Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which has been a long time in gestation. The speed of our economic progress over the past 20 years has been such that infrastructural development has not kept pace and we therefore have teething problems throughout the country that need to be addressed. Given that the Bill's objective is to deliver major infrastructural developments quickly, it is important that we enact it sooner rather than later.

Deputy Quinn alluded to the fact that the various difficulties are an unforeseen consequence of economic growth. It is not only the planning system that is to blame. Politicians must accept a certain amount of blame on foot of the length of time it takes to address needs after they are identified. I refer in particular to how we were told many years ago we would have a metro service to Dublin Airport. I am sure those in the Visitors Gallery can testify to the need for a rail link to the airport. We must ensure that we achieve this sooner rather than later.

I welcome the fact the Bill will go some way towards speeding up the planning process. The Bill has been criticised on the grounds that it may result in planning decisions being made above and beyond the local authority, thereby weakening local democracy. However, the Bill strengthens local democracy because a key change it proposes is the transfer of the authority to decide on planning applications for strategic infrastructural development from local authorities to the board. However, the board must take account of many locally determined criteria, including local planning guidelines. This process has not necessarily been in operation to date and therefore the support and contribution of local representatives will be strengthened.

Local authority members will have a function they do not have at present. It is one of the greatest myths that local authority members have the ability to determine decisions in planning applications. Members of this House who are former members of local authorities know they have no such authority. The only rights one had as a local authority member to determine anything in planning was as regards the zoning issue. The new Bill gives local authority members a specific function in determining the decisions being made and this is to be welcomed.

I listened to some of the previous speakers who expressed concern about the authority to be vested in a few people when the Bill is passed. We need to have the confidence and courage to vest authority in people. When we look back on a whole variety of major infrastructural planning issues, we can only see the difficulties. Those are the matters we recall most of all. I am thinking in particular of the completion of the M50 motorway in my constituency and the delays that were caused there. Members pointed out that the planning process is not reflective of people's opinions. However, if we decide that a major infrastructural project will be in the national interest, we need to have the courage to grant people who will make these decisions the authority to do so.

It is a fair assumption that a project of strategic importance will always be in the national interest. That is why it is particularly appropriate that section 37 of the Act provides in great detail how a project of national strategic importance will be defined. This is an important feature. A difficulty in our planning programme at the moment, which has been alluded to, is confidence as regards matters being fair, and that they are being dealt with in an independent and transparent manner. Again, I see the relevant provision is included in the notes to pre-planning discussions. Like others who spoke, I believe these are beneficial aspects. It is good to write in the notes and the status of the notes into the legislation, with the discussions that may have taken place so that this material is available for public consultation.

Reservations people might have had with the Bill and the establishment of a new Department to deal with major infrastructural concerns are being and will be met. I echo Deputy Olivia Mitchell's comments that we should try, where possible, because of the major infrastructural nature of the planning to take place, to alert residents to what is intended. In London, for instance, where I lived, the local authority would give notice of a major infrastructural development that was taking place. This is wise because while I accept local authorities often take out advertisements in newspapers, not everyone necessarily reads them nowadays. Increasingly, people are reading newspapers on the Internet and do not have access to the advertisements in local newspapers. This needs to be addressed. As we embrace newer technologies it must be borne in mind that newspapers are not as widely read as in the past. The requirement now to insert planning notices in newspapers is somewhat outdated. Notices should be sent out to local residents, given the important nature of the strategic development to take place. Presumably it will be a major national investment, in any event.

One issue appears to have been omitted from the Schedule 7 of the Bill, which the Minister might like to consider. I am concerned that in my interpretation of that Schedule, I did not notice the inclusion of offshore wind turbines. That is something we need to consider. It may be that they can be interpreted under one of the other items listed, but I did not get the impression that they were included. We need to include them as I believe in the long-term future of offshore deep sea wind turbine generation capacity of this country. We need to address all these matters and have the capacity to anticipate the future needs of the country in the current legislation being drawn up. I request that this be put in and facilitated on Committee Stage. It may well be interpreted differently, but I am conscious of the need to develop and build interconnectors, not just with the UK, but with continental Europe too in the long term. If there is scope within the Schedule, the interconnector question should be accommodated.

I welcome sections 10 and 11 which deal with the streamlining of the judicial review process. We need to have a fairly rapid end to the planning process. One criticism made is that the Bill alters the nature of An Bord Pleanála, from being an independent appellant authority to a development control body, but I do not believe it does. The development of the new permanent strategic infrastructure division, as provided for in section 18, will have changed that element of it. However, I do not believe people need to be concerned that An Bord Pleanála has changed. I welcome the Bill and look forward to its swift passage though the Dáil.

See this speech in context