John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and his officials to the House and welcome this legislation. The only minor criticism to be made is that perhaps it should have been introduced sooner. All Members are aware of the importance of infrastructural delivery generally. As the Cathaoirleach is aware, various aspects of national and local infrastructure have become regular features on the Order of Business. The frequency with which this matter crops up on the Order of Business and this legislation are both manifestations of intense demand from the people for improved roads, services and facilities. As all Members are aware, this demand is derived from the recent and rapid development within the country which has almost been breathtaking.

One may ask questions about our capacity to respond speedily to this rapidly changing economy and society. Hence, it is correct for the Government to take a fast track approach to these matters in regard to major construction and infrastructural projects. As Members are aware, many have been stalled due to difficulties in the courts and within the planning process. The State is correct to respond in an appropriate manner because, as I have learned from my time as a member of a local authority and as Members are aware, timeliness is not a concept that is widely found within many such administrative bodies.

Another point concerns the matter of democracy and the rights of people to protest and object. The Bill actually curtails the rights of people who have sought to subvert the planning process, the democratic will of the people and the national interest, in pursuit of their own narrow agendas. Most frequently, this has been done by individuals although organisations have sometimes been responsible. While I do not claim that people should be denied the right to object or to protest about such matters, there must be some balance within the system. Although due regard should be given to those rights, they should be adjudicated upon speedily and effectively, so that a project's appropriateness may be decided. In this regard, the central difficulty encountered has probably not been with the decision itself. Rather, it has been with the time taken to reach that decision and to reach the culmination of the exercise that allows the project to go ahead or not.

A recent report stated that few would quibble about the need to avoid excessive delays and vexatious obstruction with regard to major structural developments because of costly experiences in the past. However, it went on to state that it was important that the public at large should continue to regard the planning process as being fair, transparent and responsive. This is the essential requirement for this legislation, namely, that people should be confident their views will be heard. Members have heard the Minister discuss the manner in which members of local authorities and others can have an input into these discussions.

I wish to deal with two aspects of this subject. The first is the need for timely delivery and the other is the matter of public confidence, as both are extremely important. As for the need for timely delivery, to put it into context it is important to note that the policies which were devised by the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil while in Government have helped to transform this society and economy. We now have lower taxes, higher employment, net emigration and higher standards of living compared to those which pertained a few years ago. Inevitably however, development of that scale implies significant change, which presents us with challenges and rapid economic development has presented the country with specific infrastructural challenges. As I have noted, all Members are aware of them.

With a population of 4 million people, Ireland is incredibly centralised, both geographically and administratively. Undoubtedly, more will be said in this respect tomorrow, when the House discusses public service decentralisation. Approximately 1.5 million people live in the greater Dublin area and the wider areas around Dublin, as well as Cork, Galway and Limerick are experiencing rapid development. This is the result of economic success and the nature of that development has created acute pressures in areas such as housing, supply, traffic congestion and service provision. However, Members must be mindful of the challenges which have been traded. When my party, the Progressive Democrats, was founded 20 years ago unemployment stood at 17% and we experienced both mass unemployment and mass emigration. This self-perpetuating problem hurt many communities such as my own. Even in Kildare, where people were relatively prosperous, there was significant hurt and difficulty for people.

Of course much has changed in the past 20 years. Our recent economic prosperity has positively transformed our local communities and towns. Employment has risen from 1.1 million in 1991 to over 1.9 million in 2005. It is predicted that 2 million people will be employed in 2006, which is a matter we should celebrate. We are now creating more jobs than we can fill and many of us never thought we would see this happen.

Our low unemployment rate exists beside the welcome presence in Ireland of thousands of foreign people working on job permits and more than 100,000 PPS numbers have been issued to citizens of the EU accession states. Employment grew by 96,200, or 5%, in the past year and nearly 71,000 of these were additional full-time jobs. Thus, the population has grown and there are more people at work, more people buying houses and cars, more people travelling, more cars on the roads and more people in need of water, electricity, energy and all of the other services and facilities that go with modern living.

Development is such that, in reality, my county of Kildare forms part of the greater Dublin area and this may be said even of the most western parts of the county. My county is the gateway to Dublin for most of the country. Proximity to the capital has meant my county has benefited to a significant extent. Jobs and new prosperity accompanied the arrival of Intel, Wyatt, Hewlett-Packard and other significant companies in the area.

The other side of all of this is the need to cater for the population and the surplus growth from Dublin. Location and development has been a double-edged sword for Kildare and other areas, but one I would gladly have traded for the utter despair of which I spoke which existed in the 1980s.

Being one of the fastest growing counties since the early 1990s has placed great pressure on the physical and social infrastructure of towns in Kildare like Newbridge, Leixlip and Maynooth. The same has been the case in towns across the country, such has been the pace of development. It poses a risk to our natural and built environment, a risk of which the Bill is cognisant.

The population of Kildare rose by over one fifth between 1996 and 2002, or an extra 29,000 people. The population is now 124,000 plus, and is predicted to be 203,000 by 2011. That is the context for this Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill. The Bill is essential to how we, as a society, manage the implications of our development on physical and social planning and on the delivery of infrastructure and public services.

On the matter of timely delivery, the Minister has correctly stated that we cannot emphasise enough how badly Ireland needs new and improved infrastructure, not just to tackle bottlenecks in our economy but to enhance our competitiveness. Overarching both of these considerations is the basic need to improve the quality of life of families and communities while protecting our priceless environment. We cannot ignore the cost in time and opportunity, or indeed in financial or environmental terms, of not carrying out some of these major infrastructural projects. The Government is right to state bluntly that every moment's delay in the delivery of an infrastructural project increases the cost of providing that infrastructure and that cost falls to each of us.

The Bill provides for a one-step strategic consent procedure for certain types of major infrastructure, including major environmental, transport and energy projects. I welcome this move, particularly in light of each project being subjected to a strategic consent process by An Bord Pleanála. The board is to be restructured by way of including a dedicated strategic infrastructure division. There is an important point here addressing the necessity to go through the same procedure twice. It has always been the case that, irrespective of the outcome of the decision of the local authority, the matter is passed to An Bord Pleanála and the entire procedure is gone through a second time. That does not make much sense provided one has, as I and many others have, confidence in the independence and ability of An Bord Pleanála to make decisions in these areas. This primary move to a one-stage process is to be welcomed and it is accompanied by three crucial elements: rigorous assessment of all projects, including their environmental impact; full public consultation; and certainty of timeframes. All of these elements are vital in ensuring that the public at large continues to view the planning process as fair, transparent and responsive.

On the matter of public confidence, the proposed new division of An Bord Pleanála will handle all major infrastructural projects, for example, major local authority projects, motorways, strategic infrastructure consents, major electricity transmission lines and railway orders. The public can have confidence that these matters will be dealt with properly by the board.

Under the provisions where An Bord Pleanála determines that a particular project is of strategic importance, an application with an environmental impact statement can be made directly to the board. Obviously these types of major projects will draw major public interest and in some instances understandable concern. I am encouraged that under the Bill, interested and appropriate stakeholders will be consulted and their views taken into account. The Government and the Minister have been careful to ensure that the public and the local authority, as the Minister explained to us, including the elected members, are properly engaged with. I commend the Minister for providing for extensive opportunity for all the stakeholders, whether local communities, residents' groups, environmental groups or ordinary citizens, to comment on applications to the board.

The Progressive Democrats have produced a document on local governance which states clearly our commitment to and ideas for better local government in our communities. Local government must work in local communities in a way that keeps it both accountable to and in touch with the electorate. During our recent Private Members' motion on local Government, we stressed the importance of the link between the local authority, the community and developments. In that context, I particularly welcome the unique role for elected representatives envisaged under the Bill to express their views on applications made under the proposed strategic consent process.

Local authorities, as an extension of the will of the people via elected representatives, must be able to act in the public interest. That is a key point in all of this because local councillors represent accurately the views of the local communities and some of the more far-fetched objectors who can emerge in some of these cases must be counterbalanced by the will of the local authority, which reflects the local community.

The amendment of section 35 of the planning Act is another important step in this regard. The Bill recognises the fact that it must be easier for authorities to reach a decision to refuse a consent without recourse to the High Court. Under this legislation it will be a matter for the applicant who is refused permission to seek confirmation from the High Court that the planning authority must reconsider its initial decision. The developer will have to show that past performance does not warrant a refusal of permission and the Minister has emphasised that key point. People who misbehave should not be able to come back a second time without proving their credentials. In this regard, my concern is that the principals will remain the same and merely change the company name. I hope that can be dealt with effectively under the legislation. I welcome that aspect of the Bill in so far as the provision makes it easier for local authorities to tackle bad performance by so-called rogue developers.

I want to deal with a matter raised by Senator Bannon.