Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

We must make provision for the administration of development to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of the services to the public. There is not much sense in planning something that is built ten or 15 years later because the associated costs have risen by multiples of ten. Deputy Moloney mentioned projects that were planned 12 years ago. The costs in the meantime have increased by at least 10% per annum or more. In some cases there have been increases of 300% in ten years. We must recognise that delays in the delivery of services and infrastructure means higher costs and less efficiency, leading to turmoil.

The M50 is a classic example of the provision of infrastructure, never mind its planning. I can recall when the Palmerstown interchange was being designed. I discovered it was a scaled down model and I asked why we were doing this, that we should be planning for at least 40 years hence. We remember the roads designed and built in Germany in the 1930s by a very nefarious individual. At least he was good at one thing, he laid down infrastructure. He had the foresight to do that. He had some other peculiar ideas, but he achieved that. The roads designed and built in the 1930s are still in use today because there was much forward planning. The people looked ahead and did the job.

I looked at a five-mile queue of traffic crawling off the M4 on to the M50. In any other country in the world, it would be considered an example of how planning should not be done. The traffic cannot move. I have asked how the port tunnel will work and how traffic will be funnelled into and out of it, expecting to be told that plans had been made, but no such thing happened. After asking questions for four years, I was told that Transport 21 would provide for it, but it has not even been arranged. That is not planning for the future, it is for the past.

The tunnel is barely able to keep out the water but hopefully it will open at some stage this year. Now, however, we must figure out how to get traffic to the tunnel from the N11, N9, N7 and N4, bringing it all the way around the city. Another tunnel could have funnelled that traffic but no one thought of that. Why not? These people are paid to plan ahead. This does not come from politicians, it comes from consultants and planners who are well paid for this — too well in my opinion.

This Bill is needed to speed up the process but I hope it is not abused. It centralises power to a great extent in the hands of An Bord Pleanála and, ultimately, the Government. I do not accept that decision in all cases. If an arbitrary body is doing its job right, it offends people but there is a notion that An Bord Pleanála is always right. It is part of the process and entitled to deal with cases but under this legislation it will have a supervisory role with intervention at an earlier stage whereby it will give an opinion. This is not a reflection on the members of the board but there is a tendency now to predetermine the outcome whatever the circumstances. That should not be the case.

There was a time where if an appeal went to An Bord Pleanála about a one-off housing project, the person applying for planning permission might win the case. It is clear now, however, what the decision will be before the hearing if An Taisce objects to An Bord Pleanála about a one-off house in a rural area. The applications are conveniently located in local authority offices, where one-off houses form a category on the computer list so they can be easily objected to. There may be genuine planning reasons for objections but increasingly the reason appears to be that there should be no housing in the countryside, that it should all be kept for urban tourists at weekends observing local inhabitants in their natural habitat. I strongly resent that. In a case of the kind I have mentioned where an An Taisce objection was lodged to a one-off house, or whatever the case may be, the An Taisce side will prevail in 100% of cases.

On the question of centralisation of control, that is the bones of our problem. In the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002, changes were made to the structure of local authorities and to this House in the sense that Members of this House can no longer become and no longer are members of local authorities. In a few years from now, the local authorities will find out how much poorer they are for that because there is now a complete separation of the power and influence of the Oireachtas from the accountability that had to be given to the Members of the Oireachtas while on local authorities. That is now gone.

Local authorities are laughing at Oireachtas Members. They do not care about them despite the assertions at the time of the Minister to the Members of this House and to my colleague, Deputy Ring, who, rightly, had a different view, that the Minister could give an assurance that there would be no diminution in the degree to which Oireachtas Members would be entertained in making representations or having their views expressed to local authorities. That assurance has not and will not be honoured. Centralisation of control continues because all whoever is in Government need do is instruct the county manager to centralise authority up along the line to the exclusion of all other public representatives, including Government ones. It now comes from a central source — Government. It is a serious development and it will be seen to be increasingly so as time goes on.

Dublin Airport is a major topic for debate and is an important issue in terms of an island community with a growing economy and a growing population and access. All the interest is concentrated on the airport and the building of new runways and terminals. While all this is important, there is little debate, except in the context of Transport 21, about how people are expected to get to the airport. Has anybody ever thought about that? Are we expected to get to the airport using the M50? Has anybody tried to do that recently? Does anybody know what it looks like? How are we to get to the airport, day or night? This is critical infrastructure.

We are debating the Bill to speed up and strengthen the construction of infrastructure, to improve such construction and to increase its efficiency and make it more cost effective. I will be watching with interest, I hope as a Member of this House, although one can never tell because the electorate are very fickle, to see the outcome of that and I hope whatever access to Dublin Airport is chosen is more effective and efficient than the M50.

Why do consultants generally do the work for local authorities now? The authorities no longer appear to employ county engineers and senior personnel. The work is now done by consultants. Everyone is a consultant. We may all be obliged to become consultants of some form in future.

In the 1950s, the Naas dual carriageway was designed and built. It took some time to do that but it was a mould-breaking project at the time and stood the test of time until a few years ago. Currently, new roads are being built and designed, including one from Enfield to Edenderry which is a waste of money because it will not do the job it was intended to do. It will be a reorganisation of the existing road with a consequent impact on the people living adjacent to it. It will not provide for the 25,000 to 30,000 cars per day for which it should provide. It will be three quarters of the expense of a new dual carriageway to Edenderry, which is what should have been built, although Edenderry is not in my constituency. That is a classic example of where we, as public representatives, can no longer get through to the people now empowered to design and build these projects. We cannot influence them in any way. They do not want to listen to us.

It is also a serious matter for the diminution of democracy. In my home town of Maynooth, consultants arrived in the past 12 or 14 months to design the traffic management. No roads were being changed. A new shopping centre was being built, which was welcome because it was a nicely designed, modern development. The possibility of building a roundabout arose but somebody said that could not be done because the traffic had to be slowed down. Instead, they installed a set of traffic lights. They then installed two sets of traffic lights on the other side of the road to ensure they did not bung up the subsequent set of traffic lights. When another problem arose, they decided to install two more sets of traffic lights further up the town to block off access to the other sets of traffic lights. They made certain that there would be chaos in any type of traffic signalling situation and, just to ensure that everything would not go right, they decided to install another set of traffic lights in front of the local hotel, which meant that people could not get in or out of the hotel. In doing all that, they achieved the ultimate.

Let us think seriously about this issue. These consultants did a good job. They call themselves Traffic Solutions Limited as far as I recall. All public representatives made representations. We asked them to listen to our views but they said they could not do so. In other words, our view does not count. It is serious when we get to a situation where public representatives' views do not count. They will not say that but that is a fact. Our views do not count. Democracy is obsolete. Modern thinking is that democracy is for the minions. We will have a little here and a little there but who can afford democracy now? All these consultants, who are very effective, are very expensive. Those are just a few examples.

When I make these types of comments, they go crazy. They swear a hole through a tin pot and indicate what they will do the next time they get a chance, but they fail to recognise that they do not stand for election. We still have democracy and, until such time as they stand up for election and face the democratic process, they should keep their counsel until they are asked to give a view.

The right to object is very important but the objection should be assessed to determine whether it is mischievous or for genuine reasons. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out one from the other. The objection should be locally based as well. A previous speaker made that point in the House because they could not understand why it continues. To assess whether an objection is genuine, it should be locally based. Ten or 15 years ago, the legislation was changed to ensure that anybody proposing to object under section 4 had to come from the electoral area in which the development was located. Otherwise it was not valid. Why not apply the same principle to assessing the authenticity of the objection? Why should somebody living in Cork object to a development in Monaghan or Tyrone?

I remember a case years ago which involved a one-off house. The man objecting alleged he lived somewhere in Glasgow. He was eventually tracked down because we were anxious to determine the authenticity of his objection. In the course of this legislation, something should be done to investigate such matters. There must be grounds for objection. Many genuine cases arise and they must be provided for. The mischievous objections should be eliminated because they are useless and a waste of time.

Somebody mentioned earlier a disturbing factor which I pointed out on a number of occasions to the Committee of Public Accounts. I never really received an answer. The issue is an objection which is withdrawn on foot of a payment. That is a serious deviation from the way the system is supposed to work. If, for example, a person would be likely to be living in the shadow of a proposed tall building, I can understand why there would be payment for an objection. It would be compensation, and it would be fair and equitable. If a person were to object to a proposal for Wexford, Meath or Dublin but lived in County Kildare, I would not be able to see the validity of pushing a case and being paid to withdraw the objection. It is a serious, dubious and questionable procedure. When I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts some years ago, I raised that question with An Bord Pleanála. I did not get absolute answers, and that question is still hanging in the wind somewhere. The matter should be examined.

I remember advising somebody on an objection to his proposal, which objection seemed to have no reason behind it. I told the person to find out the nature of the objection. He did so and found out there was no real reason, but there was a principle. When I heard it was a principle, I was immediately alerted. I told the person to have a chat with the objector to see what the principle was. The person spent a little longer with the objector and found out he was looking for €20,000. The principle was quite clear.

If there is a genuine negative impact on a person's property from a proposed development, I can understand how there could be compensation. I have no problem with that. An Bord Pleanála or the local authority should be the arbiter for any compensation claim. Otherwise, such a claim would be extortion. It is a dubious practice.

I have a final point. It has been my opinion for many years that oral hearings, reviews of county development plans, material contraventions, etc. in the case of a major development should be held in the centre of the location affected by the proposal and nowhere else. Such hearings should be in the local parish hall of the village or town affected. The discussion should take place there, where all the people have access and can see and hear what is going on. It is crucial to do this and it would eliminate much of the hassle.

I hope this proposal is not abused and that it does not see the centralisation to which I have referred. I hope we see an end to the tomfoolery in forward planning in this country, to which I have also referred.

See this speech in context