Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this Bill which represents a major development in our planning code. The changes proposed are badly needed if we are to meet the demands of a modern state. In terms of the provision of infrastructure, it is probably the most important legislation to have been introduced during this parliamentary term. Planning attracts all sorts of preconceived notions, not all of which are well grounded.

Much of our experience has been informed through our involvement in local authority planning issues. Deputy Finian McGrath and I served on Dublin City Council and have debated issues such as the development of the Kill waste management centre and the port tunnel. I am sure I will hear more from my constituents on these and other matters.

The constituency I represent will benefit from this legislation in respect of the proposal in Transport 21 for the construction of a Dublin metro. The new runway and the second and third terminals at Dublin Airport will become important and probably controversial issues. I wonder whether the airport's third terminal will be of sufficient strategic importance to come within the remit of this Bill.

The Bill proposes a streamlined planning procedure for major projects of critical economic and social importance. I will not rehearse the litany of projects which have experienced delays. The process will be administered by a new strategic infrastructure division within An Bord Pleanála, which represents a more cost-effective solution to the problem than the establishment of a fast-track planning authority. I acknowledge the claims made by Deputy O'Dowd and others that the Bill is deficient in some respects but these problems can be addressed on Committee Stage. Given the changing nature of planning and our evolving needs, we will probably have to revisit this Bill at some point in the future.

It is important to recognise that the current planning system is largely successful. Much can be said in favour of the tried and trusted current system, although criticisms can certainly be directed at the abuses that have taken place. Recent years have brought significant improvements in planning, a process in which this House played no small part. Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála have performed impressively. For example, local authorities granted planning permission for more than 100,000 housing units in 2004, an increase of 30% on the 2003 figure. An Bord Pleanála now delivers 85% of its decisions within the statutory period. I commend the Minister and the Government on providing additional resources in this area, although professional analysts claim that further funding will be needed when this Bill is enacted.

Although there have been successes on a local and small-scale level, the current planning regime has given rise to many problems in terms of the delivery of major infrastructural problems. We could discuss the difficulties experienced in delivering the Luas and the M50 which was delivered at a snail's pace. If the planning issue is not addressed, there is a danger that we will have that intractable issue unresolved for some considerable time. The current system creates unnecessary delays which present a barrier to catching up on infrastructural development. Recently, I read an article in the Economist which outlined the difficulties this nation has faced in coming to terms with new ways of delivering necessary infrastructure.

There is a clear need to balance individual democratic rights with the need to get things done. We do not have this perfectly right. The proposed legislation goes a long way towards achieving a balance but it has been argued that the current system places insufficient emphasis on Article 43.2 of the Constitution, which refers to the exigencies of the common good.

A balance must also be struck in the planning process between local and national bodies. This arises from the not in my backyard phenomenon, whereby nobody wants anything even vaguely detrimental to take place in his or her area. I have seen this happen many times. When the planning process was established in the 1960s, nobody foresaw that we might need to row back on any aspect of it. It made sense to build the process around two pillars, the local application process and the appeals procedure. Some 40 years later it needs to be refined and reviewed. Although I do not go for such dramatic shifts in legislation, modification is necessary.

All one hears about in the media is projects delayed and budgets overrun. Nobody can deny that there have been delays. Adjustments to the way contracts are drawn up and delivered and the targets for delivering decisions of An Bord Pleanála have brought improvements. This legislation will bring more. When projects reach construction stage, the timescale is manageable. We have examples of this. The new section of the N2 is to open this week three or four months ahead of schedule. Deputy O'Dowd would know about this better than I. That is an example of best practice. On many projects the problems begin when archaeological or other issues arise. These problems are accorded the same importance as the overall need to deliver the project. We have got this wrong. There are anecdotal stories about the natterjack toad being responsible for delaying a project, while a snail has held up another. I wonder if these are the real reasons projects have been delayed. We know how the castle at Carrickmines delayed the completion of the M50 for a long time. The planning process makes no allowance for the prompt altering of road routes to avoid important heritage or environmental features. Therefore, once a problem is encountered, the whole project seems to stall. The recent decision in Waterford is a good one. A way has been found locally to preserve a heritage site without seriously delaying the delivery of the project. It appears this systemic inflexibility is hindering our efforts to close the gaps in our critical infrastructure which pose a real threat to Ireland's growth and the standard of living the people have, rightly, come to expect.

The Minister has stated we cannot run a modern economy with 20th century infrastructure or architecture. We need to find ways to get millions of people to work and children to school without having to spend hours in cars. We must treat our wastewater for the good of our environment. We need new and secure ways of powering our homes. To do this we need to get our planning laws in order to ensure we can spend the money necessary to achieve these goals. A reference was made to the A & L Goodbody report and its estimate that €140 billion must be invested in infrastructure in the next 15 years if the economy is to continue to be competitive. The Government has a clear commitment. I assume the next Fianna Fáil led Government will be as committed to investing similar and greater amounts in the delivery of infrastructure from 2007 onwards. Members are aware that the draft development plan being prepared envisages considerable investment in infrastructure and I suspect we will receive all-party support.

We find it difficult to reach the target of 5% of GNP on public capital programmes. Last year expenditure came to approximately 4.2%. We need to examine critically the reasons for this underspend when there is a crying need for the delivery of infrastructure. The money is meant to provide for the State's future economic development. If we do not spend it, we may not have the capacity to maintain economic growth. If we underspend now, we will find it difficult to reach the levels to deliver the ambitious transport plan. Enabling legislation such as this is needed in order that areas such as Dublin Airport and beyond can be developed. Last night I spoke to a group of people who suggested the metro should be extended as far north as Balbriggan at least to serve that growing area. Deputy O'Dowd will want it to go all the way to Belfast.

See this speech in context