John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I agree with the Minister's opening comment that this is one of the more important Bills to be introduced during this term. Several speakers have been selective in attempting to prove to us that there is no need for change while simultaneously ridiculing the existing system. That two-faced approach to so many issues is a problem with which we must deal.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for the introduction of a streamlined planning consent for strategic infrastructural development which will be achieved through a new strategic infrastructure division within An Bord Pleanála. The Bill allows for changes needed to the 2000 Act. It also provides for a specialised planning consent procedure for major electricity transmission lines. It amends the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 to provide that An Bord Pleanála will approve railway orders. It amends the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 to provide for the compensation that will be assessed for the substratum of land. This issue has arisen only in recent years since the question of the metros and so on arose. It should probably have been dealt with then.

We can have a good discussion on this Bill and on many related matters, some of which have already been raised. It is good to engage in such a timely and important debate. The people who whinge about bringing in legislation will complain if we lose industry or if tourists cannot come here because the roads are clogged up and so on. Those are further examples of wanting to have it both ways.

This Bill is essential and is approximately ten years too late. Much of the action outlined here should have been taken a long time ago which might have prevented the waste of billions of euro in time lost through objections, missed opportunities and traffic being clogged up. In the 1990s we could not carry out energy-related infrastructure projects which crossed the Border because of the probability of their being blown up if they went ahead. That included the infrastructure for natural gas and electricity and would probably have affected other joint proposals too, such as water schemes.

There were many other impediments to the provision of infrastructure, particularly in respect of transport and energy. People have had to take sides, in which they might not always believe, on some of the issues. We need a forum, such as this Bill provides, for a full discussion, and hopefully, eventual agreement on what we want by way of the provision of such facilities for the public.

Someone referred to the rights of the individual over those of the public, which we need to discuss, but there must be a balance. We cannot say every time somebody objects to an issue that we will go along with that because the person has a God-given right to object. Deputy McHugh said there are positive and negative responses to questions on this Bill. Many individuals express a wish to have things both ways. For instance, we need to highlight the conflict between people expressing concern about the number of fatalities and serious car crashes on some second class roads and the objectors who delay work to provide superior and safer roads.

The Green Party in particular says there is no need to waste billions of euro on the roads but I often drive from Cork to Dublin and I am entitled to have the best possible standard of road, namely, a good dual carriageway. That has been proved to be the safest road to travel. I am entitled to one, as are drivers in all other parts of the country, be it County Meath or elsewhere. People are entitled to public safety provisions and this must be taken into consideration. I argued this point regarding the delays in Kildare. I felt the slugs or worms that were found during the construction of the bypass were being put ahead of the safety of the public. I took the opportunity to sit in the middle of Kildare town a few times while on my way to Dublin just to observe elderly people trying to cross the main street. The way the public, especially the elderly, were treated in trying to strike a balance between environmental concerns and safety concerns was scandalous.

There are many other points of conflict we could examine, including those that arise in areas with a ban on mobile phone masts, as referred to by Deputy Cuffe. It is perfectly legal to have such a ban but it can be seen in a different light on foot of complaints about the lack of a phone reception in the same area. The same people complain about both mobile phone masts and the lack of a reception. Complaints may arise because of the lack of employment in an area. Potential employers will be reluctant to locate in an area without essential and basic facilities.

If I want an area sterilised of all contaminants, such as phones, phone masts, roadways and oil pollution from cars, I must then accept that I will live in a wilderness without a job. If this is what somebody wants, so be it. Let him argue the point. It is not a logical argument and one cannot have it both ways. It is hard to accept it when the same individuals are found on both sides of a given conflict. They support the objectors but at the same time want to be seen to be to the fore in requesting the proposed facilities. One or two Members have tried to do this in their contributions. Why should facilities exist in one county and not in another?

Being on both sides of an argument can often result in short-term political gains but, as seen many times, it does not always lead to a lengthy career in politics. There are times when positive political leadership is needed and it may not always involve a populist approach. Some have learned this and others have not. We need to get on with the work but it will not always be popular to do what is correct.

There are many reasons this Bill is necessary, one of which is that it will eliminate the circumstances under which a planning application can be delayed for years through the pursuance of many avenues of objection. I am not exaggerating in saying this. One only has to bear in mind those who resorted to the European Court of Justice, for example. Delays should be eliminated in all cases, irrespective of whether planning permission is granted or refused. I am not saying every application, be it on the part of the State or anybody else, should automatically be granted. There will be cases in which projects should not go ahead. Regardless of the decision on an application, it should not be possible to drag out the planning process for a number of years. Doing so is illogical. Irrespective of whether individuals or groups are involved in making an application, the process should be subject to a reasonable time limit so a final decision can be made one way or the other.

It is wrong that the planning process can be dragged out to the extent that a project can become non-viable or be affected so adversely as to be not worth pursuing. We are well aware that this can happen. Instigating delays seems to have been a particular strategy in one or two cases such that the applicants were simply forced to abandon their projects. In the longer term, we will suffer for having adopted such approaches.

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe is well aware of the fate of the beet-growing industry, as is Deputy Connaughton. We saw what happened to it in two months or less and, therefore, those who believe we will never again see a poor day will get a surprise at some point in their lives. We must maximise our potential but we have not been doing so by allowing some of the carry-on that has occurred.

Individuals have said to me at times that delays in State-sponsored projects are all right because the State is paying for them, but they should realise it is the taxpayer who is paying. In some instances, the taxpayer has had to pay too much because of a system that allows for tactics that were never intended when the original legislation was passed. We know of challenges to applications that were based on very technical matters. Some believe that once such a case goes to court, the toss of a coin decides whether one's application will be favoured.

This Bill requires much discussion and it should result in a fairer method of dealing with specific types of planning applications. It is a question of specific types of planning applications and not of putting a reception mast on one's roof, as referred to. It is matter of major planning applications for projects of strategic national importance. The majority of Members want to see changes to curb the existing potential for dragging out the process for what most would deem to be an unacceptable period. The length of the timeframe can be discussed and, I hope, agreed to. I appreciate that the Minister is designating 16 weeks as the period in which the process should be completed. There may be occasions when this will not be suitable but party spokespersons can make a case in this regard on Committee Stage.

I welcome the fact that Fine Gael has generally welcomed the Bill but I am concerned that its spokesperson went off on a tangent about shopping centres and related matters. These are clearly not covered by the Bill. The spokesperson said Fine Gael wants a metro, a major road network, hospitals, etc. and, as the song goes, so do all of us. This Bill is an attempt to ensure that we get these facilities when we need them and not after many years of delay, which has happened with too many projects.

Deputy Cuffe suggested there were no delays in the process pertaining to the port tunnel and that it was a question of bad management. There were delays and major arguments about compensation and the ownership of the ground under the affected houses. This Bill, if it had been enacted, would have put in place a process to deal with many of these arguments and, therefore, the Deputy is incorrect to suggest there were no delays. There were also delays in the planning process pertaining to many other facilities needed by the public. We must deal with the issues that arise, regardless of whether they arise in my constituency or anybody else's.

There are very welcome changes in the Bill and I am surprised more Members did not refer to them. Deputy Gilmore welcomed section 9 which deals with rogue developers. We have argued that those who half build an estate or fail to complete one should not get planning permission for a development next door or anywhere else. When we raised this point over the past 20 years, we were invariably told it could not be taken into consideration and I am therefore glad the position has changed.

I am glad the Bill allows for greater input from local councillors. It is very important that they have an input. Their input in the past may have been tarnished by the activity of a small number of councillors in one or two authorities. The input of councillors was also damaged by the overuse, in one or two councils, of what were known as section 4 motions. In discussions on such issues, one seldom refers to material contraventions to the local plans, which almost invariably emanate from city and county managers. They propose material contraventions that are usually much more significant and likely to change the development plan than any proposed by a councillor. This has given rise to concern. The city and county managers' material contraventions can have a great effect on the areas they cover but never draw the unfavourable comment other planning activities seem to draw. On many occasions I have questioned An Bord Pleanála and the rest on the Committee of Public Accounts about the use by management of these section 4 motions. It is time the public got a better balance in the planning process. I particularly welcome the inclusion of that section.

People may say they have had an impact on the formation of five-year plans, but for many reasons that is only part of the process. They need to have specific input into large projects as they crop up. The five-year development plan is usually a type of wish list. The term "may" is used as often as planners can include it because it gives them the opportunity to decide "yes" or "no" on particular issues rather than the elected members. It is time we re-introduced this for the elected members to let them have a say. It is they who must face the public. Members of other parties referred to the local community not having a voice or representation, as if the public representatives were elected by people from Mars or somewhere, and were not part of the process at all. I am glad we are changing that.

We heard this morning about one of the down sides of the present situation. Deputy Healy-Rae referred to a situation with which we all disagree, but concerning which we are helpless. Somebody living in Donegal or someplace can object to a person's application in Kerry, and has the same degree of input on the planning application as someone living next door to the applicant. That is crazy, and it has been abused. We must examine issues such as that and see if we can put them right, as they crop up. We should be somewhat more flexible in our approach and review the planning legislation on a five-year rolling basis, or something like that. Compensation for land issues, for example, was dealt with as long ago as 1919 and we are only now catching up with that, in planning for the metro. We should update and review some aspects of the legislation much more frequently.

There are very positive issues within this Bill. The primary one, however, is that it will put the country in a position to compete. I have mentioned the loss of the beet industry. We could lose much more. We will lose tourists because we cannot facilitate them or transport them around and we will lose industry because nobody is willing to become bogged down in planning. On one trip abroad representing our committee, I asked about the development and building programme for a project and how long the process would take if one came up with a prototype. The answer was nine days, for everything — planning, supplies, electricity, anything one wanted would be up and running within that time and dealt with. Here it would take three months to make the application alone. If we cannot compete, we will not get the jobs or the industry. If we cannot supply power or have stoppages on the railways, as we did last Monday and Tuesday, we will not get the tourists. If we have a breakdown in power supply, for whatever reason, we will lose industry. We saw Fruit of the Loom finally closing the other day. Everybody knew it was coming, for different reasons. However, that is what will happen. We will have the same people who want to give the objectors somewhat more powers whingeing and whining. That is the other side of the coin.

Deputy Cuffe referred to the young people and future generations. We want them to have a prosperous future, as we have had for the past ten years, so they do not face the type of future I faced when I had to emigrate, along with others, many of whom did not come back. I do not want future generations to face that future because I failed in this House to make provision for power, the gas lines and the road network to transport goods, along with the facilities for carrying tourists and the rest. I have a role to play, namely, to support the implementation of this Bill, which I hope will be enacted shortly.

There will be long discussions on it and concerns will be expressed. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, who is doing an excellent job, will be quite willing to take on board any logical and reasonable amendments. Apart from a small group that, perhaps, makes a career out of supporting objections, 95% of elected Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas totally support the concept of being able to provide the necessary strategic infrastructure this country needs although there may be arguments about amendments, small issues or topical matters Members many want included.

As I pointed out to the Minister my big concern is about staffing. I am glad he has made a start in this regard by increasing the membership of An Bord Pleanála from seven to nine. We need to do much more, however. We had 78 planners from the UK commissioned to work on projects for An Bord Pleanála, because we did not have the personnel. We have the talent in specific areas, engineering, transport or whatever. It is vital that we have the talent available within the special unit and that we are able to employ the people we need. When we checked with the National Roads Authority, for example, we found it had plenty of engineers but not the people with the cost accountancy expertise needed for the level of expenditure in terms of the enormous increase in funding over the past six or seven years. When up to €24 billion is being spent on major infrastructural projects, the very best is needed, and we must ensure that the people employed in the special unit to deal with the strategic issues being put forward, are of the highest calibre. We cannot allow any backlog to develop at any point in dealing with this. In the past if somebody wanted to build a kitchen, say, a modest enough development, an objection might be raised and it would end up in the Bord Pleanála pile, just the same as objections to the metro, if there is an objection to that, as was mentioned by the Fine Gael spokesman earlier. Those two cases will take their place, equally, in the Bord Pleanála pile and that is a crazy situation we should not tolerate. This Bill will change that, and I welcome it.

Speaking of ability, expertise, and so on, a different type of process is needed for back kitchens or minor developments — or even housing developments, regardless of their size — to deal with pylons, gas lines and so on, just as happened with the courts. A commercial division was introduced in the courts to get consistency and to apply the expertise that would enable case-related profiles to be built up. We need the same with planning. We had enormous claims because An Bord Pleanála overturned some inspector's report. This happens with large and small issues. The board will overturn reports in many instances. Otherwise, one could argue that the single inspector should have the final say, rather than An Bord Pleanála. Logically, when a person reports back, the board can decide to change the ruling and in a large percentage of cases it has done this. We have evidence for that and it will continue.

I wish the Minister well with this and An Bord Pleanála well with its future. I hope we will saturate the board with projects. I hope it will be up to its tonsils with work because we will spend that €24 billion. Everybody in these Houses must be supportive to ensure that facilities are in place to analyse and assess each project and give a speedy decision on it. Otherwise, we will find ourselves disadvantaged when the likes of China and the rest start to take off. As an island, Ireland is handicapped in having to ship everything in and out. Up to now we have been able to compete by using the education, ability and natural talents of our people. However, if we do not speed up and drive on projects and continue to allow individuals to delay us, we will be in big trouble.

I welcome the Bill and look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context