Dáil debates

Wednesday, 18 October 2006

Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2006: Instruction to Committee

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

It could be called the "Obfuscated Energy Bill". The rehabilitation of lands affected by mines is a laudable and long overdue measure that will be of great importance to the people who live in the affected areas.

The fourth amendment relates to the continued validity of planning or other consents for electricity, gas and other infrastructure developments upon commencement of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006. Now is certainly the time to introduce a measure of this nature. I am not certain, however, whether it should be interposed as an appendage to this Bill. The policies drafted by my party in this area have regard to the need to incorporate some type of planning and development strategic infrastructure regulation Bill to ensure we do not remain stuck forever and cannot move forward.

As I said before in this House, I am reluctant to give sweeping powers to bodies, statutory or otherwise, such as the HSE. Power is vested in this House through the person of the Minister, who is accountable to the House. I totally oppose any changes in this regard. We are gradually reaching a situation where there seems no limit to how much consultation, planning, investigation and mediation takes place before action can be taken in many areas. We all recognise the rights of people to object and I have done so myself on many occasions. However, objectors must recognise when they have exhausted due procedures. I do not agree with the notion that it is acceptable to deliberately delay or hinder any process to the extent that it becomes non-viable.

There is a grave danger we may be heading in that direction. I do not contend that objectors are always wrong. They may well be correct in many instances and they have the right to make their objections. However, we should bear in mind that one cannot repeatedly take one's case to a court of law unless one has plenty of money. We do not want to have an environment such as that in the United States where people with deep enough pockets can keep going back to court with charge, counter-charge, amendment, resubmission and so on. We need only look to the procedures in regard to prisoners on death row in that country, where appeals can go on for 20 years. We cannot afford that type of luxury in regard to planning and development.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.