If a proposal were made in this country to have our courts conduct their business in private, if a proposal were made that all decisions affecting a person's property and reputation should be conducted in private, if we announced that in future the State and the organs of the State would not be called upon to state their reasons for certain decisions, there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry. At present we have matters concerning small issues decided by independent courts in public. The essence of a free society is a free judicial system in which not only is justice done but justice is seen to be done. What we in this Fine Gael Planning Appeals Bill are seeking to do is to have this cardinal principle of conducting judicial affairs in public recognised in relation to property matters.
It surely is somewhat incongruous that we have free, independent courts conducting their affairs in public with the doors open to any person who wants to enter the court, deciding matters of only a few pounds, deciding very trivial matters, deciding matters in which no injustice might be done if the proceedings were conducted in private. The reasons we do not conduct them in private is that we recognise the importance of allowing society to see what is going on and to be convinced that each side in a dispute is given an ample opportunity of being heard, and so that the public may know that the presiding judge, the person who is making the decision, before making it, hears all parties.
It is an extraordinary society that we live in when we maintain free, independent courts to deal with trivial matters, but when millions of pounds are concerned, when the lives and surroundings of thousands of people may be involved, we have established a system which prevents those issues being discussed and being debated in public, which prevents the people having confidence in the impartiality of the people who make the decisions, which prevents the people having an opportunity of ensuring that all views in relation to the issues are heard. At the present time, under the 1963 Local Government Planning Bill, which we in Fine Gael so relentlessly opposed, one man, a political person, has the sole power of deciding in secret matters which affect in some cases thousands of people and matters which in many cases can be valued, in monetary terms, in millions of pounds.
We in Fine Gael tabled numerous amendments to the Local Government Planning and Development Bill of 1963 in the hope that the Government would acknowledge the necessity of preserving public confidence in planning matters. Our efforts were in vain. The Government refused to accept our amendments, and the result is that the Government have brought about their own head immense accusations of corruption, of partiality, of bribery, and of misconduct. The fact is that the Government, by refusing to have planning appeals decided by independent tribunals, have created that situation, and it is no answer to say that those who are making these accusations are not able to prove them. As long as you operate and tolerate a system which allows people to make these accusations and to have these suspicions, these accusations will be made.
I think it is true to say that most of the accusations that have been made about bribery and corruption have not been directed at persons; they have been directed at the party which for the time being is in government. Until we have a system in operation in this country which obliges political parties to disclose the names of the persons who are contributing funds to that party, there is, I suppose, no certain way of proving whether or not the accusations are correct. However, it is not without some significance that the income of the Fianna Fáil Party has increased beyond all bounds in recent years, not because its small collections of sixpences and shillings have increased, because, in fact, the reverse has been the trend; it is, I think, fair to say that people are justified in suspecting that money has been passed into the coffers of the Fianna Fáil Party in consideration of receiving benefit from the Minister for Local Government in planning matters.
If the Government are genuine in wanting to keep their reputation unsullied there is a simple way to ensure that now, that is, by accepting the Fine Gael Planning Appeals Bill, 1967, which would ensure that monetary contributions to any political Party are of no assistance whatever in the processing of planning appeals. Until such time as we have an independent tribunal such as Fine Gael suggest in this Bill brought into existence and into operation, the community in which we live will continue to be disturbed by suspicions that donations of money to the Fianna Fáil Party can be of benefit in planning matters.
The Taoiseach has challenged some members of the Fine Gael Party to support their publicly expressed concern about the passing of money to obtain favours from political persons. Of course, the passing of money to obtain political favours is very much like murder, or rape, or theft, or burglary. Actions of that kind are invariably done in private, and it is exceedingly difficult, without the most extensive police force, to prove guilt in many cases. The Scottish judicial system knows a judgment of not proven which amounts to a declaration that a suspicion reasonably exists but that guilt has not been proved beyond all doubt. We do not know such a judgement in our criminal law, but if we are to tolerate a system foisted on us in recent times in which political individuals make decisions which are worth thousands and millions of pounds to the people who are seeking favours, it is fair to say that accusations of corruption and bribery, if not proven, are certainly sound enough and reasonable enough to show that there is reason to suspect the guilt of the people who continue to operate a system which can quite clearly be of substantial benefit to them.
It would be undesirable, I suppose, because it would unduly prolong this debate, to deal with the innumerable planning applications of which we have knowledge but there was one planning matter in recent times which was so debated in public that it can properly be debated here as an instance of the kind of thing which is worrying the public mind. Not too far distant from this House, in my own constituency, there is a beautiful parkland which has existed for many years and is surrounded by a not unattractive crescent of nineteenth century houses. It has no remarkable piece of architecture but it was recommended, and very properly so, that it should be preserved because of its inherent beauty and line. Dublin Corporation, in the preparation of their draft town plan, were of the same opinion and it was proposed to preserve the park in question as an open space.
For some years past a number of different petrol and oil companies received options to purchase the land provided they could obtain planning permission for the erection of a petrol filling station. All their efforts to get planning permission were in vain because Dublin Corporation, and I believe successive Ministers, all held a view which coincided with the recommendation that this park should be preserved as open parkland. Therefore, it must give rise to considerable well-founded concern when, within the past year, another individual could come along and, against the history of which I have spoken, and despite a renewed rejection by Dublin Corporation, go to the Minister for Local Government and obtain planning approval for something which had been rejected for years and years past, and which we know it was proposed never to allow in the future according to the Dublin town plan.
When we are aware that the applicant in question had three motor cars in operation for the Fianna Fáil candidate in the by-election in Cork city last year, we are well justified in referring to the suspicion which people have that planning matters are being used to establish in this country a corrupt system of government—we are justified in expressing those thoughts. We are justified in repeating that if the Government are embarrassed by this kind of thing they have an easy way to avoid these things being said or these thoughts being thought. They can simply adopt a system which will remove from the Minister for Local Government or any political person decisions which can be of such immense benefit to applicants. It is fair to say it must tempt people seeking favours to ensure their success by making subscriptions to the political Party which happen to be the Government at the time.
Contrary to what some people believe we do not say these things lightly. We do not say them because we are anxious to besmirch our political opponents. We are aware that the Fianna Fáil Party are utterly indifferent about their reputation. They have no desire to be known as a Party with integrity, a Party which is untouchable, a Party which has no passion for strict and straight dealing. We know they would much prefer at any price to remain in office. If the price is that they will lose their reputation for decency and for incorruptibility they are indifferent to the price they have to pay.
The Bill which we propose is a very simple one. Deputy Fitzpatrick, the Fine Gael shadow Minister for Local Government, delivered a speech to justify this Bill and explain it last week, which a Member of the Government, the Minister for Health, praised. The Minister acknowledged that a good case had been made for the Bill. It is not often that across the floor of the House tributes of this kind are paid. The Minister said that Deputy Fitzpatrick had given voice to praiseworthy sentiments and that he agreed with many of the things Deputy Fitzpatrick had said in regard to the present appeal system.
