Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which has been a long time in gestation. A very macho assessment of it would probably suggest the response that we have suffered long enough at the hands of cranks, do-gooders and other idealists, that we should adopt the legislation and go full steam ahead, riding roughshod over all and sundry. However, we must pause and give full consideration to the Bill's implications.

There is no doubt that it would restrict democratic rights that we have enjoyed in the planning process since the first Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 was passed. If enacted, it would not only restrict democratic rights but remove decision-making from the locality to the centre, away from the citizen and to a faceless body in Dublin, an official of which will breeze in and out of areas without reference to or engagement with locals.

The Bill changes the long-established procedures and planning law whereby one had local assessment and adjudication of all projects followed by the second layer of an appeal process to a national body. At a single stroke, the Bill removes the local tier of the planning process where citizens had the freedom to visit planning offices, inspect documents and discuss projects with local officials. It turns the principle of subsidiarity on its head.

I have focused on it restricting democratic rights pertaining to planning that we have enjoyed for decades, a fact beyond dispute. The question arises of whether such a restriction is required in the national interest. Consideration suggests two answers, "yes" and "no". The two contradictory answers arise because of the two categories of persons who feel that their rights are being curtailed.

One category, for want of a better description, is that of the professional objectors, who transport themselves from one proposed development site to another and raise what appear to the average person to be flippant, somewhat irrelevant issues. Some of those people pose and like to be seen as the defenders of our country in all things. It is also a fact that some have no connection with this country, and certainly not with the localities in which developments are proposed. The restriction that the Bill will impose on those people's democratic rights is required in the national interest, and it is a step in the right direction in that regard.

The other category of person to be affected by the Bill is that of local people resident in an area for their entire lives, who have enjoyed certain residential amenities, improved their properties, contributed through voluntary effort to the creation of a better community environment, and who feel all they have worked for during their lifetimes will be at best seriously damaged and at worst destroyed. I believe unequivocally that the restriction that the Bill imposes on those people's democratic rights is not required in the national interest. Their rights should not be compromised when it is considered.

The Bill's import is required in certain circumstances, but we must be careful of dismantling all planning procedures, which brings with it the prospect of extinguishing the rights of native citizens, whose lives will be affected and who will have to cope with the stresses that a major infrastructural development will impose on them for the remainder of their lives. Those people are entitled to every opportunity to have all a project's full details presented in a manner allowing them full opportunity to make an informed assessment, contribute views, engage in discussion, seek clarification, and make appeals.

My contribution thus far has related to the very delicate balancing act between the rights of the individual and the national interest. One could be forgiven for assuming I do not want vital infrastructural projects to proceed as quickly as possible. That is not true, since I want progress, but I also want the rights of indigenous people to be protected. Both aspirations can be accommodated and progress made.

Dealing with certain specific elements, I refer first to section 6, which amends section 2 of the principal Act by inserting several new definitions, including a definition of the national spatial strategy. The strategy was unveiled in a blaze of glory by the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen. It was to be the cure for all our ills, delivering balanced regional development. In summary, we would never see a poor day again. Irrespective of where we lived, all would be treated equally, reaping the benefits that the ambitious, futuristic strategy would bring to our country.

Imagine the disappointment of a nation subject to such hype when the national spatial strategy became an orphan, having been abandoned by the Government. I will give the House two very relevant examples of the Government's desertion of the plan. After the national spatial strategy had been published, a decision was made to reinstate the western rail corridor. One would have expected the Government to be keen to show that the new strategy was serious, delivering balanced regional development. Its decision to reinstate the western rail corridor should, therefore, have been accompanied by a decision to commence work immediately on the entire project, with a commitment to complete it within a realistic timescale of perhaps two years.

Imagine my disappointment to discover the western rail corridor would not be complete in two years, and would be finished only as far as Claremorris by 2014. That is ten years after the decision to allow it to proceed, which is nonsense. If any illustration is needed, that clearly shows the Government is not serious about development of the west. There is no reason for this procrastination. This western rail corridor project does not even need planning permission to proceed. There are no blockages, objections or appeals but simply Government disinterest.

I will give another example to illustrate the uselessness of the national spatial strategy. Tuam is the only town in County Galway to be included in the spatial strategy as a hub town. Therefore, one expects that the Government in its decisions would take this into account and would endeavour to ensure basic infrastructure would be provided to ensure this town develops as envisaged in the national spatial strategy. Imagine my astonishment when the Government was approving five towns in Galway to be provided with a metropolitan area network broadband infrastructure, which was very welcome, that the only town included in the national spatial strategy was the one main town not to receive a MAN. That clearly illustrates the Government disconnection from the objectives of the national spatial strategy.

Section 8 proposes to bestow a power on the deciding authority to impose a condition on the granting of permission regulating the development or use of land next to land proposed to be developed and in the same ownership. I disagree with this provision. The deciding authority's decision should only relate to land the subject matter of the application.

Section 9, which amends section 35 of the principal Act, is very welcome. This section will enable the planning authority to refuse permission to a developer on the grounds of his or her past history of non-compliance with planning. This, if implemented by the planning authority, will have a major impact on ensuring that the blight of unfinished housing estates will be considerably diminished. However, there is no point including a provision such as this if, when it comes to the practicalities of implementing it, we are told by the authorities that they do not have the personnel to carry out inspections so that it can be implemented.

There is certain merit in this Bill where there is unnecessary delay in some vital projects. However, I put it to the Minister that there are many projects in his Department which are not being held up by protestors or subject to opposition and which are vital for the prosperity of this country but which are being held up by him because he will not approve them. In my constituency we have the ridiculous situation where the Minister has, for example, in relation to vital sewerage schemes such as Dunmore and Kilkerrin, approved the civil works which are under way on site but he is still pondering on the decision to approve the treatment plant element of those schemes. Again, this is an example of cock and bull planning.

Kinvara is another case in point. The Minister is deliberating on this vital sewerage scheme while the waters around Kinvara are being destroyed by pollution from untreated sewage being discharged into the bay. We will have further debate on this Bill in future but, in the meantime, I would appreciate it if the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, would talk to the Minister, Deputy Roche, so that he would approve the Dunmore and Kilkerrin treatment works and the entire Kinvara sewerage scheme.

See this speech in context