Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I wish to share time with Deputies McHugh and Cuffe.

My party is opposed to this legislation, the brainchild of those irked by delays resulting from what they regard as annoying democratic input to the planning process. It is designed to facilitate ramming through unwanted infrastructure, such as incinerators, against the democratic wishes of communities and regardless of genuine concerns of those likely to be affected by such developments. One wonders whether the Government came under pressure from vested interests, such as Indaver Ireland, to publish this legislation. This is the Government that changed the retail planning guidelines to facilitate Ikea. The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill is the practical expression of the Government's opposition to democracy.

A vast range of issues are covered by the Bill, including incinerators, landfill, thermal power stations, installations for the onshore extraction of oil and gas, oil and gas pipelines and associated terminals. Provisions within this legislation can establish a strategic infrastructure division within An Bord Pleanála. This is proof of a response to the overwhelming opposition of communities to the string of incinerators the Government is trying to build across this State. It is also a response to the opposition by archaeological experts and others to the vandalisation of an area surrounding the Hill of Tara to ram through a motorway to maximise profits for private companies. It is a reaction to the people of Rossport, who have stood up to the might of Shell, which seeks to run a gas pipeline through their lands beside their homes, regardless of the dangers to health and safety. The intention is not to ensure "the right infrastructure in the right place with the minimum of impact on the community and the environment". It is exactly the opposite. It is designed to quash opposition to such projects where opposition is based on health and environmental concerns or concerns about the destruction of sites of historical and archaeological importance.

We must reform the planning process to allow health and environmental considerations to be taken into account and examined. These include the concerns of local communities about infrastructural developments. The legal challenges cited by the Minister as the reason he brought forward this legislation could be avoided if health and environmental concerns were examined and considered as part of the planning process.

In the case of the proposed incinerator in Ringaskiddy, County Cork, An Bord Pleanála decided to overturn the local council's decision to refuse permission to construct the incinerator. The decision of An Bord Pleanála was taken against the advice and recommendations of the board's senior planning adviser, Mr. Philip Jones. The decision was at odds with the Cork development plan and the Cork area strategic plan. One reason the board gave for its decision was that it was precluded from considering matters relating to risk of environmental pollution. The appeal board was restricted to dealing with matters solely related to planning concerns despite the legitimate health fears of Cork people about the incinerator project.

Another example is the Carrickmines debacle, which could have been avoided. The report of the inquiry by the European Commission into the south-eastern motorway found a number of shortcomings in the environmental impact study, including a defective non-technical summary, underestimation or omissions regarding the impact of the development, an insufficient historical study and a lack of thematic maps.

It is easy to blame protestors and objectors but many problems arise from failure of the planning process. This legislation attempts to remove democratic input, compounding the situation where local authority representatives were stripped of powers with regard to waste management plans to advance the incineration and waste charge agenda. Under the Waste Management Act 1996 and the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 the making, review, variation and replacement of waste management plans has become an executive power of unelected and unaccountable city and county managers. These powers should be reinstated as a reserve function of democratically elected local representatives. The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006 cannot be used to override wholesale opposition to incineration across the State. It will not make people drop their vehement opposition to incinerators, which produce toxins detrimental to the health of those communities in which they are sited. Incineration flies in the face of any real environmental waste management strategy and locks us into disposal as the primary approach to waste management. It creates a major disincentive for the reduction and recycling of waste, as incinerators must be fed large volumes of waste to remain viable. We need proper commitment and investment from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and a waste management policy based on reduction, reuse and recycling, guided by the ultimate goal of zero waste.

One issue of concern on which I would like to touch before concluding relates to the types of projects that this legislation is designed to fast-track. Included among the infrastructure developments to be expedited is an industrial installation for the production of electricity, steam or hot water with a heat output of 300 MW or more, allowing almost endless potential. One might reasonably ask if that means that the new division could be used to override public opposition to nuclear power if the Government desired to pursue such an agenda. Might a nuclear power station be fast-tracked under this provision? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Had this legislation been in place in the 1970s, would we now have a deadly nuclear power station at Carnsore Point? I do not doubt that former Deputy Des O'Malley would have used it when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. The public must be warned of the dangerous implications of this anti-democratic legislation, which will serve only to erode public confidence further in the planning process. There are deficiencies in that process, but this does not address them.

While genuine health and safety concerns continue not to be considered, concerned individuals and communities will continue to use every available avenue to challenge questionable developments. When official avenues of input and appeal are closed to them, they will take to the streets and engage in protest activity. The only way in which the difficulties encountered to date can be resolved is by ensuring that communities have their concerns listened to and considered so that there is full public confidence in the planning process.

I hope the Minister has deduced my opposition to the legislation.

See this speech in context