Michael McCarthy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, to the House. I also welcome the debate on this important Bill. While we are clear what it seeks to do, I am not convinced the legislation will ensure that any major infrastructural projects will be fast-tracked as a result. In particular, I welcome section 9, which provides that developers who are notorious for unfinished estates, can now be refused permission by a local authority. We have all been lobbied by housing and residents' associations and people living in estates that are not properly finished. It is not good enough for a developer, who gets planning permission and subsequently sells the units at considerable profit, to fail to fulfil the obligation to complete the estate. It has been frustrating to see those developers move on to another estate and then leave the same trail of misery behind, with the local authority virtually helpless to take action. This week I phoned my local authority regarding an unfinished estate.

I commend the work on this issue done by our spokesperson in the Lower House, Deputy Gilmore, who has put considerable time and effort into the issue. He has led the debate on the issue and introduced a Private Members' Bill on the matter last year. I understand the Minister has not attended the select committee and has delayed the legislative process since.

However, it is a very welcome development, and I look forward to that section of the Bill being used against developers who need to be taught a lesson. Manners must be put on them, and section 9 is an excellent means of doing so. It ensures that permission can at least be refused to developers who do not finish estates.

We are all aware of delays, for a variety of reasons, in furnishing the country with critical infrastructure. It is unacceptable that such delays occur. Can we blame the planning process for all the delays? I am not sure we can. The planning process is clearly not at fault with our not having a second terminal at Dublin Airport. There have been debates and arguments in Cabinet regarding the respective positions of the Progressive Democrats and the former Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan. Such indecision has led to delay in building a second terminal at the airport. It clearly has nothing to do with the planning process, and I wonder how the implementation of this legislation will speed up that project.

Why has more broadband not come on stream? Why has Ethiopia got more of it than we? Why are we falling behind regarding its provision? It is critical infrastructure, but I do not believe the planning process is to blame. This legislation will not accelerate the provision, implementation or improvement of broadband around the country.

Much has been said regarding High Court actions and judicial reviews instigated by people regarding critical infrastructure. I am not convinced that this legislation resolves the problem. My party has on several occasions proposed the establishment of a special division in the High Court to deal with it. It would enormously speed up projects delayed as a result of High Court challenges. If one examines that proposal, one will see its merit.

A major feature of the legislation is that local communities will have no real say on massive projects. It cuts out the local, democratic element of the process. That is not good, since a variety of things can happen. If it now bypasses the local authority and the normal planning process, more people will be aggrieved at not having had the same opportunity to submit observations or make their views known regarding the project in its initial stages. We will have greater recourse to the High Court once the project has been advanced by virtue of the new system proposed in this Bill. That is a key point.

More than likely, more High Court decisions will be taken as a result of eliminating that local involvement and cutting out the real say that local communities have had. That could take a great deal more time to address. Under this legislation, all projects will now go to An Bord Pleanála, which will decide what is strategic infrastructure. The plans then go back to the local authority and to the board for a decision. I would be very interested to know how long it will take the board to make its initial decision on whether a project is of strategic importance. After consideration has been given and time has elapsed, it goes to the local authority for a further ten weeks of consideration.

I am well used to dealing with local authorities regarding routine planning matters, and we are all very much aware of the number of occasions that the planning authority has sought an extension or withdrawal of the application in order to secure more time to consider it. That happens for several reasons, not least that it may not have adequate resources to deal with the massive increase in applications seen recently. One therefore adds to an already congested planning system. Will resources be put in place to allow local authorities to deal with the extra work generated? One must also bear in mind the public representative's role. His or her workload will be greatly increased. How long will it take from when the project goes to An Bord Pleanála until it returns to the local authority?

Despite all the difficulties in the planning process, there is general and genuine belief in the independence of An Bord Pleanála. Every reasonable individual involved in planning takes that view, and people are very mindful of it. It is good to ensure a level of public confidence in State institutions, and An Bord Pleanála comes out on top, despite what is a very difficult process administered by local authorities, not least for those who submit applications for one-off rural housing. These legislative proposals will fundamentally change An Bord Pleanála's role from providing an independent planning appeals process to being a facilitator for major Government projects. That conflict will add to a sense of confusion. There may not be the requisite level of public confidence that the board's independence is absolute.

I have made this point regarding section 9, and I will repeat it for the Minister's benefit. That very welcome part of the legislation provides a rap on the knuckles for developers, making real provision to teach them manners. If they have not completed the work as required, they will no longer be able to make people's lives miserable as they look out from their doorways at estates that have not been finished and which have become jungles of weeds.

Senator Finucane raised several issues. Regarding the planning process, I am becoming ever more frustrated at the way that local authorities require external reports to assist decision-making on one-off rural housing. For example, regarding a house 4 miles outside Dunmanway in west Cork, the planning process was gone through. When the decision was being made, the engineer sought further information, but generally speaking the application had passed through the system reasonably favourably. In this case, the planning agent did not reply to that request for additional information within the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the application lapsed.

A similar reapplication was made to demolish the house and build just behind it. Lo and behold, the planning authority sought an archaeological report, which costs approximately €1,500, plus VAT and expenses. In conjunction with increased development charges and the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant, that creates a great financial burden for the hard-pressed young person. This case was inherently contradictory, since no report was sought in the first instance, six or eight months before the second, when the information was requested.

I look forward to debating this legislation with the Minister in forensic detail on the various Stages. I welcome section 9 but have reservations regarding the remainder.