Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)

In the future, the Bill before the House today could stand out as having been of ground-breaking importance. It will have a profound impact on all significant players involved in the planning system and could mark a watershed in every aspect of our future development as a nation. The Government's attempt to tackle the future of Ireland's strategic infrastructure head on is commendable. This country's critical infrastructure clearly lags behind that enjoyed by our European and global competitors. Recently, A & L Goodbody recommended a mammoth €140 billion public sector investment in the next 15 years so that the economy will remain competitive and efficient.

Clearly, one must address the situation at hand and this revised planning Bill, which is aimed at fast-tracking strategic infrastructure projects, has been mooted for the past three years. One must start to take action before the problem begins to spiral. However, care must also be taken to ensure this is done without expending other factors which play an equally valuable part in Ireland's future. While the demands of the economy are crucial, a balance must be struck between such demands, the operation of local democracy and the protection of our environmental heritage.

It is easy to see why this Bill has been greeted with a mixed reaction. Planning in respect of both small and large-scale developments has become a major issue. Throughout the debate this afternoon Deputies have cited a number of local examples. It consumes column inches in national and local newspapers and provokes hardened opinions from the vast majority of those potentially affected.

The key element of this Bill is the introduction of a strategic consent process which will consist of a one-stop procedure for decisions on certain types of major infrastructure. A new department, namely, the strategic infrastructure division, will be created within An Bord Pleanála. It will bear responsibility for those decisions involving major environmental, transport and energy-related projects deemed to fall under the following criteria: the development should be of strategic economic or social importance to the State or the region in which it would be situated; the development should contribute significantly to the fulfilment of any of the objectives of the national spatial strategy, or of any regional planning guidelines in force in respect of the area in which it would be situated; and if the development would have a significant effect on the area of more than one planning authority.

It is hoped the new division will be the central cog in the machinery designed to achieve the objective of speeding up the delivery of major infrastructure projects. This is in keeping with the current wider international trend towards a deregulatory approach, which aims to streamline the consent process for such projects and must be welcomed.

I do not envy the job of the new strategic infrastructure division. It will have a difficult task. A number of competing interests lie at the core of this Bill, such as national versus local, the individual versus the collective and economic growth versus environmental protection. The new division will have the task of untangling such competing interests and its members are likely to come under attack and criticism, regardless of the decisions to which they commit themselves. They will certainly be obliged to be brave in their verdicts.

The Bill bestows considerable responsibility on An Bord Pleanála. It will be under immense pressure and scrutiny in judging what, in its view, comes under the wide-ranging classification of strategic, economic or social importance referred to in the text of the Bill, or what entails a significant effect on an area. These definitions are extremely loose and may warrant re-examination for the sake of clarification and to prevent serious wrangling in future.

Applicants to the strategic division will also have the opportunity to consult the section before putting forward their submissions for consideration. This is a sensible and pragmatic provision, which aims to save time by preventing developers from being obliged to go back to the drawing board. The Bill offers a broad scope, in terms of the nature of the advice that can be put forward under this new provision. Again however, there is potential for outside criticism in this regard. In a critical analysis of the Bill which was delivered in a lecture at UCC in April 2006, the barrister, Mr. Tom Flynn, pointed out:

[O]thers will see [this clause] . . . ingraining an inherent 'pro-development' bias into the planning application process and further undermining the credibility of the Board as a neutral and independent body.

A fine line is being drawn in this regard and I am pleased the Bill specifically provides that any consultations held between the board and the applicant will not be allowed to prejudice the performance by the board of any of its other functions and cannot be relied upon in any formal proceedings, legal or otherwise.

I know from experience that An Bord Pleanála works to extremely high standards. It is a highly regarded body and I am confident it will retain every ounce of its impartiality and will continue to work as a first class organisation if these proposed changes are put into effect. I cannot stress that enough. It is a board of the utmost integrity.

Deputy Dennehy said earlier in the debate that he hopes the board is inundated with applications arising from the provisions outlined in the Bill. It will also need the resources to fulfil its obligations. I am Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government which regularly monitors the activities of An Bord Pleanála. It is important that we listen to the board when it claims it needs more resources or has difficulty doing its work within the timeframe provided for, which the committee will monitor carefully.

One of the main points of attack to which the Bill has been subjected involves the effect it might have in eroding local democracy. It is thought by some that the provisions set out in it will have a detrimental effect on the public's right to participate in the planning process. The creation of the strategic infrastructure division of An Bord Pleanála means a transfer of power from local authorities to the board in respect of strategic infrastructure development. Understandably concerns have been expressed that this will have implications for local communities and their inputs towards changes that might impinge on their areas. Deputy Connaughton outlined a number of examples in his constituency where such problems have arisen.

Frank McDonald, the environment editor of The Irish Times, wrote an article on 17 February attacking the consequences of the Bill for democratic participation in vital decisions. He argued that the public will be cut out of the planning process for major infrastructure projects and stated: "Local authorities, including councillors, would have a right to be consulted and have their views "taken into account" — but that's all." This belittles a significant part of the Bill, contained in the amendments to sections 37E and 37F of the 2000 Act. Under the 2000 Act, local councillors currently have no direct role in taking decisions on planning applications, other than in setting the general planning policies in their own areas under land-use development plans. The amendments to the 2000 Act before us now give councillors a new, specific and statutorily enshrined role. If this Bill is passed, managers of planning authorities will be required to obtain and forward the views of the elected members. It would be naïve to think or suggest that councillors will not seize upon this and exercise their new power to its fullest. Are they not the first tier of local democracy and are they not elected to represent and defend the interests of their constituents?

Without such adequate provision for these matters at community level, a great deal of friction would be created between local government and central Government, and we would risk a build-up of resentment towards central Government. To expose these Houses to this possibility would clearly be foolhardy and unhelpful to all involved. As I said previously, no decision made within the remit of this Bill will satisfy everyone, but serious action needs to be taken with regard to the critical infrastructure of this country and of course some sacrifices will need to be made if our quality of life is to match expectation.

The Bill gives more than adequate opportunity for all to comment on applications, including local communities, residents' associations, environmental groups and individual citizens. There will be no erosion of local input into the planning process and this should be emphasised. Environmental impact statements will continue to be a core part of the application process and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will need to be notified in respect of heritage issues. I expect every heritage and environmental concern that arises to continue to undergo rigorous assessment.

Members of the public will certainly be pleased with amendments to be introduced to section 35 of the Planning Act, which are intended to deal with rogue builders. The amendments will make it easier for authorities to reach a decision to refuse to consent without recourse to the High Court. Instead, it will be a matter for the applicant who is refused permission to seek confirmation from the High Court that the planning authority must reconsider its initial decision. This has the effect of reversing the burden of proof. The developer will instead need to show that his or her past performance does not warrant a refusal of permission. It should, therefore, make it easier for local authorities to tackle bad performance by rogue developers. This is a serious issue that has been repeatedly highlighted by Members of these Houses and by local authority members throughout the country. I welcome the provisions in the Bill to address the problems of rogue builders who represent a serious problem given the massive developments taking place here.

The overriding fact is that we need to take decisive steps to pull our critical infrastructure into line with the EU norm, now that we finally have the means to do so. For example, on waste management, we are reaching crisis point in terms of our waste disposal options. Figures released this week show that we are now recycling more than two thirds of our used packaging, thereby surpassing EU targets for 2005. This is excellent news and I very much hope that we will outdo ourselves again next year. Kerbside dry recycling rose by a massive 140%, following the introduction of pay-by-weight charges and collections at bring banks are up 31%. However, by comparison with other OECD countries, Ireland produces a disproportionately high level of waste per capita. According to OECD statistics, Ireland, which produces 700 kg per capita, is second only to the United States, which produces 730 kg per capita. This is an astounding statistic.

As the problem of waste management will never go away we simply must address it in the best way possible. Local authority landfills are rapidly running out of capacity and we have a major problem of illegal dumping. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 287,000 tonnes of household rubbish was unaccounted for in 2003. In addition backyard burning is the single biggest producer of dioxin emissions in the country. How can we, as a nation, continue to fight against modern, engineered waste solutions that are the norm in every other EU member state? We need to start taking a realistic approach to the problems that face us. We need to get down to business and this Bill provides us with a prompt and pragmatic means of doing so. We cannot continue to take five years to deliver a waste facility, as is the case with a number of proposals currently at the planning stage.

In the same vein, Ireland's attractiveness as an investment location is diminished by poor transport, distribution and communication links, which hinder efficiency. Recently, the Government launched the Transport 21 programme, which will reinvigorate Ireland's transport infrastructure. It is an extremely far-reaching and exciting project which will bring untold benefits to our everyday lives, as well as our economy. We have made great strides in the development of the road system in this country, taking into account, for example, the number of bypasses that have been built, which have made a great difference to a great many. The implementation of this transport plan, among other matters, will be advanced to a beneficial degree, if we can move forward with a new planning Act on the Statute Book.

As with almost every Bill passed by Parliament, it remains to be seen how these provisions will operate in practice. We can only apply our better judgment in these circumstances but the Bill is a pragmatic solution to a problem that must be addressed and solved. The economy, the environment, our heritage and the public's right to participate in the development of the State all have to be taken into account in a balanced manner and this necessarily means give and take. A realistic approach must be adopted. The legislation allows us to do this in the best possible way.

I will shortly chair the Select Committee on Environment and Local Government which will scrutinise the legislation. I look forward to leading a close examination of the issues I have raised and others, on which I have not had time to deliberate. Given the importance of the Bill, many issues will be raised. The Minister will take all aspects of the debate into consideration when the time comes.

Deputy Connaughton has stated he has been a public representative for many years and witnessed every planning row imaginable and various protests. I have witnessed similar protests in my constituency and throughout the greater Dublin area. The Dublin Port tunnel begins and ends in my constituency and I have gained invaluable experience dealing with local communities and the planning process generally. The tunnel will open later this year.

See this speech in context