Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - Planning Appeals Bill, 1967: Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Moore

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.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I suppose it is right that I should have something to say on this Bill, as a former Minister who dealt with the Act which was in existence prior to the 1964 Act, the Act under which I was the appeals officer. So far as appeals are concerned, listening to Deputy Moore, one would imagine that it was the individual members of the corporation who granted permission to build under the Planning Act. It is no such thing. It is an executive function; it is not a reserved function. It is the county manager or the city manager who gives or refuses permission. In some cases in Dublin he may seek the advice of the corporation.

Let me speak as a rural Deputy. Members of local authorities know nothing whatever about the town planning applications which are made to the local authorities. Once a month they receive all the applications which are sent in, and which are really copies of the notices published in the press. All the members of the local authorities know is that John Smith intends to build a new house at Ballydineen or some such place.

Mr. Moore

That is not the case here.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am not referring to Dublin, but to the country generally. The county manager, acting on the advice of his local engineer, and studying the county plan, if there is a county plan, makes his decision and then the applicant has a right, if the application is refused, to appeal to the Minister.

I wonder do Deputies know how the Minister deals with these appeals? An appeal is sent to the Minister which he never sees at that stage. The Minister has a professional adviser and a non-professional adviser. The professional adviser usually goes down, inspects the locus and makes a report. The non-professional adviser also makes a report from another angle. The recommendation then comes to the Minister. I wonder do Deputies realise how these recommendations come to the Minister? I am speaking from practical experience and I know for a fact that there are many more appeals now than there were in my time, because the restrictions under the 1964 Act are greater than they were when I was Minister.

One day per week the Minister receives approximately 1,000 leases from corporations, from local authorities, be they town commissioners or urban councillors or county councillors. He receives these leases for signature. He has not the slightest chance of reading through them. He depends on his officials to ensure that they are legally drawn up and in order. He stands there with his pen in his hand and an assistant beside him with some blotting paper. He writes his name and, as fast as he writes it, his assistant blots it. The leases are taken up and that is all he knows about them.

Another day about 100 appeals are taken into him by his officials. They are handed to him for signature. He cannot possibly wade through them because there are files with them. There are local authority files, and also departmental files, and one could not possibly read through them. All one can do is ask: "Are you affirming or are you reversing the decision of the local authority?" If they are affirming the decision, and if no representations have been made, they are merely handed to the Minister for signature. As I say, you have not the slightest chance of reading them through. I am speaking from practical experience and I am sorry to say there is not a hope in hell of reading through all the files. You depend entirely on your officials. I want to be fair to the officials and to the assistant secretaries or the secretaries who bring you the appeals. If there is anything in them that should be brought to your notice, it will be brought to your notice, but you depend entirely on them. If they are affirming the decision, and no representations have been made, you sign the order affirming the appeal and that is that. If some person were to ask the Minister about it, he could not tell him anything about it.

If representations are made by a Deputy, a Senator or any person other than the applicant—they may be made by a professional man—and the recommendation of the Department is not in agreement with those representations, the Minister will definitely examine the file, but not otherwise. It is not every citizen of the State who can make representations through a Deputy, a Senator or a professional man. I can imagine a poor man in the West, the South or any other part of the country who wants to build a small house and is turned down by the country manager. He knows he has the right to appeal because that is endorsed on the refusal. He writes to the Minister and sends in the grounds which he considers proper grounds for an appeal. If no further representations are made, you can rest assured that the Minister will not see that file. It would be physically impossible for a Minister to read through all the files because there are so many files with these appeals. It would be unfair to any Minister—I do not care who he is—to expect him to read through all these files.

Let me give three examples. I came in at the last moment without any preparation to speak on this Bill but I can think of three glaring examples of decisions made in my time. One was in relation to the Bray Road below Bray where there was a V-shaped junction. It was on the main road on the other side of Bray.

Mr. Moore

Shankill?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No, where the St. John of God Home is at the moment.

Mr. Moore

Stillorgan?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No, on the other side of Bray going on towards Greystones. In any event, there was an application for permission to erect a petrol pump there which the local authority turned down because they thought it would turn this dangerous corner into a more dangerous traffic trap. Representations were made to me by two different political Parties and, despite those representations, the recommendation I got from my technical advisers, administrative and professional, was that I should not allow a petrol pump to be erected there. I decided I would go out and inspect the place myself. I did so and I saw that, if we cut away that "V" and built the petrol pump right back, we would open up the vista on both roads and do away with the dangerous trap that then existed. On the undertaking that the petrol station would be built back a certain distance, I granted permission. What was a death trap is now absolutely safe and, on many occasions, officials of the Department of Local Government have agreed with me that this was one case in which something advantageous was done from the point of view of traffic.

I remember another case in which an individual made application for permission to build a petrol pump on the Stillorgan Road. The local authority turned him down and he appealed to the Minister. All the professional advice I got was against the building of a petrol pump there. This was round about the time of the Suez crisis when petrol was about to be rationed. I had inquiries made locally and I found that the nearest petrol pump was about three-quarters of a mile away from a number of residents in the area. If petrol were rationed, those residents would have to travel three-quarters of a mile for petrol. I decided that, if we could get the developer to build a well-planned petrol station, with flower beds, and so on, that would be an advantage not only from the point of view of the appearance of the place but also from the point of view of the residents. We insisted on that being done and I have been complimented many times since, even by officials of the Department, on having made this amenity available to the people in the particular locality. Had representations not been made to me, and had I not gone out to see the place for myself, we would, in my opinion, have done an injustice in refusing permission to build there.

The third case was in Cashel, County Tipperary. There is a very fine hotel in the town and two Fianna Fáil Deputies, neither of whom is in the House any longer, made representations to me. One was anxious that the urban council should build houses to the rere of this hotel. The other was most anxious that no houses should be built there because there was a most magnificent view from the hotel dining room across the river and over sweeping meadow lands. One of these Fianna Fáil Deputies was a great friend of mine; the other was a friend but not as good a friend as the man who was anxious to have the houses built. I went down and looked at the site and I immediately said that, if houses were built there, one of the most beautiful views would be spoiled. I said I was sure the houses were necessary, but some other site would have to be found. Another site was found when those interested discovered I would not give permission to build.

These are the cases in which the board we visualise could act. The board could examine the locus. It would take away from the Minister a most odious duty. We all make representations to Ministers and Ministers are only human. I am not making any attack on any Minister. I am speaking from experience. It is very unfair to ask a Minister to sign his name to a decision which is given not by himself but by some of his officials. If we had an impartial board, we would be doing a service not only to developers but to the Minister himself because we would take away from him a duty I know he does not want. This tribunal would be presided over by a judge, with two competent assessors, one an expert in planning to be nominated by certain individuals, the other also to be nominated, and both to be appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. This tribunal would be guided by the presiding judge. They would have the technical advice of the assessors. They could inspect the locus.

A very unfair charge was levelled by Deputy Molloy. He said no one speaks in favour of this proposal other than lawyers and lawyers are always trying to make business for themselves. The tribunal would be presided over by a branch of the law of which I am not a member. I make no apology to anybody; I think a judge would make an ideal president of such a tribunal. We can say what we like about our judges but, irrespective of who appoints them to the Bench, they are completely impartial and no one can point a finger at them.

Mr. Andrews

Hear, hear.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

If the Minister were a presiding judge, I would be satisfied, but he is not. If this tribunal were appointed, I believe justice would be done. They would have an opportunity of studying the plan. They could visit the locus. They could hear evidence, viva voce or otherwise, from interested individuals. I know Ministers do not want to see appellants. They are damn right in that because, if they did, they would have nothing else to do but see appellants and hear their evidence. Ministers have no time for that. That is not the function of a Minister. An ad hoc tribunal such as that suggested could examine the file, hear the evidence, and publish their decision, giving reasons for that decision.

All of us have had experience of the successful appellant, having asked somebody to make representations for him, coming to the completely erroneous conclusion that it was political pull that got him some concession. Perhaps an Opposition Deputy has made representations to the Minister and he may come to the conclusion that that Deputy, particularly if he comes from the Minister's constituency, has some pull with the Minister. That would be all the more so if the Deputy happened to be a member of the Minister's Party.

We are giving the wrong impression because people are inclined to believe that unless they have a pull of some description with the Minister, through a Deputy of the Minister's Party, through an Opposition Deputy or through a Senator, their appeal will not be successful. In 99 cases out of 100, it cannot be and will not be successful and it is for that reason that I support the Bill.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is a great pity we had not more Deputies in the House to listen to the speech just made by Deputy O'Donnell who spoke with a sound and fundamental knowledge of the subject we are dealing with. We all accept that we live in a planning age. Some 20 years ago one heard practically nothing about planning, but with the changing times generally and with the growth of urban populations not only in this country but everywhere, planning has become a necessity.

It is only natural, therefore, that it should be in the hands of experts. There is a theory among the public in this country that all applications made to Departments are dealt with personally by Ministers. That is possibly due to the fact that every letter a Deputy receives when he makes representation on behalf of his constituents contains a first paragraph: "I am instructed on behalf of the Minister for so and so to tell you ..." Deputy O'Donnell definitely has conveyed to the House—he being a former Minister concerned with the subject matter we are dealing with— that such is not the case. But the public do not know that. The public always conceive that anything referred to a Minister may very well become a political issue straight away. Human beings being what they are, I do not say that from time to time some political preference is not shown here and there, and this debate, which has raged fast and furious during several sittings, goes to show there is a feeling among Deputies that a certain amount of political influence has been used in certain cases.

We are in a planning age and the figures quoted by Deputy Fitzpatrick when introducing the Bill show that we need a fundamental change in planning policy. After all, to my knowledge the first attempt from a legislative viewpoint to deal with planning was the Act introduced by the former Minister for Local Government some three or four years ago. At that time none of us envisaged the extent to which we would all become involved in this facet of public life— that virtually everything that happens in the country today would be concerned with some form of planning permission.

We have almost reached the stage when if you want to paint your front gate you have got to get planning permission or at least to stick a notice outside to say that you propose to do so and so, and if there is not an objection within a certain period you can go ahead and do it. However, if some junior official decides he would not like you to paint your front gate you are not allowed to do it without permission and in extreme cases you may find yourself, as a Deputy, having a constituent coming asking you to write to the Minister to reverse the decision of some official in the local authority who has refused you the right to paint your gate. That may be an extreme case but that is the position we are faced with today in this Planning Act which we in Fine Gael wish to amend by this Bill. It is a dictatorial Act. Though in theory there is a right of appeal, there is not really the full right of appeal that exists in many other spheres concerned with other Departments and other situations.

I should like particularly to consider the Land Commission. The Land Commission have perhaps as much authority as a planning authority but they have a fair and open system of dealing with it. I use the words "open system" because the planning system under existing legislation is not an open system. Nobody knows exactly what is going on. All they know is that permission has been refused and the reasons for the refusal are given in writing, usually in a very skimpy way, by the local authority. An appeal is made and the appellant gets back the reply that the decision of the local authority has been upheld on such and such a ground, perhaps with a few minor alterations.

How different is the Land Commissioners' system in appeals in relation to land? It is virtually the same system we are seeking through this Bill. The system there is that the appellant can go to the Commissioners, can state his case and bring his expert witnesses. Furthermore, the Commissioners will contribute a sum of money for him to enable him to fight his defence, whereas in our planning system he cannot go before the planning authority and state his case. He cannot go anywhere to do that. That, to my mind, virtually approaches dictatorship. It may not have been intended in the Act. All those Acts are drafted by somebody who is caught up in this bureaucratic tangle in which we live, which safeguards the people who are now being given control over the lives, the ways and the means of people throughout the State. That is evident in the planning system.

If this Bill had been introduced by the Minister for Local Government as amending legislation it would have been accepted with acclamation by the Fianna Fáil Party. We would have had Fianna Fáil Deputies standing up thanking the Minister for bringing in legislation to safeguard the rights of the individual. On this occasion, instead of that, with the exception of the Minister for Health, who said there was a lot of substance and fact in this Bill, we had the Deputies from the other side of the House who spoke failing to approach the Bill with open minds.

It is unfortunate that a Bill like this into which so much work has been put by Deputy Fitzpatrick and other members of Fine Gael, has not been discussed in an unbiased way. We should be able to get away from the situation in which anything an Opposition Deputy introduces in the House becomes controversial legislation straight away. It would be welcomed in the country as a whole.

I am constantly being approached in my constituency about planning proposals. I feel sure my colleague in the Labour Party is also. I feel that the majority of cases Deputies in the country like myself get are ordinary planning appeals. One that very often comes before us is the question of a petrol pump. The system is entirely wrong.

Mr. Corish

The system in the local authorities is inconsistent. A lot of the trouble arises there.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Exactly.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Let me get to my point. The system is not a good one. Somebody wants to erect a petrol pump. He gets one of the major petrol companies to stand behind or get the scheme going for him. He decides to invest a certain amount of money and naturally chooses a place that will be of advantage to the public because if he did not, it would not be to his financial advantage. The proposal goes in to the local authority and to the planning authority there. I do not know if the planning authority in my county or in any county see any future in petrol pumps, but I know that no decision is taken for an interminable period. I understand that in the Act going through this House, if you had a delay of a month, there is a safeguard to protect the ordinary individual. The local authority has to take a decision within a month as to whether they agree or disagree.

I have never known a case in relation to a petrol pump where a decision was taken in one, two or three months. As Deputy Corish says, they do not know whether to take a decision or not because they do not want to make up their minds whether it is a wise decision or not.

A case came before me a few days ago where a man wanted to erect a petrol pump on an absolutely straight road. North and south, one could see over 200 yards each way. He was prepared to go back 30 feet from the road and was prepared, if necessary, to go back 50 feet; and one can see 200 yards each way. He tells me that he has been turned down on the grounds that the road is too straight and that the traffic would be moving too fast. I ask you: where is he supposed to erect the petrol pump? Another case was referred to by Deputy O'Donnell which I know well. When you get out of Bray, there is another road coming out and there is a triangle. There is a petrol pump there which is an advantage. That is one of the corners where you can put a petrol pump with safety. But for any authority to say you cannot put a petrol pump on a straight road because the traffic is too fast is pure unadulterated nonsense.

That is the sort of thing you get with a planning authority where you have no real safeguard against it such as the Commission we suggest would provide. It is a pity the Minister for Local Government was not in the House when Deputy P. O'Donnell was speaking and was giving the complete low-down on what happened when he held the same office. In Deputy P. O'Donnell's day as Minister for Local Government, not one-third of the number of planning appeals, or probably not one-fifth, were coming before him.

Judging from the statistics issued by the different speakers in favour of this Bill, these appeals are growing. They have snowballed and are gathering force, with the number of planning applications coming in to the Department of Local Government. Quite obviously, the Commission suggested by the Fine Gael sponsors of this Bill is reasonable. They are asking that a judge preside over it, be the final arbiter on the facts when they have been placed before him, and that he sit with two experts.

In the courts of law, one often feels —anyone who has had to go to law from time to time—that one does not get a fair crack of the whip from a judge. One often feels, where a decision is given against one, aggrieved that one has to pay one's own as well as the other fellow's costs. But against that, there is nobody else one can suggest as a presiding officer over a court like this other than a judge. He will be impartial. He has no interest one way or the other but to decide what is best for the country as a whole, what is best in the planning interest and what is fair to the appellant, and the appellant will be free in this case to go before the tribunal to state his own case. He could do it himself and he need not employ, as has been suggested by some speakers, legal advice. He would be just as well able, if he is looking for a petrol pump, or wants to extend his premises, to explain his case before a tribunal as any lawyer, that is, provided he has ordinary intelligence. That is a very fair and sound proposition. I think the situation has now been reached in which these appeals are pouring in literally in hundreds. Some new approach will have to be made by the Government in the not too distant future.

I am surprised, but many things surprise me in this House, that the Government have not jumped at this Bill with enthusiasm and that they have not shown a certain amount of gratitude when a Bill has been prepared and drafted for them by the Opposition Party. It is not easy for the Opposition to draft a Bill. We have not all the facilities available to us that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries have.

Mr. Carty

You have a lot of lawyers.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am glad you recognise their value.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

They have shown their ability in this case. At the same time, I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not a lawyer's job to draft a Bill. That is a job for the Parliamentary Secretary and when the Parliamentary Secretary wants to draft a Bill, he will have all the advice the State can offer available to him.

It was suggested by the Minister for Health, who made a fair statement, that he envisaged a new Department, or a new section of a Department, coming out of this Bill. Is it not quite obvious that planning in the city of Dublin, unplanned by the City Fathers for the past 50 years, with portion of it starting to tumble down, will involve a terrific volume of work if the grandiose scheme we hear about in the centre of Dublin is to come into existence. You must have a larger staff and if you have that greater amount of staff, what earthly difference will this Commission make?

The Bill here provides for a Commission which will help to deal with a backlog of work. To further simplify the matter for the Minister for Local Government, it provides also for an assessory commission, if necessary. I venture to guess that the Minister will probably not accept this Bill—I think he has not yet spoken on the matter—because the good things that come from Fine Gael are never accepted in this Parliament; that is why the country is in the present somewhat parlous position——

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy is trying to make it more parlous.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am waiting to hear Deputy Briscoe who is, I understand, a distinguished member of Dublin Corporation, making his contribution to the solution of the difficulties that lie ahead for Dublin Corporation as a result of planning neglect throughout the years. If he would concentrate on that instead of trying to trip me up it would be better. This is all cut and dried. The Minister has his scheme but I venture to guess that what will happen will be that the Minister will come in at a later date with a Bill very much on the same lines. It will be a little different because what Fine Gael does must always be wrong in the eyes of Fianna Fáil. He will bring in a Bill on somewhat the same lines and he can be grateful to this Party for laying the foundations of the Bill for him. His work will be easier and will take far less time. The draftsman will really only have to alter a few words to make it look as if it is not the original Fine Gael Bill.

To conclude, I think this is one of the most sensible pieces of legislation that has been brought before the House and I hope the debate will continue longer and that the Opposition Deputies will contribute realistically instead of trying to denigrate the hard work that has been done by, if you like, the lawyers in the Fine Gael Party.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Carty)

I think we all agree that the absence of planning and planning schemes throughout the years in different parts of the country caused many serious defects in the layout and structure of our towns, particularly developing towns. In my own town new areas have been developed where very fine houses were allowed to spring up without any regard to planning or harmony or things like that. Now that we are adopting draft and development plans this fact strikes us more and more. We see very fine localities that have been destroyed in the absence of proper planning. In regard to this Bill which the Fine Gael Party have brought before the House for consideration, I certainly think they deserve a certain amount of credit——

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Hear, hear.

Mr. Carty

——for wasting their time in bringing forward a Bill that proposes to create here a lawyers' paradise.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No, no, the lawyer must already be a judge.

Mr. Carty

This tribunal of which the chairman will be a judge——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

An existing judge.

Mr. Carty

——who will devote his full time to presiding at meetings and hearings is typical of the Fine Gael mentality. It creates for the lawyers a veritable paradise.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That used be said about the first inter-Party Government—too many lawyers—and then you were very glad to adopt them in your present one.

Mr. Carty

For my own information I got together a list of the Fine Gael speakers who have been advocating this particular piece of legislation and it might be no harm if I recall for the House——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We have no local government officials to make out that list for us.

Mr. Carty

It was not a local government official.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Donnell should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to speak without interruption.

Mr. Carty

We had Deputy Fitzpatrick who is a leading solicitor; Deputy Stephen Barrett SC; Deputy Richard Ryan, solicitor; Deputy Liam Cosgrave SC; Deputy T. O'Higgins SC, and Deputy O'Donnell, himself a very distinguished solicitor.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No solicitor could preside at that tribunal.

Mr. Carty

They might not preside but they would have something to do with representing clients.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No. We do not say that in the Bill.

Mr. Carty

No, but we can infer it. When you create a paradise you must have somebody to inhabit it.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It could be a Deputy such as yourself.

Mr. Carty

I am not a solicitor.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Deputy is not a bad advocate.

Mr. Carty

I might be a bit of a hob lawyer. We are told of this well designed procedure which, as I say, has an ulterior motive behind it but we fail to realise that well over 90 per cent of applications made for town planning permission get through.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

What is the percentage?

Mr. Carty

Over 90. It is 93 I am told; in my own county, it is 95 or 96. We do not hear of those who get permission in the ordinary course of events but those who for some reason are not granted permission create a great racket and tell everybody about their trouble and naturally exaggerate. We do not hear about people whose applications are granted and to whom there is no objection by either the local authority or a neighbour. Is it absolutely necessary to devise a rather cumbersome and expensive scheme to satisfy this section of roughly seven to ten per cent of the applicants? I do not think it is. If the Minister so desires and if he were not satisfied with the present procedure, I think he could devise a simpler scheme.

There is one disagreeable feature about the whole thing that has come to my notice. Recently in certain areas members of the local authority are invoking section 4 of the County and City Management Act to compel the manager——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

They have no power to do it.

Mr. Carty

They are doing it in counties very near Dublin.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

Not under town planning.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It was I who introduced the section into the Act and I should know.

Mr. Boland

They do not want to make a decision; they want to wash their hands of it.

Mr. Carty

It is being used in counties near Dublin where town planning permission is refused.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Surely if it is refused the Minister is the only person who can reverse the decision.

Mr. Carty

They are invoking section 4——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

After a decision is given?

Mr. Carty

No; sometimes before the decision is given.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It must be always.

Mr. Carty

I do not think so. This device is not used in my county. First of all, it is turned down and then a fresh application is made with some little change in it which will make it different from the original application. Then you have to make the rounds of the councillors in the different Parties to get a majority and then rush the county manager to make a decision legally, as you can under section 4, and get permission. That is a most awful state of affairs and should be resisted in every county. Either you have confidence in your county manager or you have not. I ask the House to reject this Bill because the Minister, recognising the necessity for some kind of machinery to expedite the processing of appeals of this kind, could devise, and should devise, and might devise a far simpler scheme and a scheme which will be easier to operate.

Mr. Briscoe

I should like to say a few words on this Bill because it deals with something about which I feel very strongly. Many of the accusations levelled from time to time at Ministers allege that they are rubber stamps and that they do not run their Departments, that the civil servants run them, and that all they do is sign various Bills. To remove from the Minister for Local Government the right to grant an appeal would be evading responsibility. We are public representatives; the people elect a Government to govern and personally I would feel, if I had to appeal to a lawyer who was chairman of a tribunal to decide a case for me that the human aspects of the case would not be considered. This is another reason why I would be against handing over the responsibility for hearing appeals to a tribunal.

Deputies on all sides of the House have, at some time or other, on behalf of constituents or otherwise, followed up appeals which went to the Minister. At council level we carry forward the representations we have received if we are convinced there may be a miscarriage of justice. I know of a case which is actually before the Minister which involves a man who, literally, is likely to be rubbed out if his appeal is not granted. While technically, and according to the officials, this matter should not be granted the particular solution which he is looking for, there is also the human point of view which is not considered and will not be considered, and it is in the hands of the Minister only to decide whether or not the grounds are sufficient for granting it. At the moment if one wished to make an appeal on behalf of a person who might not have sufficient stamps on a card, there is no way in which one can appeal to the Minister; there is an appeals officer who decides and no public representative is allowed go to this man and make representations.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

To whom?

Mr. Briscoe

To an appeals officer in the Department of Social Welfare.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is not true.

Mr. Briscoe

Perhaps I have been misinformed.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We all do.

Mr. Briscoe

I am glad that Deputy O'Donnell has been able to inform me on a matter on which I have been misinformed. In any case, by turning this responsibility over to a commission, the Minister would be evading responsibility. Deputy O'Donnell knows how the office of the Minister for Local Government works because he was himself a Minister for Local Government. He knows that the Minister is advised by his officials about the attitude he should take on any particular problem which is up for appeal before him and it is up to him either to accept or reject that advice. It would be very harmful for the community to take this authority away from the Minister because, as I said, the Minister can look at this in a way in which a lawyer cannot. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that I oppose this Bill on those grounds.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I wish to support this Bill and I should like to refute what the Parliamentary Secretary said when he suggested that town planning appeals are subject to section 4. Of course they are not. I should also like to refer to Deputy Booth's speech last evening. He referred to a decision of Dún Laoghaire Corporation in regard to a CIE hotel and said that it was improperly debated at Dún Laoghaire Corporation. That is completely untrue. The manager brought the matter before Dún Laoghaire Corporation for its decision because he considered the matter to be of considerable importance, as he was quite entitled to do. He was, of course, entitled to come to a decision himself without referring the matter to Dún Laoghaire Corporation but I may say that in Dún Laoghaire Corporation, we have always had managers who, when they had a matter of importance to decide, brought it before the corporation before coming to a decision themselves.

Dún Laoghaire Corporation considered the advice given by the engineer who had listed ten reasons why the CIE hotel should not be built on the proposed site, at the railway station. I want to place it on record that I am in complete agreement with the decision of Dún Laoghaire Corporation. The proposed site is a very bad one, both from the town planning point of view and from the scenic point of view. I am sure the Minister knows that Dún Laoghaire Corporation has always had as its policy not to build on the sea side of the road. That has been followed right through to the Vico Road, which may have a familiar ring for the Minister.

As I said, I support the decision not to build at Dún Laoghaire railway station. I want to say, as I have said on other occasions, that I am in favour of having a CIE hotel in Dún Laoghaire but not at the railway site. I think it is a bad site and I feel that the officials of this hotel want to build a hotel in Dún Laoghaire where they can put their hands out of the window of the hotel and grab the passing motorists——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Hear, near.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

——coming from the car ferry. When this proposal was announced by CIE or Ostlanna Éireann—I will give you the difference —they were apparently in such a hurry that the invitations to the announcement which was to be made on the following Monday were sent out on Friday. The invitation to me was addressed to the Town Hall. It was sent out on Friday. Of course it arrived at the Town Hall on Saturday and there was nobody there. It was readdressed to my home address by the Town Hall on the Monday morning so that I got the invitation to this CIE announcement after the announcement had taken place at 5 o'clock on the Monday afternoon. It appears to me that CIE were in a frightful hurry and apparently had no time to go and talk to the Dún Laoghaire Corporation officials.

Mr. Andrews

Would it have made any difference if they did? It would have made no difference whatsoever.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

Would you let me——

Mr. Andrews

It would have made no difference.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I want to say to Deputy Andrews straight here and now that when the officials of CIE did come out to Dún Laoghaire, we proposed an alternative site.

Mr. Andrews

Which is totally inadequate, as you know very well.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

Let me tell where the site is, please. We proposed an alternative site—the harbour master's house—right outside the Town Hall. It is only across the road from the railway station. That site is bigger than the site which CIE proposed to build on at the railway station. I am told by the officials of Dún Laoghaire Corporation that the Board of Works who are building the car ferry at St. Michael's Wharf are anxious for additional land. Therefore CIE could give them this part of the railway station, the back of it, in exchange for the harbour master's house. I think it is ridiculous. There is no doubt that the harbour master in Dún Laoghaire could be found an alternative site and that site would be ideal for a hotel.

I want to say that I have gone into this problem fairly extensively and the thing that worries me about it is that CIE have it fairly fixed in their minds that they must spend money on the railway station in Dún Laoghaire, they have got to modernise it and just purely to modernise it, they are going to build a hotel. I feel that the Minister, when he comes to consider this matter, should take all these things into consideration, and then when he considers the site at the back of the railway station as against the harbour master's house on the seafront road, he will be perfectly satisfied that what we in Dún Laoghaire Corporation did, turning down the railway site, was in the best interests of all the people of Dún Laoghaire. The harbour master's site is ready and available for CIE to build on and we would welcome in Dún Laoghaire a CIE hotel.

Mr. Corry

I do not think it is reasonable for Dublin Deputies to bring in a Bill here for themselves and occupy the time of this House, particularly Private Members' Time, with it. This country is bigger than Dún Laoghaire and bigger than Dublin.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

The cream live out in Dún Laoghaire.

Mr. Corry

I only say one thing about CIE, that is, God knows they have made a mess of enough of what they are at without going into the hotel business.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

We do not want them to make a mess of Dún Laoghaire.

Mr. Andrews

You should not use the royal plural.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I was talking about Dún Laoghaire Corporation.

Mr. Corry

Will Dublin shut up sometime?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Have a look behind you there.

Mr. Corry

The present position is that there is an appeal from the local authority to the Department of Local Government. That is now to be changed. I suppose we are to have a buckshee judge and a couple of lawyers shoved in there to do the job for us and bring in their mess. I had several appeals from the local authority of which I am chairman to the Minister for Local Government up to now and I will say this much: they have been dealt with impartially and with common sense.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Deputy was a good advocate.

Mr. Corry

Thank God that in the Local Government Department there is a change in Ministers anyway.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

You got a lot out of the others, too.

Mr. Corry

I remember one occasion, when Deputy O'Donnell was there, going up with my colleague, Paddy Gorman, God rest his soul. The Deputy will remember it. I met him down here in the holy of holies as we used to call it, the confession boxes. We met him there with his chief engineer on one side of him and his secretary on the other. The man had sent for us to hear our case and the moment we started, one adviser caught him by one arm and said: "You cannot do that, Mr. Minister" and the other gent on the other side said: "It is nonsensical hearing those people."

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That was not a town planning appeal.

Mr. Corry

They told us to get out. I like a man to be a man. I have no room for that kind of man.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

You were very glad to go over the Ardsallagh Bridge afterwards.

Mr. Corry

When I go to a Minister on invitation to put a case before him, I expect that Minister to hear the case and to hear the people I bring with me. We had to go to the trouble of bringing engineers over from England to see the Minister on that occasion. That was the response I got. Now, thank God, we have a different Minister in office and a different condition of affairs. I am absolutely confident that we can get a better, sounder, more commonsense decision out of the Minister and his Department of Local Government than from any commission set up to tell me whether I am to build a house in Chapel Lane or somewhere else. The thing is too nonsensical.

The usual routine is that a planning proposal is made to the county council where it is considered in the first instance. If the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the county council he can appeal to the Minister. There is an arrangement in Cork—I do not know how it is done in other counties—to have frequent county council meetings at which any councillor can bring up the matter of a planning proposal that has been turned down and it is examined by the council and arguments for and against are heard. It is the elected representatives—not the officials—who make the decision. If there is an appeal from that decision, it goes to the Minister for Local Government. I would have far more confidence in any elected representative, even if he is Minister for Local Government, than I would have in any team set up by gentlemen lawyers to mess around and to give some of their needy comrades a High Court case. There is too much of that. This House is too prone to it.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

Will the Deputy deal with CIE?

Mr. Corry

As far as CIE are concerned, they do their job and I do mine. Deputy Dockrell should look after Dún Laoghaire. I am told that you are making a mess of it. Try to look after it and we will look after Cork and planning appeals to the Minister.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You may say that again.

Mr. Corry

And we will get the results. There is a proposal to have a Commission of Dublin lawyers who cannot get briefs outside.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy is always talking about lawyers. Some of the RIC men's sons have become great nationalists all of a sudden.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy came in on Seán MacEoin's votes. Seán MacEoin has been looking for him.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy has no respect for judges and juries.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The RIC were trying to shoot MacEoin.

Mr. L'Estrange

We do not want RIC men's sons coming in here to talk about lawyers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry.

Mr. Corry

I could reply to these remarks but I would not like you to have to turn me out.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Corry

Deputy L'Estrange should conduct himself. He was in the Seanad for a while and I thought he would learn manners there before being allowed in here but he did not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry, on the Bill.

Mr. Corry

I have studied this matter very closely.

Mr. L'Estrange

There are those who got golden handshakes from the State—an £8,000 golden handshake.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These interruptions must cease. We cannot have orderly debate on the basis of interruptions.

Mr. Corry

I am afraid that if the people opposite do not conduct themselves, you will have to throw them out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies L'Estrange and Andrews must cease interrupting and allow Deputy Corry to proceed.

Mr. Corry

I have no brief for CIE. I am anxious to see that my people in a big county like Cork get fair play and the appeal to which they are entitled, whether it be first from the officials to the elected county councillors or, secondly, to the Minister for Local Government. That is the present position. We are asked in this buckshee Bill to change that procedure for a Commission. The Deputies on the other side of the House are very fond of commissions and very fond of taking some gentleman and providing for him a couple of thousand a year to consider appeals. We will be told that a person, in order to be able to do that, must have a knowledge of the law and, in particular, of local government law. That is what the Deputies on the other side of the House are looking for. That is what they are trying to get.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

Trying to get the judges to do it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Taca would be completely denuded, were it not for the Planning Bill.

Mr. Corry

There are 1,000 people working today in Rushbrooke dockyard that Deputy Fitzpatrick tried to throw out.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Shannon Scheme was called a white elephant.

Mr. Corry

I brought Deputy Fitzpatrick down to see it. I have a photograph, which I will bring up some day to the House, of Deputy Fitzpatrick with a glass in his hand drinking to the welfare of the people, although he issued an election address to the effect that the first thing he would do when he would take over power was to abolish the Verolme Dockyard.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They should publish your photograph with some of the RIC men.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy had the neck to go in there and take a drink from them.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You should publish a photograph of some of your RIC forebears on your next election address and come out in your true colours as a proper hypocrite.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us get back to the Bill. We have gone away from it.

Mr. Corry

I do not want to digress.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You are a proper hypocrite.

Mr. Corry

If these people do not conduct themselves, I must try to keep them quite. I can see no justification whatever for occupying the time of the 146 Deputies on a matter of that description. What is the justification for occupying the time of this House in an effort to prevent a Minister elected by the House from doing the job he is elected to do and appointing somebody to do it for him?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Deputy is anticipating the referendum. There are only 144 Deputies.

Mr. Briscoe

Fine Gael have never governed and do not want Fianna Fáil to be in a position to govern.

Mr. Corry

As a member of Cork County Council, I have examined this matter. I know more about local government law than anyone. I have been in local government for the past 43 years. I know what I am talking about.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Corry

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Andrews

I hope Deputy Dockrell will be here on Tuesday at 6 p.m.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I will try, and will listen to you attentively.

Mr. Andrews

Perhaps I will send the Deputy the Official Report. I intend to reply to him at some length.

Debate adjourned.