Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important Bill. My colleague, Deputy Gilmore, set out the Labour Party's broad views on the matter. My views may not be shared by everyone. This Bill will fundamentally change our country's planning laws and some people argue this change is not for the better. Section 3 effectively provides that major construction projects, including private projects, can be built without going through the normal planning process. These projects include waste incinerators, chemical treatment plants, major landfills, oil refineries, large oil and gas storage tanks, oil and gas pipelines, wind farms, electricity pylons, airports, seaports, railway stations and many other similar projects, which are all contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Planning Act. Under the Bill, there will be no right of appeal for these projects because they will be heard by An Bord Pleanála in the first instance.

The Minister is correct in ensuring that certain projects, such as railways and certain roads, are fast tracked. However, I have deep reservations about letting proposals for waste incinerators go through to An Bord Pleanála without anyone having first call. Where concerns about health and safety in respect of certain projects exist, they must be recognised. In areas where the jury is out in respect of safety, we should ensure people's fears and concerns are assuaged by proper argument and by giving them the chance to participate.

The Planning and Development Acts 1963, 1976, 1992, 1997 and 2000 have served us well. Deputy Blaney referred to the fact that in respect of prescribed bodies under Article 36 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, set out a considerable number of prescribed bodies, including An Taisce, and gave them locus standi. In respect of rural housing, An Taisce has intervened and made its stance known. These cases have sometimes involved people who have secured sites from their families.

The basis of rural Ireland is the building up of communities. It is not right that An Taisce and similar bodies can impose their views on local people who are central to the building of communities and who may seek to build houses beside or close to the homes of their parents. The parents of some of these people may be living in rural areas with no public transport and may depend on their children or other relatives to transport them to major towns for medical and other important appointments yet objections to their children's proposed developments are still made.

We have widened the idea of participatory democracy, a concept I favour. One of my reservations about this Bill concerns its restrictions on participatory democracy. The Bill is good in part but contains areas about which I have deep concerns. The Bill diminishes participatory democracy and the right of the public to object and effectively cuts local authorities out of the process. I note county councillors will be allowed to make submissions to An Bord Pleanála, which is useful because they have widespread experience of what is happening on the ground and reflect community concerns in a comprehensive way. Very often, members of local authorities have been written out of the script but it is important to recognise that they play a fundamental role in relaying the very real concerns of people.

Participatory democracy is needed to allow people to have their say. This generally takes place through local authority members but individuals can also make their views known. Participatory democracy should be widened rather than restricted but it needs to be widened in a way that contains very detailed and prescriptive rules. A person must need substantive reasons and a substantive interest in order to make an objection. It is pushing things when someone from Donegal and Cork is allowed to intervene in a proposed development in Westmeath. With all due respect to the Minister of State, I would not like to object to a development in Cork. I have heard of people coming to Westmeath from as far away as Cork or Donegal to object to something which might be an essential part of the county's infrastructure. Such people decide it is their right to object to such developments and are given this right.

The right to object should be reserved for people with substantial and material interests and who are in a position to make objections of a substantive, rather than a frivolous, nature. Other speakers have claimed certain individuals use others to make objections and that other individuals have a commercial interest in objections. Such activity should not be allowed. We should ensure such people are not granted locus standi to participate in the process. If the activity to which I referred is revealed at any time, it is a serious matter. Only people within a county who can prove they have substantive reasons and a substantial interest should be allowed to make objections.

My concern with the Bill is that it diminishes people's rights to go to court. That right is limited in terms of judicial review, but I welcome that the Minister of State is taking on board some of the Labour Party's suggestions in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2005 to set up a designated court to deal with appeals from An Bord Pleanála on various projects. If there are appeals, it is important to examine them quickly in a court structure. It is also important that people's right to go to court is protected. Regarding the judicial review, the substantive interest has been set out. It is important to obtain finality on these matters because yo-yoing often occurs. These measures could ensure and preserve the right to object in planning processes.

I am concerned by major landfills, chemical treatment plants, waste incinerators and developments of that nature, which are a bridge too far. I know why they are built and I understand why the Minister of State may say that local democracy is not working because people seem to be too nervous to take decisions. Nevertheless, this issue is being circumscribed. The health and safety of our citizens should be conserved in planning legislation.

While many projects are required for the common good, a lot are developer-driven. I know of developers who do excellent work, employ people at the top rates, participate in Construction Industry Federation pension schemes and so on. While no one is entitled to tar people with the same brush, there are developers in every county who have let down their good colleagues. It was for this reason that we introduced the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2005. In that Bill, we indicated that the local authorities should have a legal right to refuse planning permission to developers that apply, under whatever guise — perhaps in the form of companies that have reformed — but that already hold planning permissions in adjacent areas or within the jurisdictions of those local authorities and have failed to complete housing estates or the other developments they may have undertaken and have not adhered to the specific terms of said planning permissions.

It is amazing that one often sees local authorities taking action against persons who have built single houses in the countryside because their walls were not built the requisite three feet from the road, because they failed to remove trees and so on. However, there has been a certain tardiness in pursuing bad developers that have charged top dollar. The former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, informed the House about the rationale for reducing the capital gains tax rate from 40% to 20%, and stated that it would increase the supply of land and the number of houses and lead to a decrease in house prices. Instead, the bad developers grabbed everything, including the 20% in capital gains tax, which they put in their pockets. Some of them did not complete footpaths, roads, lighting or green areas. One could write a book about it.

It is time to stop this conduct and, like every Member, I welcome the relevant measures in the Bill that will do so. We all have tales to tell in this respect. It is time to tell bad developers that they are besmirching everyone's name. There are many good developers who build the finest of houses. For example, one would be proud of certain areas in my county. However, there are areas where people have no lighting or roads, where sewerage systems have not been completed, where manhole covers are left open and so on. The developers in question get their money, only complete 80% or 85% of the projects and move on in the hope of grabbing the next shilling. They charge those young people who can put roofs over their heads €200,000, €250,000 or more for their houses.

The Government must be criticised for its failure to implement the recommendations of the Kenny report, which has been lying around since the 1970s but about which action should now be taken. It is a scandal and a shame that young people who may have easily been able to put roofs over their heads at one time are no longer in a position to do so. As they are now our top candidates for social and affordable housing, we are increasing the pool of people who cannot provide for themselves. This is a failure of the Government.

We should consider a windfall tax on developers who gain from zoning decisions. The price of €10,000 or €15,000 for agricultural land can be transformed into €200,000 or €250,000 at the stroke of a pen. High-density building takes place, but not a penny beyond the development charges levied by local authorities is returned to local people. The windfalls should be taxed because they are gained by virtue of the location of developments and the fact that local authorities deem the rezoning necessary. The location of the projects gives developers added advantages that are unavailable to ordinary working class people who do not possess property of any kind. There should be a windfall tax to ensure that money is ploughed into those communities adjacent to which new houses are built.

Local authorities are notoriously remiss in that they allow haphazard developments to take place without providing the necessary infrastructure to accommodate traffic, public transport and schools or ensuring that the relevant Departments do so. Schools are particularly necessary if we are to ensure that young people do not need to wait in queues to obtain places when they reach four years of age.

We are discussing infrastructure. The Government blames objectors for its ills, but it is often the Government's tardiness that is at fault. The Department of Education and Science is an example. In 2001, I was told at a famous meeting in Coralstown, which lies between Mullingar and Kinnegad, that its school would be built. Before the 2002 general election, a candidate who has since returned to the Dáil assured everyone that a school would be delivered. Like others, I lost many votes by telling the truth because I stated that the school would be delivered in 2007 or 2008. We are approaching June 2006 and a scraw has still not been turned. I suffered because I told the truth, but I believe in being up front with people rather than deceiving or misleading them.

Some of the blame must be laid at the Department's door because projects go up and down through stages like a jigsaw. This nonsense should be stopped and the matter should be given to local management, which should be told that its job is to use the €500,000 or €600,000 provided. Designs for four-room schools, for example, should be standardised and adequate space should be provided. Even if there is a requirement to provide a certain number of square feet per pupil, the amount of square footage required in Louth cannot be different from that needed in Mullingar.

The blame for delays can often be laid at the doors of Departments, which can slow down or accelerate projects for electoral advantage. A good example would be phase 2B of the hospital in Mullingar. Since 1997 there has been foot dragging over this very important infrastructural project. Lo and behold, with an election 12 months away, it is like watching hot air balloons, everything is rising. That breeds cynicism in the electoral process. Projects should be allowed as they are developed within Departments, with no foot dragging or questions being answered from the sides of mouths. I ask question after question in here and receive all sorts of pedantic answers when I know the truth.

Often Departments must send everything out to contract. The Minister or the Minister of State will come down to open the link road to Mullingar with the chairman of the county council. The local authority employees did that job quicker and better than any of the contractors. It is about time we lifted the embargo on local authorities employing workers to undertake some of these projects. When local authorities take on projects, there are engineers overseeing every step of the way. There are very few extras or things done wrong. It is rare they would come looking for additional money during the variable contract stage.

I am proud of the work by Westmeath County Council workers. The Department of Finance, however, had the audacity to tell local authorities not to take on such people. It would prefer contracts to go to the flash Harry who comes along and does the work without employing local labour. This was an excellent example, supervised by engineers for Westmeath County Council under the director of services Mr. George Lambden, of what can be done by local authority employees.

We must examine this and ensure there is respect for a diversity of views. We cannot have a one size fits all solution in the planning process because it has caused problems in the past. I support rural people living in their own environment. Those who object have never had the opportunity to live in those areas. Rural people must be given a chance because they are the backbone of the local community, contributing to football and hurling teams, the church, schools, the post office and the Garda station. If An Taisce had its way, rural areas would have nothing but trees and bushes left, there would be no people and everyone would be concentrated in urban areas. Some young planners also have this view and are trying to adopt a European model that prevails in France and impose it on rural Ireland. They will not get away with it because we stand for rural Ireland.

See this speech in context