I want to ask the Minister about the 30 days after the day on which the legal proceedings are concluded, or 18 months after the day on which the first period expires. Would it not be simpler to have it just 30 days after the day on which the legal proceedings are concluded because the nub of the matter is about legal proceedings and 30 days is just a month within the period of the completion of the legal proceedings? Why have another period of 18 months and why is there a need to go to the High Court if the matter can be dealt with in the 30 days after all legal proceedings are over?
Compulsory Purchase Orders (Extension of Time Limits) Bill 2010 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stage Section 1
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Section 1 states:
. . . a notice to treat is not served within the period of 18 months (in this subsection referred to as the ‘first period'), the first period shall be extended for a further period (in this subsection referred to as the ‘second period') beginning on the day immediately after the day on which the first period expires and expiring on the earlier of the following:
(I) 30 days after the day on which the legal proceedings are concluded; or
(II) 18 months after the day on which the first period expires.
I would like clarification in that regard. The impression might be given that Deputies on this side of the House are not in favour of this Bill. We are in favour of it and we are in favour of the city outer bypass road. It is easy for Deputy Fahey to say he is not critical of the objectors. I am not entering into the question of objectors. It suits the Government not to be critical of the objectors. The longer the objectors hold up a road, there will be no necessity to provide money for it. That is a real danger I see in this process.
The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, seems to believe I am not committed to the people of Galway. I am a long-time representative of both Galway city and county, in the city council, the council and in the Dáil, and I am committed to the outer bypass road and the people of Connemara that it will serve. The M6 has been completed to Galway but there is a constant traffic jam approaching it with nowhere for vehicles to go. I will not take it from the Minister or from anyone who says I am less committed to Galway than anybody else who spoke here tonight. Of course I am committed, and I would like clarification on section 1. What will happen at the end of the 18 month period? The Minister claims I am pessimistic. I believe always in telling the people what they should hear, not what they want to hear. I do not believe in deceiving people. There is no use pretending we are now getting 18 months grace for the CPOs and the land purchase since there is no possibility of this happening within 12 months.
What will happen when the 12 month period has expired and there is no notice to treat or moneys provided for the purchase of the necessary property or for the overall project? Half the project is estimated to cost €145 million. I presume the entire project would cost twice as much and it would be more difficult terrain west of the N59 Moycullen road than east of it. There will be many questions to be answered at the end of 18 months. We should give the people the true picture and stop fooling them.
I have a brief question on section 1. I raised a point on Second Stage about this applying only to local authorities. There is nothing in the Bill, or in section 1, that makes reference to this section applying only to local authorities. Am I correct in assuming that section 217 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 refers only to local authorities? Is that correct, just for clarification purposes, because I have not had time to read that section?
The Deputy is correct. It is section 217(6), and it refers specifically to local authorities.
I do not want to enter any notes of rancour on this because we are getting a good deal of co-operation. I said Deputy McCormack was a pessimist, but that just means someone who looks at things in a very black way. I did not cast any aspersions on his commitment to the people of Galway. I would not cast aspersions on the commitment to his or her constituents of anyone elected to this House. I hope I did not give that impression at any stage. I will look at the "blacks", but again I believe it is just Deputy McCormack's pessimistic nature. I did not infer at any stage that Fine Gael was not in favour of this. In fact, I went out of my way, as did other speakers, to acknowledge the positive approach the Opposition, including Fine Gael, took to this Bill.
We shall see who is right when the next election is called. There will be no sign of this road
As regards section 1, and the 30 days or the 18 months, it is a question of whichever is the lesser. However, after 18 months it has to go to the courts and the reason for this is to ensure proportionality and fairness for people who may still have objections. The compulsory purchase order regime has been very carefully balanced over time. One cannot just issue CPOs willy-nilly around the place. Constitutional rights of property and so on are in place.
The reason the Attorney General provides in the Bill for the necessity of High Court proceedings, if it continues for a longer period, is precisely to ensure that a person's constitutional rights are not being infringed by such a continuance. Rather than a layperson, such as the Minister, deciding on this, who might be prejudiced in some people's eyes — because of wanting a project to go ahead or whatever — the courts should have the opportunity to decide whether a person's property rights are being infringed in an unfair or disproportionate manner. One may infringe people's property rights provided this is proportionately done for the public good. That is the reason for this provision about the High Court.
On the issue of 30 days or 18 months, whichever is the lesser, is not 30 days always less than 18 months?
It is 30 days after the legal proceedings have concluded.
From what Deputy Coveney said about the local authorities, this is now a stand alone Bill. The Minister does not intend to repeal it but will get rid of whatever is in the Planning and Development Bill to which it relates. That means this Bill will extend not just to local authorities but to projects that are outside the local authority projects. Is that not the case? There is nothing in the Bill that limits the legislation to a local authority project. As I see it, it is silent on the projects and is merely a Bill to give an extension of time——
The amendment of section 217 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is mentioned at the outset. That is the reference and the framework for it.
That will still be the framework.
Does the Minister intend to leave this as stand-alone legislation and not remove the section in question from the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill currently before the Houses?
The advice from the Attorney General is that we let the Bill go through as drafted. There would have to be an commencement order for that provision but it will not be commenced. When the planning and foreshore Bill comes through in the autumn, it will be deleted from the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill.
The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill will supersede the Planning and Development Act 2000 when enacted. This Bill will amend section 217(6) of the same Act.
No. The planning Bill will not supersede the 2000 Act. It may amend certain parts of it, as will this Bill, but the 2000 legislation will remain the Principal Act.
Does section 217(6) of the 2000 Act still stand?
Yes.
Does the Bill have to be signed before midnight by the President?
An earlier signature motion will be passed by the Seanad tonight, after the Bill has passed here. The Bill will then go to Áras an Uachtaráin for the President to sign, of which she has been informed.
I hope she is still up.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.