Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)

I am glad to speak on this Bill which also deals with the consequences of breaking up Dúchas, some of whose responsibility has gone to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and to the Office of Public Works. A major change in the Bill is that it gives sweeping new and extraordinary powers to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is necessary, it is said, to allow the M50 development proceed and stop injunctions and so forth being brought against the continued construction of the motorway. The difficulty with this agitation is that it has left archaeologists with a very bad name, as if they were responsible for all the objections and injunctions. In fact other people, who are not archaeologists, are taking injunctions to halt construction projects. This Bill obviously does many things in that it gives very sweeping, extraordinary powers to the Minister under section 5 which amends section 14 of the 1930 Act, whereby the Minister can consent to all sorts of activities as outlined in subsection (1):

(a) to demolish or remove it wholly or in part or to disfigure, deface, alter, or in any manner injure or interfere with it, or

(b) to excavate, dig, plough or otherwise disturb the ground within, around, or in proximity to it, or

(c) to renovate or restore it, or

(d) to sell it or any part of it for exportation or to export it or any part of it,

To do all this the Minister must consult in writing with the director of the National Museum of Ireland but we do not know what "consult" means. Does it mean that the Minister just sends off a fax? He must do it no more than 14 days from the day the process of consultation was commenced, which is not too onerous, under the amended section 14(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and (c). This consent is subject to conditions determined by the Minister, not by the director of the National Museum. It is a very cosy and amazing arrangement. Once the Minister has sent off his fax within 14 days, he has consulted with the director of the National Museum and everything is fine. He does not have to consider archaeological grounds alone, he must also consider the public interest which would override the archaeological considerations. He is entitled to consider the public interest in allowing the carrying out of works notwithstanding that such works may involve all the things that nobody should do to monuments:

(i) injury to or interference with the national monument concerned, or

(ii) the destruction in whole or in part of the national monument concerned.

He must consider the public interest even when it involves these base acts against valuable archaeological sites. He has a discretionary regard to the extent that these things appear to be relevant to the Minister. He should take several factors into account but does not have to, he may have regard to them which is discretionary. This is a very sweeping power for the Minister.

We are all in favour of development and agree that it is extremely important but this is a carte blanche to the Minister to do whatever he likes, no matter how significant the archaeological treasure in question. That is a bit Irish, even if we are in Ireland. While there is urgency in getting on with this development it deserves more consideration than going through the Oireachtas in this way. It deserves at least an archaeological debate to ensure that experts can come up with the right balance. This seems to be another example of the Government's rapid legislation response which it may live to regret.

If one could be sure that the final decision was based on the learned opinion of responsible archaeologists such as the director of the National Museum, who will merely be consulted, one could be more confident. However, the power lies with the Minister. This sets a precedent for the railroading through of whatever the Government desires. The Government should think more about its actions and about the people. This Administration has lost its heart and is governed by the god of economic gain.

The Bill deals with the south-east route of the M50. How would the Government deal with this matter if the road in question were the N5? Is it not time that we tried to achieve some form of regional balance? The mid-term review shows that the west has not fared well. The west is losing out and I am obliged to ask whether the Bill would be passed if it related to the N5 as opposed to the M50. I sincerely doubt that this would be the case. It is time that there was some positive discrimination.

I wish to comment on third party and vexatious or hoax objectives. The Bill does not deal with such matters. I was engaged in a valuable social housing project in respect of which I received a hoax objection. Someone wrote a letter to the local authority which accepted it on face value merely because a name and address were included. I had the matter investigated by the Garda, the local authority and a private detective and they all came to the conclusion that the person named in the letter and the Dublin address provided did not exist. They discovered on the site a block of flats in which many non-nationals were living. The private detective met the owner of the flats who stated that the had never heard of the person. The letter was a hoax but the local authority accepted it on face value, thereby delaying the project.

Behaviour of this kind interferes with valuable projects and causes them to be delayed or scuppered. In the instance to which I refer, the local authority seemed only to be concerned by the fact that it would encounter difficulty in trying to issue notices to this fictitious person with regard to what was happening. It was not concerned with my plight or what I was trying to do in terms of trying to provide housing for members of the local community and immigrants.

Hoax objectors need to be rooted out and behaviour of the kind to which I refer must be criminalised. There are also many objections which are vexatious in nature and a mechanism must be put in place to deal with these. It is not acceptable that people should be able to make vexatious objections. I accept that we live in a democracy but there are objections which are simply not acceptable. The Government must address these matters.

I asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he intended to criminalise hoax letters of objection. He stated that he intended to bring draft proposals before Government but that he had no proposal to amend the position regarding hoax objections. I asked if he would change the planning laws to make it a criminal offence to submit hoax letters of objection to planning applications and he informed me that regulations made under the Planning and Development Act 2000 provide that any person or body, on payment of the prescribed fee, may make a submission or observation in writing to a planning authority in respect of a planning application within a period of five weeks beginning on the date of receipt by the authority of the application. The person whose name was written at the end of the letter of objection to which I referred earlier did not exist but he or she was still classed as a "person or body" under the legislation. How can the Minister stand over that?

I was also informed by the Minister that any submission or observation received must state the name, address, telephone number and e-mail address. Once these are included, even if the person is fictitious and does not exist, he or she is still perceived as a bona fide person according to the Minister and must be accepted as an objector. Local authorities must acknowledge all submissions in writing but how can they acknowledge a letter from someone who does not exist? The only matter of concern on the part of the local authority in this case was that it would have difficulty in contacting the person, who did not exist, and providing them with notices. It was a perverse situation. I ask that the Department give consideration to this matter.

I wish to comment now on the need for people from rural areas to be able to live in such areas. An Taisce is a wonderful organisation in terms of how it deals with the preservation of Georgian houses, etc., and I have always had a great regard for it. However, it lost the plot when it came to rural planning. It was thanks to An Taisce that the Irish Rural Dwellers Association, of which I am a founder member, was born. That association engaged in consultations with the Minister and made submissions to the Government which has brought forward guidelines. We hope that progress will be made in this area. Perverse arguments were being put forward which ensured that people were not able to stay on the land. Farmers were supposedly the only people who could remain on the land. The latter are becoming a rare species in the west.

If the matter under discussion concerning the M50 related to the N5, the main road into Mayo, would the Government be taking steps to ensure that legislation was brought forward? Is it not time that legislation was introduced to deal with the neglect of the west and the lack of development of roads such as the N5? It is time that there was some positive discrimination, some balanced regional development or even a measure of equality.

The Bill gives the Minister the power to consult. I do not believe that is sufficient and I am of the opinion that the legislation should be withdrawn. At the very least, it should be amended in order that the person with whom the power should lie should be the director of the National Museum and not the Minister. Consulting is not sufficient. If the power lies with the director of the National Museum, it will give rise to greater confidence. The person named in the legislation should be the director because this could override third party objections.

As regards the development of the west, the national development plan was supposedly designed to provide balanced regional development. Indecon's mid-term review, however, clearly indicates that the NDP, the period of which runs to 2006, is behind schedule. There is no evidence of significant convergence between the Border, midlands and west region and the south and east region. Serious questions arise regarding value for money and the fact that funding appears to have been allocated to all regions with the exception of the west. The national spatial strategy was published in November 2002, almost three years after the publication of the NDP. If that is supposed to be the coherent national planning framework for Ireland for the next 20 years, what was the point in delaying the NDP to such a degree?

The country has done well in recent years. This Bill is concerned with developing a road into the south of the country. Despite a great deal of growth nationally, the west is lagging far behind. In my view, the Bill should address matters such as regional development because this would benefit the entire country and not just the south and east. It would also halt the migration to Dublin which, in turn, would reduce the cost of housing and make it more affordable. We are aware of the pressures on transport in the Dublin area. It is both difficult to get around the city or in and out of it. Traffic has been reduced to the pace of an ass and cart. People are only going as fast as they did 100 years ago. People may think they are riding high on the Celtic tiger but they are reduced to the pace of an ass and cart.

Does it make sense to put so much money into the south and east when the real opportunities lie in balanced regional development? This would ensure people would not have to come to Dublin to find jobs; they could find them in the west. This would help alleviate the congestion on roads in the south and east. I know what the roads are like in this area, as I have travelled on them and what I say is true.

In 2000, 9.8% of all new graduates with primary degrees were employed in the Galway, Mayo and Roscommon areas, while 62% found work in counties Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow. It is no wonder traffic in the east is reduced to a snail's pace when so many people are in the area leading to congestion with which the roads and infrastructure cannot cope. Balanced regional development would allow people to stay in their local areas.

Nationally, net industrial output growth from the mid to late 1990s averaged 19% per annum, while the equivalent figure for the west was just over 7%. The western region has done badly in terms of industrial output compared with the mid-west contribution of 12.5%, 26.7% in the Dublin area and 27.6% in the south-east, yet the aim of the Bill appears to be to improve roads in the south and east. We are all for better roads and do not begrudge that area better roads, but what about providing better roads in the west as well? We should have a better standard of road throughout the country.

Is it not time to stop industrial grants going to the east and south? Why not keep them for where development is really needed — the west? This would lead to balanced regional development. Industrialists follow the money and if grants are provided for the west, people would go west and development would take place there.

According to the Central Statistics Office, disposable income in the western region was 7.8% below the State average in 2001. That indicates a disimprovement on the previous year's figure. Disposable income in Mayo and Roscommon is 15.5% and 14.7%, respectively, below the national average. Comparing the 2001 figure with five years earlier, it is evident that while the position of Galway improved in the period, the positions of Mayo and Roscommon disimproved.

The west is really slipping. The value of goods and services, gross value added, GVA, produced in that region shows the average output per person in the west is at minus 23.8%, significantly below the national average. It has increased by less than 0.5% above its 1996 level. That further proves the western region is not attracting its share of high value-added growth employment, the reason being that we do not have the infrastructure to support that investment.

The aim of the national development plan was supposed to be the delivery of investment in infrastructure through the economic and social infrastructure operational programme, but that has not happened. The Bill focuses on the road network in the south and east which will result in even greater investment in that area.

The projected figure for road investment in the south and east for 2000 and 2002 was €1.4649 billion and the actual expenditure was €2.0231 billion, which was 138.1% more than forecast. In the west, the projected expenditure was €858.3 million in 2000 and 2002 while the actual expenditure was €592.7 million, only 69.1% of the sum forecast.

One should compare the traffic congestion and other problems in the south and east with the west. Balanced regional development should be introduced and this must be reflected in the Bill.

See this speech in context