Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)

Most of the problems that have emerged in major infrastructural projects have revolved around the architectural Acts implemented over many years which deal with such matters as the protection of archaeological sites. It is the provisions of this legislation which have resulted in many of these cases going to court. It is still possible that legal challenges may be made to proposed major infrastructural projects because a person who is not satisfied with a decision of An Bord Pleanála may seek a judicial review. In addition to the challenges arising in regard to archaeological sites, there have been significant delays in project planning, overshoots, delays and so on. To what extent will the Bill address these difficulties?

We must be conscious of striking the correct balance between local democracy and the need for ongoing infrastructural developments. As we get older as a democracy, it seems we are intent on passing over more of the decision-making duties to entities over which we have no control, perhaps because we no longer want the responsibility of making decisions. When I first became a Member of this House, for example, one could have asked the Minister for Transport about the N4 or N6 and received an update report on developments, whether funding was likely to be available and so on. Now, however, the Minister can refer such questions to the National Roads Authority. Questions to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about the Garda are now directed to the Garda Commissioner. Likewise, questions on most aspects of the health service are passed to the Health Service Executive.

We are abandoning significant decision-making powers to others who are not accountable in the same way as elected politicians. In this context, we must strike the correct balance between retaining public confidence in the system and ensuring the system is fair. When there was a crisis in regard to incinerators and waste management some years ago, the Government of the day decided county councillors could not be trusted and that responsibility in this area should be given entirely to the county manager. This is not a good way of conducting business. If we are to enhance local democracy by allowing councillors to draw up county development plans and so on, we should not reduce their powers by saying they are not competent to make decisions about waste management, the location of dumps and so on. Unfortunately, that unsatisfactory system is already in place.

Many have little faith in the planning process. It is regularly the case that apparently strange decisions are made by both An Bord Pleanála and local authorities. For many the conditions attaching to planning permission, whether imposed by An Bord Pleanála or the local authority, and the enforcement thereof are a cause of aggravation. I could give many examples. St. Mary's in Mullingar, for instance, was a beautiful traditional stone-built Famine hospital, constructed in 1841, and one of only two of its type from that period. When a monument was being built in France some years ago to commemorate the soldiers who had died in the Second World War, somebody decided the stone from this hospital would be ideal for the purpose and proceeded to knock down an unused part of the building. With others, I protested about this and eventually the matter was referred for adjudication to An Bord Pleanála, which body in its wisdom decided that the Midland Health Board was incorrect to knock down the building and instructed that it be restored to its original state, even though the stone had been transported to France and used in the construction of a commemorative round tower. Not much has happened to rectify the matter since. This leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

In the example I have given why was the building allowed to be knocked down in the first instance? Why did a State body, the health board, act without permission? Will it now set aside and disregard a decision of An Bord Pleanála? It is a question of enforcement. One can call to mind many decisions throughout the State that remain unenforced. I am sure all Members are inundated with contacts from residents' associations complaining that their housing estates have not been completed, street lights have not been installed, footpaths are not up to standard and so on. It seems to take an eternity to have something done about this. However, one will also meet the ordinary individual building a single house who feels he or she is being treated badly by the local authority in terms of its enforcement of the conditions attaching to the planning permission. If the ordinary person receives a letter from the local authority to the effect that he or she must comply with certain conditions or the authority will take action, the person panics and does something about it. What happens with a developer? He cocks up his nose, walks away and throws the letter in the bin. What happens with regard to seasoned campaigners who are used to dealing with such matters? They do likewise.

The case of a house in County Louth was brought to my attention recently and I brought it to the attention of the Minister. Planning permission was sought by a small-time developer to build a house in a rural area. Permission was granted but he proceeded to build the house at total variance to the conditions attached to the permission, in terms of elevation and position vis-a-vis the road and adjoining properties. The case went on for a considerable amount of time. The developer applied for retention but was refused, twice. He appealed to An Bord Pleanála and was refused. What happened at the end of the day? He persisted and eventually he obtained permission for the house as constructed.

In that context, one can understand why a man who wanted to build a house on the adjoining site but was refused by the local authority is angry. He is asking what the developer has that he has not got. He is wondering what the developer did to enable him to build a house that was totally at variance with what was planned. Situations like that cause people to become very disillusioned with the planning process and result in the loss of public confidence.

On foot of a freedom of information request I reviewed much of the information relating to that planning application. The Minister will be interested in the final decision, because he wrote to me regarding this matter. The final decision was not to pursue the matter because the local authority received legal advice to the effect that if it took the case to court, there was a chance it would lose and there would be a cost associated with that. The local authority acknowledged that what the developer did was totally wrong, that its job was to enforce planning guidelines and conditions, but chose to set the case aside because a lawyer suggested that it could be dodgy. That is not the way to do business and I know from my dealings with the Minister over a long period that he would not want that kind of situation pertaining either.

To restore confidence in the planning process, we must examine situations such as the one outlined and decide how we can learn from them and how can we improve matters in the future. A balance must be struck between what is good for the local community and the national community, the ordinary individual and the big multinational company, particularly as the latter may be in a better position to go into court and fight a case.

I am concerned about another issue which I hope the Minister will clarify when he gets a chance to wrap up——

See this speech in context