Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

With no disrespect to the Chair, it is specific to this particular project. We could not possibly discuss a recommitted Bill without making reference to the project. I am quite sure the Minister is well aware it is going to be discussed. It is important we discuss it rather than shuffling to one side or the other. We should deal with the matter and get on with it.

A number of fundamental and ideological issues have arisen in this context. They are not planning issues. There are other ways and means for dealing with them. For example, if somebody has an objection relating to health and safety, it may be quite valid and a sincere objection. That person may well be correct, as I stated earlier. Over the years, all of us have been on one side or the other of planning applications where there were objectors with genuine and sincerely-held views.

Deputy Broughan mentioned that there will soon be development in Dublin the like of which would never have been heard of ten or 15 years ago. That will certainly change the appearance of the city. That is the way it is. Our job as public representatives is simply that we must support one side or the other. We make a judgment, and we may not be right. However, we make the judgment and stand up for what we think to the best of our ability.

When all is said and done, we all had cases which we lost. I lost some, and I am sure the Minister and Deputies Broughan and Cowley lost some. The point at this stage is the extent to which we then decide to pursue what we have already lost. We go to the courts. Provisions are made in the planning Acts for a person, after going to An Bord Pleanála, to go to the courts. A person can go to the High Court and on to the Supreme Court on a point of law. We have all been there before. The sad part is that a stage comes where one must consider that, having gone through the procedures and done the job, he or she may have failed. However, that person will have done the best he or she could.

In that kind of situation, what can be done? Do we remain steadfast and refuse to accept the decision of the courts? Do we refuse to accept the decision of the local authority, board etc.? This is why I argue we should have the proper sequence. There should be no doubt now or in future as to the sequence whereby the procedures are to be followed.

Incidentally, there was a time when I could give wise advice off the top of my head to people making an application for planning permission. I would have been right. Various people went to court and tested it, with decisions being made and new enactments being introduced. More cases would have been tested in court and built into case law. The result is the current situation.

This is not just relevant to this area. The Minister knows there is a growing element of concern in the energy sector, which is sincerely held. It will certainly create serious problems on the distribution of energy in the future. For example, there is much concern over networks, transmission lines, non-ionising radiation, ionising radiation and the proximity of lines to people.

I have heard arguments on these, as I am sure the Minister has. A person told me some time ago that the buzz in an electricity pylon or pole was caused by the electricity generated through it. As anybody would know, if two poles are put in the ground with wire strung from one to the other, a noise will be generated depending on wind direction and the location of the poles. That is simple. A song entitled "Wichita Lineman" referred to that.

See this speech in context