Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

I thank the Minister, Deputy Roche, for bringing the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006 to the House. We are pleased that he has given Senators an opportunity to debate this major and important Bill in full and that he will be present in the House throughout the debate. This far-seeing Bill was being mooted when I was a member of the Cabinet, which is some time ago. I am interested in this legislation, which has been advanced to the stage at which it can be debated in this House, because it has been needed for some time.

I recently spoke at the Colmcille winter school in County Donegal. Has the Minister ever heard of a winter school? We are familiar with summer schools, but this was a winter school. Mr. Colm MacEochaidh, who has represented An Taisce and other organisations, spoke at the school about lobby groups and the fine role he played in standing four-square against snails and all sorts of things on the Kildare bypass. I spoke at the school about the critical infrastructure Bill. It is actually called the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006, but it is the same thing. I am sure the Minister is aware that Mr. MacEochaidh is ready to do battle on the Bill. He is in favour of the legislation, in a general sense, but he has concerns about the lack of consultation.

The Bill ensures that for the first time, local councillors will have a say in planning matters. At present, they cannot contribute to the process apart from when county development plans are being compiled or reviewed. This legislation will ensure that their views will be taken into account and forwarded to the division of An Bord Pleanála that will deal with critical infrastructure. It is good that councillors who want to have a say will be able to do so. The Minister is well aware that despite the layers of consultation which have been built into the system, this tale will not end with everyone living happy ever after. It is proper that such layers are being put in place, because the Minister has to surround himself with the jargon and apparatus of consultation. I am sure the Minister genuinely means what he has said but this is a big step away from what has been the norm in planning matters. I welcome that move, which is not something I fear in any way.

We have all laboured long and hard to take the serious steps which are needed to allow the country to move forward. We were troubled by the Kildare matter because we could see no end to it. Delays were also caused by people who were living up trees in County Wicklow. I am sure such people hold their opinions strongly, but they cannot be allowed to delay the progress not of a small area but of the entire country, which is trying to improve an infrastructure that is many decades behind that of other countries. I always said when people were talking about infrastructural projects that we were galloping just to get up to speed. I never claimed that the Luas project, for example, would solve all our transport problems, but that did not prevent some people in the media from saying it would not achieve its objective of solving all our problems. I knew that to be the case, but it was a very fine step nonetheless.

I would like to respond to what Senator Bannon said earlier. In a proper debate, one should speak for and against the proposals under discussion. He claimed that Fine Gael would have completed the Luas project in jig time. I will not get into a rant on the matter. When Fine Gael was in power, the consultation process on the Luas project had not really started. The very good judge who was in charge of the process, who was kept on by me when Fianna Fáil took office, sat for just one day before the general election was called. Fine Gael had hardly started the consultative process. The judge in question gave a good example of how such processes should be undertaken. If a Mrs. White — I should not refer to a Mrs. Black — objected to the positioning of the Luas line because it would have impeded her clothes line or passed through her back garden, he listened to her case. He went to look at her back garden that night, before making a decision on her case the next day. The judge might have said that Mrs. White was making a fair point and deserved recompense, or that she was being absurd and had no case whatsoever. The interesting thing about the process of consultation was that everyone accepted the judge's rulings and decisions. I used to read the transcripts. It was the most amazing process I have ever seen.

The manner in which the determined judge oversaw the process in that instance was a foretaste of the provisions of the Bill before the House. People accepted his rulings because they believed he was fair. When each day's sitting ended, the judge travelled to the area in question to view it. When he returned to give his judgment the following day, it was invariably accepted by the people in question, regardless of whether it was in line with what they wanted. I am aware that those involved in the development of railways have the right to acquire lands and build lines under legislation from the 19th century, which was amended in the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. The original licences to build railways were issued under a wonderful Act that was put through the House of Commons by anxious landlords who wanted their valuable properties to be bought by the great western, northern, southern or midlands railway companies.

I would like to speak about the general issue of planning, as distinct from the Bill before the House. I wish the Minister well with the Bill because I am sure that many people are sharpening their cudgels as we speak. They are preparing the attacks they will make on this legislation. When one quotes to the local authorities the general planning guidelines which were issued in 2004, they say that they interpret the guidelines in a different manner. Local authorities have chosen to interpret the guidelines in the way that best suits whatever they want to do. I was under the impression that sons or daughters of a landowner were entitled to planning permission to build on their parents' land, as long as they had a local job or interest. The county council claimed that was not the case. The interpretation of the earlier guidelines would have allowed it, but not the current guidelines.

The Minister laid great stress on the circular he sent out about courtesy towards those who are looking for information about planning permission. However, the planners involved sometimes claim that they have no time to deal with such requests because there are not enough people in the office. The Minister made a provision for a preplanning meeting which should take place before the planning application is made. Some planners are very good at it, while others claim to have no time for such meetings. When this legislation is passed, the Minister should revisit those guidelines again. Planning is the most contentious issue in which to get involved. I am not referring to developers when I say that; I am not into developers. However, I am concerned for the young couple who wish to build a house for themselves but who cannot get the permission to do so. They could build on their parents' land, yet they are not allowed to do so. That is amazing.

There is a dearth of good planners. They move from one county council to another, they are replaced by other people who then have to get used to their new jobs. UCD has the biggest planning school in the country and it should get more up-to-date on how its planners are educated and trained. Not all planners are like this, but there is a dearth of planners, which has led to a delay in the planning process for people who want to get permission. One makes an application and hopes to wait eight weeks. The day before the eight weeks are up, one gets a letter from the council demanding up to 25 different items, which delays the process for another two months. Something will have to be done about that. A person can be sweating on his planning permission and the person who acts as his advocate, such as myself, calls the planning department every day, yet suddenly he gets a letter demanding 25 documents the day before the planning permission is due. That will take another two months. This is like a game of chess, whereby those who are looking for permission feel that others are seeking to outwit them all them time, rather than dealing with them in a courteous way. If the application is to be turned down, then it should be turned down.

This is a fine Bill. I like the consultative process provided for. I do not know what effect the views of county managers and councillors will have on the division of An Bord Pleanála where this is to be dealt with. It will satisfy those who feel that the process is happening over their heads and is a draconian plot to do away with anybody having a say on anything. We are not all uncivilised. We do not want 95-story buildings in the middle of rural Ireland. We want to be able to put normal infrastructure into place, so that life can proceed at a slightly less leisurely pace.