There is a resumed Private Member's Bill in the name of Deputy Ryan which is first on the Order Paper.
Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
I understand that a discussion commenced last week on item No. 25, the Local Government (Planning and Development) (Amendment) Bill, 1966. I understand that we are to proceed with this Bill and on the conclusion of the debate to return to my Bill.
I am prepared to accept that solution. The Bill before the House can be taken before Deputy Ryan's Bill.
There was never any question until now that Deputy Ryan's Bill would be taken and the Bill before the House would not.
I am proceeding according to Standing Orders.
Just to clear up the matter, surely there is no suggestion that any other business should take precedence over a Bill before the House in Private Members' Time?
I am not following that hare.
It is a question of fact; I should like a ruling on it. In that case the Government could bring in anything to stop Private Members' Business.
It is most improper of the Chair to call it a hare.
I am talking about the Standing Orders of the House.
Is it——
I shall not discuss it now.
Surely we can stand up and say things? I am stopped before I open my mouth. I am looking for information. If the Ceann Comhairle does not want to give it, we have a remedy.
Proceed with the remedy.
It is force of habit, ruling out of order; you did not even listen to me.
Lest there be any misunderstanding about this, I am not aware of any effort on the Government's part to change the Order of Business as announced here this afternoon.
I only wanted to inquire whether or not when a Private Member's Bill is being discussed by the Dáil, the discussion can be interrupted by some other private business.
That is a hypothetical——
The Chair is doing us no favour; this is the procedure of the House. The Chair invited a question as to whether Deputy Ryan was to go on.
I am calling Deputy Dowling.
I have covered the position fully on the various sections. We are relying on the Minister to ensure that the matter can be implemented where the provisions are there and that the necessary means would be made available if they are not available at the moment.
Is there nobody else to speak? There has been a change in tactics since last week. The object must now be to try to get the agricultural motion out of the way before the farmers come.
The Deputy has control of that now.
What will the Minister offer me? Will he give me the North County Dublin water scheme or maybe a little bit of the silver plate I was talking about?
Last week in this House there was permitted a disgraceful series of irrelevancies which had nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill. The purpose of that procession of ridiculous statements, the perpetrator of which has just left the House, Deputy Dowling, was, it is known, to prevent discussion on another matter which has no relation to the subject matter of this Bill. I want to protest against this group obstruction of the proceedings of Dáil Éireann. If it were done with some degree of finesse, one would not complain. I shall not comment upon the mental acumen of the person responsible for it. We are open to that kind of criticism but one expects there should be some commonsense in the remarks made in the House. The stream of rubbish to which we were subjected by Deputy Dowling, coupled with a great degree of what could be regarded as no more than personal insults to people like Deputy P.J. Burke, must be condemned. If nobody else in this House will defend Deputy P.J. Burke, I will.
It is not right to say that people put down questions in this House in a pretence that they are concerned about their constituents, in a pretence that they are concerned about unfinished estates. Deputy P.J. Burke is concerned about unfinished estates and about his constituents. I know, and I shared that concern with him for 30 years. Therefore, I regard it as a mark of the deterioration of what was once a solid united Party—the soldiers, the army of destiny—that members of it, especially the younger members, come in here and make statements of a derogatory nature such as those made last week by Deputy Dowling which could only be applicable to Deputy P.J. Burke. I want to condemn this action and to suggest to people such as Deputy Dowling and other first-termers here that they should have some respect for their elders, particularly in their own Party.
This Bill was designed for a very simple purpose, that was, and is, to remedy a long-standing grievance which has been voiced on innumerable occasions by people who are purchasing houses in estates in the suburban area of this city. I would add that it is a grievance no doubt shared throughout the country wherever houses are built in groups with the aids under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. This complaint of the people concerned is very simply stated. It is that developers and builders induce people to purchase houses and they are usually young people who have recently got married or young people about to get married. They are not always but they usually are in that particular social group. The rest are settled people who have saved laboriously over the years. The developers and builders induce such people to purchase houses on the proposition, very often unspoken, but none the less implied, that the estates into which they will move to live will be completed in such a fashion as will leave them with no complaint, as will leave them satisfied that every civilised amenity available to their neighbours throughout the city will be available to them.
I think it was Deputy Clinton who listed the number of estates which existed in the suburban area of Dublin —a list supplied to him, I understand, by the planning authority—I think it was 30 in all—in which the developers and builders, either or both, have not carried out the basic requirements of putting the estates into such a condition as will enable the local authority, either the county council or the corporation, to take them over and maintain them. Now it may be asked why do the local authority insist on this provision. Why do the local authority not do whatever work is to be done, such as the completion of pathways and roadways or laneways, the piping of ditches, the clearing of open spaces? Why do the local authority not do all this work themselves and put such estates into a satisfactory condition for the people who live there? The simple answer is, of course, and has been down the years, that this is an obligation which was originally undertaken by the developers of the estate and if the developers are permitted to depart from these estates without fulfilling these obligations then the expense of the completion falls upon the ratepayers with a consequential increase in the rates and this is unjust.
The Minister in his reply suggested that it would not be equitable that in all such cases the original developer should be sought out and made to do this work because he instanced cases wherein there was no specific provision in the original planning permission that such work should be done. He acknowledged the fact that there were many cases wherein it could be said that the obligation to complete estates was implied rather than written. But in any event this whole problem was discussed pretty fully, I think, on the occasion of the introduction and the passage of the last Planning Act. During that discussion the Minister assured the House that in his view there was provision in the Act, legal power in the Act, to enable local authorities to pursue guilty developers who had not fulfilled their obligations and in the event of such developers still refusing to carry out what they had undertaken to do that local authorities, in the Minister's view, by reason of the 1963 Act, could move into the estate, do the work themselves, and proceed for recovery of the costs against the developer who had neglected to do it.
This refers mainly to Dublin city. No doubt there are other areas affected but no area is affected to such an extent as Dublin city by reason of the fact that it has the largest population and that building of this kind has gone ahead over the last score of years in a fashion which cannot be paralleled or equalled anywhere else in the country. It is mainly a Dublin city problem and when you look at it you find that it is a Dublin County Council problem. The members of the county council whom I have had occasion to refer to for their, to my mind, not always great attention to the matter of housing and indeed whom I have had to criticise in fact for their inattention, to my mind, to this matter over the years, the members of the county council in this particular matter sought, following the Act, to make it effective and relieve the concern and the worry of the people living in these suburban estates by making section 35 of the Act work to have the estates completed.
At this point the law agent of the county council advised that, whereas the Act seemed quite a suitable instrument for ensuring that such neglect on the part of the developer would not occur in the future, he could not feel certain that the provisions of the Act enabled the council to pursue developers or builders who had been neglectful in the past. The Minister's answer to that in the course of his intervention on this Bill was that he still clung to his original view that section 35 did provide and does provide the power to enable the local authority to do what needs to be done, that is, to get the developers to fulfil their obligations or for the county council to come in and do the work and then proceed against the developer for the cost.
But, in fact, what is the position of members of a local authority? Is their legal position not controlled and directed, if not by a specific regulation, certainly by custom and usage? Is it not a fact that members of a local authority must accept the advice of their law agent? Or, on the other hand, if that is not so, is it not at least a fact that if the members of the local authority defy their law agent, reject his advice and instruct their legal representatives to proceed in court—and, if the local authority loses its action in court, there is an obligation on the Local Government auditor to impose a surcharge upon the members of the local authority and make them pay whatever loss there may be?
This is the position, in my view, at any rate, and I have been a member of a local authority in Dublin and in Wicklow in other years—Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council, Wicklow County Council and urban councils as well. That has always been my belief and I have heard this fact stated many times. That being the case, how can the Minister in conscience say, as he has said in answer to our arguments on this Bill, to Dublin County Council: "Go ahead and bring a test case into court" when, in fact, that must mean that the members of the local authority must act in defiance of the advice of their law agent?
The Deputy is quite right about provisions in some of our Local Government and Management Acts, that in regard to advice and warning notice by the manager, he has a statutory right in similar or in other circumstances. He has the statutory right to say to the members that, in his opinion, if they do this it could involve cost over and above what it might have cost in any other shape or form and in this way can warn them that they may be surcharged. If, after the manager's warning, they proceed to do what he has warned them against and the cost does arise, then it is up to the auditor, and the surcharge would fall on the members voting for a particular course. If they were agreed unanimously, this would follow, but it does not follow in regard to the law agent, county engineer, architect, CMH or any other officer of that council. It is the manager, and the manager only, who may warn you about that and prevent you from doing it by so warning you.
Yes, but I can see that what the Minister has said fits perfectly into my arguments because obviously the manager would be present at such a discussion and he would come in with those words the Minister has used.
But he has not. He has not come in and said: "You may not".
Reasonable people with experience of local authorities would anticipate his coming in with his view.
I am not reasonable and I am not on a local authority at the moment.
Neither am I. I am in exactly the same position as the Minister in regard to reason and local authorities.
That makes two of us.
There were occasions when managers have, in fact, quoted the law agent and said: "This is right."
You cannot just use the law agent as a stick. They have to take positive action, as they have a statutory right to do; but if he does not believe he should do it, he should not do it.
He says it and he carries the action but he has got the law agent's advice before he does it.
He has not done it. I do not want to interrupt the Deputy except to make that part of it clear.
Leaving aside the nonsense, the irrelevancies, the stuff that went on from people who do not know really what this is about and, leaving aside the begrudgers who say: "We sympathise but this is not the way to do it", it seems that the difference between our position and that of the Minister's is that he says he has the power in the Act and a test case should be proceeded with. I put the point of view, which I think is a very logical one, that members of the local authority will inevitably, in this situation, be told by the manager they have got to face the risk of surcharge if they go ahead with a test case, and the very word "surcharge" has a frightening effect upon all members of a local authority. There may be some members who would be prepared to take that risk but I think the majority of members of any local authority would not. Therefore, we find ourselves in what is called an impasse—an impossible position, at any rate. We have asked the Minister to do a simple thing, to take the very simple intention of our Bill, and to alter, where necessary, the wording of section 35 in such a manner as to give it retrospective effect.
A fear has been expressed by the Minister that there might be some injustice in our going after developers who may no longer be with us and whose legal heirs may not know the position of those who went before them and what they have done. But this, I would suggest, does not really arise because, from what I know of the cases which we hear most about, as Deputies for the county, the developers and the builders in question —as far as one can discover—far from having departed from the earthly scene, are healthier, richer and happier than ever they were before. We do not feel we are acting in any unjust way. On the contrary, the burden of injustice lies heavily upon the unfortunate people who were induced, in the first instance, to buy these houses.
We had a long tortured contribution by Deputy Davern here last week in his effort to keep the discussion going. He referred to a widow in Tipperary who, apparently, was a developer down there and who, if what we sought came about, would be harshly dealt with. Of course it is a well-known political ploy that when in doubt, you reach for a widow. I do not think there are many widows really involved in this question. On the contrary I think the people whom we are seeking to bring to a realisation of their obligations are people who are well fit to discharge these obligations.
I do not think the Minister has left me or my colleague in this motion, Deputy Clinton, any choice but to put it to the issue. We know, of course, what the inevitable outcome will be, but it should go on the records of the House that there is a very strong feeling in this matter, a feeling that it cannot be left, and should not be left, in this unsatisfactory condition, where-in the county council are adjured by the Minister to take legal steps in the courts. This may prove costly and unsuccessful and may lead to a surcharge, if the advice of the law agent is rejected. Of course, we must always remember the law's delay, that infuriating thing which has not changed very much since Shakespeare referred to it. Allied, needless to say, with the insolence of office, the law's delays are sufficient to drive anyone into a condition of frustration.
These are the things we have to think about. Are they to be left in that way? Even supposing the county council decided to flout the advice of the law agent and to go ahead to the courts, from the little experience I have had in dealing with those institutions, it would seem to me that at least a year would pass before it would come to a hearing. God knows what vagaries the gentlemen on the Bench would take when dealing with the thing itself, and how much longer it might take to bring it to a final conclusion.
The function of the Dáil in this situation should be to act to protect the many thousands—this matter does not affect just a handful of people but literally thousands—of very excellent citizens who are struggling against great odds and great difficulties to meet their obligations, to purchase their houses, and to educate their children, and who have to do those things surrounded by evidence of neglect on the part of the people from whom they bought their houses in the first instance. That is not good enough.
We are the Parliament—allegedly democratic and I suppose as near to being democratic as it is possible to get in the kind of world in which we live, and at the stage of evolution at which we have arrived—and if Parliament has any meaning at all, it is there for the redress of grievances. Unfortunately, my experience has been that far from effecting the redress of grievances, its function has been interpreted very often by a majority of its Members as being the entrenchment of grievances, the justification of whatever the existing situation is, and resistance to change. That is a misconception of Parliament and one to which we cannot subscribe in any circumstances.
The Minister has given a very obvious display of this mentality in what he has said. It would be quite simple to solve the problems of these people. We could solve the problems of the people on whose behalf we are talking quite simply by amending the Bill. The Minister says: "No. Go through the lengthy process of the law and at the end of it all, if I am proved wrong, I will consider amending the law." Surely he realises that even if it were feasible to do that against the advice of the law agents of the local authorities, a considerable time would have elapsed—I would estimate it at anything from 12 months to two years —before it would be decided.
God knows where we will all be in 12 months or two years. I hope everyone will be here, but things are liable to occur to prevent that, as those of us who are in politics for some time well know. The Minister may no longer have much concern with this problem two years from now: he may well have other concerns. His horizons may have broadened to a far greater degree or they may have contracted. Who knows? These are mere speculations, but one thing is certain: while we are here tonight, and for another week or two anyway, we bear the responsibility for this condition of affairs among our constituents. It is our duty to try to remove this grievance, and with that in mind, I once more urge upon the Minister the acceptance of the Bill, and I ask him to put it into effect by amending section 35 of the Act.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Belton, Paddy.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J. (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Boylan, Terence.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Davern, Don.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fahey, John.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
- (Dublin South-Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Foley, Desmond.
- Gallagher, James.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Brady, Philip.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, James J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Patrick.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Macentee, Seán.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Ó' Ceallaigh, Seán.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Smith, Patrick.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Leary and Clinton; Níl: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.
Question declared lost.