Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

Obviously many Members have spoken already and it is difficult to come up with something new to say. We all want to get our tuppence worth in on this Bill, me included. The Minister has been very gracious to some of my party colleagues in his remarks. As my colleague, Deputy Cuffe, said, if the Minister is praising the Green Party, he has something up his sleeve — an example of his political skill.

Democracy is being moved upwards, away from Demos, a retrograde step. There have been stories in the tribunals about corruption, bad planning and decisions made by councillors that were, at worst, spurred on by corrupt payments from developers and, at best, amounted to bad or incompetent planning. However, the Bill will not end incompetent planning but bring it to another level. It will create a situation where the public will feel less connected with the planning process and a decision will not be seen to have the imprimatur of the man or woman in the street.

People have spoken about objectors coming from all over the place, about people from County Roscommon objecting to projects in County Waterford, even about someone from outside the country objecting. Anyone should be able to object to anything; it is a democratic right. Deputies have a right to oppose anything they like. The Green Party is accused of opposing everything when it proposes solutions other parties do not agree with. Anyone who disagrees with something, even spuriously, is still entitled to make his or her point.

When I go around doors, people give their opinions. In a small minority of cases the person concerned will be most arrogant and obnoxious possible but I try not to get involved in an argument. I listen carefully, taking his or her views on board, and try to leave on friendly terms, even if he or she says he or she would not vote for the Green Party in a million years or shouts that we are all the same. That person might be cynical about the political process because of past events but he or she is entitled to be contemptuous of politicians and express his or her view. That is democracy, hearing that voice at the door and opinion expressed through the ballot box.

The planning process is another wing of true democracy, where a person can say he or she does not like a development because it will hamper his or her view and, therefore, objects to it. It could be a case of NIMBY but even such individuals are entitled to submit planning objections. If they were not allowed to do so, where would it end? There is a statutory period for applications to local authorities, appeals to An Bord Pleanála and support observations. It does not matter how many object; the statutory process will not delay anything.

The same applies to larger scale developments. We have seen arguments about Carrickmines and the Hill of Tara. I was involved in campaigns on large-scale planning issues in Adamstown, proposals by the Railway Procurement Agency and the M50 bridges and widening scheme. In all cases members of the public made their views known and the projects often went straight to An Bord Pleanála.

Rather than moving more of these large-scale projects up the scale in order that there is no local input, we must increase it. We must provide more power for the elected members of local authorities instead of handing it to unelected managers who can ignore motions tabled by councillors as they see fit. Directly elected mayors are needed, with councillors given more power to make decisions at local level, with the possibility of a regional level for the decentralisation of national decisions. True decentralisation gives power back to the people and the regions, rather than relocating a Department in Parlon country in County Laois. It is still a centralised Department, where people get frustrated trying to contact someone no matter what. A regional system gives people a real input into decision-making; they feel they are being listened to. If they do not have proper recourse, they can approach a local councillor who can then tell the directly elected mayor that a project will be opposed or should be amended.

The underlying fears in the Bill relate to councillors being swayed by the corruption of the past or by public protest. If there are plans for a incinerator in a certain area, it makes sense for the regional waste plan to be adopted or for An Bord Pleanála to call the shots instead of the local authority. In my constituency if councillors decided to build an incinerator, it would be difficult to see it ever happening. That might be because of cowardice on the part of the representatives or it might be because they acknowledge the implications for their constituents. Sometimes leadership is necessary. That is where councillors must stand up and be counted.

It is not a question of taking power from the little boys and girls because they might not use it responsibly; power is being abused at every level of the State and that will continue as long as power is absolute. It is necessary, therefore, to bring it to the lowest level to ensure everyone is accountable for the decisions he or she makes. There may be an element of moral cowardice in some cases but local input, excluding the NIMBY filter, tends to be good.

There are reasons people in Palmerstown, Lucan and Quarryvale objected to the widening of the M50. This large-scale project was originally costed at €300 million and increased to €850 million. The Taoiseach now estimates its final cost at €1 billion. While the M50 will be three lanes wide and there will be proper interchanges at the N4 and N7 junctions, there will still be congestion. It is in that context local democracy could be shown to work. Councillors could have tabled amendments to these proposals, stating they would support the project if the Government provided a cast iron commitment to provide a Luas system or 400 buses in tandem with the widening of the M50. Under the rehashed Transport 21 plan there is a promise of public transport infrastructure long after roads structure. Thanks to the National Toll Roads decision to close off the M4 link to the M50, we have congestion virtually eight hours a day coming from the west towards the M50 toll bridge. That will get worse when the M50 is widened, a decision made by the board, which could not be influenced by people's views, rather than by local elected representatives. People's views were expressed to the board directly, and it made decisions in the context of existing Government guidelines and regulations, which is why in one sense it was anti-democratic.

The board will always uphold the democratic decisions of the Government of the day, but there is no opportunity for local representatives to have those guidelines amended on the basis of local democratic input. Were that democratic input considered, people on the ground would realise that one can argue in principle that widening the M50 is necessary in the long term, but if one still has congestion thereafter, one must have something else to promise people.

The same is true of one of the largest strategic development zones in the country, which is being established in Adamstown. It went to An Bord Pleanála, which decided on the basis of community input, but there was no chance for elected members of the local authority to attach conditions requiring the Government to provide trains and buses. There were conditions that one could not have additional development until a temporary train station had been provided by the developer, or until four tracks had been installed, but it did not in put an onus on the Government to provide those services.

As a result, although Adamstown is in one sense a very ambitious project, and may work when totally full, as it is filling up it will only add to congestion. There will be great deficits in public transport infrastructure since, while the train station will be provided, there will not be enough space on the train for people to board. Not until 2015 is it planned to electrify the Kildare route past Adamstown and Lucan and on to Hazelhatch. In that context, there will not be the requisite capacity.

If local representatives had the power to make decisions and attach conditions to planning such as that for Adamstown, stating that they would not permit a single house to be built until, as a requirement of the planning permission, the Government committed itself to a certain number of carriages or buses, that would be workable local democracy in action. It could force the national Government to provide the services needed to make planning work.

The story is similar with schools. An Adamstown developer would provide school buildings, but under normal circumstances developers would provide a site and the building would appear ten years later, when the children's situation was at crisis point. If one had real local democracy regarding all planning, including issues covered under schedule 7, such as energy infrastructure, industrial installations for electricity, and wind turbines, at least one would get input that might prove valuable. If one had primary input, one would still be able to go to An Bord Pleanála and overrule decisions seen as outside the local authority's remit. However, decision-making should be at the lowest effective level upwards rather than imposed from above.

In that regard, the Irish Planning Institute submitted comments fairly late on this Bill. They were passed to my colleague, Deputy Cuffe, and some other Deputies may also have received them. It makes some relevant points on this Bill. I do not necessarily agree with its support for a one-stop shop, but it has salient points to make on the Bill and why it is flawed. It stated that, if passed, the new proposals would undermine key principles of the planning system, particularly regarding issues such as the absence of a clear link to the hierarchy of planning policy instruments such as development plans and local area plans that are normally at the core of our planning system. I would add SDZs such as Adamstown to that list. The absence of right of appeal on substantive planning issues for all parties with recourse to the courts only on points of law strikes at the principles of fairness that underpin our planning system.

From a personal perspective, I reiterate the perceived threat to the impartiality of An Bord Pleanála if the board is required to facilitate consultation with parties to a proposal. We already have situations where the inspector reports in favour of the community, only for board members to overrule him or her — the very people who were not there on the ground and did not listen to all the submissions. That will throw further cold water on the perception of impartiality that one must have. There must be faith in the planning process, which is why one must give more power to local authorities and let councillors fall on their swords or live by their bravery. That is the first level, after which a case would obviously go up to An Bord Pleanála in any case.

The Irish Planning Institute made the general comment that a plan must go through a proper public consultation process before going to An Bord Pleanála. It listed examples where the spatial planning merits of a project have been considered in principle, including regional planning guidelines, the city or county development plan, or the local area plan, for reasons of democratic participation and proper integration. I hate to use the word, since it is somewhat hippy-like and corny, but there must be a holistic approach to infrastructure projects regarding overall link to county, regional, and national spatial strategies.

Another concern that I have is with section 3, which amends section 37A of the principal Act. An example to which the IPI refers arose in my constituency, namely, the proposed national distribution park in Clondalkin. As it stands, the Bill allows for projects that are primarily profit-driven and not necessarily in the public interest. It should not be used as a back door for controversial private projects to avoid the normal planning process, for example, in subsections 37A(1) and 37A(2). There are concerns on section 3 that there could be situations such as regarding the national distribution park in Clondalkin or even private incinerator proposals, as in Kilcock.

This Bill might have been better, providing much more clout to local authorities and their elected members. Had it done so, people would have had more faith in the democratic process. They would not mind then having An Bord Pleanála make impartial decisions on major infrastructure projects. The time lag is not a major factor, since we have seen such lags in national projects that had more to do with successive Governments' incompetence than flaws in the planning process. If one wishes to make a plan that has an impact on future generations — possibly 100 years from now — as my colleague, Deputy Boyle said, one must get that plan right. That is why, at the first level, one must start as locally as possible, taking all those concerns on board, sifting out some of the nimbyism and making decisions based on proper planning. One must at least give people an input into proper planning by allowing them to express their views.

See this speech in context