I will not go down that road any further as it would be too provocative and because this is a night on which we should all unite behind a reasonable and sensible measure. The principal proposals in this legislation include the ending of the open-ended right to compensation for often speculative developments which the taxpayer currently has to pay for arising out of the legitimate refusal by a planning authority of planning applications which in their judgment contravene their draft development plans.
This measure, when enacted, will also remove the definite pressure that exists on local authorities to grant such planning permissions against their better judgment, under the threat of large compensation claims. Many of us are aware of instances where such permissions have been granted reluctantly and against the better instincts of local authorities because they feared they would receive a massive compensation claim and that is a shame. Once again this penalises those who play by the rules and who accept the verdict of planning authorities or of An Bord Pleanála in these matters and apparently rewards those who believe that you can and should ride a coach-and-four through these pieces of legislation.
The second major measure in the Bill is, as I have mentioned, the appalling abuse of unfinished housing estates all over the country. Although for some reason this has not caught the public imagination in the same way as the first abuse has, it has caused probably the same, if not more, distress economically and socially to many couples already hard pressed to try to raise money for mortgages and for their ordinary day to day needs. Under this Bill that will end because local authorities will be given the power to insist on a sequence of development in their planning permission which will ensure that the essential infrastructure or basic facilities which are necessary in any community will be put in place before the houses are occupied. It is quite wrong that some, the chancers engaged in this activity who are unfortunately a reflection on the legitimate builders and are detrimental to the interests of all right-minded people who are interested in seeing the developments coming on stream, have not just done this once or twice but continue to replicate their anti-social activities. Despite the promise of Fianna Fáil a long time ago that action would follow immediately, nothing has happened to date. This Bill, therefore, has to be a watershed in that respect. It points the way forward to ensuring that that abuse ceases.
There is also a provision in the Bill that where a developer has not completed a development in accordance with the terms of a permission, a planning receiver who will carry out that work and ensure that the developer pays the cost can be appointed. The concept of the planning receiver is, like much of what this party put forward, new and radical. It proposes a system which will not rely on the labyrinthine processes of out-dated law in order to bring about the progress that is necessary. It is a measure which, if the local authority fails in the normal way to insist on proper standards, will allow them to go immediately to the courts to have the receiver appointed, to have him or her do the job and pursue the developer for the costs. They are not going to pussyfoot around for years while some developer rides a coach-and-four through the courts and exercises an infinite appeal to the courts for an effective delay, wearing down the patience, not just of the local authority but also of the unfortunate residents who in many cases at present have to band together in order to insist on minimal standards of environmental provision and facility for their families. That abuse exists at present and is being over-seen by the Government as it was over-seen by their predecessors. When the Minister intervenes in this debate I want him to commit himself to accepting the Bill for that reason. He is the recipient, as is everyone in this House, of pleas from people who find themselves in that situation.
The third measure is very important from our point of view, as a party who believe that there should be easy and relatively inexpensive recourse to justice for any citizen and for local authorities. The whole process of pursuing those who behave in this anti-social manner is made, in this Bill, easier and less expensive. A Circuit Court will be given the powers, under the appropriate section of the Bill, to deal with requests for planning injunctions, rather than the High Court as heretofore. That recourse to the High Court is available and has worked but is unnecessarily cumbersome and expensive and therefore, particularly in view of the relative paucity of funds which this Minister has made available to local authorities, is likely to be less utilised than has been the case up to now. There is no reason the Circuit Court should not be given the opportunity of making an adjudication on applications by local authorities for planning injunctions where such urgent action is required. That is reasonable and in the common good. Therefore, quick and inexpensive recourse could be had to the law and the courts would have power to make orders which are mandatory in character. That would be a significant and effective change in the legislation. It would ensure not just that there is a cosmetic exercise of going through the legal motions but that the court will have real power to make public policy which will stick in a case like this. We can see no valid argument, therefore, for not granting to circuit courts the powers to operate in this area in order to ensure that the kind of fly-by-night operator, which this Bill is designed to get at, is dealt with quickly, efficiently and as inexpensively as possible.
Under this Bill the bizarre situation at present operating in relation to the obligation on sanitary authorities and local authorities to provide various essential services, such as sewerage services, to developments, even when they are illegal, is removed and the onus is shifted to where it should be, in favour of the local authority and the taxpayer. It is quite preposterous that somebody who has proceeded illegally with a development is, in the eyes of some people, still entitled to exact from the taxpayer and the nearest local authority a service for the disposal of sewage and so on from his or her development. That is clearly nonsensical. Some of us might suggest that in other areas of law we might go a little further, if we are serious about such illegal planning developments, and say that no service which the State has an influence in providing should be made available to those who contravene the law. That is perhaps another day's debate and I do not want to unnecessarily widen this debate. This Bill makes provision to deal rapidly with another area of abuse at present on the Statute Book.
We want to make clear that we are still on the side of protecting the fundamental rights of people who own property and land. We are not suggesting that we should rewrite that fundamental principle or indeed rewrite the Constitution in any way. We are simply saying that people with property have obligations as well as rights and that we are endeavouring to redress the imbalance which has been allowed to develop over years of neglect politically and from a legislative point of view, to the extent that local authorities consider themselves to be under this kind of pressure. In this respect at least we have no intention of rewriting the Constitution. The rights of individuals are still important to us, although I have to add that there are other areas in which we are quite happy to rewrite the Constitution and, if the Whips of the House allow it, we will be quite happy to debate that some other night. However, that is not an issue in this area.
I do not want someone to raise the perennial red herring of constitutional difficulty that is raised whenever someone does not want to do anything, as a reason for inaction in this case. That will not wash for a number of reasons. If the Minister has taken the trouble, as I am sure he has, to read paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill he will see that there are a number of legal cases, the details of which I do not intend to go into but which show that the courts have once again been nudging the arm of Government to do something in this area. Those cases clearly indicate that there is no rational basis for any concern in this respect. The 1989 case of Pine Valley Developments Limited v. Minister for the Environment clearly indicated that there was no real foundation for any such fears. It is no harm to point that out lest someone may use it as an argument for dodging or weaving away from the essential issue. Planning permission in respect of speculative developments has been described as an enhancement to property rights and a bonus in that case. In that case also the Supreme Court held that a property developer could not sue for breach of constitutional rights when a planning permission was declared invalid by the courts as there was no constitutional right to planning permission in respect of such speculative developments.
The court went beyond that in the X.J.S. Investments Limited case when it actually queried whether "legislation which appears to authorise such a use of public funds is constitutionally proper" in itself. In other words, in so far as the courts have given any indication in these matters, they have said quite clearly and explicitly that the present mechanics which operate are probably in breach of the Constitution. I do not want this argument trotted out here because whenever anybody wants to give a excuse for doing nothing, they invariably mention the Constitution. The Constitution is not an argument against accepting this Bill and it should not be so produced.
We are quite happy to assert that the land owner still has the right to receive compensation when a refusal of planning permission effectively means that he cannot develop his land within the reasonable and lawful expectations which he would normally enjoy under the development plan for his area or under any reasonable expectation in terms of the zoning for that area or under any other relevant criteria. We do not believe that someone who has land, and whose application for planning permission is turned down because it is in open conflict with the development plan for the area, should get compensation relevant to the notional value of the permission for which he or she applied. That is what we are aiming at in this Bill. I want to emphasise that there is no suggestion of undermining any constitutional right in the matter. The constitutionality of this has been dealt with very comprehensively in our Explanatory Memorandum which sets out clearly the reasons there is no basis for any suggestion that this Bill can be challenged on these grounds.
With your permission, Sir, as is normal procedure, I wish to allow Deputy Martin Cullen to take the remainder of my time. I appeal to the Government who were explicit last February when they were in a givish mood, and they were particularly givish in this respect and put it in writing. I am not one who waves documents in front of people because that sort of thing is over-played as a political device, particularly when there is a library of such documents which could be produced on occasions like this, but the vehement and explicit commitment of the Taoiseach on that occasion was a joy to behold. I was present at that debate and there was no suggestion of equivocation, ambiguity or any wobbling which occasionally occurs. The Taoiseach said there would be action "immediately", and he then put it in writing that his party, Fianna Fáil, did not see a problem constitutionally and would go further, and he went on to say precisely how they would deal with this. When we considered the issue we were happy to be able to embody some of the thinking in that expressed commitment in our Bill. If the Minister says this is a good Bill and he accepts it, I will be very interested to hear what excuse he produces for any kind of prevarication.
I am overcome at Fine Gael's enthusiasm for accepting our policies and I am looking forward to their warm endorsement of this Bill. I do not see any inhibition on their part in endorsing our policies these days, and we welcome that even if it is a latter day conversion and if, in some cases, our bruises are barely recovering from the hammering we got during the election when we suggested certain radical ideas in the taxation area, which are now to be the basis of a broad political consensus. I remember taking some stick from my erstwhile colleagues — and, who knows, ideologically identical colleagues on this issue at least — when I mentioned that during the elections. I am looking forward to their support.
If the Minister says tonight that he thought about this Bill and is in favour of it, but that it is flawed and he has a better Bill on the stocks — that has happened on previous occasions — part of me will be elated but another part of me will be deeply suspicious. Like Thomas when Christ appared to him I need to see the wounds. I need to see the heads of the Bill chapter and verse and I need explicit commitments on the date of introduction before we suggest even considering whether we should make any kind of gesture in terms of conciliation to this Government who, by and large, have neglected and ignored this area. We are not unwilling to listen to any reasonable offer from a Minister who, now and again, has proved to be quite reasonable in his approach to these matters. I want to see in black and white, or even in technicolour, precisely what the Minister has in mind. I would possibly want to see it in triplicate before I would be satisfied.
I will ask my colleague, Deputy Harney, to answer this debate next week. In the meantime I have no doubt a number of my colleagues will want to contribute. I formally move the adoption of this Bill by the Dáil. I appeal to all sides to accept it. We all know the principle is right. My party are not hung up about dotting an "i" or crossing a "t" if an amendment is appropriate. We are not pretending this is the last word on these matters but we can claim truthfully it is the first word in any real sense in trying to do something about this problem.
On behalf of the Progressive Democrats I have great pleasure in commending this Bill to the House. I will ask my colleague, Deputy Cullen, to continue.