I do not think the suggestion that a tribunal should replace the Minister for Local Government in dealing with planning appeals would stand up to very much intelligent examination. A comparison has been made between appeals on matters other than those with which the Minister will be dealing. Surely they are not comparable because, in the final analysis, the Minister must be responsible for planning the whole country. It would take Solomon himself as Minister to satisfy all the people who are involved, whether financially, aesthetically or any other way, in a planning application.
We have had hard words said here about the Minister and, indeed, about his predecessors, and it will always be so, because I feel very often that a planning appeal is shrouded by emotionalism and that good sense goes out through the window when we have a body of preservationists trying to preserve something which they think should be preserved but which the Minister has given his permission not to preserve. The local authorities have a much more powerful interest in this than some of us realise. As a Deputy stated here yesterday, we have had cases of a local authority on some occasions turning down an application and then saying: "Let the Minister decide it." I think this does happen. If a thing is going to be very awkward for a representative, he may vote against it but hope in his heart that the Minister will then allow the appeal. He can then point out: "I voted against it but the Minister let it through."
Every member of this House has, I am sure, at some time or another, been under great pressure in regard to planning applications, whether they be by a statutory body or by an individual. We have a lot to think about and most of us are very interested in all aspects of this matter, but I would suggest that the Minister, being the man who will finally decide things on planning in general, must be left with this power. Perhaps it is not the best solution but it is the only one we know of. I would certainly not be in favour of appointing outsiders to act as a tribunal, and even the Party who moved this in the House did not think very much about it, because if we had a tribunal dealing with planning permission, they would become suspect after a while. Everything they did which would go against the popular choice, whether it was technically right or not, would become suspect, and they would be accused of all kinds of malpractices, when in fact the men would be serving to the best of their ability, as the Minister does.
Local authorities have a weapon over the Minister, that is, their bye-laws. It is not generally known that, even though the Minister may give permission for a certain thing to be done, if this contravenes the bye-laws of the local authority, the bye-laws will be upheld rather than the Minister's permission. When planning permission is given subject to certain conditions, such as the bye-laws of a local authority, we often find professional people who ignore the bye-laws and build what they want to build. This is a very big part of the whole Planning Act. Who will check on the builder who contravenes the bye-laws, unless it is something very apparent. In considering future legislation on this point, we should provide for some effective method of inspection of every project which may be going on to make sure that the builder complies with the conditions laid down in the permission.
In this city of ours at the moment we have numerous preservation societies. Take the case of the Georgian buildings which some people believe fanatically should be maintained. In fairness to the members of Dublin Corporation, let me say that we are not all Philistines. We do not want to see anything destroyed which is worthy of preservation, but I recall what the late Brendan Behan said on this point: "The Georgian houses are good to look at but try living in one of them." This is where the members of Dublin Corporation and the preservationists differ. The members of the corporation are dealing with a very big housing problem, and perhaps we rate more highly the need to house families than to preserve the aesthetic value of a Georgian house.
The corporation generally—I speak as one member of it—want to preserve what is worth preserving. We now face a great problem in this matter, because the corporation have power now to preserve a house of any kind of structure, if they so decide. But who is going to pay compensation to the people who own those houses if they cannot sell them? The house will be falling down, but because, perhaps, some famous person was born in it, the preservationists say we must preserve it forever. The owner says: "I cannot keep this house in repair any longer I have got to sell." The corporation say: "You may sell." But nobody will buy the house from him. He cannot knock it down and it cannot be repaired at a reasonable cost. I wonder how the ratepayers of this city are going to face, in a few years time, paying compensation to some of these people, if these houses are acquired. We have not got the money at the moment, even though the corporation have, wisely or otherwise, listed a number of houses in the city which must be preserved. When I asked the Minister here would there be any money coming from the Central Fund to help the corporation in this respect, he said no, there would not. Therefore, on the one hand, we have the call for preservation, and, on the other hand, the fact that even if we do want to preserve many of these buildings, we have not the means to do it.
I mention these few points to try to bring some sense into the criticism of the Minister. Replacing him by a tribunal would just not work out. The whole planning of a city and its preservation is so complex that the Minister must have power to make decisions even though they may offend people who wish to preserve an open space, a Georgain house or a canal. The Minister has been elected by the people. The preservation societies have not been elected by anybody. It is the Minister who must finally judge what is best having regard to the advice given to him by his technical men, and I do not think any Minister would have the right to hand over the power he has to an outside body.
Deputies should have more regard for the position of the Minister. Every planning application which is controversial is dynamite for politicians and Ministers. I heard previous Ministers criticised for the permissions they gave for such things as petrol stations. Some years ago when another Government were in power, in my constituency permission was given for a petrol station and there was an outcry about it. I will admit that I thought it was not a bad decision at the time. The place where it was to be built was an open space. It was full of dirt and when the petrol station was erected it was cleared up. That Minister was not a member of my Party, but, in fairness, I would have backed him at the time. We should try to understand the Minister's position and resist any attempt to take any power from him.