Feargal Quinn (Independent)

The Government's dilemma in the case before us is that no one foresaw in the 1960s, when the planning process was first created, that we might ever need to row back on it. At the time, it made perfect sense to build the scheme on two pillars, the first being a local application process, and the second a national appeals procedure. In practice, over the last 40 years, the two-pillar approach has seemed to fit the bill a great deal of the time. Over that period, some have come to view the two pillars as inflexible and immovable features.

I expect that the Bill will run into strong opposition. I was interested and pleased to hear that Senator Bannon does not seem to be showing the opposition that I thought he might naturally have shown. People who object to the change will see it as an attempt by an impatient Government to short-circuit democracy. Many will view it as the second part of a two-pronged attack by the Government on the whole planning process.

The first prong of the attack was the National Monuments Act 2004, which moved the goalposts on environmental matters right out of the arena and locked them up in a place where no one but the Government could reach them. Consequently, how should Members consider this Bill? Should they pay attention to these objections and refuse the Government the leave which it seeks to abridge our democratic rights regarding planning? Instead, should Members admit that the national interest demands the abridgement of those rights, if the range of necessary infrastructural projects are to be delivered within a reasonable timeframe? In this context, one should consider the length of time it takes to get through that planning process. In respect of many such infrastructural projects, it has been interesting to note that in recent years, having eventually passed through the planning stages, they were put out to competitive tender and were completed ahead of schedule and within budget. While I am impressed by the speed with which things can be done once all red tape has been removed, its removal appears to interfere with the democratic rights to which we have become accustomed.

In support of this second approach, the Government argues that the present system creates unnecessary delays which present a barrier to our catching up in respect of infrastructural development, as we clearly need to do. It asserts there is a need to balance the thirst for democracy with the need to get things done. In addition, it points to another problem regarding the present manner in which we balance the planning process between local and national bodies. This arises from the NIMBY, not in my backyard, principle, whereby no one wants anything which is even vaguely detrimental to take place in their own backyard. I understand that the Minister has had some experience in this respect, given the criticism he has received. This natural desire undermines the entire local focus of the planning process because it means that no local body will ever approve a controversial project. It will almost always allow such a project to be imposed on it by the national body and the local authority's members will then assert that nothing could be done, as the decision was taken from their hands. This assumes that the national body in question could gather the support to so do.

On which side of this argument should Members come down? While this a very difficult decision, when all matters are taken into account, the balance of the argument goes to the Government. Therefore, I am prepared to support this Bill, although I do so while regarding it as a necessary evil.