Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)

This legislation may be beneficial as some aspects of the Bill could be useful to our future economy. I have, however, some deep-seated doubts about it, on which I will elaborate.

Everybody is aware of the remarkable changes that have taken place in the country in the past ten to 15 years, especially in the past five or six years. We must understand that whatever infrastructure worked for us when we had a population under 4 million is now creaking and will not work when we have 5 million. Census figures show that by 2020 — a short time in terms of planning — the population will have risen to just over 5 million. We need to relate this growth to towns and villages and be aware of the planning required for this number of people. We must realise that most major projects being thought of now will not be delivered for approximately 15 years. Against this background I understand from where the Minister is coming with this Bill.

The strength of an economy is based principally on the ability of industry to grow and prosper and on the ability of the education system to train workers for this industry. If we are to have balanced regional development, every area of the country must be made as accessible as possible.

The people have been sickened by some of the highly visible confrontation that has taken place in planning matters. Let us take the example of Carrickmines. I do not know all the details but I know of other developments that were even slower. While there were some justifiable reasons for objections to the development, the greater good of the community was stymied. The objectors went too far.

I remember using the road from Bray through the Glen of the Downs to Wicklow town. One certainly needed to have a loose time schedule when travelling that road, but its development was delayed for years by the so-called eco-warriors. Every aspect of the planning procedure was exhausted repeatedly before the development could proceed. At the conclusion, it was clear the development was for the greater good and that any damage caused was minimal compared with what the protesters said it would cause. It would be a different matter if the area had been destroyed because a road was built through it, but that did not happen.

There are two main types of objectors. It was said previously that there is a type of professional objector who, if he or she cannot find something to object about in one part of the country, will turn up in another. Objecting seems to be these people's full-time occupation. I am not sure it is a pensionable job, but they are fond of it. These objectors have no interest in the local community and follow their own agenda. I agree with my colleague that we need a provision in legislation to overcome this group of objectors.

Many aspects of the Bill will need close scrutiny on Committee Stage. The Minister seems to give the impression that the only problem with delivering the infrastructure we need so badly has to do with planning. This is one of the problems, but not the only one. Several speakers have outlined graphically the other difficulties that delay developments. It seems no Minister is in charge. One would wonder how it takes so much time to deliver even small projects.

Let me give an example of a small-scale project that illustrates this. Five or six years ago somebody at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government came up with the good idea of design, build and operate schemes. This was tried by Galway County Council in the case of a combined project for three villages: Kilkerrin, Dunmore and Leenane. These villages had no sewerage schemes or development for years. It was decided the three villages would get new facilities and the Minister of the day announced the money was available. After several false starts the development was divided into two separate contracts, one for the civil contractors to lay the pipes and the other to a different contractor for the sewerage facility. It may be difficult to believe, but the three villages will soon have the pipes laid and that contract completed, but there is no sign of approval for the contract to deal with the sewerage facility. Talk about half a job done. It has taken five years to get this far and I am told it could take another year before the project is completed. How can we expect the public to have confidence in any Minister or Government that would allow this happen?

Imagine the situation when we transfer this experience to the national scene. I remember being at a press conference in 2000 where it was declared that the national development plan would deliver the N6, from Dublin to Galway city, by 2006. What have we got? We have a small part of it, but the major part will not be completed until 2010 or 2011. Why do we have traffic jams in all our towns and cities every morning and evening? We can rest assured that what has been happening will not change overnight, even if this Bill is passed.

I am not sure what has gripped the Government. There must be some strange reason for its inaction. Its failure to deliver the projects needed cannot be blamed on a lack of money because we have never had as much money. We are able to throw money at everything we can think of. The people will give their verdict on the Government's handling of this matter in the next 12 months. They will say they were led to believe during the years that it knew what is was doing with the projects, knew what had to be done and had the money to do it, but it was unable to deliver them. It is clear it does not have the will and the ability to deliver what is needed. The debate on this Bill, parts of which anybody could subscribe to, needs to be viewed in that light. If the Bill is passed, I sincerely hope the Government will take note of the factors we have discussed — Deputy O'Dowd mentioned some of them this morning — and do its job in a businesslike and efficient manner. It is obvious that is not happening.

This Bill will increase the powers of An Bord Pleanála, in effect, in the same way as increased responsibilities were given to the National Roads Authority. The concept is the exact same. Legislation of this nature sidelines the local authorities — they are relegated to a lower division than they are in. There was a huge debate in this House in 2003 when the waste management legislation was being considered. It was decided at that time that executive power would be given to the county managers. That meant the thoughts of local authorities were taken out of the equation when decisions were being made on landfill sites, etc. What is happening in this legislation is even more insidious in so far as the local authorities are concerned.

We should call a spade a spade — there is no point in saying that the local authorities will be fully informed of what An Bord Pleanála will do, that they will have an important role in the board's work or that their concerns will be taken into account. If one removes statutory powers from any organisation — the local authorities in this case — the body to whom such powers are given will be able to do whatever it decides to do thereafter. Regardless of the conduit that is used to get the views of local authorities across — An Bord Pleanála in Dublin in this case — one can rest assured that their representations will not have the same impact as they would have had if they had been the subject of a statutory decision. That is the way life is. Local authorities will be given an opportunity to say what they think, but their views will have no bearing on the planning decisions taken.

I highlight an issue that will arise on Committee Stage. I have no particular axe to grind with An Bord Pleanála. I am aware of good decisions and powerfully bad decisions. What part of the legislation outlines the extent to which the board will be responsible to this House? Where is the link made between the Oireachtas and An Bord Pleanála? Is it like the link between the Health Service Executive and this House? One cannot telephone or write to anybody to make representations about aspects of the health service. If one does, one cannot be sure that one will get an answer. The removal of this House and the Seanad from the process of decision-making on significant infrastructural projects is not a good thing at all. I can appreciate that the Minister will say that certain powers have been vested in An Bord Pleanála and that the Oireachtas has no say in such matters. I do not think that is good, however. There is a need for a consultative approach in cases of projects of dramatic significance. If such a case arose in County Galway, for example, there should be some sort of conduit to allow all the national representatives of that county, from all parties, to make some sort of input into An Bord Pleanála's decision on the matter. I do not think there would be anything wrong with that.

Another important aspect of this matter to which many speakers have referred relates to what has not been done and what could be done. When something is being proposed for an area, it is important to take account of the manner in which the case is presented. There can be outright opposition to proposals in local communities. Such cases are often difficult because there can be huge conflict between local interests and the national interest. I am not silly enough to believe agreement can always be reached if enough discussions, deliberations and consultations take place. We know it is sometimes difficult to reach agreement. I give the Minister of State a word of warning. If local communities feel the general idea of a project is to shaft them, to use a vulgar expression, there will always be local agitation against it thereafter regardless of what is done to resolve the problems.

We are familiar with such difficulties in cases of roads projects, for example. We all know we have to agree to the upgrading of existing roads and the construction of new roads in the national interest. It is no harm for those who support such projects, including the civil servants who may be involved, to bear in mind that if one proposes to drive a new road like the N6 beside towns and villages and through farms, one will be the cause of huge human hardship. It is all very well for people who are removed from local areas to say such projects are necessary in the national interest. We all know about that aspect of it. There is no doubt, however, that significant attention will have to be paid to the connection between the terrible and genuine trauma suffered by such communities and the significance of such projects in the national interest. I know it is hard to balance those two considerations, but I am afraid the day will come when people will think a beefed-up An Bord Pleanála can do what it likes. That is the problem we will face.

As someone who has been in this business for almost 30 years, I have seen every possible row that God could think of in various communities. I have seen disputes about masts, roads and dumps. If local people are given opportunities to make their feelings known at certain times, they eventually come around, by and large, although it is not an easy process. They have taken new approaches in recent times. They do not agree with the view expressed in this House earlier today that they enjoy local representation as long as their local councillors and Deputies are working for them. I assure the House that local groups do not agree with that notion at all. They genuinely believe they are in the eye of the storm. Just over a week ago, every man, woman and child in the small parish of Menlough, which is near Ballinasloe in County Galway, went on a walk in opposition to a proposed O2 mast. As they have heard all about co-location in the context of some other masts which are in place in the locality, they want to know why co-location was not used in this instance. Nobody can answer that question. The planning section of the local authority has not said why O2 should not be asked to co-locate on a nearby site. Local communities are concerned about such matters. Unless some sort of safety valve is provided for such communities to believe that someone, somewhere will listen to them when they have a sensible point, the Minister of State may rest assured there will be widespread civil unrest.

When this legislation inevitably passes, I hope An Bord Pleanála will have sufficient expertise available to it to be able to perform this task. I refer to the prior consultation aspect, which is positive and which will be liked by the infrastructure providers. One will bring one's project before the ruling body and will acquire its evaluation before spending a great deal of money on going through the planning process. I assume this will be an extremely costly exercise for providers and I imagine that serious money will be involved. An Bord Pleanála will be obliged to acquire an army of people for this purpose. I hope it will include people who have the requisite know-how, knowledge and expertise for such vital projects, which is missing at present. The Minister could validly state that many local authorities do not have such expertise. Moreover, I do not believe that An Bord Pleanála is in possession of such expertise to the degree it is likely to require, given the quantity of work that will pass through the system.

I hope this matter has been thought through. I hope there will be a clear line of distinction between those projects which must go through An Bord Pleanála and those which do not. There should be no necessity for the development of a dual application system, whereby one is obliged to go to both An Bord Pleanála and the local authority, thus incurring double costs. There should be a clear definition as to what should go to An Bord Pleanála.

This Bill will not solve all our problems and many systemic problems will remain after it becomes law. However, some of its aspects should be good for the future.

See this speech in context