criminal law. However, we do not have legislation before the House dealing with criminal law which would deal with this area. It is appropriate to deal with this in the context of planning law as the problem arose because of the way the planning process operates. I accept that the amendment is a very minimalist approach to a wide problem and that simply making a provision in this Bill which would prohibit somebody who had obtained planning permission improperly from getting compensation is a minimum measure, but in the context of the Bill before the House, it is the only avenue open to us. That is regrettable. We should have had an opportunity for a much wider debate on this issue. These amendments should be accepted as they are quite appropriate.
In relation to Amendment No. 31a concern has been expressed as to the manner in which the two main compensation awards arose. It is quite remarkable that in the SJX case in Killiney An Bord Pleanála could have given a decision which left the local authority open to the payment of compensation when the local authority in their original decision on the planning application included non-compensatable reasons which would not have allowed for the payment of compensation. It was An Bord Pleanála's decision on appeal, and not the local authority decision, which allowed compensation to be granted. One could say that that might never arise again, but is it not remarkable that virtually the same thing arose in the second case, in the case of Grange Developments where again the liability to compensation arose because An Bord Pleanála failed to protect the local authority by citing non-compensatable reasons for their refusal? That may be a remarkable coincidence, but I find it difficult to accept that it is a coincidence. At the time very grave concern was expressed about how An Bord Pleanála on two different occasions could have made precisely the same mistake which left the local authorities concerned open to the payment of compensation in excess of £2 million. That is something we need to pursue further.
We are dealing with this on Committee Stage for a variety of reasons, one being the public outcry in relation to a number of extraordinary decisions which led to compensation claims being lodged with the relevant local authorities. There were deeply help suspicions that although something might not be rotten in the Republic of Ireland planning and development operations, it was certainly unsatisfactory and perhaps unsavoury. That perception did not arise today or yesterday.
Anybody who has read Frank McDonald's book, The Destruction of Dublin, or some of the stories surrounding its ultimate publication following a threatened legal case, will get the distinct impression that some people abuse their position for personal gain. Indeed, a former city manager, Mr. Jimmy Molloy, now unfortunately prematurely retired through ill health, in his capacity as housing co-ordinator, at a controversial meeting of Dublin County Council, from which I got a comprehensive report, referred to a very controversial compulsory purchase order relating to Fortunestown. In his defence of the county council's efforts to acquire land for Dublin County Council's massive housing list at that time, he referred to the extraordinary link between property development, politics, power and money in our society. In a spirited defence of the local authority's right to obtain land by way of public ownership through a CPO, Mr. Molloy said there were some people at that meeting who would make more money on the basis of one single land deal than he as a public servant would earn in his life as a public servant. That is the scale of what we are talking about and everybody knows it.
The figure Deputy Gilmore gave in relation to a whole raft of section 4 motions for material contravention, placed mainly on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party in Dublin County Council in order to break the development plan democratically put in place by the majority of the council, is a cause for concern. The fact that this Bill is on the floor of the House today is a cause for concern. The reason the Minister went away and thought again — a welcome thing — is that on Second Stage the concern we felt was heard by the Minister. He must be complimented as a Minister who listens to the contributions on the floor of this House. I do not for one moment believe that the Minister has anything to hide and, therefore, his reticent response to this side of the House — Deputy Nealon was not in the House at the time — was very inadequate.
Allegations were made in the newspapers. We do not know if the same allegations were made directly to the Minister, but if they were similar, the course of action the Minister took approximately one year ago in referring the matter to the Garda for an inquiry was the correct course. I am on record as having commended the Minister for taking that course of action. He did not have any other choice, but he took the decision quickly. The sense of urgency in making that decision has not been reflected in the Minister's reply or in relation to the amount of information — through an updated report, as Deputy Shatter said — which could have been given to the House. I invite the Minister to give a comprehensive report to the House on what has happened.
Deputy Rabbitte said there had been unease in some quarters for approximately 25 years that some people, never more than a small minority, made substantial killings by an improper use of inside information, political influence or a combination of those and other factors. The Minister should reconsider his contribution. Perhaps he did not anticipate that this amendment would have the effect of prising open the lid on something that the Ceann Comhairle has successfully clamped in this House at Question Time over a long period. Perhaps it would not only have been clamped but sealed and nailed down if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had been the pilot for an earlier part of today's proceedings.
Let me speak specifically to the amendment and to its validity because we have used it to debate a broader issue. There is provision in the operation of our affairs in this State that if a medical practitioner clearly abuses his or her powers, responsibility or authority in the practise of medicine as regulated and the abuses are sufficiently grievous, he or she can be debarred from practising medicine within the jurisdiction of this State for a period of time, indeed for the remanider of his or her life.
This also applies in the practise of law. A solicitor who abuses his or her position in the exercise of responsibilities and trust can be struck off and prevented from earning a living using the skill acquired in that area. In essence, the principle sought by The Workers' Party is essentially the same but, of necessity, is constrained by the provisions of this Bill. As Deputy Shatter said, ideally, if we were less constrained, it would apply across the range of what we are talking about. If, for example, a developer, architect, engineer, a planning official or anybody involved in the process was found guilty of grievously abusing the exercise of their skills in the pursuit of their primary trade or profession, as perhaps they would prefer to call it — I have never seen much difference between a trade and profession — he or she should receive similar treatment to a solicitor or doctor. It is a call for an equalisation of treatment if a case can be clearly established.
The wording of amendment No. 13 (a) is trying to establish that within the constraints of this legislation. To that extent it is a partial response to a broader issue and problem. However, that broader issue and problem has brought this Bill back to the floor of the House with a substantially changed First Schedule which has considerably altered the grounds for non-compensatable reasons for refusal being valid for the purposes of planning permission.
There are two issues in question, the one of validity and the acceptability of the amendment in question. Objectively speaking, if the Minister made a visit to Kanturk and addressed a Fianna Fáil cumann celebratory or triumphalist meeting——
Never.
I am sure the Minister would not dare to comment on the temporary little arrangement that has him on that side of the House but if he commented on his own brief in relation to the matters on hand and his aspirations for a substantial legislative record, I suspect he would find it hard to answer a query from a delegate who would ask why it was not possible to put a provision into law whereby a person who was found guilty of having corrupted an official or officials in relation to getting improper planning permission would be prevented from benefiting in future in an area related to compensation. It would be interesting to hear the answer. Perhaps the Minister might reply now, with the recorders on and members of the press in the Gallery. The net issue is that it has enabled us to discuss this matter perfectly within the orders of the House, something which we had been prevented from doing because of a very narrow interpretation by various people as to what it is proper to comment on.
The areas, by their definition, in which this section will be invoked are very limited because (a) it presumes that a conviction will emerge, which is a very big presumption and (b) it presumes that they would be applying for compensation for planning permission which had been refused. If this law is passed we will have significantly circumscribed those provisions.
We will not bring the entire planning and development programme to a standstill because of acceptance of this amendment. We will not cause confusion in the Attorney General's office because a particular section of the Bill has totally transformed the thrust of this legislation. I submit that none of these things will happen if the amendment is accepted. After all, the Minister accepted dropping the commencement date.
The impact which this amendment would have on the operation of the legislation would be extremely small and conditional in the first instance on a successful conviction arising out of a court case. The Minister knows better than I do what the prospects of a successful conviction are. Are we talking about one, two, five or 22? In the report which the Minister circulated today we are talking about an average of 30,000 planning applications going through. We are talking about a small number of possibilities. The Minister's reluctance, if I can take him back, metaphorically speaking, to Kanturk, to accept the spirit of the amendment which he must concede will have little or no volume effect on the operation of this provision, has not been explained. However, the salutory message it would convey to the public to assuage the suspicions, doubts and concerns that have repeatedly been expressed in a negative way against the body politic, is not understood.
Deputy Shatter properly referred to the planning and other officials in Dublin city and county, including Dún Laoghaire, who are being held under some kind of shadow because of the allegations repeatedly made in the press. He said they feel in some way tarred with some kind of brush. Allegations have been made generally against politicians of feathering their own nests and abusing their positions of power. While, as Deputy Rabbitte said, some are not without sin, we are not all sinners. Failing to nail this hoary old chestnut up front with sanctions that are no more rigorous than those that apply to the legal, medical and other professions, is a mistake. When the Companies Bill is passed people will be debarred from trading if it can be established that they were fraudulent, negligent or abused their positions of power. We are asking that a long-established principle in our body of law be extended in a confined way to this area.
The amendment carries a salutary message and the issue which has brought it to the floor of the House is one about which the Minister has been silent for too long. I invite him to say when he last heard from the Garda inquiry which he requested, to give the up-to-date information he has received, if any, and to say if he is aware that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have received a substantial file on the issue. Will the Minister say if he is aware that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions intend taking action in regard to this? The Minister is the person who initiated this whole process against serious allegations and I should like to know the action he has taken to ensure that all due speed has been applied to the inquiry so that we can bring the matter to a conclusion. We must bring this matter to a speedy conclusion so that the people involved in the planning and development processes, particularly in Dublin city and county, who have been tarnished by this shadow can return to the sunlight. I invite the Minister to accept the amendment. I do not think it is a difficult one to digest. The Minister should respond to a greater degree to the broader issues, such as telling us at what stage the Garda inquiry is and the action he proposes to take to bring it to a speedy conclusion.
As Deputies have said, this may not be a suitable vehicle for bringing complaints about planning matters to the floor of the House but, unfortunately, it is the only way we have to highlight them. I should like to stress that the concern being expressed is not confined to the Dublin area. We have had a somewhat extraordinary decision, to put it at its mildest, by An Bord Pleanála in regard to a planning application for the erection of bungalows in Rosses Point, County Sligo. That decision was granted on appeal by An Bord Pleanála. Initially, the application was turned down by Sligo County Council, and rightly so. It was the most outregeous planning permission I have come across. It is beyond my comprehension how An Bord Pleanála could have granted permission in this case. Permission was sought to erect bungalows in a scenic area in a seaside resort. I am sure the Minister is familar with the area. I am referring to the area overlooking the Metal Man across to Strandhill. The erection of houses there will ruin the scenery. There is also concern that this application proceeded without the local people being aware that it had been lodged. As Deputy Gilmore said, this matter will be better dealt with in other legislation but this is the only opportunity I have had to raise the issue.
The one comment I should like to make is that I do not want this to be taken as an opportunity to stray a little beyond the normal considerations for a Committee Stage debate.
Other Members have strayed, including the Minister.
It did not start on this side, but all Members took advantage.
We are on Committee Stage and dealing with a specific amendment. We do not have to delve all that deeply into the reasons why it has been tabled. Unfortunately, I have not been listening to all of the debate.
Opposition Deputies got away with this because the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not in the Chair.
I was listening to the debate in my room and I returned to the Chamber as soon as I could.
Very briefly, and within the constrictions that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has sought to apply——
They are not mine; they are in accordance with Standing Orders.
If the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had been listening to the entire debate he would have realised that the contributions were not very edifying but, unfortunately, the facts behind them were the cause of that. The amendment, in a very limited way, seeks to insert some protection for taxpayers. I gave a specific example of the type of abuse that is taking place. I could give other examples but I am advised that that would not help the investigation that is still under way. It would be wrong to do anything that would impede or damage in any way the effectiveness of that investigation. I have given a stark example of what I believe is only the tip of the iceberg. I have given the reasons why I consider there is such widespread public concern about this issue. Therefore, it is regrettable that the Minister did not take the opportunity to make a more comprehensive statement to the House on a controversial matter in Irish politics. I appeal to the Minister to do so.
I am a member of the Special Committee dealing with the Companies (No. 2) Bill and we have been dealing with analogous cases. I am aware that very definite constraints will be imposed on, for example, the ability of rogue directors to rise up form the ashes and start up new companies overnight, having cost a lot of people their livelihoods or left many unsecured creditors unpaid. Deputy Quinn referred to the position of professional practitioners who have voluntary codes of practice that effectively debar them from continuing to practice in the event of being indicated for specified offences. The amendment is a reasonable but limited one. The Minister has conceded as much. The amendment proposes that persons who have improperly benefited from planning permissions in the past should not be eligible for compensation in the manner described. Its acceptance would do something to assure the public that the Government are taking this issue seriously. There is some doubt about that point.
Deputy Quinn referred to the book by Frank McDonald. I was very tempted to go to the library and get Frank McDonald's latest book, Save our City, and turn to page 88, which makes very illuminating reading and which gives cause for concern about the seriousness with which the Government may be taking this matter. I do not want to over-elaborate on that at this stage but, as has been said, the main party in the House do have contacts with developers in this industry to an extent that no other party can boast of — if boast is the word.
It has not passed my notice, and I am sure it has not passed the Minister's notice, that his colleague, the Minister for Energy, found it necessary to go on radio on the last day on which this Bill was being debated to claim credit for the amendments, such as they are, that have been advanced to this Bill so far.
Deputy Rabbitte, when you rose you indicated to the House that you would be very brief. You also heard my request as a reminder to the House that even though a case can be made for any point if it is not relevant to that which is being discussed and what governs the discussions in Standing Orders, then it is not in order. The point in respect of this amendment has been made and I am not sure that we should be attempting, through repetition or gilding lillies or any other botanical metaphor one wishes to use, to make a Second Stage speech. The points the Deputy is making would be perfectly in order on a Second Stage debate. I know the Deputy is new to the House and is anxious to learn the rules and regulations of the House but a Committee Stage debate does not permit of the trawling that is being utilised in respect of this Committee Stage amendment. I would ask the Deputy to be as brief as possible.
The Deputy has missed the point. With respect, he seems to have lost sight of the fact that the Minister for Energy thinks he is the real Taoiseach for every Department of this Government. Not only has he solved the rod licence and the planning problems but we all wait agog to see what else he is claiming responsibility for. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us on that matter.
This Deputy is the Minister for the Environment and in charge of that Department. I can give that guarantee.
Notwithstanding that interruption, may I ask you now, Deputy Rabbitte, to give the good example of doing that which is perfectly in order and confine yourself to the amendment and not to Second Stage speeches?
In view of your advice, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I will terminate my comments. All I was seeking to do, and I think it is important in following your own botanical metaphors, was highlight the practice of farmers with mushrooms and what they throw on top of them to keep them in the dark — I would not wish that they be imported into this House because there are many people in the dark about the matters I am trying to probe. I was merely trying to establish — in referring to the Minister for Energy — whether there was a reluctance on the part of the 13/15ths of the Government, to which the Minister for Finance was referring in Kanturk, to make a statement assuring the public on this matter.
This is a way of spreading the political manure.
With a fork.
Deputy Rabbitte, you are out of order. I will have to ask you to discontinue. This is no longer a joke. On this particular amendment you are out of order.
I do not regard it as a joke, I regard it as very serious and in so far as a note of levity was introduced into this debate all day, with respect, Sir, you introduced it. I shall confine myself to matters of frightening gravity if provoked. I believe that the amendment put forward by Deputy Gilmore is the most minimal measure available to us to deal with this matter. It is necessary to remind the House that developments that have the most hideous impact in planning terms on the living environment of people have been, for one reason or another, facilitated in Dublin county. Future generations will take a very serious view of our stewardship for allowing it to continue unimpeded. An action must be taken in this House to disallow the combination of money, power, politics, planning, property and land speculation that has taken place during the past 25 years. People will have to live in the environment we are creating. When one sees developments approved by my own local authority, Dublin County Council, for housing developments in the middle of the Liffey valley, surely that is not a matter for a joke; that is a very serious matter for the people of this country. For that reason, I think, this is the most minimal advance we could make in supporting this amendment.
I have nothing further to add except to say that in the last hour Deputies did take the opportunity afforded them to stray into an area which was not relevant to the actual amendment before the House. I would suggest to Deputy Rabbitte that action is being taken and it is ungenerous of him not to recognise that. This legislation which we are promoting through the House, and which was virtually unanimously agreed, deals effectively with something that has been awaiting attention for some considerable time.
Other Deputies, before you came in a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, sought to criticise me for not commenting in some detail on matters which are the subject of Garda investigations and inquiry at this time. The Deputies know full well that I cannot respond to that but they did take the opportunity afforded them to pursue it. They also know that the Minister and the Government have to be bound by very strict standards in this regard. One would expect that of me particularly as regards the possible prejudice of legal proceedings. I must have very strict standards, even stricter standards than the public press have in this regard. In one or two of the contributions there seemed to be the implication that I was privy to or that I was in possession of privileged information concerning that Garda investigation into irregularities. I do not have that information. I can only refer the Deputy to the answer given by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, who is responsible for the Garda, on 13 December in the House.
The first builder said the Minister does have that information.
I have no information concerning the document submitted to the DPP in that matter. In relation to the original complaint raised by Deputy Quinn, I am already on record: yes, a complaint was made and I did the honourable and proper thing, in my opinion. I thought the Deputy might have referred to that in a more generous fashion.
I am not imputing the motives of the Minister in that regard.
In responding to matters which the Minister felt were out of order he may have been encouraged to come out of order.
I should not do that but I wanted to get it on the record that the Minister does not have such privileged information. The only information he has is the matter refered to by Deputy Quinn in the original instance of a year ago. That is well known.
Apart from the fundamental considerations to which I referred previously, amendment No. 13 is, of course, technically deficient in that its intended prohibition could be circumvented by the formation of a company and the claiming of compensation on the basis of the company's interest. Neither do the amendments make any distinction between minimal and serious offences. Apart from whatever deficiencies the amendment may suffer, the principle is as I have stated previously. I have nothing further to add and I ask the Chair to put the question.
With regard to references to the Chair, I have to say that any occupant of the Chair is entitled to interpret his position. The last chairperson was perfectly entitled to adjudicate upon what he felt was or was not in order. Having said that, perhaps Deputy Gilmore will accept that the time has come to put the question and that anything worthwhile has been said on his amendment. Will I put the question?
Yes.
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connor, John.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Sile.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Roche, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McCartan and Byrne; Nil, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Question declared lost.
Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.