Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

The Green Party's contributions were generally poor, but they missed the concept of the public good entirely. That was a fundamental difference between the contributions of the main Opposition parties and some others.

This Government has shown a credible commitment to an efficient and effective planning system. We have a good system in place which is significantly different from many European Union member states. It is more open and democratic and, unfortunately, occasionally more open to abuse. I would like to be in the same position as other Ministers with responsibility for infrastructure in other member states where projects can move ahead rapidly. Contributors from all sides referred to infrastructural development in other countries. I have experience of France and the difference between the two systems is extraordinary.

There is a cost in this; it is not just a game. The abuse of the planning system means that people are gridlocked on the roads and are waiting for basic infrastructure. We should not lose sight of that. My constituents in Arklow have been waiting for a sewerage system for 13 years. Successive Governments have provided funding for it but a small group of people exercising their rights have used every device to delay that process. Nowhere in this debate has the issue of where the greater public interest lies been weighed up. The Government has consistently shown a commitment to maintaining an efficient, effective and equitable planning system, but the balance at this stage must be redressed.

First and foremost, our emphasis has been on enhancing the efficiency of the systems already in place, for which I am full of praise. However, many Deputies, particularly over the last two days, have made contributions that touch on the deficiencies in the current system, whose prescriptiveness is unwelcome. The planning system should have within it an element of humanity. It is very hard to legislate for that, or for common sense. However, listening to the last three contributions from the Fine Gael benches, one sees that they address a lack of common sense and humanity. From time to time, they mentioned a failure by administrators to see that there is a common good. Sometimes that common good is dealt with when one delivers a one-off house, and sometimes when one delivers a large piece of infrastructure. The former is not addressed in this Bill, but the latter is.

Second, our emphasis has been on streamlining the various stages in the process to prevent unnecessary delay. This Bill is about removing it from the system. We should be honest enough in our political debates to accept that there has been a great deal of unnecessary delay in the delivery of key infrastructure in this country over the years. Two Fine Gael Deputies today and yesterday made the point when talking about the delays on the M3. Deputy O'Dowd referred to it too in his contribution.

This legislation would help overcome the kinds of difficulties suffered by people in Navan, who are waiting for infrastructure. It will not trespass on the right to good planning. It will not deny that, but it will help speed it up and focus it. Deputies who have engaged in a by-election, as I did at the time, know that one of the key players among opponents who took the issue to court announced that it did not matter what decisions came through, since the person concerned would appeal to this and that body so that there was a delay. There is something inherently wrong in that. The idea that we should streamline the stages to prevent unnecessary delay and abuse is in the public interest.

We have also examined safeguarding the hard-earned virtues of transparency and impartiality, and we have retained them in the Bill. Although not everyone might agree with me, I suggest we have a record of solid and unmatched achievement in the delivery of key infrastructure over the past nine years. That backs up the commitment that we have made. I acknowledge there have been cases of over-runs and delays. I am most familiar with the delay on the N11 through the Glen of the Downs, which was utterly scandalous, and I challenge anyone in this House to approve of what happened there. Completely false and utterly mendacious claims were made regarding what would happen if the road went ahead.

That road was delayed for over two years, and the cost escalated by the best part of €40 million. What could we have done with that? It was a clear and absolute abuse of the planning system. Ultimately, the road was built, and any one of us who is honest and objective driving up and down that road would say the current situation is not only safer and better but an environmental improvement. We can deal with that reality. Public representatives, including those who were encouraging people to hang out of trees, have some responsibility in this matter.

Several Deputies remarked that our current prosperity means we face quite exceptional challenges. They have been faced by no other Government since the foundation of the State. The Government is in the happy position that it has resources and a thriving economy. We claim some credit for that, and no doubt others do too. However, the reality is that we have one of the most progressive economies and must establish the legislative base that will help it to continue.

Previous Administrations did not have the benefit of such resources. Challenges regarding the capacity of our planning and public administration processes to deliver did not arise. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that many of the administrative procedures and structures in place today were very clearly put in place as much to delay matters as to advance them. We must deal with that too.

When all this has changed, sustained and prudent management of the public finances by this Government will mean the money required to address infrastructure needs is available. As I said, other Governments can make claims in that direction too. Inaction on the process of infrastructure delivery is no longer an option.

I will take up some specific points, beginning with the very positive contribution made by Deputy O'Dowd and many of the Fine Gael speakers. I am very grateful for the broad support for the intent of the Bill and the proposed changes in it. I accept there are certain issues to discuss. There will be constructive debate on Committee Stage. Deputy O'Dowd asked something reflected in several queries, namely, whether profit-only projects such as offices or retail parks could possibly be included. It is certainly not my intention or the aim of the legislation to cover such speculative developments, which were also raised on the Labour benches. They are not critical infrastructure, and if the Deputy feels any further assurances are necessary, we can discuss that, since it is not intended. Whatever they are to be used for, whether a decentralised Department or pure speculative development, it is not intended that offices or apartment blocks be included in the Bill. If, on Committee Stage, the Deputy feels further assurances are necessary, we can discuss that.

The Deputy also referred to the practice in the Netherlands of publishing strategic plans and seeking the views of the public. We in Ireland do that too. We publish national and regional strategic development plans for consultation, in which we engage on a massive scale. Sometimes we may do it too much, to the point where we fail to make the progress we should. On balance, we have one of the most open planning systems in the world. It is certainly far more open than the vast majority of those in other EU member states.

Deputy O'Dowd also mentioned the UCC conference, which was a classic of its kind. I come from an academic background, so I can poke some fun at academics from time to time, but this was a typical example of academic lawyers dismantling a law, distrustful of any legislation being put forward by mere legislators. With any kind of innovative thinking, the reality was that they would be much more comfortable debating at length, and no doubt eloquently, how many angels might dance on the head of a pin. We have a more practical purpose.

I was disappointed by the IPI's extraordinary reform-averse views regarding the Bill. As it felt free to comment, I should feel free to do the same. It was somewhat bizarre for a body known as the Irish Planning Institute to wait until after the Bill had passed through the Seanad and its Second Stage in the Dáil had almost finished before letting us have the benefit of its pearls of wisdom.

I welcome its support for the principle of more effective and streamlined planning in the interests of the common good. However, some of the more negative views expressed represent a worst-case scenario rather than reality. In the light of new demands being placed on our planning process, we must be prepared to adopt innovative ways of delivering infrastructure where necessary. Otherwise we will fall further behind. We cannot luxuriate in a process that allows the planning of infrastructure to be delayed for years, something we have seen in one or two cases, simply because someone somewhere decides to exercise his or her rights to the nth degree.

It must be acknowledged that national monuments legislation must be reviewed to equip our archaeological system to deal with modern circumstances. The comments made about this legislation were valid, but it would not have been appropriate to deal with these concerns in this Bill, which is a large piece of legislation.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Perry, referred to whether sufficient resources are being allocated to An Bord Pleanála. Additional funds and 24 additional staff are being made available to the board to ensure it can cope with the additional workload, reorganisation requirements and obligations in respect of this Bill. The board appears to be comfortable with these allocations. One point might have been lost in some of the contributions. The board will not be forced to double-job. Most infrastructural projects have come before the board in recent years and will come in the first instance rather than the second. The board's earlier involvement means that it can handle the issues. The board has not made any negative comments but, if the issue arises, the matter of resources can be reviewed.

I was very disappointed by Deputy Gilmore's contribution.

See this speech in context