Private Members' Business. - Planning Appeals Bill, 1967: Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (18th Dáil) – Wednesday, 13 Mar 1968

Mr. L'Estrange

We have introduced this Bill because of the abuses and corruption that exist under the present scheme and the present method whereby the Minister for Local Government, a political head in the Government, has the final say as regards town planning. We believe it is wrong. It lends itself to abuse; it lends itself to corruption; and there is abuse and corruption under it at the present time.

The Minister in a dictatorial, arrogant manner spent something like seven and a half hours in speaking on this Bill. In all that time he tried to blame Deputy P. O'Donnell for his decisions as Minister for Local Government, and of the thousands of cases dealt with during that period he was able to cast any blame on Deputy P. O'Donnell in respect of three, and even on those three he had a very poor case.

Mr. Boland

He cast no blame; he was picking at random.

Mr. L'Estrange

Out of all the thousands of cases, you blamed him for three. It was a feeble attempt.

Mr. Boland

There are other speakers who can present more.

Mr. L'Estrange

When you were finished, it was plain to be seen that as far as Deputy P. O'Donnell was concerned, when he was Minister for Local Government he did not use his position to dispense favours to members of his own Party, to close friends, to card carriers. Members of that Party were not in an organisation that might be subscribed to to keep that political Party in office at that time. Credit is due to the Minister in that regard.

The Minister spent part of his time criticising the press, criticising solicitors, and others, who in their capacity as solicitors make representations, as they are entitled to do, on behalf of their clients. He mentioned their names here and tried to throw certain blame on to them. They were doing their duty and nothing else and they did it in a sensible way and, indeed, they can hold their heads high.

Under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, provision is made for appealing decisions of planning authorities to the Minister for Local Government. When that Bill was going through the Dáil in 1963, Fine Gael Deputies—I think it was Deputy Jones who was our spokesman for Local Government at that time—spoke on numerous amendments in an effort to have the power taken out of the hands of the political head of the Department and vested in the courts.

I, and the Party to which I belong, believe that it is wrong that any one individual should have such powers vested in him, power vested in a political individual that can make or break any person or firm. I know from political experience that the Fianna Fáil Party—I think it can be truthfully stated—have never hesitated at any time in the history of the State to use their power and their influence to further the interest of their own followers and supporters and, indeed, very many of them make no secret about that. Fianna Fáil also have never hesitated to use the tax-payers' money to keep the Party in office, to help to further the interests of those, such as the members of Taca, whom the Minister spent a long time trying to defend, who support them financially.

We know that Deputy Colley spoke about low standards in high places and many of us believe he was speaking about those closely associated with the Fianna Fáil Party, who largely subscribe to the Fianna Fáil Party. Members of Taca subscribe £100 to sit down to dinner and sign bankers' orders for £100 a year and to many of those Deputy Colley was referring. He knows that many of those used their contacts with previous Ministers for Local Government to get concessions to which they were not entitled.

The present system, unfortunately, is being abused. It lends itself to political abuse and I think it is wrong that people should have to crawl on their bended knees to Fianna Fáil Deputies, Fianna Fáil Senators, Fianna Fáil contact men or members of Taca or any other organisation so that they can make approaches as regards planning and planning appeals.

At column 643 of the Official Report of 7th February, 1968, in discussing this Bill, Deputy Molloy had this to say and I quote:

More and more people in my constituency are opening their eyes at last. They come to me in their hundreds and they are in order in coming to me.

Why are they in order? Why do they come in their hundreds? What does he mean by stating they "are opening their eyes"? I know he knows that some of those people know at the present time that unless they come to a Fianna Fáil Deputy, or contact man, or to a member of Taca, with a planning appeal, they will not get justice or what they are entitled to. The people who come to Deputy Molloy and other Fianna Fáil Deputies know that the Minister for Local Government is a politician and that he is the political head of the Department of Local Government. They know he is also the political secretary of the Fianna Fáil Party, that he is in trust and that the present system gives him judicial status in planning appeals decisions that can enormously add to the value of property.

As a politician, the Minister is aware, as indeed we are all quite well aware, as indeed are the hundreds who flock to Deputy Molloy, that he is subject to political pressure from many angles. Indeed, it would be asking too much of human nature to expect the Minister not to be influenced by such pressure because we know that in this regard the Fianna Fáil Ministers never lacked the human touch. In my opinion, it is asking too much to ask the present Minister, who has acted as the director of elections from one end of the country to the other, not to be unfairly influenced by political pressures, whether it be from Fianna Fáil TDs, from county councillors, members of Taca or, indeed, any other contact men in or of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Despite the fact that the Minister spent days in the House trying to defend Taca, especially in regard to town planning, we know that members of Taca are bragging that they can get favours in relation to planning and so on. When I suggested that some members of Taca had given £1,000 to Fianna Fáil, the Minister said such sums were not as large as the thousands we get. Unlike Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael depend solely on the small subscriptions of the decent respectable people of the country who, in the words of President Kennedy, think of what they can do for their country, not what they can get out of it. Many of those people brag that the thousands they are giving are well spent because they can get favours they know they are not entitled to. They look on it as an insurance policy. Many of them can be seen in the rooms of Leinster House. Many of them have not to go to a TD or Senator to get immediate access, perhaps with the grace of the Parliamentary Secretary.

I want to deal with one of the most blatant cases of admitted political corruption that has come to light in relation to planning. I will give the reference. It is 1967, No. 94-OP, Kelly, national teacher, a Donegal man, against Dundrum Enterprises. This case has not been before a court and therefore it is not sub judice. I will give the full facts. Kelly stated that he was a friend of the Minister for Local Government—not the present Minister for Local Government—that he would get planning permission for a consideration. Shades of Taca!

Mr. Carty

Would a national teacher have money like that?

Mr. L'Estrange

He was only the go-between.

Mr. Carty

Sorry.

Mr. L'Estrange

He was prepared to go between. The consideration he wanted was £3,000. He said he could get the planning permission if he were paid £3,000. A sum of £500 was paid to this gentleman and post-dated cheques were given for the remainder. The post-dated cheques given were for amounts of £1,000, £1,000 and £500. It was in January, 1966, and the post-dated cheques were dated March, 1966. The defendant got his planning permission through the intercession of Kelly, but we know gratitude can be a heavy burden. The cheques were stopped. Remember, the deal was for £3,000 and he had been paid £500 cash.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Deputy be good enough to particularise? I heard the name Kelly. If the Deputy is making charges, very serious charges, he should be specific about them.

Mr. L'Estrange

For Deputy MacEntee's interest, I have given the reference number of the case and the Deputy can get it and the Attorney General can get it for investigation. That is why I am giving it. It is 1967, No. 94-OP. The cheques were stopped. The plaintiff, Kelly sued for £2,500, representing the stopped cheques and the court case was to be heard on Thursday, 7th March last. The first defence entered was a denial that planning permission has been obtained through the good offices of Kelly or that the site had been sold at an enhanced price. Kelly replied that he did get the planning permission, that he was responsible for getting it. A second defence entered was that it was contrary to public policy. Here was an admission of corruption. As I have said, the case was to have been heard on Thursday, 7th March, but when both the defendant and plaintiff came to the court and saw that the court was littered with journalists and photographers, neither could afford to fight it and wash their dirty linen in open court. A settlement was reached.——

Mr. MacEntee

I put a point of order. The Deputy must be precise on this matter. He said the case is not sub judice, that it has already been decided. He now tells us the case did not proceed. That means that it has not been decided.

Mr. L'Estrange

When it came to court, they found that the court was littered with photographers and journalists and neither could afford to fight and wash their dirty linen in open court. Therefore, a settlement was reached for a considerable part of the sum claimed—£1,500. Deputy MacEntee can get that in the files of the court if he cares to go down there.

Mr. MacEntee

May I ask the Deputy how does he relate this to the Bill before the House and to the conduct of the Minister for Local Government?

Mr. L'Estrange

We have been arguing that corruption exists under the present system and that it should be taken from the political head of the Department and transferred to a committee presided over by a judge, with two assessors, a system in which you cannot have this type of corruption. I am basing my case on that and on a case of corruption that has taken place which I wish to see investigated. Kelly has received £2,000. For what, we are entitled to know? We want to know also who is to get the money, where it has to be distributed. The people of the country are entitled to know and I hope the Taoiseach gets to the bottom of this six-mark question because it is quite obvious that if justice is to be seen to be done, the papers in this case should be forwarded to the Attorney General to form the basis of a prosecution for what in effect is an attempted criminal conspiracy. It is all the more sordid because it indicates the presence of low standards in high places. Indeed, I should like to know would it be possible if Deputy Colley was also thinking of this when he made his now famous speech in Galway on low standards in high places.

I want to tell Deputy MacEntee that all the information can be got from the court records. Indeed, I shall be surprised if a judge of the High Court has not already sent on the papers to the Attorney General. If he has not, he should have. The Minister for Local Government has been most vehement in the House in his denials that the Planning Act, brought in by Fianna Fáil, in any way lends itself to corruption. I submit without fear of contradiction that the case I have mentioned pins the hands of the Government and of the Minister, and I challenge them to disentangle themselves and to bring the people guilty of this conduct to justice immediately. That one case alone, in my humble opinion, justifies an immediate change from the present method in which the political head of the Department can dispense such favours. We believe a Bill of the type we have introduced is necessary.

The Minister may say and has said that he can see no reason for this, that there has been no demand for it. It is significant that even the Association of Municipal Authorities, at its annual congress, unanimously—unanimously— called for the transfer of appeals from the political head of the Department— the Minister—to an appeals board, just as this Bill envisages. The majority of the members of the municipal authorities are Fianna Fáil but we have to admit that the Fianna Fáil councillors seem to be sick and tired of jobbery and corruption as is evidenced by the fact that they themselves unanimously agreed at the annual congress that this power should be taken out of the hands of the Minister, who is the political head of the Department, and transferred to an independent board such as we envisage in this Bill.

In 1963, we tried very hard to have those powers taken from the political head of the Department and vested either in the courts or in the type of appeals board we now suggest. That view was not accepted by the Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government or by the Government at that time. Indeed, we were content to wait and to see how the Act would work out in practice. I think it is now quite clear, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the appeals provisions of the Act are not working satisfactorily. On the contrary, the appeals procedure is the object of widespread criticism, suspicion and distrust and, as I have shown here tonight —and I intend to mention further cases —of corruption. Indeed, it is very difficult to see how it could be otherwise.

This Bill has been introduced to put an end, once and for all, to this widespread criticism, this widespread suspicion, this distrust and, above all, to put an end to the corruption which exists at the present time. Not alone is it important that justice should be done but it is important that justice should be seen to be done. We heard about the young people and about what Deputy Colley, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, said in his speech. He said that young people should not be dispirited if, at some time, people in high places seemed to have low standards. He went on to say that people of low standards would never lead our country if young people were active and vigilant. We are inclined to ask what Deputy Colley was talking about, bearing in mind that apparently he knows better than most people the public image of Fianna Fáil. Many people know about the low standards in high places. Many people know what Fianna Fáil will, at times, stoop to, in order to bring grist to the mills of their own supporters. I hope and trust the case I have mentioned here tonight will be investigated immediately.

There are many other cases—recent cases — of the abuse of the power vested in the Minister, especially the petrol station in Mount Pleasant. We know that there were—I want to say this to the Minister — criticisms in newspapers. I want to give full credit to any newspaper that exposes corruption in any Party or section of the political life of this country be it here in Dáil Éireann, in Seanad Éireann or in any local authority. I think full credit should be given, no matter what paper it is, and it is wrong that any Minister or any Member of this House should criticise either newspaper editors or reporters for doing their duty —and more luck to them as long as they continue to do it in that direction.

As regards this particular case of Mount Pleasant, we know that there were a number of applications to Dublin Corporation from individuals who were anxious to buy this plot of land for a petrol station. The people concerned, who owned the land, and who wanted to sell it, also made application. They were all refused. The corporation gave good and valid reasons why they refused permission to erect petrol pumps at this particular spot. But, then, along comes another gentleman who buys it or takes an option on it. Because he has good contacts, he knows — beforehand — that, with the contacts he has, he can get permission. He takes the option on it and he submits the plans, and so on, to Dublin Corporation. He is refused but he appeals to the Minister. The Minister upheld the appeal and over-rode the corporation and a petrol station can now be built at Mount Pleasant.

The decision of the Minister has enhanced the value of the property by between £50,000 and £60,000. If people cry "corruption" in this particular case, there seems to be very good reason for it. If the owners of the property—who needed the money—had got the enhanced value for it we could not make these allegations. The Minister tried to tell us in this House that it was the owners of the property that got the planning permission—and he knew well, at the particular time, that that was not so. It was a man called Lahart. Indeed, his architect, the man who submitted the plans, was one of the men who appeared in the photograph the evening the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—at the time of the succession race—was coming home at the airport. The architect for Mr. Lahart appeared in the photograph holding a placard with the words "Charlie is the Greatest".

Mr. Boland

Deputy L'Estrange waited until I had spoken before deciding to throw this filth and dirt, in accordance with his Party's campaign. I want to tell Deputy L'Estrange that this matter has been referred to the Attorney General.

Mr. L'Estrange

Good: that is what I asked for.

Mr. Boland

It is being investigated by the proper authorities. If Deputy L'Estrange has the information —if he has not, he is a liar—let him go to the proper authorities, to the Garda, with it.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is it in order for the Deputy to call me a liar?

Mr. Boland

He is a dirty, cowardly cur, a dirty swine.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am exposing corruption.

Mr. Boland

He knows he is a liar because what he is saying is not true. The Garda will investigate this matter and expose it for what it is.

Mr. L'Estrange

We now have an example of dictatorial and arrogant behaviour because the Minister is exposed and because he has no answer. His Department is exposed.

Mr. Boland

Deputy L'Estrange thought he could say this without reply. He forgets that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries can speak on this. Deputy L'Estrange investigated it—a cur and a liar and a swine.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am proud—and I am neither a cur, nor a liar nor a swine.

Mr. Boland

And a coward, a yellow coward.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am prepared to come in here and to expose the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Boland

A cur: give your information if you have it. You have no information, because you are a liar, a swine and a coward.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am prepared to come in here and expose the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Boland

You are a liar, a coward and a cur.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am prepared to expose dirt and corruption. It is time it was exposed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy allow me? The word "liar" has been used. The word "liar" is disorderly.

Mr. L'Estrange

He called me a cur and a liar. I do not mind being called it by his kind at any time.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would ask the Minister to withdraw the word "liar".

Mr. Boland

I withdraw the words used in describing the type of person Deputy L'Estrange is and, as I have told him, this matter is being investigated by the proper authorities, by the Gardaí, and I have no doubt that if anything is discovered, the people concerned will be dealt with by the law of the land. I have no doubt about it that Deputy L'Estrange has no information. If he has, he should give it to the proper authorities. I will arrange that Deputy L'Estrange will be contacted and interviewed and if he has anything to disclose, let him do it.

Mr. L'Estrange

I have given what has appeared in the court, and I am glad to say that I have been called a cur and a swine and a liar and——

Mr. Boland

And a coward—and these words have been withdrawn in accordance with the rules of the House.

Mr. L'Estrange

——I am trying to expose the corruption that exists in the Fianna Fáil Party. I am glad to know that the case has been referred to the Attorney General, but it is not now that that should have been done.

Mr. Boland

As soon as it came to light. Nobody knew about it only you.

Mr. L'Estrange

This country knows about it since January, 1966, and it has been talked about since and it has been spoken about in the law courts and in hotels and in the lobbies of Leinster House for the past year. I am glad that I raised the anger of the Minister so much.

Mr. Boland

You will raise more. Do not meet me outside if you are wise. Do not meet me outside.

Mr. L'Estrange

If you tried to intimidate the people of this country in the by-roads or in the backward places, for God's sake, do not think you will intimidate me. I will meet you here and outside.

Mr. Boland

Or run. I believe you are a good runner.

Mr. L'Estrange

Dare you lay one hand on me. If the dead hand of Fianna Fáil has fallen on this country, your live or dead hand will not fall upon me.

Mr. Boland

I know. You are a good runner.

Mr. L'Estrange

Thanks be to God, I never had anything to run from.

Mr. Boland

You will.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is a proud moment for me to be able to say that my mention of this case has made you refer it to the Attorney General and I should like to know when it was referred. In the last five minutes?

Mr. Boland

No—last week— a week ago—and the first intimation I had of it was from you.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Government were doing their duty, it should have been referred in March, 1966——

Mr. Boland

Neither the Government nor any member of the Government knew anything about it.

Mr. L'Estrange

——when these cheques passed——

Mr. Boland

Passed where? That had nothing to do with the Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

——not now.

Mr. Boland

If there were cheques, they had nothing whatever to do with the Government and the Government knew nothing.

Mr. L'Estrange

If a man can get £3,000 by saying he can get planning permission and a man gives him £500 and post-dated cheques for £2,000 afterwards and if a settlement is made in court and he gets £1,500 sooner than have the dirty linen washed in front of the press photographers and journalists, there is something rotten in the State of Denmark.

Mr. Boland

That all has to be investigated. It has to be found out whether anything of what the Deputy says is true or not.

Mr. L'Estrange

Do you mean to tell me that the £1,500 was paid——

Mr. Boland

I do not know.

Mr. L'Estrange

If I was right in what I said and the papers are being referred to the Attorney General, what has annoyed you so much?

Mr. Boland

I do not know whether you are right. I want to find out.

Mr. L'Estrange

Then, why come in and call me a cur and a liar and lose your temper?

Mr. N. Lemass

This is typical eve of election Fine Gael dirt.

Mr. L'Estrange

Maybe that is what is annoying him. I admit it is not a bad time to find out about it.

Mr. N. Lemass

The whole Bill was designed to try to bring out the usual type of filthy campaign. It has done you no good in the country.

Mr. Boland

Deputy O'Donnell's files can be inspected again. Do not worry about that.

Mr. L'Estrange

You spent five days inspecting and talking about Deputy O'Donnell.

Mr. Boland

I mentioned a few cases at random to show the scope that was there if there were people with minds like yours on this side of the House, but there are not.

Mr. L'Estrange

There must be someone with a mind.

Mr. Boland

And there are no people here on this side who would descend, like your leader and Party, to a planned campaign like this. There is nobody like that here and never would be. Maybe you are not one of those on FitzGerald's side—trying to knife him in the back?

Mr. L'Estrange

What are you talking about?

Mr. Boland

Did Deputy Flanagan not say that he would only stay in the Party as long as it is necessary to defend Deputy Cosgrave from you and FitzGerald?

Mr. L'Estrange

Do not be codding yourselves, minding FitzGerald. We have a leader and we are proud of him and he will lead us to success in a very short time. All that is annoying you is that we are getting 38 per cent of the votes and you have fallen to 44 per cent and there is a bare six per cent between us and the gap is getting narrower.

Mr. Boland

Six by-elections in succession.

Mr. L'Estrange

You need more than a Cadbury snack to bridge that gap.

Mr. Boland

Six by-elections won in succession—that never happened before.

Mr. L'Estrange

We won three at one time in succession and did not brag as much. I am delighted that our Bill has exposed you and brought you out and proved here to this House and to the country what you are, what you can descend to, how you would intimidate the people if you could get away with it, but, remember, my dear little boy, you certainly will not intimidate me anyway, either here or outside in the corridors of the House. I will guarantee that and will guarantee that while we are in Opposition we will see——

Mr. Boland

And that will be for for a long time.

Mr. L'Estrange

——that there will be no corruption; we will see there is no corruption and we will see to it that these members of Taca who subscribe by hundreds cannot get thousands— two thousand or three thousand—by saying that they can influence Ministers to make decisions in certain ways. This is only one case that has come to light. You spent five days and out of about one thousand cases in the case of Deputy O'Donnell you got five. You made a very weak case. In the five you got in the end——

Mr. Boland

I made no case and did not attempt to make a case.

Mr. L'Estrange

——you could not prove anything.

Mr. Boland

I showed that if I had a mind like yours I could do it— if I had a filthy cesspool of a mind like yours.

Mr. L'Estrange

There is something annoying you dreadfully when you could lose your temper as you did a few minutes ago. Is your conscience pricking you or what is wrong that you could lose your temper at such a rate?

Mr. MacEntee

I thought we were discussing a Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Minister would allow me.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy L'Estrange address the Chair and get back to the Appeals Bill?

Mr. L'Estrange

Another case of abuse of the powers vested in the Minister as regards the petrol station at Mount Pleasant—I had stated before the Minister came in and in case he would say that I wanted to state anything behind his back I want to state now that the owners of this particular piece of ground were anxious to get money for it. They made application that they wanted to sell it to Dublin Corporation. They were refused. Another individual or two took an option on it. They were refused. But a particular individual——

Mr. MacEntee

By whom? The Deputy ought to be precise. Refused by whom? Dublin Corporation?

Mr. L'Estrange

Dublin Corporation, yes,. But there was another gentleman very closely associated with the Fianna Fáil Party, Mr. Lahart, and whose architect, as I have told you earlier, was in the photograph carrying the banner with the welcome home for the then Minister for Agriculture at the time of the succession race here, and had the placards "Charlie is the Greatest". He was helping to hold up one of these placards. This particular gentleman knew that he had the proper contact. He knew, in the words of Deputy Molloy who, speaking from those benches, said that the people are now opening their eyes and coming to him in their hundreds as regards planning permission and planning appeals. He took an option on the site. He knew what was going to happen. He used his influence and it came before the Minister and he got planning permission. The Minister over-ruled Dublin Corporation despite the fact that Dublin Corporation had refused both the owners of the property and one or two other individuals. The Minister tried to convey to us last week that it was the owners of the property who had obtained the planning permission. He knew that it was not the owners. He since knows that that piece of ground is worth £50,000 to £60,000 for a petrol station and it is not the unfortunate owners of the property who needed the money and who wanted the money who got the planning permission but the speculator who is closely associated with and attached to the Fianna Fáil Party who got it. I will quote from the Irish Times of Wednesday, 28th February, when the Minister was speaking on this. The Minister, of course, stated in this particular case——

Mr. Boland

Surely it is from the Official Report the Deputy should vote?

An Ceann Comhairle

Newspapers are accepted as well.

Mr. Boland

Newspapers are not an accurate account of what has been said in this House.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Minister has some fault to find with newspapers, that it not my fault. He can attack them directly or indirectly. I am entitled to quote from the Irish Times and I am quoting from the Irish Times.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is not quoting the Minister for Local Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am.

Mr. Boland

I want to make it clear that what Deputy L'Estrange purports to quote is not necessarily anything I said. This is just what Deputy L'Estrange would like me to have said and this in fact is not a quotation.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am quoting the Irish Times for Wednesday, February 28th.

Mr. Boland

That is what the Irish Times said.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is what the Minister said.

Mr. Boland

What I said appears in the Official Report. Why does Deputy L'Estrange not produce it?

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, having regard to the fact that there is an Official Report of what the Minister for Local Government said, is Deputy L'Estrange in order in ascribing to the Minister for Local Government words which are not apparently being quoted from the Official Report but from another source?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies have always been allowed to quote from newspapers. If the quotation is not correct, it can be denied.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy L'Estrange has declared that this is what the Minister said. I put it to you, Sir, that if the Deputy purports to quote the precise words of the Minister, then he must quote the Official Report.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the Deputy finished? The ex-Minister for Health must have a bee in his bonnet regarding the Irish Times, although they have published his letters in which he bitterly criticised some members of his own Government, including his Minister for Finance, about the riproaring inflation which we have had in the last few years. However, that is beside the point. I am quoting the Irish Times——

Mr. Boland

Quoting the Irish Times and not the Minister.

Mr. L'Estrange

"Taking everything into account——

Mr. Boland

For some reason Deputy L'Estrange does not want to quote the Minister but wants to quote a newspaper. I do not know why. But he does not want to say what I said.

Mr. L'Estrange

Certainly I do.

Mr. Boland

You do not; otherwise you would produce the Official Report.

Mr. L'Estrange

I take it that the Irish Times gives an exact account of what you stated.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is in order in quoting from a newspaper but he is not in order in alleging that the Minister made a certain statement.

Mr. L'Estrange

I would never allege that he made any statement. I want to quote from the Irish Times of Wednesday, 28th February:

Taking everything into account, the Minister said he was satisfied—

I have to say that because it is in the quotation.

Taking everything into account, the Minister said he was satisfied there would be an over-all improvement of that area with this development.

We know what he had to say about other areas on which Deputy P. O'Donnell was supposed to have ruled. When the Minister gives permission to erect a petrol pump in this area which is over-supplied with petrol pumps and a residential area, it is an asset.

Mr. L'Estrange asked was it the original owners or the speculator who bought the land who was to get the profit.

I asked that question because the Minister had left us under the impression that it was the original owners and he refused to answer the question but went on to make an attack on me. He had left us under the impression, when dealing with that particular case, that it was the original owners who he said, needed the money, who got the planning permission and that they would get the money. We know that is not so, that it is the speculator who bought the property from them at a very low price. This means that it is worth 30 to 40 times what he paid for it. If that is Fianna Fáil justice, then God help us all.

There is another case quoted here, the case of Raheny village, involving 90 to 100 acres at Kilbarrack. A man named Forkin had 70 acres and I think he had a compulsory purchase order clamped down on him. There were no corporation houses near Forkin's but Mr. Gallagher appealed to the Minister and the appeal was allowed for, approximately—I am not certain of the acreage—100 acres. In any event, that enhanced the value of the land three-fold. At a conservative estimate, it increased the value of the land from £1,000 to £3,000 or, we might take it, enhanced the value of the whole area by anything from £100,000 to £200,000 or £300,000 because the political head of a Department removed the compulsory purchase order on roughly 129 acres of this land.

It is completely wrong that that should be done for a particular individual while another individual has to remain out in the cold. I for one am not prepared to believe the very lame excuse given to us by the Minister when he was speaking in this House. The same man who got that is at present building houses in Dundrum. Let the Minister investigate this. He is getting away with putting down a 20-foot wide road where he should have put down a 24-foot wide road. He is bragging about getting away with it and saying that he is paying damn good funds to the particular Party and that it is an investment and that he does not see why he should not. Let the Minister see the width of the road which he is leaving there.

Mr. Boland

That is a matter for the local authority.

Mr. L'Estrange

Whoever it is a matter for, it is something that should be investigated immediately.

Mr. Boland

To whom is the Deputy alleging this money is being paid?

Mr. L'Estrange

I am alleging that the same man who had the 129 acres removed from the compulsory purchase order and who had the price of the land enhanced from £100,000 to £200,000 or £300,000, got, because of his contacts and because of his close associations with the present Government, and another man who was a builder who should have been entitled to——

Mr. Boland

That is not what you were dealing with.

Mr. L'Estrange

That same man is building at Dundrum, and he is building this 20 foot wide road when it should be 24 feet and he is bragging that he will get away with it; he does not give a jot about the authorities.

Mr. Boland

That is not what the Deputy said earlier.

Mr. L'Estrange

He subscribes in a large way——

Mr. N. Lemass

I am not surprised Deputy Ryan left before the Deputy got on to this topic because this is a matter for the local authority.

Mr. L'Estrange

Deputy Ryan left to get his tea. He will be back in a few minutes and he will speak again. I want to raise another case now, the case of two houses which were bought for about £7,000. There was a very colourful supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party, very colourful when he was on television recently; he had great praise for the Fianna Fáil Government. When he was asked how he became so wealthy, he said it was by using his head, his brains and initiative, and there was no luck and chance attached to it. This particular gentleman bought these two houses for about £7,000. The people who had them could not get planning permission. They were refused planning permission and the two houses were sold to this very colourful supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party for £22,000. Now these houses were situated at the corner of Lansdowne Road and Northumberland Road. The purchaser appealed to the Minister for Local Government for permission to build offices. He got permission immediately and he then sold the site to a property group for between £90,000 and £100,000. There was the speculator succeeding where others had failed, the speculator closely associated with the Government; he does not deny it. He admits he subscribes largely to the funds and it is admitted, I think, that he subscribed as much as £10,000 in 1961 and he brags that all the State cars were bought from that firm since.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy is thinking of the subscription Deputy O'Higgins got.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am thinking of the subscription of Stephen Flaherty to the Fianna Fáil Party and that all the State cars were bought from that firm since.

Mr. Boland

Nobody ever subscribed that amount to the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. L'Estrange

He claimed he subscribed £10,000 and he said it was the best investment he ever made because the Government have bought all the State cars from him since. In any case, planning permission was given contrary to the wishes of the local residents. It should be remembered, too, that these premises are situated at a very busy and dangerous junction. This man, through his contacts, through abuse of power and privilege by certain people, was able to rake off over £70,000 in one deal. It is wrong that any Minister, that the political head of any Department, should have such powers vested in him that any exploiter or speculator, knowing the facts beforehand, can buy from an unfortunate individual, an individual who is refused planning permission, and, immediately after buying, get planning permission and make £70,000 to £75,000 profit. That is blatant corruption. It should end. The system that encourages it——

Mr. Boland

That is imagination.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is not imagination.

Mr. Boland

Of course, it is.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is not imagination. The Minister——

Mr. Boland

It is invention.

Mr. L'Estrange

——can investigate and he will find that what I state are facts.

Mr. Boland

It is an invention of Deputy L'Estrange.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is not an invention. The Minister can investigate and he will find that these are the facts. This man bought for £22,000 the previous owner having been refused planning permission on appeal, and he was such a colourful figure, such a good supporter of the Party, such a good Taca member——

Mr. Boland

I do not believe he is a supporter.

Mr. L'Estrange

If a subscription of £10,000 does not indicate a good supporter, I wonder what the Minister would consider a good supporter.

Mr. Boland

I know we never got a subscription like that.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Minister describes that man as being not a good supporter, he must have some very good supporters indeed.

Mr. Boland

I do not believe what the Deputy says for one minute.

Mr. L'Estrange

We introduced this Bill because of the blatant corruption which I have exposed here this evening and the exposure of that corruption brought the Minister into the House like a mad, raving, roaring bull, to call me a cur——

An Ceann Comhairle

These words have been withdrawn and there is no necessity to go over them all again.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am glad that, by exposing the truth here, I roused the Minister's dander and showed the dictatorial and arrogant side of him.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy showed the filthy mind he has.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Minister tells me——

Mr. Boland

The Deputy showed his own low-down filthy mind.

Mr. L'Estrange

If my mind is filthy because I expose the truth and tell the truth——

Mr. Boland

No doubt the Deputy would go to the extremes a previous member of his Party went to. No doubt the Deputy has the same respect for the oath as other members of his Party have shown for it.

Mr. L'Estrange

We never passed the buck. We never said the oath was an empty formula. It is no wonder it is not respected in our courts today, remembering that people in high places referred to it as an empty formula.

Mr. Boland

They never took an oath. They made it quite clear they were taking no oath.

Mr. L'Estrange

We believe in justice and liberty and in cherishing all the children of the nation equally.

Mr. Boland

And in perjury.

Mr. L'Estrange

We do not believe in Fianna Fáil exploiters and chancers, and members of Taca, making £70,000 to £75,000 profit because they are in close contact with Ministers in Government and can get planning permission after that planning permission has been refused to others. It is time there was a change. It is no wonder the Minister has fought for seven days to hold on to the powers he has. If there were not some reason for it, the Minister would not have made such a fight against the proposed change. The Minister himself admits he had to stay up until 11 o'clock on Christmas Eve, burning the candle at both ends. If there were no particular reason for the Minister holding on to this power, why should he not be delighted now to avail of this Bill, to tell himself that here is a golden opportunity of passing this work over to an appeal board consisting of a judge and two assessors, a board which would deal fairly with all cases coming before it because, no matter what may be said about the judges——

Mr. Boland

The Deputy said it all. The Deputy's Party has said anything that can be said about them.

Mr. L'Estrange

Do not talk about the judges. I do not want to say what the Minister's Party said about them in the past.

Mr. Boland

What did Deputy Costello say about them?

Mr. L'Estrange

We know the respect the Minister and his Party had for them at one particular period in the history of this country. We believe that with the type of board we suggest justice would be dispensed and those who appealed to the board would get a fair crack of the whip. There would be no Tammany Hall methods then; those are the methods in existence at the moment. Fine Gael propose the establishment of an independent board devoted full-time to dealing with planning appeals. The board will be provided with such staff as are necessary to enable the board to function properly.

The Minister has told us about the large number of appeals that he has to deal with every year. He spoke at length of the amount of time he and other Ministers have had to devote to these appeals. He told us the number is growing every year. The total number of appeals dealt with in the year ending 30th September, 1967, was twice the number dealt with in the year ending 30th September, 1965. Power is given to the Minister in the Bill to increase the number of members of the board so that a second board would be available, if necessary, to deal with appeals. The second board would have the same powers and would act in all respects in the same way as the permanent board to be appointed under the Bill, but we believe that one board would be sufficient to deal with the number of appeals.

In the modern society in which we live it is obviously necessary that the State should play an ever-increasing role in public affairs; at the same time, the stage has been reached where, by steadily increasing autonomy, the Government and the Civil Service have quite literally become a law unto themselves. Most ministerial decisions made in exercise of discretionary powers vested in Ministers by various statutes are not subject to the authority of the court. There can be no appeal against them and they cannot be effectively made the subject of an inquiry even in this House by Parliamentary Question, by debate on the Adjournment or in the course of debates on the Estimate for a Minister's Department.

It is well known that the decisions of Ministers are too numerous to permit of any scrutiny in order to avoid the injustices which may arise and, indeed, do arise in many cases, as I have already pointed out. It is utterly impossible for any Minister to cope with all these appeals. Deputy P. O'Donnell was fair enough to state that he, as Minister for Local Government, could not possibly go through all the documents, through all the recommendations, objections, etc., involved in appeals. The Minister misquoted him here and tried to tell us that when Deputy P. O'Donnell was Minister for Local Government he only signed on the dotted line. Of course he said no such thing. He stated that, with all the different documents, all the different files and all the objections attached to each case, it would be impossible for any Minister to deal with each and every one, but that he would read the recommendations of his advisers and then make up his own mind. However, I think it is admitted that, except when certain political contacts are made, more frequently this authority is exercised through the Civil Service.

In most European countries they have provided some form of protection against arbitrary decisions by the Executive Government. In France they have an appeals council of their own. In Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and even in New Zealand there is an officer corresponding, perhaps, to an ombudsman about which we hear so frequently in modern times. Recently in Britain parliamentary commissioners were established in recognition of the growing public concern that individual citizens might be subjected to unfair treatment by Ministers in the exercise of their statutory powers. When in France, Sweden, Finland, Denmark. Norway and New Zealand power has been taken out of the hands of the Minister of Local Government, or whatever they call him in these different countries, and is being exercised by an independent board, I cannot see what is wrong in asking our Minister to shed the responsibility he has in this regard and set up the board that we have envisaged in this Bill.

A feature of cardinal importance in the case of the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission is the fact that they are quite independent of the Government and of the Minister in the terms of their appointment and in their operations. This is probably why they have always been able to exercise their powers judicially irrespective of the wishes of a particular Minister or of the pressures sometimes sought to be exercised by groups organised in relation to a particular holding of land. I am a long time in this House and I have never heard any Member, irrespective of the political Party to which he belonged, making any criticism of the Lay Commissioners. The type of board we envisage is similar to the Lay Commissioners who exercise their judicial function as regards the acquisition of land and who, I must say, do it very well. Justice seems to be done and justice is done in this case.

Under the Social Welfare Acts, a form of appeal to an appeals officer is provided. This is a satisfactory arrangement where the authority of the appeals officer is exercised independently while he is a member of the permanent staff of the Minister for Social Welfare. It is not the Minister who makes the decisions; it is these deciding officers, and I think there is very little fault to be found with them.

More important still, however, is the decision of the Government to accept the principle of an independent tribunal in the Redundancy Payments Act of 1967. That Act provides for the establishment of a Redundancy Appeals Tribunal to determine appeals. The tribunal has all the powers necessary to enable it to exercise its power independently, independent of the Minister and independent of the Department of Labour. It might be no harm to mention that under the Bill as introduced by the Minister for Labour no such tribunal was provided for. Appeals were to be taken to an appeals officer under the Social Welfare Acts. It is very much to the credit of the Minister for Labour that he accepted an amendment by Deputy Jones to establish an independent appeals tribunal. It is also perhaps an interesting coincidence to recall that it was Deputy Jones, Fine Gael spokesman for local government when the Planning Bill was being debated in the House, who so strongly, so persistently and so rightly advocated the necessity of making provision for appeals to be decided by an independent authority and not by the political head of the Department. As far as we are concerned, it may be a Fianna Fáil Minister today or a Fine Gael Minister tomorrow, but we believe it is wrong to leave this power in the hands of any Minister, whoever he may be.

In this Bill Fine Gael propose that the new board shall consist of an independent chairman who shall be a judge of the Circuit Court, the High Court or the Supreme Court and two other members, one to be drawn from a panel of members nominated by the Minister for Local Government and the other to be drawn from a panel constituted by the Local Appointments Commission. The person drawn from the panel must be a qualified civil engineer, qualified architect or qualified town planner. The idea behind it is a good one. It takes the power away from the political head of the Department and places it in the hands of a judge—a man who would not be intimidated by the bullying and arrogant tactics we had here tonight from the Minister for Local Government, a man who would be independent of that type of conduct, a man who would hear the appeals and come to a fair decision having listened to all the evidence and assisted, as we said, by two assessors.

When this Bill was going through this House the Minister for Local Government spoke with his usual sneering, slanderous and mud-throwing statements, the kind at which Fianna Fáil are so good, having been character assassins for a long number of years now. Of course, they were throwing the dirt that the lawyers wanted this to bring grist to their own mills. I want to refute that statement. As far as the lawyers and solicitors in Fine Gael are concerned, they are not briefless barristers but barristers who are in the higher income brackets. They are men who have made a success of their own careers and they do not want grist to be brought to their mills by Fianna Fáil or anybody else. We refute the allegations and sneers and jibes that were made in this House by the Minister for Local Government when he was speaking on this Bill—the sneers he made about judges, about solicitors and about barristers. You would expect a little more from him. But, indeed, seeing his behaviour here tonight, I am surprised that he was not worse and did not go even further in his remarks. I want to refute his allegations. If Fianna Fáil Ministers want to judge other persons by their own low standards certainly, as far as I am concerned, the Minister for Local Government is not going to get away with it in this House. If we have lawyers and solicitors in our Party, we are proud of them. They are earning their living honestly through hard work. They have not to stoop to the corruption and low tactics to which members of the Fianna Fáil Party have to stoop. I would ask you not to judge the people on this side of the House as perhaps you know some of your own friends.

The purpose of appointing a judge to act as chairman of this tribunal was to provide something I believe is really necessary—new public confidence in planning appeals. There is no use preaching about cherishing all the nation's children equally if we are not prepared to see that it comes to pass. In our present society no better system for ensuring fair play for all concerned has been devised than the machinery for the appointment of judges, men who are absolutely independent in the exercise of their judicial powers. Down through the years the system of judicial appointments here has worked very well and has given general satisfaction to the community. After the cases I have exposed here tonight, indeed the fact that the Minister lost his temper and referred to me as "a cur, a liar and a swine"——

Mr. Boland

There is another one. What about a coward?

Mr. MacEntee

The cap seems to have fitted.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am delighted that, through my exposing the corruption that exists in this country, the Minister lost his temper to such an extent that he had to come in here like a madman, a raving lunatic, attacking me and challenging me as to what he would do with me outside the House. I am glad that the fact I mentioned this case here this evening has brought this response from the Minister, but I am doubly glad to hear that at long last it has been referred to the Attorney General.

I was saying that the system of judicial appointments has given general satisfaction. No doubt individuals will harbour a sense of grievance because a particular judge has not seen things their way. There must be a loser in every contest, even before a judicial person. What we want more than anything else today is to restore confidence. The public in Ireland have an unshakeable belief in the impartiality and incorruptibility—and I stress those words—of our judges. It is for that reason that we in Fine Gael propose that a judge should be the chairman of the board, and that the decision of the board will be the decision of the judge who will have the benefit of the assistance of two highly qualified persons, one appointed by the Minister and another from the panel of the Local Appointments Commissioners.

It has been said here by members of the Fianna Fáil Party that a judge is not a properly qualified person to hear and determine appeals under the Planning Act. Some of those people made different charges against judges. I think the same can be said of Ministers of State. Many people could say that they have not the experience to deal with these appeals. The charges which were made here against this type of board by members of the Fianna Fáil Party could equally be made against many of our Ministers for Local Government. In any event, I think it is wrong even to say that they are not qualified, because judges have the capacity and training, and in sitting and acting judicially, they have given considerable satisfaction to people appearing before them with wage claims and as regards the acquisition of land. The people appointed were not farmers; they were judges.

I do not think there is any member of this House who can find fault with them. No one can come in here and make any charges of corruption against any of those individuals or make any charges of corruption in any way as regards their decisions. That is a grand thing. We would like it if we could get the same confidence instilled into our people in respect of town planning. That is why we want to get away as quickly as possible from the present system where any Minister of State—I do not mind whether he is a Fianna Fáil Minister, a Labour Minister or a Fine Gael Minister—has the authority to make or break an individual or a firm. That is what they can do with the powers vested in them under the 1963 Act. I pointed out how a decision of a Minister enabled a particular gentleman to buy a piece of ground for £22,500, get planning permission, and then sell that piece of ground for £95,000, making a profit of £75,000 thereby.

Mr. MacEntee

Does the Deputy suggest that a decision of a judge could not do the same thing?

Mr. L'Estrange

Certainly the judges and their assessors will have all the information before them. They will be guided not by whether the applicant is a member of Taca, or a member of Fianna Fáil, or a subscriber to that Party——

Mr. MacEntee

That is not the point. I know the Deputy has an obsession about Taca. That is not the question I put to him. I put to him this question: will not the decision of a judge or an appeals tribunal in some instances greatly benefit a successful appellant, and in some cases very gravely damage him? That is the issue.

Mr. L'Estrange

The case I want to make is this. If the owner of a piece of land applies for permission to build and is refused, and if another person takes the option, one or two, and is refused, and then another person who is known to be a member of Taca and is well in with the Government buys that piece of ground and immediately gets permission and its value is enhanced by £50,000 or £60,000, as happened in the case of Mount Pleasant or in the other case I mentioned of the corner site at Northumberland Road where other people had been refused permission, and then this flamboyant supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party bought it——

Mr. MacEntee

Do not try to confuse the issue. The refusals in question were refusals by the planning authority. Assume in the case of your tribunal that the planning authority has twice refused planning permission and then some person goes to the appeals tribunal, will it be improper for that tribunal to grant the appeal if they are satisfied that justice demands it?

Mr. N. Lemass

What judge or justice would want to be a cockshot for those characters?

Mr. L'Estrange

There are justices and judges presiding as Lay Commissioners in regard to the acquisition of land, which affects farmers and people in rural areas, and no person here can speak of any case of corruption or intimidation. A judge will be presiding under the Redundancy Act.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 13 Mar 1968

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

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1968