Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

That is an interesting point too. The legislation relates to one specific project. It is not just rushed legislation but the fact that it is put forward for a particular purpose as distinct from a broad, collective range of purposes seldom makes for good legislation.

We find ourselves in an extraordinary situation. Only yesterday, the Minister announced the project was going nowhere for the time being yet now we have to get the time for the compulsory purchase orders extended. There is something strange about the timing of the Bill. It was unusual to find when I was speaking in the House at 2.30 p.m. that the Chief Whip arrived to introduce the order, which had not been introduced in the morning. The least one expects is that the business of the day will be regulated and completed in the morning but in this case the business was not ready.

At 2.30 p.m. the Chief Whip announced that the Bill would be going through all Stages today, but he also announced that it would be in the name of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I therefore expected that the passage of the Bill would be conducted by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government because we were dealing with what is essentially a provision of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill which we could not complete at this time but, lo and behold, it is the Minister for Transport we see before us tonight. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance took the Bill in the Seanad. Something very strange seems to be going on given that neither the senior Minister in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government nor the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Cuffe, was available to deal with the Bill. I wonder whether the two parties are singing from the same hymn sheet on this matter.

I have a letter from the manager of Galway City Council which is profuse in its reference to Deputy Fahey, who is present. It gives him the credit for the idea of this legislation. The letter was written this week, which is very recent. It is strange, given that the case which has been taken to the Supreme Court and subsequently to the European Court of Justice, and has been ongoing for a considerable period, that the possibility of this situation arising was not envisaged earlier without having to rush through the legislation in this manner. The letter was addressed to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cuffe. Did he, as the appropriate Minister in the absence of the senior Minister, decide not to deal with the legislation? Do issues arise as outlined by Deputy McCormack in regard to objections along the route? Is it the case that the Green Party was not interested in being seen to take the legislation which would have the effect of ensuring that at least the compulsory purchases would go ahead some time in the future once the case was exhausted in the courts?

These are questions that should be answered because it seems there is a very substantial political dimension to the legislation. We are being asked at the 11th hour, almost the 12th, to accept all Stages of the legislation in an hour and 20 minutes. We know from experience that does not work and that there are nearly always flaws in rushed legislation. Legislation rushed through both Houses after 8 p.m. on the same day could very well end up being problematic.

When the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009 is completed, will the Minister repeal the Compulsory Purchase Orders (Extension of Time Limits) Bill? Will this be a priority and a commitment? There is nothing in the legislation that will bring an end to it.

How appropriate is it to introduce legislation that pertains to a case that is before the courts? The Bill will have a bearing on the outcome of the case because it is effectively extending the timeframe associated with matters relevant thereto. I would like to hear the Minister respond on this.

I have no objections to the substance of the Bill. It is very reasonable in that no country could carry out projects such as roads projects without compulsory purchases. In respect of the 2000 Act, it is strange that an extension of time was not required because of legal actions. I can envisage such action, particularly given the litigious nature of Irish citizens and all the objections that arise when there is a major project. The provision to amend the planning legislation is welcome and we have no objection to it.

I did not realise the amount of money spent to date was as large as the amount stated by Deputy McCormack, that is, in the region of €20 million. This money must not be allowed to go down the tubes. The cost of having to reapply for a compulsory purchase order and engage again with An Bord Pleanála, with the consequent work on specifications and planning, would be quite substantial. It is eminently desirable not to subject the taxpayer to that cost.

It is eminently desirable to know whether projects will proceed or whether, having applied for planning permission and obtained compulsory purchase orders, there will be no funding. Does the Minister envisage any progress in the foreseeable future on the long list of projects that have been suspended indefinitely, and which we read about in the newspapers?

There is something strange and fishy about this legislation, arriving as it does at this time and given the manner in which we are being compelled, much against our will, to pass it on the basis of a guillotine. We talked about the guillotine all day today and many votes arose because of it. This Bill involves what one might call a super-guillotine. It is the kind that nobody would expect in any circumstances. The danger is that we are being forced to do something we might regret. I ask the Minister to commit that this legislation will cease to exist once the provisions of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill are in place.

See this speech in context