Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill with its stated aim of fast-tracking major infrastructural projects since world class infrastructure is critical for any successful economy. I have a major difficulty with incinerators or any other major infrastructure that has health and safety implications. It is clear that the issue of health and safety in respect of incinerators has not been proven otherwise. Scientists have proven that dioxins from incinerators are carcinogenic agents and cause a cancer. I have listened to people who suffered from cancer in Belgium who lived down wind of an incinerator, and I have heard of the health effects on people. The recent leak from Sellafield, which is another huge infrastructure, would have filled a 25 m swimming pool. That has implications not only for the health of people but for marine life. We should be clear about the type of infrastructure that should be speeded up.

Something is needed to speed up certain aspects of our infrastructure. The number of planning applications a county council must deal with has increased enormously. One has only to look at one's local newspaper to see the one or two pages of planning applications that must be dealt with.

From a rural perspective, one of the difficulties is people obtaining planning permission in rural areas. Reference has been made to people getting a free site in return for looking after their parents. I doubt whether in many cases that site can be classed as free. The recipients provide a valuable service to the parents and the State in terms of the level of care provided, often on a seven-day, 24-hour basis. It is not that they have any objection to the care provided but such sites are far from free. We should try to encourage people to look after the elderly because the culture has changed in that respect.

A relaxation of the planning laws should be given serious consideration in respect of carers seeking planning permission to build a house near the person they are caring for. Not only do such people operate as a carer in the house, they act as a local taxi service because, in the main, there is no public transport in rural areas. They take those cared for to town, to doctors and so on. I call on the planning authorities to look favourably on such planning applications and to encourage this type of development. Such people take much pressure off another institution, namely, the health service.

It strikes me that when planning permission is sought, especially for major infrastructure, that there are perennial objectors who almost object for a living and have nothing to do with the locality in which the infrastructure is proposed. It is not right that those people can object willy-nilly. If they object to the N3 or whatever, they should not do so for fun or almost as if it were a profession. I would have major difficulties with that type of objector. If there are genuine objectors from the area, they should be heard. How such people can be dealt with and the infrastructure fast-tracked is a major issue. This Bill is a long time in gestation, with the Government having originally undertaken to reform the planning system and speed up major infrastructure back as far as 2003. To some extent, this is better late than never. Having been on the political agenda for years, plans for a new critical infrastructure board to fast-track planning had to be shelved.

The Bill aims to speed up the planning process for large infrastructure projects deemed to be of national importance. Nobody can deny there are such projects which need to be developed. Simply to get to work, one can consider what has happened for example with the M50, or any of the motorways around Dublin or around the country. We must move into the 21st century and develop our roads, which need to be fast-tracked, along with our trains. This is a major issue. I welcome such fast-tracking. We need it to compete. Whether it be a North-South or east-west corridor, such projects should be examined quickly. Delays in the past have cost taxpayers a lot of money. We should be asking if we are getting value for money, and in terms of objections being made. I do not believe we are getting value. What is happening is not good for our people and our country.

A number of criticisms have been made of the Bill, notably that it would favour private interests while hindering legitimate objectors. A balance must be struck in any Bill. Developers may often drive the economy but planning issues often come in second place, and the prime objective of developers is to make money and make projects pay. Legitimate objections should be catered for but I question the legitimacy of objections being made by those who come from another country or from an outside area.

I hope the Bill will be instrumental in speeding up major projects and spending programmes without undermining the rights of objectors. The right to object is basic. A careful line will have to be walked between speeding up the planning process while protecting constitutional rights. Objectors have a constitutional right, but it must not be abused.

The Bill will also allow projects in environment and transport infrastructure to be dealt with by An Bord Pleanála in a single stage process. One of the current difficulties is that the process seems to drag on forever. We need a speedier means of handling objections and examining the validity of projects. Motorways, roads, waste and water projects by local authorities have already been decided on by An Bord Pleanála.

Much power has been handed to county managers. It may not always be useful to put a county manager on the spot, because the manager is in effect left with Hobson's choice in terms the decisions he or she can make.

The Bill makes provision for new a strategic infrastructure division within An Bord Pleanála. This will act as a one-stop-shop for planning decisions on big projects, short-circuiting the current system, including local authorities and An Bord Pleanála itself. A further complementary element of the new strategic infrastructure division will be the establishment of a specialist division in the High Court. This is greatly needed because we all know that to make an application and get a hearing in the High Court takes a long time. This is where many of the processes are strangled. It takes people quite a long time to settle High Court claims in general and I have known of cases which have taken seven years. That is not acceptable. Rather than merely creating a new division, we will have to provide resources too. We will have to create a number of new High Court judge positions to cater for the extra work. It is not acceptable that people should have to wait simply on a court judgment. The new division will deal with legal challenges to infrastructure projects with mandatory timeframes for decisions, which is welcome. It would be good to tell people decisions will be made within a timeframe. People will accept them if they are adhered to.

For the new division to operate efficiently, it will be essential it be adequately resourced, both legally and technically. Judicial reviews of the planning decisions are in many cases responsible for the planning delays which have taken place up to now. Delays have been occurring in the legal system.

See this speech in context