I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 23 to 26, to delete all words from and including "on such day" down to the end of the section and substitute "one calendar month after its enactment by the Oireachtas.".
Section 2 states:
This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may fix by order, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision, and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different provisions of this Act.
It is a concern of the Fine Gael Party that we enact legislation and bring it into force as rapidly as possible to tackle the very serious inadequacies of our laws with regard to compensation claims and compensation awards. This legislation was published on 18 October 1988 and has had an extensive Second Stage debate. At the time I made the point that I felt the legislation was grossly inadequate and did not deal properly with many of the problems that had to be confronted. During the course of that debate I listed a number of problems with the legislation as I saw it and proposed a number of different approaches I hoped the Minister would be willing to take on board.
As we start this debate I want to say I am pleased the Minister, in the vast number of amendments he has tabled, has taken on board many of the fundamental changes that Fine Gael proposed to this Bill. Whereas I still disagree with some aspects of the Minister's approach, I think even if none of the Opposition parties' amendments were accepted — I hope some of the amendments tabled on this side of the House by all parties will be accepted — and even if we simply took on board the Minister's amendments, the Bill would emerge from the current procedure as a measure vastly improved from that originally proposed to the House. I am glad the Minister, having said to the House on Second Stage that he wished to hear what Members had to say about the Bill, has shown a genuinely constructive response to many of the criticisms of the Bill. It is right that we say this because on too many occasions when Opposition Deputies raise issues with legislation Ministers go deaf and are not willing to take on board constructive changes that are proposed. Therefore, I welcome the approach the Minister has shown to the Bill and many of the amendments he has proposed. Certainly they will improve the Bill.
Due to the inadequacies of the original legislation it is only now, in February 1990, almost a year-and-a-half since this Bill was first published, that we are getting down to Committee Stage. In the time lapse that has taken place further possible claims for compensation in circumstances that we would regard as unjustifiable have been lodged against local authorities. Local authorities are at risk of further claims being processed and awards being made that I do not believe are in the interests of the wider community.
I do not really understand why section 2 is phrased as it is. I do not see why, once this legislation is passed through this House and through the Seanad and is signed by the President, it should not automatically become law. I do not know why the Minister intends, as it appears from the section, to bring different parts of the legislation into force at different times. I am concerned that that could result in further compensation claims building up that may have to be determined under the current law and under the criteria laid down in the current law rather than be determined under the new provisions we are going to enact under this Bill. Therefore, my initial reaction to section 2 is that it should be opposed, and I think Deputies Quinn and Gilmore have taken a similar view. If I understand the procedures of this House, we will go through a two-fold voting stage. My reaction is that the section should be taken out of the Bill. If we do not succeed in taking it out of the Bill we should delimit the time following the passage of the legislation within which it comes into force.
In a sense, my amendment No. 1 is an alternative to taking this section completely out of the Bill. If we cannot take the section completely out of the Bill I propose a substitute amendment to the effect that the Bill must come into force one calendar month after its enactment by the Oireachtas. The Minister may feel that for some reason local authorities may require a brief lead-in time following the Bill being signed by the President to come to terms with the provisions contained in the legislation, though I do not see why they would need that lead-in time.
The preferable approach would be to delete section 2 and let the Bill commence upon its enactment. The next preferable approach, though not the best, would be to have 21 days or one calendar month following the signing of the Bill by the President and it becoming law. The worst approach of all is to have this provision in section 2 that is there which means that, first, following the enactment of the legislation there is no certainty when it will become operative. It may not become operative in 1990; it may become operative in 1991 or 1992. There is no certainty when different parts or different aspects of the legislation will become operative. Because of the interacting nature of the legislation and because different provisions in it are interdependent with other provisions, I see some difficulty in different parts being brought into play at different stages.
I urge the Minister to reconsider section 2. It is the type of section we have as a commencement section. It is what one has seen in other legislation. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsman just put it in. We had a similar provision in the Building Control Bill which gave rise to similar concerns. I do not think it is appropriate in this legislation, considering the lead-in time to our getting to Committee Stage. If the Minister feels there is some need to give owners of lands a warning of this legislation, they have had a year and a half to be warned. I do not think people who seek to abuse the provisions in the Planning Acts to seek unjustified compensation in circumstances that from a social policy perspective are indefensible should be given any particular notice in any case. I ask that the Minister agree that section 2 be deleted. If he will not agree to that, then I propose amendment No. 1 which would have the effect of ensuring that within one calender month of the legislation being enacted it would come into force.
This is very important legislation. As far as I know, in a local authority of which I am a member, Dublin County Council, there are accumulated possibilities of compensation claims amounting to in the region of £18 million. I am not saying some of the property development companies who may seek to make those claims will necessarily succeed in them even under existing legislation. They may not, and I want to say nothing in this House to lend credibility to some of those claims. However, they are there and that local authority are under threat from them. There are probably other claims mounting or threatened against other local authorities. I am most familiar with what Dublin County Council are confronted with and because of that it is most urgent that this legislation come into force immediately upon its passage.
It is urgent for another fundamental reason. A number of local authorities, including Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation, are involved in the development plan review process. The whole procedure of the development plan review and the re-zoning of lands in the context of taking an overall view of the planning in the city and county is rendered nugatory by threats of compensation from developers seeking to put housing estates or industrial development on land zoned for agricultural or amenity use. As a result of such threats, local authorities who do not have the funds or capacity to pay compensation claims have succumbed to granting planning permission which materially contravenes their development plan and which in effect makes the development plan review process a largely futile exercise.
Very recently we had a situation where Grange Developments, who had been paid £2 million compensation by Dublin County Council, were given planning permission for their lands which materially contravened the development plan, in effect because the Fianna Fáil majority on the council wished to recoup the £2 million which had been paid to them. To my mind the decision was not based on what was in the interests of the planning of County Dublin; it was a planning permission eventually given, in a sense, on account of financial blackmail. We must bring that financial blackmail to an end and ensure that we have proper planning and development. We must also ensure that the preparation of development plans mean something and that compensation claims of the type we saw in the Grange Development case will not arise following the enactment of this legislation. There must be no delay in bringing it into force.
I hope the Minister will take on board our amendment that we remove the section entirely. However if he does not take the proposal on board, I would ask him to consider that we have a one month lead-in time before the legislation comes into operation following its enactment.