Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

The Minister is fine. I am sure he has a lot on his mind. I look forward to working with the Minister and his Department on transport issues generally.

On this particular issue, I was somewhat taken aback today when Members were asked to take this legislation. It is not good practice, as the Minister probably will accept, to introduce legislation the Opposition does not have an opportunity to amend. While Opposition Members will comment on it, essentially it is being driven through in the space of an hour or so this evening. This is not something of which Members should make a habit. That said, if this measure will save money and if it makes sense, then Members have an obligation to try to facilitate the process.

However, I wish to ask a number of questions on this Bill. First, I do not understand the reason the Minister for Transport is taking this Bill and not the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It proposes to bring forward a section of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill that is going through the Oireachtas at present and which is almost finalised. Consequently, I do not understand the reason the Department of Transport is taking responsibility for it this evening. I understand its purpose is to facilitate a particular road project, namely, the Galway city outer bypass that, as far as I am aware, my party strongly supports. However, I do not understand the reason the Department that at present is dealing with this issue in planning law is not taking this Bill.

Second, I presume the Office of the Attorney General has answered the question as to whether it is legally appropriate to change the law in the middle of a legal case, which is what is happening here. Even though the case, which is before the European Court of Justice, pertains to giving a ruling on how a section of the habitats directive applies in this case, the impact of the outcome of that case on the timing of the implementation of a compulsory purchase order, CPO, will be changed. In other words, the outcome with regard to the extension of the CPO is being changed.

If this makes sense for local authorities that make CPOs for whatever reason, they normally are for roads but they have other purposes, I do not understand the reason it would not also make sense for the other State bodies that are entitled to make CPOs. For example, why should it be different for EirGrid, were it obliged to deal with a legal challenge regarding pylons thereby requiring an extension to the time limit of a CPO? I do not understand why the rationale is any different for local authorities than it might be for other State agencies or bodies. Essentially, are Members merely passing this legislation to deal with this particular case in Galway or it is being suggested that it is good law to be able to extend the 18-month period after which a CPO collapses on foot of a legal challenge to the process or to the planning process that may be related to it? If it is good law for local authorities, surely it also is good law for the other bodies concerned. For example, what would be the difference in the case of a port company or the Irish Aviation Authority in respect of an airport? I do not understand. While I am willing to facilitate the Minister in respect of what he is trying to do this evening, many genuine questions arise as to the reason this legislation is being done in this manner, whereby it only applies to local authorities. In addition, an issue arises about rushing the Bill in the first place. It was known weeks ago that this was likely to be the case, because it was unlikely that the planning legislation would get through the Houses before the end of term. There are reasonable and genuine questions that probably deserve answers.

As this is a Second Stage debate, I also wish to raise a more general point regarding transport projects. My understanding from media coverage this week, which highlighted that 40 road projects are on ice at present, the Galway city outer bypass being one of them, is that even were the issue in respect of the CPO and an extension of time resolved and even were the go-ahead secured from the European Court of Justice to build this road, apparently there would be no funding for it anyway. The Minister should provide clarity on the funding and prioritisation of this project. If Members are going to go through the process of changing the law to facilitate a CPO, will it be possible to find the capital to make the project happen?

On a more general point, I can understand the serious expenditure-related pressures on the Minister at present. However, I appeal to him to consider other ways to finance infrastructure projects through private sector investment. I do not suggest the privatisation of building roads through the mechanism of imposing tolls and so on. However, in the case of, for example, motorway stopovers, it sounds ridiculous that although the NRA does not have the capital to build such facilities at present, it is not considering tendering to the private sector to build them, while regulating the design, size, safety issues and all other issues that must be in place for a motorway stopover. At present, dozens of developers would be willing and able and extremely interested in building such infrastructure, if they could be facilitated by the NRA to so do. The State must be more imaginative about how it finances capital programmes that are linked to or connected with the transport system and I ask the Minister to do this. I will now hand over to my colleague, Deputy McCormack, to speak more specifically about the Galway issue.

See this speech in context