When speaking on the last occasion I mentioned certain things that got under the skin of the Minister. I do not want to refer to what he said about me on that occasion, as far as I am concerned I am prepared to stand on my own two feet.
We introduced this Bill because we believe it is wrong for any individual to have the power to make or break other individuals or firms. We believe it is wrong no matter what Government are in power, because this power can be abused, has been abused by members of the present Government and is being abused. We want to see an end to corruption and palm greasing in this country. We want to see introduced a fairer system where all the children of the nation will be cherished equally. We hear much of that phrase from the Government. We believe it wrong that people with political contacts can come to a Minister and because of the action he can take— and, due to political pressure, very often does take—he can overnight make wealthy chancers, speculators, or whatever you like to call them.
As I pointed out on the last day, certain people who own certain property were refused planning permission, were refused on appeal, but other people who had the political contacts, who had the friends in court, could buy those properties at a low value, knowing when they did so that they could get planning permission. As I stated previously, in many cases the value of those properties was increased five, ten and even 15 times what they paid for them originally. We believe it is wrong to have this power vested in Ministers of the Government Party. Since 1932 they have never hesitated at any time to use their power and influence to further the interests of their followers. Indeed, they make no secret of it. It can truly be said that since 1932 they have never hesitated at any time to use the taxpayers' money to keep the Fianna Fáil Party in office and to help further the interests of those who, like the members of Taca and others, support them financially.
We have introduced this Bill to put an end to what the Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke about last September in Galway—low standards in high places. We want to ensure that all our people, whether they be planners or builders, people with land to sell for building or people looking for planning permission to alter existing buildings, no matter from what stratum of society they come, no matter which political Party they may be attached to, or even if they are attached to no Party at all, get from this Government what under God and an Irish Constitution, they are entitled to, that is, fair play and a fair deal. Unfortunately, they are not getting it from the present Minister for Local Government and they did not get it from his predecessor.
The Minister spent five days here making an argument against this Bill, but he had a bad case. He went back to the thousands of appeals dealt with by a previous Minister for Local Government, Deputy P. O'Donnell, but not in one single case could he find any corruption or semblance of corruption. That is a great record for that Minister and for that Government. We are proud of it.
I would like to draw the Minister's attention to another case in my own constituency in the town of Athlone. Mr. Anthony Hughes, Central Terrace, Athlone, was refused permission by Athlone UDC to extend his house to the front. He wanted to turn it into a licensed premises. He appealed against the decision of the UDC. He got his local friend, the Minister for Justice, to contact the Minister for Local Government. The Minister for Local Government replied to the Minister for Justice stating that he would look after his friend and that everything would be all right. He certainly looked after his friend. The gentleman concerned, who is a supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party and an active member of Taca, got permission to extend his house and erect a licensed premises in this area.
In the course of this debate, the Minister for Local Government has claimed that information could be got in the Dáil or got by individuals and that reasons would be given why permission was granted or refused in any case. In this case the Athlone UDC wrote to the Minister asking him to give his reasons for overruling their decision and giving this gentleman permission. The Minister failed to give any reasons. He merely referred the council to the section in the Act giving him the right to overrule their decision. His letter read very badly in The Westmeath Independent. That was the position, despite the fact the Minister comes in here to tell us that he and his Department are prepared to give the information. Here is a glaring example of an urban district council requesting a Minister to give his reasons, and getting an arrogant reply that under a certain section of the Act he had the authority to overrule the decision, that he had done it, and that was the only regard he had for the people.
I should also like to mention another case. Deputy Blaney was Minister for Local Government and he will remember the case very well. A particular gentleman applied for permission to erect a building at Salthill and was refused. He was a particular friend of the former Deputy Bartley, who was then Minister for Defence, I think. It seems that in Galway they know the proper thing to do, because Deputy Molloy, the man who has since taken the place of Deputy Bartley, told us in this House that people are coming in their hundreds to him to get these things done. In any case this gentleman approached Deputy Bartley, and Deputy Bartley approached the Minister on his behalf, and the planning authority were overruled.
The reason I say the Minister will remember that case is that some time afterwards he was in Galway, and he was walking down Salthill with Mr. C. I. Flynn, the County Manager, and he saw this building and said: "In the name of God, why did you allow that building to be erected there?" Mr. Flynn said: "We refused it, but you overruled our objections, and that is why the building is now there." That building should never have been allowed to be erected, but because the gentleman was a friend of Deputy Bartley, the Minister overruled the planning authority and allowed it to be erected.
As reported at column 2013, volume 232 of the Official Report of 28th February, 1968, the Minister said:
I promised Deputy Belton I would deal with the case which his leader utilised as his contribution to the Opposition campaign in this regard.
I asked him for the reference and he gave it. The Minister said:
Yes. Column 651, in which Deputy Cosgrave stated:
I am aware of one case in my own constituency where at the junction of two roads there was a petrol filling station already established which had access to both roads. Although the residents objected and the local authority refused permission, on appeal, permission was granted to build another petrol station. Justification for decisions of that character is not obvious.
The Minister knew well what Deputy Cosgrave was referring to. Deputy Cosgrave was speaking of a case in Goatstown where there was an old garage in existence, and a particular man who was a friend of the Government was allowed to build another garage adjoining it. This is definitely a case where permission should not have been granted. The Minister brought this in and tried to tie it up with Deputy Belton's case. Deputy Belton's case was a filling station in Dún Laoghaire. The local people objected and the Minister overruled the objections. It is very unfair for the Minister to try to tie up that case with the case which Deputy Cosgrave raised, which was completely different.
The Minister also during the course of his lengthy reply on numerous occasions misquoted a previous Minister for Local Government. He claimed that the previous Minister said he had not read the files and had merely put his name to them. Deputy P. O'Donnell said no such thing. He pointed out the huge number of cases that came before a Minister, that the officials added their memos to them, and he claimed—I think, justly—that it would be impossible for any Minister to read everything connected with the appeals. He was quite in order in stating that, and he said—which I believe is right—that he was guided by his officials.
It is much better for any Minister to be guided by his officials, to be guided by engineers and other officials in his Department, who are not biased one way or another, and who look at a proposition from the planning point of view. It can be said for our civil servants, as it can be said for our judiciary, that they are above corruption, that they cannot be bought, and do not stand for palm greasing. It is right that a Minister should be guided by those people who were doing their duty as it should be done. Deputy P. O'Donnell said he was guided by them in the vast majority of cases. It is much better that he should be guided by those people, but in the Minister's case, it is quite different because members of his own Party admit that they are approaching him day after day, and Deputy Molloy said they were coming in their hundreds to him. We think it wrong that politicians should be in a position to get a Minister to grant planning permission to their friends.
As reported at column 1579, volume 232 of the Official Report of 21st February, 1968, the Minister said:
This Bill is ostensibly introduced in order to set up special machinery to deal with planning appeals, to make a fundamental change in the Planning Act which places a responsibility on the Minister and to hand it over to another body. It is for the purpose of setting up rather elaborate machinery, the function of which would result in what might be described as a lawyers' paradise.
I want to say that the County Management Act took responsibility and power out of the hands of the local authorities. The Minister for Labour has certain responsibility which will be dealt with by a judicial board. The same applies to the Department of Social Welfare. The final say is not, and should not be, with the political head of the Department.
I want to refer to the innuendoes of the Minister on that day when he referred to what might be described "a lawyers' paradise". Neither the Minister nor any other member of Fianna Fáil should judge those on this side of the House by their own low standards. They can only see in the powers conferred on them by being in government something to bring grist to their own mills or the mills of somebody connected with them. They should remember that this measure is not intended to bring grist to the lawyers on this side of the House because those lawyers and solicitors are not briefless but lawyers and solicitors who are making a first-class job of their profession, honest, sincere and hard-working men. They do not introduce this or any other Bill to bring grist to the mills of any lawyers. It is wrong for the Minister to refer to this as something that might be described as "a lawyers' paradise".
On 27th February, at column 1838, the Minister said:
That is not the point at all. The point is that this is a bogus Bill submitted by the Fine Gael Party.
If it is a bogus Bill, why did he spend five days, seven and a half to eight hours, replying to this debate? I cannot understand his thinking in this regard or how he thinks it is a bogus Bill if it is to take power out of the hands of a politician and put it into the hands of people who will act in a fair and just way. I do not agree with the Minister's sentiments as expressed then.
He went on to refer to political activity and said:
...instead to embark on a deliberate campaign of wholesale slander. That was a coldblooded decision by the Fine Gael Party.
There was no coldblooded decision taken so far as this Party are concerned. The slanderers and character assassins are on the other side of the House judging by the attack made on Deputy Fitzpatrick and myself, but we can hold our heads high, perhaps as high as, or higher than, some members of Fianna Fáil. For many years Fianna Fáil have acted as character assassins and their ideas and the Minister's idea, I suppose, in coming in here was like that of the boy with bandy legs who, when if he got into a row at school with any other boy began shouting: "Bandy legs! Bandy legs!" before the other boys got an opportunity of shouting it at him. The Minister's behaviour on the last occasion was something about which perhaps the least said at this stage the better.
At column 1839 of the same report, the Minister also said that Deputy L'Estrange in his capacity as Whip had decided to prevent the majority of the Party speaking on this Bill. We introduced the Bill and sent in our own speakers. We cannot interfere with the Fianna Fáil Party who have their rights just as we have. At no time did we try to prevent Fianna Fáil or any other Party speaking in this House. From the foundation of the State, I think we have a prouder and better record in that regard than the Government Party. We are proud that we have always stood for free speech.
At column 1842, the Minister said:
Part of Deputy Cluskey's reasons for raising this was to attack individuals outside the House and I know the Opposition are even trying to brand everyone who engages in business in the provision of houses as being essentially evil.
We certainly are not. We and our Government helped in every way people who were themselves prepared to build their own houses or contractors prepared to build houses for others. The Minister should remember that it was a member and a Minister of the inter-Party Government who gave the second grant of £300 to anybody building his own house or building houses for anybody else. We are proud of that and we certainly do not condemn as evil people engaged in the provision of houses. But we do not believe it is right for any individual connected in any way with the Government or with Taca or a similar organisation to use his contacts or his money to buy or get planning permission. That is why we believe the present system is wrong and lends itself to abuse and is being abused. We think the time has come to take it out of the hands of the Minister and hand it over to the type of body proposed in this Bill.
One of the accusations we made against the Minister was in regard to Mount Pleasant. I think no Minister of State should come to this House and coldbloodedly try to mislead the people because at column 1854, when the Minister was replying to the debate, I asked him:
Can the Minister answer one question? Will the speculator who bought the land or the original owner get the big profit? The Minister knows that it is the speculator, not the original owner, who made the big profit and he has deliberately refrained from mentioning it.
The Minister said:
If Deputy L'Estrange believes these fantastic stories, let him go ahead.
The Minister then went on to say:
I do not accept for a moment, because I am not a fool, that there is any advantage accruing to anybody, and nobody with normal intelligence would accept it.
I want to put on the records of this House that the facts are that the people who own the property applied for and were refused permission and that the Minister knew when he was making this particular statement that it was a Mr. Lahard, who was closely connected with the Fianna Fáil Party and that when the Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Charles Haughey, was returning—I think it was from Paris—when they were carrying the placard with the words "Charlie is the Greatest", his architect appeared in a picture as holding it up.
