I welcome the Minister to the House.
Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1993: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The primary objective of the Bill is to bring about new arrangements for the operation of planning control in relation to future development by State authorities and to deal with the position of development carried out up to now by these authorities. It also provides for new arrangements for public notice and public participation in developments proposed by local authorities. The Bill will give us a modern and effective framework for the regulation of development by Government Departments and the Commissioners of Public Works and will lead to greater transparency and public involvement in relation to development by those bodies and by local authorities.
The extent of the changes that the Bill will bring about should not be underestimated. We will be moving from a position in which State authorities have engaged in a closed process of consultation with planning authorities to a new era in which State authority development will, except in very limited circumstances, be subject to planning control under the Planning Acts in the same way as any other development.
The Bill is not a piecemeal or reactive measure. On the contrary it constitutes the Government's considered response to the evident need for more effective and relevant procedures for regulating development by State and local authorities. I am satisfied that it will bring about far reaching changes which will serve the public interest by ensuring greater information and participation in relation to development of this kind.
The measures proposed in the Bill have their origins in commitments on the control of development by public bodies and local authorities included in the Programme for a Partnership Government, which was published in January this year. The exact form in which the proposals on development by Government Departments and the Commissioners of Public Works have been formulated takes account, however, of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the cases relating to the developments at Mullaghmore, County Clare and Luggala, County Wicklow.
Before going on to examine these proposals in some detail it would be helpful to put matters in context by considering briefly the history of development by State authorities and its relationship with planning law.
State authorities have undertaken a considerable amount and variety of development over the years, including the construction of Government offices and other public buildings, telephone exchanges and post offices, military facilities, works related to the preservation and restoration of historic buildings and national monuments, as well as civil engineering projects of various kinds. Much of this development has been carried out by the Commissioners of Public Works, acting in their own right or on behalf of Government Departments, but Ministers of the Government have also, over the years, been responsible directly for development and construction work. In recent years, the range of development carried out by State authorities has diminished somewhat, with the transfer of functions to State companies such as Telecom Éireann, An Post and Coillte Teoranta to which the Planning Acts apply in the ordinary way. Notwithstanding this, State authorities are still responsible for a considerable programme of construction and civil engineering works, employing a significant number of persons.
It can reasonably be said that most of the projects undertaken by State authorities over the years generated little or no controversy. Those responsible for State development have pursued high standards of development and have achieved them in most cases. This Bill is not, therefore, a reflection on the work of State authorities, particularly the Office of Public Works which has served the country well down through the years. It should be seen as part of a more modern approach to environmental and planning matters generally which responds to the demand for more public information and involvement and will lead to greater openness in decision-making.
The modern physical planning system originated with the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Section 84 of that Act introduced mandatory requirements for certain development by State authorities, requiring them to consult the relevant planning authority before constructing or extending a building other than a building in connection with afforestation by the State. It provides also for a form of dispute resolution role for the Minister for the Environment, by requiring the promoting State authority to consult the Minister if objections raised by the planning authority are not resolved.
It was the general understanding until recently that the consultation requirements under section 84 represented the full extent of State authorities' obligations under planning law and that planning permission was not required for development carried out by or for them. Acting in good faith on this understanding, State authorities have not applied for permission for any development carried out since the 1963 Act came into operation on 1 October 1964.
Times have moved on and the public mood is now very different from that obtaining when the Planning Act, 1963, became law. Greater openness and accountability is now expected from public bodies and people rightly expect to have a greater say in relation to decisions which may affect them. This was the context in which the commitment to new procedures for development by public bodies was included in the Programme for a Partnership Government.
The programme said that public bodies should be legally required to comply, in general, with the information procedures contained in the planning laws. The intention was to bring about enhanced public information about, and involvement with, State development. When I came to consider how this objective could best be achieved, I concluded that State development should, in general, be subject to the same planning controls as private projects. I proposed to the Government that, subject to a small number of exceptions which I will outline later, State authority development should be subject to normal planning permission requirements. The Government approved this proposal last March but the exact form the legislation should take had to await the outcome of the legal proceedings relating to the Mullaghmore and Luggala developments.
The question of whether development by State authorities needs planning permission was raised in the Mullaghmore and Luggala cases and, as Senators will know, different rulings were given in the High Court. The matter was, therefore, brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. This was essential so that the Government's proposals for the future regulation of State authority development could be finalised by reference to a definitive statement of the existing law.
The Supreme Court ruled last month, in effect, that State authority development requires planning permission. While this ruling did not affect the basic proposals already approved by Government, it has influenced the content of the Bill in two ways. First, it has become necessary to address the situation of development already carried out without planning permission by State authorities. Secondly, the fact that planning permission has been held to be required under existing law makes it unnecessary to include a provision in the Bill to apply planning controls to the general body of State authority development; the absence of a provision of this nature may have led to some initial confusion as to the effects of the Bill. The Bill will usher in a completely new regulatory regime which will subject most State development to the full rigours of normal planning control.
Turning now to the development by State authorities which has been carried out or which is in progress, it is evident that it would be impractical to expect State authorities to apply for permission to retain all development since 1964. This would only divert scarce resources to drawing up and making planning applications for retention permission. The planning process would then be clogged up with applications which would be of historical interest only at this stage, and its ability to deal speedily with current applications would be undermined. The appropriate course of action is to provide that planning permission shall not be, and shall be deemed never to have been, required for development completed before the relevant provision of the Bill, section 4, comes into operation.
As well as seeing to completed development, the validating provision in section 4 (1) will also regularise development which was in progress when the Supreme Court gave its ruling. I am sure that Senators will agree that it would not be reasonable to suspend work on such projects while planning permission is sought, because of the contractual problems and loss of employment which could arise.
A validating provision of this nature should not, however, apply to cases in which a court has already ruled that planning permission is necessary for development, or to any other case in which a court gives a ruling on the need for planning permission in proceedings which were initiated before the Supreme Court gave its ruling in the Mullaghmore and Luggala cases on 26 May 1993. The proviso in section 4 (1) will restrict the subsection accordingly. This means that the validation will not extend to the Mullaghmore and Luggala developments, or to any other case in which a court rules that permission is required and the proceedings were initiated before the Supreme Court ruling.
As Senators will already know, the Government has decided that applications for planning permission are to be made, following the widest possible consultation with all interested parties over a period of two months, in relation to the developments at Mullaghmore, Luggala and in the Boyne Valley.
Turning now to the application of planning law to future development, the fundamental proposal is that State authority development will generally be subject to normal planning permission requirements, with the same exemptions for minor works, repair and maintenance, etc., which currently apply to private development. There must, however, be some limited exceptions which recognise the special nature of some State development, as well as provision for a smooth changeover to the new regulatory framework.
The proposed exceptions to the application of normal planning controls are provided for in section 2 of the Bill. The Minister for the Environment will have power to provide, by regulations, that the Planning Acts will not apply to particular types of development by State authorities. There are clear limits on the use in which he or she may make of this power; it can be availed of only in relation to development which is related to public safety or order, the administration of justice, national security or defence, or where development is subject to authorisation in accordance with another statutory process.
The reason for including a special provision for development with a security dimension is that it would not be appropriate for development of this nature to be subject to the detailed requirements, as to submission and public availability of plans and particulars, which planning laws lay down. I am sure that Deputies will recognise and accept this is the case, as far as facilities such as prisons, courthouses and army installations are concerned. I wish to emphasise, however, the fact that development may be taken outside normal planning controls on security grounds does not mean that there will be no public information or involvement. Paragraph (b) of section 2 (1) will allow the Minister for the Environment to establish, by regulations, procedures of public notice and consultation for developments of that kind. While the precise nature of the requirements to be applied to a particular form of development will depend, of course, on the security considerations involved, section 2 (1) (b) will be used so that there will be as much public information and consultation as possible for development of this kind.
The other purpose of the power of exclusion under section 2 (1) (a) is to prevent the unnecessary duplication which could arise if planning permission had to be obtained for development which already has to be authorised through another statutory procedure. Some concern has been expressed that this might bring about a situation in which large elements of State development would be outside planning control. I give an assurance that development will be brought outside the remit of the planning process under this heading only if I am fully satisfied that the other statutory procedures provide adequately for public notice, information and involvement.
Section 2 (2) is the other exclusionary power. It allows for an ad hoc decision to remove particular development from planning control or from any alternative public notice or consultation requirements that may have been applied to it by regulations under subsection (1) (b) of the section. Any Minister of the Government will have power to make an order bringing about such an exclusion, but only in the event of an accident or emergency. This power is intended to cater for situations where works have to be carried out urgently to protect people or property following a natural disaster such as a major storm, or where works, or a material change of use, are needed to provide accommodation without delay for refugees who are taken into this country or others made homeless by some disaster. The power is of a reserve nature; it will be called upon only in exceptional circumstances and public notice will be given where it has been used.
I should explain to Senators that section 2 (2) as now before us is somewhat narrower in scope than in the Bill as initiated. The provision in the Bill as initiated would have permitted an order to be made, apart from accident and emergency circumstances, where development was otherwise necessary in the public interest. While I explained that this was essentially a contingency provision which would be called upon only in very unusual and unforeseen circumstances, Members of the other House were, nevertheless, concerned about the apparently broad scope of the exclusions from planning controls or public notice requirements which it might permit. I agreed, in deference to these concerns, to restrict the scope of the provision to accident and emergency circumstances only.
The other qualification on the application of normal planning controls to development by State authorities is the provision of a transitional period. I said earlier that there would be unacceptable disruption for projects which were in progress when the Supreme Court gave its ruling if planning permission now had to be sought for all of them. The same considerations apply in relation to projects in respect of which contractual commitments have already been entered into or which are at an advanced stage of planning. Section 4 (2), section 5 and the commencement powers under section 6 (3) will, therefore, provide for the necessary transitional period.
Section 4 (2) proposes that planning permission will not be needed for any development by State authorities commenced during the period of one year after the coming into operation of section 5. I will bring section 4 into operation as soon as possible after the Bill is enacted. Planning permission requirements will, therefore, generally apply to State development from this time next year. Until then, State authorities will continue to operate the consultation procedure under section 84 of the 1963 Act. It is my intention at the end of the transitional period — the middle of 1994 — to bring section 5 of the Bill into effect, thereby terminating the section 84 consultation procedure. Development by State authorities undertaken after the end of the transitional period, which has undergone the section 84 consultation process by then will, under section 4 (2) (b) of the Bill, be authorised to proceed.
I would also like to draw to the attention of Senators the fact that section 3 of the Bill as initiated was deleted in the Dáil. Although the provision was extremely limited in that its application was confined to securing or facilitating, by regulations, the application of the Planning Acts to State development, there was some concern that it might be open to the interpretation of giving excessively broad powers to the Minister. I agreed, in response to these concerns, to its omission.
As regards local authority works, the position at present is that local authority members have power to make the final determination on whether particular works are to proceed. The manager for a local authority is required, by section 2 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, to inform the councillors before works, other than repair or maintenance works, are carried out. This is so that the members can exercise, if they wish, their power under section 3 of that Act to direct that works do not proceed. My objective is to reinforce this position, while at the same time providing for greater openness and transparency in relation to local authority development proposals.
A local authority needs planning permission for any development, other than road works, which it wishes to undertake outside its own functional area. Development within an authority's own area is exempted development for planning purposes and does not, therefore, need planning permission. This is a necessary exemption because, clearly, it would make no sense to require authorities to apply to themselves for planning permission. This does not mean, however, that local authorities have an entirely free hand in relation to development in their own areas, because section 39 of the Planning Act, 1963, prohibits the carrying out of any development which contravenes materially the development plan, and the development plan, as we know, is adopted only after extensive public consultation.
There is already a system of public notice and consultation for certain major development in a local authority's own area, through the environmental impact assessment procedures set up to implement the EC Directive on that matter. However, there are no such requirements for most other projects within a local authority's own jurisdiction.
Section 3 of the Bill will give the Minister for the Environment power to make regulations laying down requirements as to the giving of public notice, the public availability of plans and particulars, an opportunity for public comment and the submission of a report on the proposed development to the elected members. These requirements will be applied to projects not already subject to public consultation requirements, other than minor works or works required by law or by court order to be carried out.
The new requirements will come into operation after a suitable transitional period, which will be essential to avoid disruption to projects at an advanced stage of planning. They will, however, come into operation not later than the end of the one year transitional period which section 4 will establish for State authority development.
The new requirement to submit a report on proposed development to the elected members which will be established through regulations under section 3 will strengthen their position, by ensuring that they will have all necessary information and thus be able to give balanced and careful consideration to all the issues involved.
The Bill shows the Government's resolve to bring about open, effective and relevant procedures for dealing with development by State and local authorities. It can reasonably be said that it constitutes a fundamental change in relation to development by these bodies and that it will lead to much greater transparency and accountability in relation to their development proposals. I look forward to hearing contributions from all sides of the House to ensure the best legislation in this regard.
I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, to the House. A Bill which deals with planning and development is important and its progress warrants scrutiny.
This Bill has been introduced as a result of a Supreme Court decision last month. Members on this side of the House believes that this Bill is being rushed and that it is a knee-jerk reaction to the Supreme Court decision. Recent developments in relation to Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley must be addressed. However, I welcome yesterday's announcement by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Dempsey, regarding a consultation period. I suggest that this period should be extended beyond 9 July 1993, perhaps to 1 September 1993, because important developments such as those at Luggala, Mullaghmore and the Boyne Valley must be fully considered.
A number of my party colleagues involved in this issue, will deal with specific aspects of this matter. Interpretative centres must be environmentally sensitive. It is important that decisions must not sabotage the environment for future generations but the siting of interpretative centres in certain areas is a good idea. However, their location, construction and ability to cater for tourists should be carefully considered.
Obviously, there are varying views regarding planning and development. People's rights are not always considered and a balance must be struck. Regulations, safeguards and an appeals procedure must be in place. We must not accept that the decisions of planners are sacrosanct because it is believed that they are experts. I refer, in particular, to the problems in Darndale, Tallaght, Ballymun, Finglas and other concrete ghettos. Councillors are told that planners are the experts and that their decisions should be final. At least local authority members must go before the electorate who deliver their verdict.
We should not forget that An Bord Pleanála made horrific decisions in the past. However, procedures in relation to decisions being made within a specific time have been improved. At times there have been frivolous appeals by people with no interest in a matter and for the wrong reasons, which have cost others substantial sums of money. It is important that in exercising our planning and judicial function, we get this balance right, examine matters and ensure that, as far as possible, there is a consultative procedure. This would ensure that applications are discussed, further information sought, and that perhaps local authority members would make recommendations or suggestions to the planners.
With regard to the Bill, State authorities and the Office of Public Works will now have to get permission for many applications and developments. Obviously it will have to be exercised in a reasonable manner and the conditions which apply to individuals, developers and companies should also apply to the State authorities and the Office of Public Works. At times, the Office of Public Works has been unfairly criticised about how it has proceeded.
I do not profess to have an expert knowledge of controversies, particularly in relation to Mullaghmore and Luggala and, obviously, there are different opinions. However, I recognise the good work done by the Office of Public Works such as the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, the new Government Buildings, Kilkenny Castle and other developments which are a testimony to its wisdom, foresight and planning. While all the work may not have been directly carried out by the Office of Public Works, it was done under its guidance by its professional staff.
It is important to retain a balance in how we proceed and address matters. I hope the consultation period in relation to the aforementioned areas will bring about a balanced response and result in the right decision for those areas. When we look back in years to come I hope we will be able to say that we made the right decision and reaped the benefit.
An important part of the Bill before the House concerns the various provisions set out in section 2 (1) (b) relating to the publication by a State authority of any specified notice with respect to development that it proposes to carry out or to have carried out on its behalf; the giving by a State authority to the planning authority for the area, documents, particulars, plans and other information; the making available for inspection by members of the public of any specified documents, particulars and plans, because people who are interested in how developments are proceeding in an area should have access to full information.
At times, planning authorities have been slow to provide individuals or organisations such as An Taisce with the information they request. I would like to praise much of An Taisce's work and the concern which it shows. Unfortunately, at times it goes overboard as if objecting to development was its raison d'être. I hope it will look positively at developments, make rational judgments and not just object for the sake of objecting.
It is important, in planning for the future, not to make the mistakes of the past and that there is full consultation. Over the last year or so, councillors in Dublin have been considering the development plan. It has been a long drawn out process and not without its critics but we, as councillors, are painstakingly looking at areas and trying to arrive at the right decisions. We have listened to people and tried to plan ahead to ensure that where areas will be developed there will also be amenity areas. We do not want a repetition of the concrete jungles in which houses were built but where shopping facilities and community centres were not provided. The developers and, at times, the planners forgot that babies would grow up and need facilities.
Criticisms have been made of the development plan and I know that the Minister referred to it from time to time. However, the councillors have tried to get the balance right and to think ahead. Reading some of the newspapers, one would think that a blade of grass would not be left. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hope that this process will ensure that Dublin will be properly developed in future.
We are not happy with the immediate response to this Bill and it is our intention to oppose it on Second Stage. However, we recognise that the recent decision made it necessary to regularise the affairs in relation to planning. Regulations made under this Bill should be brought before both Houses for our consideration at a future date.
I hope the Minister will bear my comments in mind when formulating future planning legislation. Achieving the right balance in planning is an important part in development by local government. We should consider this matter further on Committee Stage and the consultation process should be adhered to in relation to other areas with perhaps extra time being allocated for that process.
I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on his initiative in introducing this legislation. I do not accept that the Bill is a knee jerk reaction to the situation. It is the responsibility of Government to respond with legislation to the problems that face the country. This Bill is a considered and welcome Government response to the Supreme Court decision regarding State planning.
I agree with Senator Cosgrave that the Office of Public Works and other Government agencies and State bodies are to be complimented on their responsible approach in this area. This legislation must be seen in the context of the natural progression of development. State bodies were governed by the Town and Regional Planning Act, 1934, under which they were required only to cooperate or, to some extent, consult planning authorities. It was not until 1963 — 30 years ago — that they were required to consult such authorities. It is now the responsibility of the Government to introduce laws after due consultation and this Bill is an adequate, considered and progressive response to the current planning situation.
There must be an opportunity for public debate on planning and this Bill provides it. However, while giving consideration to public concerns, it is important that there is a balanced approach to planning. In recent developments, protest appears to have been used as a means of hampering such developments and I would not like that to be a common occurrence.
Ours is a young and developing country in a Europe that is progressing. We have a long way to go to achieve the same level of wealth and development enjoyed by our partners in the European Community. We have a young population and the advantage of having learned from the mistakes of other nations, we are in a good position to plan the developments required to achieve the standard of living and opportunity we must have to accommodate our young population. Sometimes strict planning regulations are applied in situations where they are inappropriate. It is also not appropriate that somebody, having moved into a rural area and settled there, should object to all development there, even that carried out by the indigenous population. That is not in the best interest of this country.
Some planners attach outrageous conditions to planning permission which can exclude the opportunity for development. They do so, not in response to protests from local groups or organised groups like An Taisce, but because of personal preference, acquired during their training, which they attempt to impose on the local communities. That issue should be considered because we need organised and practical development. We cannot stand still and expect the money from Europe to provide wealth for our people. We must organise development that will create its own wealth and we cannot do that unless we have infrastructural and commercial development. We can refer to our laws and the mistakes of other nations to ensure that development is properly carried out.
This Bill provides for the State to apply for planning permission in future in practically all circumstances, with a few exemptions. Existing developments by State bodies, with the exception of those currently on hold, are not obliged to go through the planning process, that is a good decision. There is also the provision, with which I agree, that public notice must be given for State developments in the future.
This is broad and acceptable legislation. The Mullaghmore and Luggala cases have been beneficial, because they have shown what is necessary. I expect there will be many State developments over the next number of years while the Structural and Cohesion Funds are being spent. Public involvement in that State development is appropriate and it is beneficial that the Government, the local authorities and the public will be involved, particularly at the planning stage.
I am concerned about afforestation. There are many organisations and people who object to the development of houses in what they consider to be relatively high amenity areas. Yet many forestry developments, both by Coillte and by individuals can, 10 or 20 years from the time of plantation, become an obstruction to the view, damaging the amenity of that area more than any number of houses. I am not sure what the Minister's intention is in this area, but I would like to see afforestation brought into the planning system. Under the 1963 Act, buildings erected in connection with State afforestation schemes are excluded from the planning system. When very lucrative grants are available it is important that afforestation is not carried out against the wishes of people and the best interests of this country.
I wish to place on record that I fully support afforestation. There are thousands of acres in this country that can be planted for the benefit of people. To leave them in their present state is a loss to the nation. There are situations, however, where afforestation is not in our best interests. It can obscure the view and the amenity value of an area. This may not be apparent at the time of plantation. A house can be seen on the skyline immediately on completion. A forest cannot be seen on the skyline for 15 or 20 years, and then problems which were not obvious at the time of plantation become apparent to the public. Five or 10 years after the forest has matured, the view is opened up again when the trees are felled, but we cannot afford that luxury. I want to see afforestation planned with full account taken of the effect on the skyline and environment, and on road users. In some places trees are planted at junctions. I would like to see that practice brought under control. The controls in place are loose and are not in our best interests. I hope the Minister will respond. Perhaps he feels that the regulations in place are adequate, but I am not happy with them.
I welcome the Bill and I commend it to the House. I have no doubt that it will prove very successful, as it is a considered response to the problems we have encountered.
The extension of local authority involvement in the planning area is welcome. I have always maintained that local authorities, given enough responsibility, will respond in a positive manner. Interference with the local authority system over a period of 10 to 12 years, with their exclusion from a number of areas of responsibility, has left them searching for an identity. This Local Authority (Planning and Development) Bill, with the 1991 Local Government Act, gives local authority members the opportunity to get involved again in areas of concern to them, particularly in regard to planning. I hope that many regulations under the recent Act and this Bill will be implemented as soon as possible. The Minister, Deputy Smith, has been a member of a local authority and we are lucky to have somebody who has come through the system and who knows what is involved. The Minister keeps in constant touch with the local authorities. He has brought important and balanced legislation to this House. His response to the Supreme Court decision and in other areas is very important.
We had a major fire in a meat plant in my county a couple of years ago. People did not know what would happen, but the county manager took a decision, as he was responsible for sanitary services, to acquire a site and to bury the meat in that site. His decision has been questioned time and again. He is asked under what Act or regulation he took that decision. He had authority under sanitary services regulations but I understand there is power to deal with such an emergency under this legislation.
We had an emergency where 30,000 tons of meat were on fire and had to be dealt with efficiently and effectively. Somebody had to take up the cudgel on behalf of the public. In such circumstances one cannot wait on a long drawn out debate. We cannot know what emergencies may take place. There could be an accident involving the chemical industry or another fire in a meat plant and there must be someone there to make a decision.
This legislation will allow for an immediate decision in an emergency. I am delighted that provision has been left in the Bill; it has been somewhat curtailed but at least it is there. Dangerous chemicals are transported at night on railway lines and roads. We have to be able to respond positively and effectively in cases of accidents. I welcome the Bill and I have no doubt that it will prove most effective and progressive.
It is always appropriate to deal with environmental matters as they arise and try to widen discussion. This is a technical Bill required because of a decision by the courts and it is proper to legislate in accordance with court judgments. I did not share the joy of victory and the flag waving that accompanied the court's decision. It is always good for the Constitution to determine how the law works. The State is obliged to bring in laws which are not out of kilter with the Constitution. In this case the Oireachtas is responding to the decision of the Judiciary.
I agree with much that Senator Finneran said. When somebody puts a spade in the ground there is immediately a queue of objectors. There are far too many self-centred and selfish objections. There are many superb organisations — and I am thinking especially about An Taisce whose work is beyond reproach — which have been abused by Johnny-come-latelys who have joined them merely to put forward their own views.
It is appropriate that we are having this discussion in this Chamber. I recall the reopening of the Seanad Chamber after the ceiling was renovated some years ago. The Members of this House praised the extraordinary work of the office of Public Works. I would like to add to that praise today. I am not objecting to people objecting to interpretative centres — the democratic process should allow them that right. I must say, however, that I have never seen such righteousness on two opposing sides of an argument. The question was not who was right or wrong, because everybody for and against was convinced that they were right.
There must be some balance in the planning process. The people who cheered the court's decision and see this Bill as a victory were those same people who welcomed the introduction of legislation effectively doing away with section 4s. Three years ago they said that local authorities should not be able to make any important decisions concerning their local environments. They wanted section 4 resolutions to be dealt with nationally and welcomed the decision to take power from local authorities. Yet the same people now regard it as a victory that centralised authority is being moved back to local authorities.
I agree with the thrust of this legislation. It is important for local authorities to be involved. I always thought that section 4s were important and that it was their abuse which needed to be corrected. No one can tell me, however, that local authorities will care more for the environment than the Office of Public Works.
I attempted to mediate in one of the major rows in recent years on the proposals for an interpretative centre, the one in West Kerry. At about 3 a.m. when discussions finally began in earnest we started talking about An Taisce. It turned out that all the representatives of the Office of Public Works, who supported the proposed interpretative centre, had themselves been members of An Taisce for much longer than many of those on the other side of the table. It was almost a meeting of An Taisce.
I want to reiterate my support for the work of An Taisce. It is a necessary environmental watchdog which should be afforded support and protection. In many places where there have been objections to proposed interpretative centres some of the objectors have themselves been responsible for the most unsightly buildings in the same areas.
In the main the interpretative centres and the other works of the Office of Public Works have been sensitively designed and carefully erected with great concern for the environment. From my own involvement with the Dún Chaoin interpretative centre, I recall that the objectors would readily give full credit to the Office of Public Works's efforts. The objections were on aspects of the planning concerned with the proposed site. There was never any question about the commitment of the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works is very good at what it does and examples include its work in this Chamber, in Dublin Castle and on the interpretative centre in Donegal whose names escapes me.
Glenveagh.
Yes, Glenveagh. It has done superb work in those and other places. Credit cannot be taken from the Office of Public Works. There is a degree of selfishness in some objections to planning applications. I exclude those who have objected to the interpretative centres — that was not their motivation. They were right to object, as those supporting the interpretative centres were right. Both had arguments on their side. I am stressing this point and referring to the Environmental Protection Agency Act because I do not believe that we can ever adequately resolve any row over, for example, an interpretative centre.
There will never be a solution which is acceptable to everybody and in time of conflict one can never set up structures to deal with problems. I would like the Office of Public Works, An Taisce, the Minister's Department and the other interested parties to sit down and see if they can agree on the structure of an appeals board as the final arbiter in any such arguments. An Bord Pleanála should be such an authority, but it does not appear to work. Will each case have to go to the courts, Europe, An Bord Pleanála and local authorities? We are tearing ourselves to pieces, yet everyone is interested in the good of the country. If it is accepted by all that there is merit on all sides of such arguments, surely there should be some system of dealing with them. The only way of doing this is by ensuring that the final decision-making structure is to the satisfaction of all the interested parties. It does not matter if, at the end of the day, An Taisce has greater representation than the Office of Public Works. That is not the issue and I would not have any worries about anything like that. If one picks the right people, they will care for the environment. The bottom line is that somebody will have to decide. The site in Clare became a central point of the local election, which is quite right if it is a local issue. It is wrong, however, that it cannot be dealt with in some other way so that people can get a fair hearing and a fair level of appeal. It must be dealt with honourably and correctly, with no tricks pulled.
There is a conservatism in objections to development which would do justice to the status quo brigade of the last two centuries. There is a view that change is always bad and if that is taken to its logical conclusion, we should be out looking for dinosaurs. Nature itself changes all the time and is continously making an element of compensation for changes within itself. There is a now greater care for the environment than ever and I place the credit firmly in the primary schools. Care for the environment, however difficult it makes the job of politicians, began with the reintroduction of nature and environmental studies to primary schools. The present curriculum was introduced in 1972 and has generated a new awareness in schools from a young age. This is the generation that now shows a great care and love for the environment and that is very positive. We need to give them their voice and ensure that the green lobby receives a response and has proper representation. We also need to ensure that their objections can be dealt with in a correct manner which is acceptable to all sides of an argument.
Just as we require a balance in nature, we also demand a balance in the environment, regardless of what is being built in the local area. Let us leave the interpretative centres aside; a new school may be built in an area where there is a clear need. As a person who would be pushing for that development, I would also be concerned that it would be compatible with its environment. If a school is to be used in a universal way, in the education of pupils, they should be able to learn from that a love of architecture and of the environment and that this is a building which has been designed and built in order to fit in with the themes of the local environment. That should be a consideration in any public building. I would always trust the Office of Public Works to do that if they are given the resources and the money. We need to find that balance. We need houses, economic growth and a development of our tourism industry. We need to give our children who are in school a future in this country and that means making choices and changes which should be planned and structured.
It is important that the local authorities should be involved and for that reason this Bill is good. It is right that local authorities should have a say because one only has responsibility when one has to make decisions and it is too easy for people not to make decisions in these areas. People should be made to put forward their arguments. In the Dublin area, over the past three or four months, we have watched Dublin County Council tear itself apart on rezoning. I do not know the ins and outs of it but I saw some appalling decisions. I could see the reasons for some of the decisions. The system lacks balance. One says the word rezoning and one immediately asks who is getting the cheques. Rezoning might be critically important in order to create employment or growth in the local economy. It is a matter of doing that in a way which is not offensive to the environment in which our children are learning and growing and will want to make a future for themselves. It is important that we have a debate on planning and the environment which is not pointed or focused directly on current projects.
Senator Finneran's point about forestry was intriguing. My problem with forestry is that we never see any planting of an Irish forest although we are trying to retain a few in a number of places. The evergreen forestry development is something which I find quite offensive because of the type of trees which are planted. I would like to see an oak or silver birch forest planted. I know that in the midlands and in the Minister's part of the country, silver birches are not considered to be objects of great beauty but I happen to think that it is a beautiful tree.
We have them in Mount St. Joseph.
Deciduous forestry is something which we lack in the environment. I was asked recently by a visitor to this country for advice as to where she might visit. I tried to think of an area of natural Irish forest. I know there is one in Wicklow but this was in the west and I could not find a place. They may be there but I could not find one. We are trying to teach children what it was like in this country five centuries ago and there is nowhere we can show them a natural tree growth. I look forward to the Minister's response on Senator Finneran's unique point about the forests blocking the view of the landscape. When driving out of Fermoy one can no longer see the shape of the hillside except where they have cut part of the forest to let us see the Marian Year cross.
The Bill is necessary in that it gives back power to local authorities and I am in favour of empowering local authorities. That they do not have power is a problem in a democratic society because the first place people can get involved is at local authority level. If people do not get involved at local authority level it breeds a cynicism of the democratic process. The Bill compels the local authorities to make decisions. I would like to see much more decision-making at local level and I would like to hear the Minister's views on some sort of arbitration process to determine finally the position regarding contentious or controversial building projects.
I compliment the previous speakers. The debate so far has been very helpful and practical. I welcome this legislation because it introduces a fundamental change, not just in the planning area but also in the laws governing public and State authorities. Ireland has had a problem with regard to its development and planning laws for some time and this Bill goes some way towards addressing that. I have always been concerned that our country's planning seems to be conducted in an uncoordinated and haphazard fashion.
We are all aware that on occasion county councillors vote on rezoning, for whatever reason. There has at times been abuse. A development plan represents the best blueprint in planning terms for an area. It has been adopted after much public consideration and debated in a proper fashion and we should therefore be reluctant to tamper with it. It appears that proposals on rezoning often go ahead without taking into account the need for necessary infrastructure. Often these decisions are at variance with the views of the senior planners in local authorities and cognisance must be taken of the fact that they are experts in this area, and their views should be taken into account. We need a long term strategy that caters for proper infrastructure, including water, sewerage and roads. We need to plan ahead to ensure that future development will not hinder the quality of life in an area or interfere with public services. The development plan provides for this and we must be reluctant to change it on an ad hoc basis.
I welcome the fact that the Minister recently warned councillors that the State would not necessarily finance their rezoning activities willy-nilly at the expense of the poor taxpayer. I see this Bill as following up on that statement in a concrete fashion. I am still concerned as to how differences of opinion between a county manager and councillors can be resolved. I will be listening carefully to the Minister's reply because I am anxious that there should be balance there.
In this Bill the Minister has also provided for public accountability, an issue which I regard as basic and which this Government has pushed onto the agenda. The Bill is evidence of the Government's intention in this regard as it will ensure that planning matters respond to demands for assistance, public information and involvement, all of which are crucial in this day and age. There is a great need for this approach in the Irish system of government generally. People must have an input into what happens around them and must be given an opportunity to be heard by our public authorities, and be seen to be heard.
The Bill will lead to greater transparency in the planning system which up to now was often opaque, like a maze, and confused in the public mind. In certain areas it appeared to the public to be a closed shop, lacking rhyme or reason. On occasion, when a public authority acted properly and with full justification, the public resented it because they were not advised of what was happening. If planning matters were explained to the public that would satisfy them, and this point is often ignored.
I know from practical experience that in a local area where a footbridge needed to be replaced because it had fallen into disrepair, the public was not aware of the structural difficulties and objected to the local authority tampering with it. The community at large was only satisfied when it came to light why the local authority was acting in this manner. Informing the public is a simple procedure and must be implemented at all levels of our planning system. The Bill introduces a system which allows for that and will help to rectify the situation.
I hope the Bill will also lead to the rezoning process being tightened up to ensure proper long term planning. The clarification in the Bill on the use of section 4 motions which have been used under the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, is helpful and I trust that councillors will take note of it. Section 2 (1) (a) of the Bill states that former local government legislation shall not apply to any specified class or classes of development by or on behalf of a State authority. I would be interested to know what the Minister has in mind because it is something that needs clarification. I trust he will be vigilant in applying such a rule.
Section 4 requires a local authority to submit a report on proposed developments to the elected members of that authority. Together with the increased protection of development plans, section 4 will introduce greater democracy into the planning process, and I welcome that as previous speakers have done. The fact that documentation on all planning applications will be made available for public scrutiny prior to decisions being made is more than welcome and long overdue. State bodies and agencies should not be allowed to act as gods in the planning area, often with total disregard to the wishes and concerns of the people affected. I am sure every Senator knows of examples where the local community has been outraged by what it sees as the total disregard of local knowledge and needs.
This Bill at least goes some way towards ensuring that State bodies will not be able to carry out developments without at least consulting with the local community. The system of public notice appears to be a good one and I hope it will be practically and universally used, as intended in this legislation, to give the public a real say in the planning process and to ensure that this is not something we read about on paper and then fails to materialise in practice. I urge the Minister to ensure that the provisions of the Bill with regard to public notices and the availability of information to the public would be properly applied by the local authorities and that they will be told how to meet the requirements in this legislation.
The Bill goes some way towards addressing the lack of development for tourism which I see as a major problem. We are, or should be, a tourist-oriented country, yet other countries do a better job of planning their landscapes and towns. They have carried out long term planning to ensure that every tourist amenity is fully utilised, and development is used to enhance these amenities rather than hinder them. Here, we have lost out on that potential in several parts of the country. I am tired of seeing buildings blocking the skyline and blots on the landscape. If we are serious about developing our country as a tourist area, we must be more vigilant and make sure that our natural beauty and resources are never interfered with by the planning process. A top priority for any government should be to use planning to enhance such areas. I hope the Bill will make this point clear to all local authorities.
The Bill adopts a practical approach to planning and development and allows for the smooth introduction of the requirements with the necessary exclusions to which the Minister already referred regarding defence and security matters. The Bill introduces a new era in planning legislation which I hope will lead to comprehensive, long term and proper planning, putting an end to ad hoc, willy nilly development which has all too often been dumped on our landscapes.
I welcome the legislation.
I welcome the Minister to the House. I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I hasten to say that the Bill would not be here were it not for the fact that the Office of Public Works, which is responsible for the proposed sites for the interpretative centres, was not assigned under the same rules and regulations as everyone else when it comes to planning permission. I have a keen interest in the development that is taking place in the Boyne Valley, as chairman of the county council. However, following many hours of negotiations with the Office of Public Works and others, we did not get the changes we sought. The Office of Public Works was not flexible in helping to alleviate the problems that would be caused to the local community by this development, which saddened me.
Any proposed legislation to bring the Office of Public Works under the planning laws is welcome. I say this for the following reason. The Office of Public Works acquired a site to build a new Garda barracks in Kells beside St. Colmcille's Church which is hundreds of years old. All tourists coming to Kells visit this church and the nearby spire. When one approaches from the Dublin road the previously unobscured view of the church and spire has been obstructed by the Garda barracks. This is unbelievably bad planning, resulting from there being no need to apply for planning permission. Anyone who would have applied to build a house — or houses — on that site would have been refused because it would have obstructed the view of the church.
I also want clarification about the consultation due to take place over the next number of months. The Minister with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, my former constituency colleague Deputy Dempsey, said on radio yesterday evening that when the consultation is over he will make the decision. When consultation is over and perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on a site, will development on the site proceed regardless of the result? I will be deeply suspicious of the Minister's reply.
Suspicion is bad.
Suspicion haunts the guilty mind.
I also suspected that Labour and Fianna Fáil might go into Government last October. I never thought I would see the day but it happened.
The Senator should have told his leader.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Farrelly, without interruption, on the Bill.
There will be consultation about what should happen at the Boyne Valley site if the proposals go ahead. Some 14 families live on a road the Office of Public Works intended to use to bring people to the site. They would be travelling through people's farms because they have land on both sides of the road. At a meeting with the then Minister eight months ago I proposed a reasonable alternative route which would not disrupt all the families. Senator Daly may know what I am talking about because he was in the Department. We did not receive a response. As a result local people put up signs saying they did not want the development. They knew it would be of enormous benefit to the community but objected to it because it would interrupt their family farm enterprises. There were no negotiations. Is it any wonder the Minister has to introduce legislation to rectify the problems that have arisen? The Minister does not have to listen to anyone vis-a-vis the problems in the Boyne Valley site. I could give him the solution which would accommodate the people concerned. These facilities should have been established closer to existing amenities and shops in towns. I have yet to be convinced of the merits of the sites in question.
On the broader planning issue, county councillors will have extra powers. I have the distinction of being the first person in County Meath to introduce a section 4 application and it was talked about for years. Politicians more experienced than I decided the only way to tackle the powers that be was to use section 4 but it did not happen. Finally a number of decisions overstretched our patience and they were introduced. Unfortunately there are now four every month.
We spent a long time developing a plan. Over-developed areas are protected and only people from the area — or their children — are allowed to build houses. The difficulty arises when those areas are defined and named and there were various interpretations of the plan. I said one interpretation was fine as long as it was not imposed on the rest of the country but within four months, the same reasons for refusing planning permission in the over-developed areas were being used elsewhere, which I will never accept.
As a result of the introduction of section 4 applications, last week we reviewed our 1989 plan and it is now on display. It attempts to resolve these difficulties so that the use of section 4 will no longer be necessary. It is all a matter of interpretation. Doctors differ and patients die.
EOLAS has introduced acceptable proposals and systems for sewage treatment but our planners have refused to accept them. The Minister is aware that in recent times we have had problems with sewage disposal on public housing estates. Some new facilities recommended by EOLAS have been accepted but they will not be permitted for use in an individual house. I cannot accept that and I hope the extra powers given to local authority representatives in the Bill will help to overcome this problem.
Another ludicrous example concerns a development I pass on my way to the Oireachtas. A hotel, restaurant cum night club complex applied to extend its restaurant. It involved building on five spaces in the existing car park but it also asked that an acre at the back be converted to parking spaces. Meath County Council refused planning permission to this establishment which employs 21 people. This extension would have allowed the hotel to cater for bigger functions. The plan was submitted to An Bord Pleanála which refused for the same reason.
Is it any wonder that so many people are unemployed when unacceptable decisions are made? This applies to the whole country. In addition there are situations like that in 1989 when permission was given for a toxic waste disposal unit dump in the middle of agricultural land in north Meath. The proper decisions, recommendations and conditions were never properly implemented, resulting in a number of spillages. Three years later all the material on site which was to have been removed has not been fully cleared.
There should be regulations covering sites of this kind. It is unacceptable to have a toxic waste dump and recycling plant in the middle of agricultural land. The dump in north Meath, for example, has contaminated the water supply at Ardee and harmed local livestock. As a result I have a motion before Meath County Council calling on it to withdraw the planning permission. There is concern for the safety of families in the area and three years ago the county council emergency plan had to be implemented at 3 o'clock in the morning because of discharges from the facility.
My motion before Meath County Council is based on the case that the proper planning and development, and the conditions stipulated in the planning decision were not implemented and that no compensation charge will be made against the county council. This illustrates the need for a national plan on where these types of development should take place. They should not be in the middle of farming country. If I get the backing of the local authority we will be in a stronger position to oppose these sites. Public notices are important, for example, on the toxic waste case I mentioned, the public notice was not correct. The general public were not aware of the exact details of the proposal. Therefore, I welcome the provision for proper public notices.
The Minister referred to establishment by regulation. This is a wide area as it means that the Minister of the day has the power to do anything he or she wants to do. I ask the Minister for reassurance on the limits of this establishment by regulation as such powers may have repercussions for the future. Consideration must be given to all decisions that have been implemented and decisions in the EC which have not yet been implemented. My concern, therefore, is that such powers granted to the Minister will mean ignoring such considerations. For example, will unwelcome projects be implemented where there is financial pressure?
I stated previously that the Office of Public Works should never have been given a free hand. If every building project undertaken by the Office of Public Works since the introduction of the Planning Acts from 1963 needed planning permission, I have no doubt that both the courts and the planning process would be inundated with appeals. When Senator Gallagher was speaking I was reminded of the time when the late Mr. Jimmy Tully instructed the builders of an important establishment — not far from here — to remove one or two storeys from it.
I have no doubt that if it had been necessary for the Office of Public Works to submit to the planning process at an earlier stage a number of buildings would have to be demolished because of its disregard for the planning laws and regulations.
I await the Minister's response on these two areas, especially on the issue of consultation and what will happen when the consultation process is finalised. The Minister knows the answers but will his decisions be in the interests of the majority of the local people in the Boyne valley?
I welcome the Minister to the House and compliment him on the speed of his response to the Supreme Court decision handed down on 26 May 1993. This is a complex and controversial area but the legislation is well thought through and its speedy enactment will regularise some of the confusion that has arisen since the court cases.
During the High Court case it was clearly pointed out that the issue concerned planning and related considerations and not the environmental aspects of the interpretative centres. The judgment handed down by Mr. Justice Finlay included the following:
Much sharply conflicting evidence was given in each case with regard to the environmental impact of the proposed developments concerned. This Court has not got any right or function to make any decision concerning the issues thus arising, nor is it within its jurisdiction to express any view upon it.
It is important that the attention of those objecting to the interpretative centres, especially on environmental grounds, is drawn to this. The court decisions were in relation to planning legislation and other matters, not on their environmental acceptability.
There has been much discussion in the House on the process of dialogue and consultation with local people and others before decisions were taken. There has been so much discussion on the Mullaghmore project that it is only one-third completed. It could be argued that if there had been less discussion, dialogue and communication, this project would have been finished and operating long ago. I recall several attempts at mediation and reconciliation which were made. I asked the President of the Chamber of Commerce in Ennis, Austin Slattery to get people around the table to resolve the issues arising at Mullaghmore — it is hard to discuss this Bill without referring to the Mullaghmore issue — the county council, the Shannon Development Company, which is the State agency responsible for tourism and other development, the Office of Public Works, the objectors to the centre and the people in favour of it. He had several long meetings where all the aspects at issue were discussed.
A very strong case was made by the objectors to have an environmental impact assessment carried out. This was not necessary legally or under EC regulations but it was agreed to do that. The objectors stated that if that statement indicated there would be no adverse impact on the Burren region arising from this development, they would no longer oppose it. When the report was completed and indicated that the development would not have an adverse environmental impact on the Burren, they continued to object and found several other reasons for rejecting the environmental impact assessment.
The chairman of the committee which I established came to me in desperation and said that I could have as many meetings and consultations as I liked, but the simple fact was that those who objected to this centre do not want it under any circumstances. When some of their concerns, such as the water tables or possible dangers arising from the turloughs, are resolved, they will then raise other concerns and eventually they will return to their original objections. There is no way we can reconcile anything with them. That is why I strongly object to Senator Cosgrave's suggestion that this consultation process might be extended beyond the two month period. Setting a two month deadline was a wise decision on the Government's part. They should adhere to this to enable the consultation to be completed within two months so that the project can go ahead at that stage either in its present form or in a curtailed or extended one.
That should happen as soon as possible because thousands of people are visiting the partly finished Mullaghmore site. There is concern among the local community and farmers that there may be changes to the project or that it may not go ahead. As the Minister will be aware notices have been put on land — especially sites like Lemaneagh Castle and the Poulnabrone dolmen where land owners are rightly concerned about delays in this project — prohibiting people from visiting these sites. This will have a detrimental impact on the tourism industry in the Burren region this season.
When one talks about this site it is important to put it into context because many people who have the environment at heart have been misled by some of the propaganda dealing with Mullaghmore. This site consists of about four and a half acres of the 100 square miles which is the Burren. Mullaghmore is a unique part of the Burren; but then every part of the Burren's 100 square miles is unique. That is why the Office of Public Works spent years examining suitable locations within the Burren for this site before they finally settled on Mullaghmore. Not only are the views of genuine people misinterpreted by a small group of elitists, but one of the people who have been launching a campaign against Mullaghmore and Luggala said that if an interpretative centre is developed at Mullaghmore people would be brought into the area who might not fully appreciate it. There is a creeping landlordism and imperialist mentality among some of this small minority who have misled the people. I will name two persons in particular who misled the general public in photographs published in The Irish Times— Mary Banotti and Eamon de Búitléir.
It is not in order to name people who are not here to defend themselves.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It certainly is not. I ask the Senator to refrain from naming people who are not here.
May I name Deputy Cox, a Member of the European Parliament, who never visited the site but who——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask the Senator to refrain from naming people who are not here to defend themselves.
On a point of order, that is out of order. You have reminded me on occasions not to mention people who are Members of the House but these people are not even Members of the House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have asked the Senator to refrain from naming people who are not here to defend themselves.
Surely I am entitled to mention the antics of Members of the European Parliament.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
No. I request you not to name people who are not here to defend themselves.
The project was misrepresented on numerous occasions by photographs appearing in the media of Mullaghmore mountain, which is not where the centre was to be located. The Heritage Council was misrepresented. Views put forward in the media were represented as the views of the Heritage Council and I know that many members of this body staunchly support the development of Mullaghmore, Luggala and other interpretative centres.
Tremendous work has been done by the Office of Public Works. I compliment them on the work they have done in the interpretation of the landscape and the interpretative centres they have built on some of our historic sites, for example, Killarney National Park, in Glenveigh, Donegal and the Céide fields which were opened a few days ago. I compliment people like Dr. Caulfield for their work in the Céide fields. These people have been very supportive of developments in the area but have received little public recognition. Many people would object to these developments and to the development at Dunquin. A small elite, by means of a well organised, highly focused and orchestrated campaign, have objected to the development of the park in the Wicklow Mountains, the Dunquin development and Mullaghmore, out of which they have made a test case. As a result many genuine people are concerned and would be influenced in their assessment of the value of this development. They would be concerned if the development were to harm unique areas like the Burren. We would be the last people to do anything that would damage the unique flora, fauna and architecture of the Burren.
Nevertheless, the Burren has been crying out for management for a long number of years. Some of the people who have been opposed to the centre at Mullaghmore argue that because the Mullaghmore mountain is an isolated part of the Burren, it should be maintained that way and no development of any kind should be entertained adjacent to the mountain. There have always been developments in the Burren and in Mullaghmore. The Burren is not a wilderness, it never has been and, hopefully, never will be. However, it will be a wilderness if some of the people who are objecting to this development get their way.
There are green roads, relics of the Famine, through the Burren where people have lived for thousands of years. The tragedy of the Burren is that its life and soul have been diminished and many people had to emigrate because of the lack of employment opportunities. The Burren must not be regarded as a wilderness. Developments in that region must take account of the fact that people want to live and work there. Objections to this development have been voiced over a number of years. The end result is that 70 people who worked in this region were left without employment when this judgment was handed down on 26 May; they are still out of work.
Is the Senator saying that people should not have access to the courts?
Approximately 70 people are out of work in that region as a result of these decisions. We should try to complete the projects and allow people to return to work as soon as possible.
Urgent action is needed for the preservation and development of the Burren national park. As I said earlier, the development of the national park is central to the overall management of the region. This development must be undertaken as soon as possible, otherwise irreparable damage will be done to the Burren. This fact has been recognised by the local people. I have been asked to refrain from naming individuals, but the man who sold the mountain at Mullaghmore to the Commissioners of Public Works, Mr. Pat Flanagan, is a staunch supporter of the development at Mullaghmore. He sees the necessity for this type of development and the urgent need for progress.
Consultation has begun with the Commissioners of Public Works. I compliment the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Dempsey, on his press conference yesterday and the notice in the media today offering people the opportunity to object to these developments. People will object and they will still not be happy after the two month objection period is over. They will continue their objections.
It will be a retrograde step if the project planned for the Mullaghmore centre falls through. Great care and consideration was given to the planning and design of the project, and time and effort was spent on the preparation of environmental impact studies. Clare County Council's engineering, planning and technical divisions have spent considerable time reviewing the plans and procedures which have been put in place for this development.
It is important to point out that Clare County Council supported the development by an overwhelming majority. Four councillors out of 31 had reservations about the Mullaghmore development. Those who speak about democracy, including some trendy élitists who are quoted in the papers, should remember that Clare County Council is a democratic body and that an overwhelming majority of councillors supported the planning and development of the Mullaghmore Interpretative Centre. Senator Taylor-Quinn and her colleagues in Fine Gael support the development at Mullaghmore, the Progressive Democrats are the only people who object to it.
During the last Government, the Progressive Democrats and the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Harney, were prepared to plan a further interpretative centre at Finnormore on the northern side of the Burren. The Progressive Democrat candidate for the local election lost his deposit; yet, they still continued to speak about democracy and democratic decisions in the planning process. They will not accept democratic decisions.
At least we believe in the right of the courts, which the Senator does not.
Senator Daly, without interruption.
The High Court and the Supreme Court made it clear that they were not making judgments on environmental matters. Mr. Justice Finlay's comments have already been put on the record in relation to planning matters and whether the legislative process was the correct process to do what needed to be done. Today we are regularising the Supreme Court's decision.
The Minister said much more is being done.
We are changing the Supreme Court's interpretation of the existing legislation; we are changing the decisions. I compliment the Government for introducing legislation which will enable it to act in these areas.
I urge the Minister to press ahead with the planning process so that the Mullaghmore Interpretative Centre can be completed and to insist that the two month period is retained for objections and discussions. The proposed project should go ahead and I will support any adjustments, arising from the discussions, which will improve the development.
The development should be bigger in some respects and cover other areas which have not been identified in the planned project. Perhaps we will see a larger interpretative centre at Mullaghmore than the one being planned. This would not appeal to the people objecting to this development. This legislation will be effective and I urge the Government to press ahead with the planning process so that the Mullaghmore project can be completed as quickly as possible.
I wish to share my time with Senator Dardis.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith, to the House. He is extremely reassuring in the way he presents his Bills. I am sure he has our interests at heart and a broad vision of the country's planning requirements. His emphasis on transparency and accountability at local level is particularly important and I am glad he referred to it in the House.
The Minister is correct to stress that decision making should be at local level, wherever possible, because people at local level are usually more aware of a project's impact on an area. However, some major regional projects must be looked at in a very broad way because, as stated earlier, the character of an area can be changed by a public project. This is something which must be constantly reviewed.
This is an international issue. Would the Aswan Dam have been built if it had been realised what it would do to the Nile Valley? I do not think so. Tremendous efforts are being made in China to stop them doing the same on the Yellow River. Major projects have major impacts on an area.
The Minister for the Environment is responsible for development projects and I know he will seriously consider their impact. Public projects have implications for ordinary people. For example, a large project, built without careful consideration near a small private development, such as a house, can have a devastating impact on the people living there.
I was interested in Senator Finneran's remark about afforestation. Afforestation has a major impact on the landscape, totally changing areas, but I would not suggest that we stop growing trees in County Leitrim so that I can enjoy the landscape each time I drive through the county. It is one of the most suitable places in Europe for growing coniferous trees. My joy in driving through a bog must take second place to the farmers in County Leitrim who wish to grow trees. One sees rows of trees ten years after a forest is planted in front of a person's house. These implications are important.
I was distressed this morning when some Senators, especially Senator Daly, suggested that An Taisce was trying to belittle people. I was sorry to hear Éamon de Buitléir's name mentioned. Each day he does more for the heritage of Ireland than any of us will do in our lifetime. He has brought much of Ireland into our living rooms, brought it to the forefront for our children and into the realm of our educational environment. I was sad to hear him and Dr. Emer Colleran named. I am not a member of An Taisce, but I have always noticed about organisations such as An Taisce that no one likes "whistle blowers" and one never gets thanks for being one. I was interested in Senator O'Toole's remark that he was at a meeting at which all objectors were members of An Taisce and then he found that all the Office of Public Works officials were also members. Occasionally, the Office of Public Works officials are not averse to having a little pressure exerted by An Taisce since often their aims are similar to those of An Taisce supporters. It is easy to be critical of a body like this but I do not know what the vested interest of people like Éamon de Buitléar and Dr. Emer Colleran could be in objecting to something——
Acting Chairman
Senator, I do not think you should name——
I am sorry but it was to defend them.
On a point of order, if someone on the other side of the House makes a gratuitous reference, as has been made, it should be open to other Members of the House to defend the people who have been attacked in that way.
Acting Chairman
They were also ruled out of order.
They made the remarks.
Acting Chairman
They were also mentioned on the Opposition side but I must be fair. I will not be dictated to by any Senator as to how the Seanad should be chaired. Nobody outside this House should be named.
I apologise, Chairman, it was to defend them as I felt that the way they were named was unfair. Anyway they have nothing to gain by making these objections so one has to take some notice of them.
We should take notice of the various surveys by An Foras Forbartha, for example, the Inventory on Outstanding Landscapes in Ireland, published in 1977, and the Areas of Scientific Interest, published in 1981. Neither of these publications has statutory status but I know that the Office of Public Works has been trying to resurvey the areas of scientific interest in an attempt to include them as part of the national heritage so that they would have some protection. The Minister is wise to stress the necessity for environmental impact studies and the requirement for integrated pollution control licences in site selection and site development. I hope that this aspect of the legislation will be implemented immediately and on a wide scale. The Bill should be commended.
It is never my intention, Chairman, to challenge your rulings but in the circumstances it was in order for somebody to be defended. I do not wish to enter into a debate——
Acting Chairman
The rule is there, Senator, and this is a typical case.
I am prepared, as a speaker on this side of the House, to abide by that ruling in respect of what I say. The Supreme Court has made a ruling and we cannot dispute the need for legislation. The Minister went to some pains in the course of his speech to outline that it was not just the Supreme Court ruling which made this legislation necessary. Nevertheless, it must have had a substantial influence and made it more urgent than it might have been. My experience of Bills of this nature, introduced on an emergency basis, is that they can be deficient in certain areas, and it is up to us as Members of the House to tease out those deficiencies and to improve the Bill.
I am happy that yesterday in the Dáil the Minister improved the Bill by deleting a section and making other small improvements, which are welcome. It is the job of the Oireachtas to legislate but, unfortunately, we appear to be reaching a stage where all the decisions are made by the Executive rather than by the Oireachtas, and that is my fundamental objection to this Bill. It gives too much discretion and arbitrary power to this Minister — and other Ministers — to involve themselves in the planning process.
A welcome aspect of the Bill is that the State must act in the same way as anyone else when it comes to applying for planning permission. It is right that there should be certain specified exceptions to that. Security aspects should be dealt with in a different way. My area of the Curragh, although not comparable to the Burren, is a similar resource. It is heath-land of which there is very little left in the country. There seems to have been an invasion of the Curragh plain. The Department of Defence could, conceivably, under certain circumstances, contribute to the erosion of the Curragh plain. I would hate to think that security could be used as an excuse for destroying or tampering with a resource of that quality.
What about the highway going through it at present?
Exactly. Senator Daly, who is not here and to whom I will not refer, in the course of his contribution, excluded from his tirade one group of people. I will not name the individuals but they are prominent people in the Labour Party who took a somewhat similar stance to some of the so-called élitists to whom the Senator referred. There has been an unedifying tussle between different members of the Government about this site in County Clare and what should be done to it. It is right, as a general principle, that the State and the local authorities should be subject to the same rules and regulations which apply to private developers. We can all cite examples in the past where things were done because there was not sufficient control.
There is a degree of emphasis in this Bill on consultation. "Consultation" has become an in word. It seems to operate within the European Community and in relation to Structural Funds. However, consultation is not participation. I was at a Structural Funds meeting in County Kildare where people from voluntary bodies were all brought into a hall. I am sure someone at some stage can say, with hand on heart, that these people were consulted about how the money from Europe should be spent. They were consulted but they had no input. That is the difficulty with consultation.
We must make a decision.
I am not saying the Minister is incorrect in involving people in consultation but it must be meaningful.
The other point about people who are allegedly élitist is that, regardless of whether I agree with them, I do not question their motives. It is their right, as it is the right of any citizen, to bring their case to court to have it heard and, if need be, to bring it to the highest court in the land to adjudicate on it. That is what the court has done. Again, I may agree or disagree but that is how the system operates and we will abide by it. There are people who seem to have a certainty about their position in life which excludes any other point of view, in a democracy that is not good enough.
Another problem with this Bill relates, for example, to the case of a county council embarking upon a development. I have a particular development in mind, Kill dump, which, by any environmental yardstick, should not be allowed. There is a difference to my point in that Dublin County Council has applied to Kildare County Council for permission to build this dump. Let us assume that Kildare County Council intended to carry out this development. Having gone through the consultation and followed the other procedures specified in the Bill, I would be afraid that, even given the objections of the county councillors, the development would take place.
I accept that there have to be balances in life. For example, there was a proposal to build a golf course on the Carton estate. The dilemma the public representatives in the county are faced with is that this is a house of international standing. It is part of our heritage which should be protected. There is no dispute about that but the question is how best can that be done. Does it require someone with a large amount of money who will build a golf course and protect the house or can the person who lives in the house protect it from their own resources? If the person living there could do it, that is what should be done but in public life we are faced with these alternatives.
In respect of some the views expressed by Members on the other side of the House, it may well be the case that every member of Clare County Council thinks that a particular proposal is the best one for their county but we, as national legislators, must balance local perspective with the greater good. The Burren is an outstanding resource and if some people think it will be damaged by embarking on a particular development it may be that the greater good must prevail over local interest. Everything nowadays is defended on the basis of jobs; if it creates two jobs it is worth doing. However, if it destroys a resource, loses countless jobs and keeps tourists away but creates ten jobs in the process, is it worth doing? It is time we decided where the balance of advantage lies even in the creation of jobs.
There is one other point which needs to be made. The Minister said the Government has decided that applications for planning permission are to be made following the widest possible consultation with all interested parties over a period of two months in relation to the developments at Mullaghmore, Luggala and the Boyne Valley. This is symptomatic of a type of thinking. If the consultation process is to be meaningful, planning permission might or might not be given; it may or may not be given following consultations, otherwise what is the point? Is it being suggested that there are to be consultations but that decisions have already been made? I find that a curious type of logic.
Section 2 (2) (a) of the Bill states that "Where development is proposed to be carried out by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government... the Minister of the Government concerned or, in the case of development... the Minister for Finance may, if he is satisfied..." I accept the Minister's credentials and that he is prepared to fulfil his obligations in his area of responsibility in an objective and professional manner. However, it has to be questioned whether it should be open to other Ministers or a Minister to make judgments in the planning area which are more appropriately the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment.
The fundamental point that needs to be made is that it should be accepted that all planning legislation needs to be tidied up and it is questionable if this legislation achieves that objective. I accept that it is an advance but there are aspects — with which I will deal on Committee Stage — about which I am unhappy and which need to be teased out further. Further improvements and amendments can be made, consultation needs to be meaningful and not just a word in legislation.
On a lighter note, to lower the temperature a little, I refer again to the phrase "in relation to" which has been discussed at regular intervals in the House. "In relation to" is mentioned three times in the first paragraph of the Minister's speech. It appeared in legislation yesterday and today in the first sentence of the Minister's speech it states "for the operation of planning control in relation to future development by State authorities..." What is wrong with stating "planning control for future development by State authorities"? The "in relation to" disease is spreading and it has worsened since yesterday. It appears three times on the first page of the Minister's speech and once on the second page. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsman is also writing speeches for the Minister. Can we try to do something about the "in relation to" disease?
The relationship develops from partnership.
I, too, congratulate the Minister for bringing this legislation so speedily to the House. I will curtail my presentation because all the points I wished to make have already been covered.
It is time to upgrade our planning legislation and to have openness and consultation. The word "consultation" has been bandied about so much this morning that I am worried about even saying it. How do we define "consultation"? It is a beautiful word and should always be used in our presentations. The 1964 planning legislation may have been the result of consultation, but it was behind closed doors and the general public may not have been fully aware of how those developments would affect them.
I am a county councillor in an area which has some fine aesthetic buildings. I refer in particular to Rathfarnham Castle. The Office of Public Works is to be congratulated for the work it is undertaking in the refurbishment of the ceiling. I am sure the Office of Public Works will have a large role to play there in the future.
From now on any estate development will be subject to planning permission, that is to be welcomed. As a county councillor the provision of halting sites is part of my work. People do not want to hear about halting sites being located in their areas. The decision to locate these sites has become an executive function, in other words, this role has been taken from county councillors. In Dublin councillors are told there is to be a halting site in a specific area, regardless of how we, as representatives, or how the people feel about it. I am glad such matters will now be subject to the same rules and regulations as planning applications and planning permission.
I welcome the fact that the role and powers of councillors will not be eroded. As one who is dealing with the rezoning of a development plan, I feel that has put county councillors under tremendous pressure. How best can a balance be achieved in terms of consultation? How best can we be objective and not listen to people who say they are all right and do not want other people around them? This worries me. Nobody will better promote the environment than one who comes from the country and loves open spaces and greenery. I would never agree to build concrete jungles or anything which would offend people. Now more than ever we need to be aware of and sensitive to what our European partners feel when they visit our country. We have a two-prong strong reason for keeping our country beautiful.
The Mullaghmore and Luggala developments have brought this issue to our minds — although there were similar cases before this — and I hope that, since the court has decided on Mullaghmore decisions will also be handed down in regard to any projects currently in operation within the two months' consultative period. People wish to be involved and there should be consultation, not confrontation. There is always confrontation and it is difficult for public representatives to do the best they can for a locality — in regard to estate building, environmental projects etc., — if they have to deal with pressure groups, who seem to be running the country.
I compliment the Minister for tackling these issues by telling those involved that their area will not be damaged and calling for consultation with the groups involved; no one is seeking to destroy any part of this beautiful country. Indeed our children are currently being educated in regard to helping the environment. Environmental impact assessments, among other measures, have been conducted to help to make the best decision. It is good legislation and I commend it to the House. The Minister is to be praised for introducing it so quickly, especially when he is experiencing trouble even with Dublin County Council. We are doing the best we can in rezoning our development plan, despite pressures from all sides.
The legislation is worthwhile and any measure involving consultation and participation is a step forward. Everyone wishes to be involved but we must make the proper decision at the end of the day. The best decisions can only be made when they are well informed and the public will have trust in their legislators if they know that business is not conducted behind closed doors. Every application will be scrutinised and decisions on them will reflect the views of those in the area. I know there will never be absolutes — we do not live in an ideal world — but I am a pragmatist and know that this legislation is worthwhile.
I wish to share my time with Senator Taylor-Quinn.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I join other speakers in welcoming the Minister to the House and compliment him on the efficient way he has introduced this legislation. The way he brought it through the other House with a slight — welcome — change, was also impressive. The legislation is welcome, as the last speaker said, if it provides for more openness and consultation in Government. Up to now, the organs of State have done a fine job in development work and it would be wrong to assume that the public interest was not foremost in the minds of officials in the Office of Public Works when carrying out these developments. Increased consultation and subjecting the State to the same planning laws as everyone else is welcome, in view of the problems with recent developments. I wish to deal specifically with these developments, specifically Mullaghmore, because it is an interesting case in point.
I live about 15 miles from Mullaghmore and spend most of my free time in the Burren. However, I did not see Mullaghmore in its true light until I visited it — with an open mind — when this controversy began. What is critical about the decision of the Office of Public Works is that, in choosing this site, they highlighted the unique aspect of the Burren as seen from Mullaghmore mountain. It is a matter of opinion whether this site will have an adverse effect on the region. When I visited it before any work started, I could not see grounds for the objections. I carefully read the environmental impact study, which covered several aspects of the objections, and it pointed out that there were no difficulty with them. Some of these objections are strange because, not far from Mullaghmore, a number of farmers own heads of cattle and cut considerable amounts of silage, which is a more potent cause of pollution than this site will ever be. When I hear these objections, I wonder why those people do not look at the wider issues. Senator Daly, in a fine contribution, said that the Burren is not a wilderness and there is a lot of development there. Because of the objections to the Mullaghmore site, I went there with an open mind, to see if it is the wrong location.
The question of consultation is the key factor in this legislation. Senator Dardis spelled out the real problems in regard to developments across the board; many wish to be consulted but some wish to have their point of view regarded as the expert one. I do not wish to impose my opinion, because it is no more than that, on anyone but we must look at the overall viewpoint and act in the public good. There is no doubt that the overall public good is served by proceeding with the Mullaghmore site. The debate will have helped in giving us a first class development at the end of the day.
If one were to consider such objections, the development at Coole Park, County Galway, would not have been undertaken by the Office of Public Works. An interpretative centre would not have been constructed at Coole Park and the public would not be allowed to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. Furthermore, the Ailwee Caves, County Clare, would not have been developed. It is one of the most attractive locations in the west, if not in the country. The Ailwee Caves are visited by thousands of people each week. What damage is this development causing to the Burren area?
In recent years, a small group of people damaged the development potential of this country as the most prestigious destination in Europe for quality holidays. All major tourist developments have been objected to by one or two people. For example, a non-national objected to the siting of a golf-course on a bog in Barna, County Galway, because of the damage it would cause to the flora and fauna, yet, there are 75 miles of bogland from Barna to the Atlantic. It is ludicrous for an individual to hold up a development which would bring prosperity to that area, particularly when the local authority and residents support it.
A small number of people also objected to the development plans of an American hotel group in the forest park in Boyle, County Roscommon. The local authority, environmental agencies, etc., supported the development because it did not have a negative impact on the environment. Yet, this objection delayed proceedings for 12 months. Fortunately, the prestigious hotel group proceeded with their plans.
There is also an objection to a proposal to build a third golf course on a small corner of the 29,000 acres of the national park in Killarney, County Kerry. This objection has delayed a decision in this regard. This golf course is essential to the development of Killarney as approximately 200 jobs could be created in building it.
I support the point by Senator Dardis regarding a balance between the protection and enhancement of the environment and the creation of jobs and economic activity. However, we have gone to extremes by objecting to any development which detracts from the untouched wilderness. That is the reason for the objections to Mullaghmore, the Killarney national park and the forest park in Boyle, County Roscommon.
I welcome this legislation. There must be consultation and the views of those concerned must be considered. Then those with responsibility must make a decision in the public good which takes everything into account. I believe the Mullaghmore development will proceed.
The Minister documented the history of this Bill in his speech. It was included in the Programme for a Partnership Government and is the result of a considered Government decision. The Bill came before the Seanad and the Dáil sooner than expected because of the High Court and subsequent Supreme Court decisions in relation to the interpretative centre at Mullaghmore.
A lesson which must be learned by the Office of Public Works, the local authority and the public as a result of the Supreme Court decision is the need for tolerance. We will become mature as a people if we are tolerant of each other's views. Those for and against should appreciate the other view. Unfortunately, people have dramatised the matter and castigated those with whom they do not agree.
The word "consultation" has been used extensively. This Bill caters for consultation and I welcome this. Regarding Mullaghmore, consultation with the Office of Public Works took place only when members of Clare County Council sought it. If the Office of Public Works had adopted a less dogmatic approach initially and there had been more consultation, confrontation might have been avoided. I appreciate that the Office of Public Works has carried out excellent preservation, maintenance and construction work throughout the country. The Chamber is evidence of its work.
The perception that the State can steamroll everything through must be eliminated. This Bill addresses that issue. I am disappointed that the Minister is empowered to make special rules and regulations which will exempt certain developments. The Minister, a former member of a local authority, appreciates the role of councillors and the local authorities in relation to these issues and he will not abuse this power. However, someone less sensitive to the function of local authorities and local interest groups might abuse it. The Minister might consider this matter because there are too many exemptions.
There must be a level of consistency regarding objections because they are selective. Although objections were made in relation to Mullaghmore, there were few objections to the new road across the Curragh, County Kildare. The Curragh is a unique geological feature, yet, we did not hear objections from the parties concerned. Why do objectors select certain areas and ignore others?
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
Before the adjournment I referred to the selectivity of objectors and I pleaded for a level of consistency from promoters of and objectors to projects as we must have a balanced and common sense approach to these issues. While this issue does not relate specifically to this legislation, it is indirectly relevant.
Coming from County Clare, where Mullaghmore is situated, I welcome all viewpoints. Usually I make my decision in what I believe is a responsible way having thoroughly examined the project or proposal and having heard the views of all sides, but as a public representative, I object to confrontation or being stampeded into a decision by any side. Often the process of consultation turns into one of confrontation. That is unfortunate and does not lead to a calm assessment of any proposal. I hope that supporters and objectors will, in future, adopt a different approach and tolerate other people's viewpoints.
Many of the objectors to the Mullaghmore project came from outside the county and, indeed, from outside the country. I am happy to live in a democratic system and welcome the full use of democracy which, in this case, led to the decision of the Supreme Court. We are at present addressing legislation arising from that decision. That is how issues should be dealt with in a democratic system.
However, many of those people who objected to Mullaghmore were from outside the county. Many were public representatives who aired their views without having examined the site of the proposed project. Many of them also represent constituencies which have huge environmental problems. Dublin, for example, has a huge environmental problem; in Dublin Bay the stench is unbelievable, yet these public representatives do not feel they have an obligation to raise these environmental problems in their own constituencies. I refer, in particular, to my party colleague in the European Parliament, Mary Banotti.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask the Senator to refrain from mentioning people who are not present to defend themselves.
I believe in being straightforward.
I would like to see consistency and nonselectivity on the part of such objectors. I hope public representatives and the public will apply those yardsticks in future. I also hope that rather than adopting a confrontational approach, there will be greater use of the consultation process proposed in this Bill. It is important that such consultation is not undertaken simply to fulfil the requirements of the legislation. I hope it will be genuine consultation with genuine exchanges of views. People should have open minds, listen and accept arguments and change the proposals should the arguments warrant that. I hope that process will be fully utilised.
It is unfortunate that the Minister has provided for exemptions and I hope that provision is not abused by Departments. The public buildings constructed throughout the country by the Office of Public Works are usually in keeping with the planning laws and blend in with the environment. Some outstanding eyesores have been constructed but they are the exception. However, we should try to reduce the number of such exceptions as far as possible.
It is important that the role of the local councillor in producing the county development plan is appreciated and fully utilised. The councillor takes part in the regular reviews of the county development plan. During the review, the elected representatives meet with management. There is an interchange of views between the managerial and planning staff and the elected representatives who are familiar with the wishes of the people and, in many instances, with the geographic area and it is important that their views are taken into account. After a comprehensive exchange of views a good development plan is presented.
Some professional groups, outside local authorities, seem to believe they have greater expertise in planning and development matters than the local councillors or the local authority staff. Unfortunately councillors are often confronted with a very hostile approach by some members of the public, and are treated in a very condescending fashion, as if they were people with no knowledge of or respect for their environment. That is wrong, because every councillor I know, both within the county and throughout the country, has a high level of commitment to and understanding of the local community. The Minister appreciates that. He has recently introduced revised proposals on councillors' expenses which are to some degree welcome. Unfortunately in some instances the commitment of councillors is not recognised. When the county development plans come up for review, we must take the views of the councillors into account.
This legislation is a step in the right direction. We in Fine Gael have always believed that no group should be exempt from the normal process of planning, whether a State body, a semi-State body or a local authority. Local authorities should not be exempt from the obligation to secure planning permission. They should be required to apply to An Bord Pleanála for their planning permission, or at least have An Bord Pleanála review their proposals on housing or any other kind of development.
I see the Minister shaking his head. At the moment local authorities are prosecuting farmers and others for breaking pollution laws, while at the same time, local authorities themselves are polluters. That is not right. Neither is it right that an ordinary individual should have to apply for planning permission, whereas the local authority if it wants to build a house is not subject to scrutiny or supervision from anybody, but is free to charge ahead. We have in the past seen huge local authority-built concrete jungles with very few recreational facilities or green spaces. That tendency has been reduced in recent years, but nevertheless we should seriously consider making local authorities subject to some form of planning scrutiny. I ask the Minister to reconsider his position on that issue.
Local authorities are suing farmers and others for pollution offences while they themselves are polluters. Untreated sewage is a problem in many areas. In the interest of equity and natural justice, regulations should apply equally across the board. I ask the Minister to address that issue in his closing speech. The Bill is welcome to a certain degree but it is unfortunate that the Minister has not applied its provisions right across the board. I find it difficult to support a Bill which includes so many exemptions.
I welcome this Bill, which brings State bodies, the Office of Public Works, and to some extent, the local authorities within the regular planning legislation, with, as Senator Taylor-Quinn said, certain exemptions. By and large these have been explained and are justified. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point at the end of the debate.
I also welcome the intention in the Bill to have more transparency, public involvement and consultation. There has been a perception in the past, probably rightly, that many planning decisions are made behind closed doors. All of us here are members of local authorities, and at that level, decisions are made at public meetings where public representatives can express their views fully. When a decision goes to An Bord Pleanála, sometimes people feel that there is not as much information as they would like. This Bill goes quite a distance towards bringing more public transparency into decision making, and makes clearer the various elements taken into account when a decision is made.
Consultation can be either totally meaningless or very valuable. It must be meaningful or there is no point in using the word in legislation. I am particularly concerned about the controversial case in Mullaghmore. Many speakers have referred to Mullaghmore, and many have made a very balanced contribution to the debate. I consider Senator Daly's contribution unnecessarily contentious. If we allow two months of consultation on the Mullaghmore issue, it must be real consultation. People must go in with an open mind, willing to listen to all viewpoints and to compromise and to change if necessary. There are genuinely held opposing viewpoints on Mullaghmore, and I hold a different view from that expressed by most of the contributors today. Senator Daly referred to the Progressive Democrats as having a different viewpoint. I am a member of the Labour party, and I have a different viewpoint from the one he expressed, as do the majority of Labour Party members in County Clare. I am originally a Clare woman, so I speak with some experience of the area. I visited Mullaghmore several times before the issue became confrontational.
The people who oppose the development in Mullaghmore hold those views very genuinely, and have every right to express their views in whatever legal way they can. I reject the suggestion that most of the objectors are from outside the area. The people who made representations to me are in many cases native to the area and have lived there all of their lives. They are genuinely concerned about the future of the Burren and the Mullaghmore area. I also defend the right of environmental experts to express their viewpoints. We listen to the viewpoints of medical, scientific, and agricultural experts. I do not see why environmental experts, whether or not they live in an area, should not have the right to express their views fully and to object in the normal way if they see fit. I object to their being described as trendy élitists. I know quite a lot about the people who are opposed to the development in Mullaghmore, and they are not trendy élitists. They are seriously concerned people, as are those on the other side. The views held on both sides are genuine.
The two months which has been given should be used for consultation to try to bring about a compromise. These two months will be useless if the consultation is not approached with that kind of attitude. I hope that this Minister and the Minister of State at the Department of Finance will have that approach, as I believe they will. It is not helpful for people to put down the opinions of others who hold a different viewpoint.
On the more general question of planning permission and planning applications, many more responsible decisions are taken now at all levels than ten or 15 years ago and this Bill will improve that further. I would like the Minister to address the need for a balance when appeals are made to An Bord Pleanála. Occasionally developments everybody in a local area wants are held up. There is a provision within the rules for An Bord Pleanála if an objection is seen to be based simply on a vested interest and not genuine, the case can be dealt with quickly. I would like the Minister to respond on this matter because such flexibility is necessary.
I again welcome the Bill and hope there will be genuine consultation on contentious matters.
I welcome the Bill. I too hope there will be genuine consultation. The word consultation has been much used in this debate and it would be interesting to understand what precisely people meant by consultation.
This legislation will rectify the poisonous and acrimonious debate on planning issues that has been prevalent in recent time. I, like a number of other Members of this House, am here in part because of the poisonous acrimony that has surrounded those debates. I welcome the streamlining of the planning process introduced by this Bill and the return of some powers to local government. At least I am consistent in welcoming this Bill for that reason. A few years ago, when some of those who oppose interpretative centres were crowing over changes in section 4 as a great breakthrough, I argued that while section 4 was sometimes abused it was nonetheless a democratic instrument. I welcome the contents of the Bill and the opportunity today's debate gives us to range over some of the issues.
I can understand the strength of feelings engendered by the interpretative centres. The Irish landscape is probably the most beautiful and most varied landscape in the world. I come from a county with an extraordinary range of landscape and this national heritage is treasured by the people of the county. The landscape is an invaluable legacy handed down to us which we nurture and treasure and hope to hand over, improved, to future generations.
No one on either side of this debate has a monopoly of caring for the landscape. I find it insulting to suggest that because one supports interpretative centres in some situations one is somehow supportive of destroying the landscape. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such an argument is a crude caricature of the true position, although it has been used without hesitation by some of those who have opposed the interpretative centres. I reject this utterly, in the same way as I would reject the alternative argument that objectors automatically have vested interests.
I care deeply about the Irish landscape and I am aware of the need to nurture it carefully. I reject the fundamentalist approach of some so-called environmentalists; their's is a dogmatic and divisive approach that pays no heed to any other points of view. I agree with the last speaker that if there is to be consultation there has to be an openness on both sides of the process. These self-appointed guardians take least account of the feelings of people who have lived in the areas concerned. It appears to me that many of these people — and I am talking about national well-heeled groups — have a particular view of Ireland. It is an Ireland they wish to retain in some form of suspended animation for their aesthetic pleasure, irrespective of the feelings and concerns of the people who inhabit the landscape about which the debate rages.
The groups that have been most ignored in the recent controversies are the ordinary people who live in the areas in question. I am concerned, in particular, about Wicklow. These people have an ingrained knowledge of the landscape they inhabit. They have had this knowledge for generations and do not need to be preached at by self-appointed experts. They often live in economically deprived communities with high levels of unemployment and emigration. Yet they are conscious of the value of their heritage. I am sure that many local people must have felt bemused by the dissent of these self-appointed guardians of the environment in their localities. Do the locals feel honoured by such wisdom in their midst preaching to them about the value and the beauty of the landscape they inhabit, things they as natives supposedly could not know? This is arrogant in the extreme.
Local community groups wish to foster growth in their areas and such commitment to local enterprise and job creation is laudable. I found extraordinary the dismissal of jobs with a wave of a patrician hand in one contribution. One way to foster such growth is through a respectful relationship with the surrounding landscape and this can include the construction of interpretative centres.
I know this is shocking stuff to the ears of certain élitists in the anti-interpretative centre campaign. Like all dogmatists they have no time for those who do not subscribe to their creed. The importance of jobs and enterprise does not enter the fossilised view of Ireland which they hold and elevate. They would rather see a landscape inhabited by rocks and stones — beautiful but empty — than by families and communities. These élitists do not want any pesky natives to get in their way.
I have first hand knowledge in Wicklow of the élitism and arrogance of this campaign. There are two forms of objection, those of local people whose concerns must be listened to and answered, and those of an elite group who, with virtually unlimited resources and ready access to compliant media, are opposed tooth and nail to the building of an interpretative centre at Luggala. Irrespective of what changes are made and what consultation takes place they will continue in their opposition. They have an interesting and peculiar view of democracy: if it works in their favour they accept it — if not, they reject it.
These people have deprived Wicklow of a valuable tourism resource and of potential jobs. This concerns them little, but I am keenly aware of the unemployment my constitutency faces. I am also aware of the job-creating potential of tourism in Wicklow and of the excellent work done by the Office of Public Works, particularly in the interpretative centre at Glendalough, with no controversy and no herds of élitists bussed into the county to tell us how we should live. I recognise the potential of the extraordinary Wicklow landscape to contribute to combating the unemployment problem there. This employment-generating process can work hand in hand with a respectful relationship with the landscape. To suggest otherwise is mere fundamentalism.
I want to put on the record some of the facts about the Wicklow site which those who have trumpeted have chosen to ignore. When the interpretative centre at Luggala was first mooted I, with other Dáil representatives from the county, met with the Office of Public Works and cautioned them that there must be full and meaningful consultation. When that process got underway with local representatives, I met with a group of those concerned about the site. The fact that there had been no environmental impact assessment was questioned. As some here will know, I supported the view that there should have been an EIA. I wrote to the Ministers concerned and to the Office of Public Works and eventually an environmental impact assessment was agreed.
Before I lobbied, I met with 15 representatives of the opposing view here in Leinster House, in the main interview room downstairs. I asked them if they would accept its findings if I went out on a limb and argued for an EIA. One of those present had the honesty to say no; the others said they would accept them. The reality was, however, that when the EIA did not support their viewpoint, none of them accepted it. There was a myriad of things wrong with it.
A proposal was made that the Phillips report being prepared on the Wicklow uplands should be extended to cover the matter of interpretation. I supported that viewpoint and I seconded the proposition when it was made in Wicklow County Council. When that report did not fully support the objectors' view, it too was rejected. What precisely do these people mean by consultation? Are they confusing consultation with capitulation? There is now a threat from the same national opponents of the centres that even if we go through some new planning process, that too will be objected to. Even if that is successful, they will still look for new means of opposing it. It is their right to object; people have a right in law to object and to use every available means.
A planning file was illegally taken from Wicklow County Council and brought out of the country as part of the opposition to the Wicklow site. This is an additional aspect of the Luggala case. When this case because a cause célébre, it won the support of a local representative who has now become that case's Oireachtas champion. Over the last number of years this clever gentleman has shown remarkable disdain for the very planning process which he now protests to defend. Senator Ross will know that section 4 resolutions are very frequently used in County Wicklow. I would not say that they are always abused — Senator Ross might differ from me on that — but they are certainly used in an extreme number of cases which we both find objectionable. The House will know that Wicklow is one of the places where section 4 is used too often. It is intriguing to see just how often that new environmentalist champion's name is mentioned and appended to the same section 4 resolutions. If one went over the last ten years of section 4 resolutions in County Wicklow, one would find that it ranks as one of the highest counties and that is no credit to us. One will also find that the environmental champion's name is on virtually every section 4 resolution passed in that period.
It must have been a party decision at the time.
It was not a party decision. The Senator is quite wrong. It was a decision that was often made in the teeth of opposition by this gentleman's colleagues, including myself. Senator Ross will be able to attest to that.
Recently I heard a spokesperson for An Taisce making reference to the word democracy. I wonder how An Taisce actually defines democracy. An Taisce is an organisation which I support. It is an organisation which no reasonable person could oppose. Its principles and objectives are something which we all support. A group of local people went into An Taisce in County Wicklow and when they did not measure up to the democratic standard that was accepted by An Taisce at national level, they were simply side stepped and the local branch was abolished. I understand that something similar happened in County Clare. This is a very novel interpretation of the word democracy. If one does not agree with a local group who know the local area, one ignores them and makes the decision at national headquarters level. An Taisce has been talking about an excessive degree of centralism which exists in Ireland. I agree that there is far too much centralism and far too much decision-making at the centre. I welcome this Bill because it moves against that. Before people start preaching to the rest of us as to how we should behave, perhaps they should have a look at how they behave.
The landscape is a public resource. It is not a museum piece; it should not be corralled off from the ordinary people and reserved for a privileged few. We had enough of that in the days of the landlord. I would have thought that when we got independence in this State, we would have struck a blow against landlordism. People are part of a living, growing landscape. Senators familiar with my record in planning will be aware that I do not support any form of what I and most others would regard as uncontrolled planning or development. I would not support trampling over the landscape, particularly where there are delicate flora of fauna to be conserved. Interpretative centres allow for controlled access to landscape.
Last week a group from Wicklow County Council visited regional parks in the Gironde area of France where the interpretative centres are in the middle of the parks. Interpretative centres can be used as a key element in the strategy to inform and educate the public about the importance of conservation. This is an important message which comes from interpretative centres in other European countries, particularly in France where interpretative centres and the interpretation of landscape and the environment is part of the school curriculum, particularly the first level school curriculum. The education is carried out through the centres. The centres are important economically and can also be important from the point of view of conservation. In interpretative centres, the public can be given an experience of elements of our natural or cultural heritage conveying the importance of this heritage and, most importantly, communicating the conditions necessary for this heritage to survive for other generations to see, experience and enjoy. This positive aspect of interpretative centres is one which is not often heard, such has been the success of the propaganda campaign of those who take an absolute blanket opposition.
I hope the new Bill will allow for more openness and less distorted debate. I hope that will be the case but I will not hold my breath. One of the unfortunate features of all debates in Ireland seems to be that we savage each other. There is no doubt that many of the people who were opposed to the Luggala centre were sincere people. I met them, listened to them and sometimes agreed to differ from them. Unfortunately there was a powerful well-heeled few who were not operating in the wider public interest and it would be interesting to find out what secret agenda one or two of them had.
There is much to welcome in the new Bill. I welcome the new provisions on future consultation. I hope that consultation will be pure consultation. I do not know what one Senator meant earlier when he referred to broadening the process of decision-making. I do not know how the community can make the decision. I know how the community can be involved in the decision and how the right of the community to be involved in a decision can be abused by a few for their own devices. I hope that opponents will avail of the consultation arrangements being put in place with regard to the two most controversial centres and that they will avail of these consultation processes rather than do as they have threatened and simply be destructive. The widest possible consultation should be part of the planning process. I suggest to the Minister that when, at the end of all of this he looks at the planning process, he should consider turning the tide back from bureaucratisation to the democratisation of planning. If the people do not like planning decisions, at least then they would have a way of registering dislike.
As a principle I believe in transparency in how the State carries out its business. All public bodies — I am on the record as having said this on several occasions — should be subject to the full rigours of planning law. When this issue went to court and the first High Court decision on the Luggala case was published, I expressed some surprise that that was not the direction the finding took. I have always believed in the widest possible consultation in the planning process. I believe in the democratisation of the planning process. A consultation process did take place in County Wicklow regarding the proposed interpretative centre. I was mindful of the great work carried out by the Office of Public Works but was not slow to criticise them when I felt that they were not engaging in sufficient consultation. Consultation allows for an appraisal of all the relevant points of view and for an open debate and examination of various options available. The new consultation process will allow for a greater input by local people in the areas concerned. It is my view that their voices have been singularly ignored.
I would like to conclude on a note of concern. I welcome the new process introduced by this Bill. However, opponents of interpretative centres feel they have scored a victory in recent times. My concern is that, despite the measures this Bill introduces, such people will continue to operate in an absolutist and bloody-minded opposition to all such developments. If that is the case it will be a great tragedy. I would urge them to temper their Luddite views and to take the wider interests of the public in the areas involved into account. These people too have rights; one of those rights is the right to a job — although one Senator has already dismissed that as not really being of any consequence — and a decent livelihood for their families. I would urge those opponents to bear that point in mind also before jumping to conclusions regarding any future developments.
It is a tragedy that this debate has had to take place against a background of acrimony. There is a need to review the planning process and there is a particular need to bring all the institutions of State into that process. The Bill is welcome because it takes a step in that direction, and I hope the debate from here on in will be a little more informed than in the past.
I had not intended to speak on this Bill because I have spoken on this issue in the House and in other fora but the presence and speech of Senator Roche, as so often happens, has prompted me to my feet.
Inspirationally.
It is not inspirational, it is mostly oppositional. While I respect Senator Roche's balanced record on the county council about planning, buildings and section 4 — it is certainly far more balanced than my own — I do not believe his speech this evening took the right tone or the right attitude to the interpretative centres. It is a pity that many of those who are positive supporters of interpretative centres consistently take it upon themselves to attack those who are opponents, and to attack them in a personalised and not a constructive way. That is particularly true in Wicklow.
I do not question their bona fides, but it has been one of the tactics of those who support interpretative centres to attack the bona fides of the opposition, referring to them in a rather derogatory and discrediting manner as being well-heeled and self-appointed, which unfortunately casts aspersions on their motives. I should tell Senator Roche that in the context of the Luggala interpretative centre, I do not believe that is true. While there may be certain people who are well heeled, self-appointed and non-democratically elected who have been very vocal in their opposition to Luggala, there are many people who are neither well heeled nor self-appointed and are opposed to Luggala. I could name many members of Senator Roche's own party who are opposed to Luggala and are still within the party. These are people who are hard working in the area of Roundwood village and by no means fit into the categories the Senator has described. It is unfortunate to confuse the argument with the people and to identify with one or two high profile people and then brand everybody as being in that category.
I take Senator Roche's point about consultation. However, I have to say — and he will have to accept my bona fides on this — that when I was elected to Wicklow County Council this serious controversy was brewing but had not yet taken off. Without including any loaded questions, I circulated everyone on the electoral register in Roundwood with a questionnaire about their attitudes to the interpretative centre. I had not made up my mind at the time and did not make my opinions known on the issue. Having sent out between 350 and 450 questionnaires, I got only 120 replies but they ran strongly counter to the centre. Even though this was not a scientific poll, it gave an indication that there was strong opposition in the village of Roundwood to building the Luggala interpretative centre and that that opposition was willing to express itself. That interpretation is open to the accusation that only people opposed to the centre respond to polls of that sort — and I take that point — but it is also indicative of the fact that there is a large number of people who are opposed to it. I would suggest that a majority is opposed to it. I cannot prove it nor can the proponents of Luggala prove the opposite.
In the context of Luggala it should also be said that there are many democratically elected representatives on Wicklow County Council opposed to Luggala. We have never, as far as I know, had an open vote on the issue because that is not the way the council works, but we did have an open vote on whether to delay it until we got the Phillips report. That was a tied vote which, I think — and Senator Roche can correct me — was ten or 11 all, and the chairman cast his vote with those opposed to Luggala.
A slight correction there. Of those who wanted it delayed, I was one who voted for the delay.
That is correct. But it is not known in certain cases how people stand on the substantive issue, although many voted in favour of delay. It would be a fair assumption that a number of them would be against the centre and many of them have already given such commitments.
I do not think it is fair to portray this opposition as unrepresentative of the people of the area or of the people of Wicklow. There is a widespread division of opinion on this question which has been debated in many fora and it goes from the well helled to those who are not well heeled at all. There is no way one can portray it as an élitist issue, it is not.
Unfortunately, people forget that the argument about Luggala, and to some extent Mullaghmore, is not that those of us who have opposed it are opposed to interpretative centres fullstop; it is that we are opposed to the actual locations proposed. That is particularly true in Roundwood where many of the opposition have proposed, on several occasions, that the interpretative centre be relocated in Roundwood village. The reason is that people feel that in the middle of that beautiful, wild Wicklow countryside, it would have a spoiling effect and would harm the environment even if only visually, but if it were located in Roundwood village it would not have that effect. People could learn the same things and interpret the scenery in as beneficial a way by going to an interpretative centre in the village than on the landscape itself.
There is a great deal of support for that argument which would resolve the employment issue which is constantly being thrown at those opposed to the centre. The employment issue is probably a red herring because I have not come across anybody in Wicklow who is opposed to interpretative centres full stop. I have come across many people who worry about the location, but I have not come across any argument why there would be more people employed at Luggala than there would be if the centre was located in Roundwood village. There might even be more employment if the latter option was followed.
A constructive suggestion made in Wicklow has been ignored. The Farm and Landowners Association suggested smaller interpretative centres be built all around County Wicklow at less sensitive locations. That would make sense. It suggested that a total of four or five centres be established in Blessington, Enniskerry, the south and west of the county. The landscape would not be spoiled in any way but the whole of County Wicklow would be open to this sort of interpretation. Not only that, but a great deal more employment would be created than if we had one large interpretative centre in a most sensitive area. Unfortunately that has not been acted upon or adopted by many county councillors but it was an alternative constructive suggestion. It indicates once again that those opposed to the Luggala interpretative centre are not opposed to interpretative centres in a blanket fashion. That myth should be dispelled.
One unfortunate consequence of this argument is the harmful tarnishing nationally of the image of the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works, as Senators will know, is responsible for the magnificent ceiling in this Chamber. This work would be of great credit to any person or any organisation, especially any State organisation, anywhere in the world. It is a wonderful monument to the kind of work the Office of Public Works can do. As a result of the Mullaghmore and Luggala controversies that Office has, to a large extent, been branded as philistine, draconian and bullying. People have lost sight of the fact that the Office of Public Works have done magnificent work throughout Ireland, particularly in this Chamber. The damage has been done and it will take a long time for the Office of Public Works to recover.
It is dangerous to be too naive about the consultative process which took place and that will be introduced in this Bill. I must say the following about the previous consultative process without being unpleasant. When I spoke to people in the Office of Public Works about Luggala I felt they had closed minds; they were arrogant and unhelpful. They were going through public relations procedures they felt they had to follow but there was no question of their changing their minds about the location of Luggala for an interpretative centre. The impression was that consultation was being carried out for cosmetic reasons. There is little if any evidence the Office of Public Works accepted any suggestions or objections made by those involved in the Luggala consultations.
The round of consultations promised in this Bill will not affect the principal decisions of the Government to go ahead with these centres or to apply for planning permission. I distrust officials who say they will hold the widest possible consultations because that is normally camouflage for the fact that decisions have already been made but the impression must be given that they have not, that the officials are being reasonable and that they will take others' views into account. I have yet to see evidence of consultations with Government making any difference to a substantive decision of this sort.
I rose to counter the impression that might have been given by Senator Roche's contribution. He seemed to imply that those opposed to this centre were not local, were not typical and were exclusively well heeled. That is not the case.
I want to pay tribute to the Office of Public Works who have done a considerable amount of work over the years. In recent years it has helped present aspects of our environment, history and culture in an organised and modern fashion. The Office has done a great deal of good work. I have been to Glenveagh, Letterfrack and other centres where it has successfully provided interpretative centres, information centres or visitors' centres, whatever one chooses to call them.
It was inevitable that the present problems would have arisen. People have questioned and invoked the planning laws from which State authorities were previously exempt. As public representatives we know planning is always a contentious and emotive issue. If one is in favour of a controversial development those opposing it may accuse one of taking that stand for the wrong reasons. People get annoyed about planning issues, accusations are made and emotions run high.
In my area an interpretative centre is almost completed. It is known as a visitors' centre, whatever implications that title may have. It is set in a bog. The old bog road could not be exposed without damaging the oak supports. In that case it was essential not to disturb the old road and the Office of Public Works had no choice but to develop the visitors' centre and viewing area on the bog site.
The buildings may break the landscape but there have been no objections in the area. Local people see it as an attraction in a county not known for its tourist centres. Combined with other projects, a development like this can draw tourists. Major interest in these areas has been shown across Europe. An awareness is emerging of the Celtic influence in Ireland and all over the continent; people are now following the trails and seeing the influence the Celts had in various countries. The oak road in Longford is connected with that era. It is a major step in preservation which will benefit tourism. I respect the Office of Public Works for its efforts on that project.
"Roaring free as a breeze, I can go where I please". The tradition of this House is unaltered since I was a Senator in that whatever legislation is introduced, no matter how technical, there is an opportunity to debate wider issues. Although it is my third day in sequence on this Bill, between my work in the Dáil and my attendance here, I have found the debate refreshing, even if not corralled within the confines of the Bill. The debate has epitomised the view that planning should attract a diversity of interest.
Regarding the interpretative centres, the tone of the debate may occasionally have exacerbated the national debate on this issue. It is important that the correct tone is established because when discussing consultation the matter of reconciling differences arises, to the extent that such reconciliation is possible.
It is also important that planning be developmental, positive and inspirational. Sometimes that means proceeding with projects, sometimes it means changing, altering, reducing and enlarging projects and sometimes it means not proceeding.
In approaching these problems consideration must be given to the way in which the environment is shaped. Important contributions were made in both Houses on the issue of the changing landscape. Deputy McGrath referred to the peatlands and described how the country was once very wooded. There were other contributions on forestry which I will address.
Since 1990, when the Government implemented an EC Directive on impact assessment, all afforestation developments exceeding 200 hectares have to meet the full rigours of planning control. In addition, the applications for grants are husbanded by the Department of Agriculture to ensure that the architectural heritage, fisheries and other landscape matters are catered for. If more controls are required I will not hesitate to introduce them.
In comparison with every other country in Europe, Ireland has a very low percentage of land covered by trees, notwithstanding the importance of trees to the landscape and the environment. In selling the message about growing more trees it is important to emphasise their importance. This applies not only to conifers but also to the broad leaf species. The Government has introduced significant grants to encourage people to grow more of these species. The planting of broad-leaves will alter the skyline for perhaps half of the year and that is acceptable. It is more difficult to attain the correct balance with conifers. It should be possible to ensure that the view is changed in an undulating way.
I am dealing with this issue in this way as I do not want to have to introduce a rigorous planning system. We must encourage investment in afforestation generally, not only in the context of employment growth but also in the long term. A generation that invests in broad-leaf afforestation is not thinking solely of the present. This is an investment for future generations which they will enjoy because of decisions made today.
Because of oppression and landlordism in the past, some people have a negative attitude to trees. It is therefore important to cultivate the notion of tree planting, as is done along the national primary roads, and by the excellent work being undertaken by the Parks Committee in Dublin, which is being emulated in other parts of the country.
I thank all those contributors who praised the Office of Public Works. The country has experiences of their excellent work, from Donegal to Kerry, through the midlands and here in Dublin. These works on parks, interpretative centres, and on the conservation, restoration, and refurbishment of beautiful buildings continue to inspire people and give an opportunity for the architecture of the country to be functional and admired by ourselves and visitors from abroad.
However, there are always new challenges and there have been criticisms of the Office of Public Works. Senator Farrelly submitted a number of questions, one of which related to a roadway in Dunboyne where a number of local people are opposing a development. These are the sorts of problems which the consultative process sets out to deal with. I hope the next few months will be fruitful and we all, on every side of this divide, learn some important lessons. It is crucially important as we grow to know more about our environment that we do not waste time. We must learn from any mistakes made in the past so that we interpret better the public mood. If there are irreconcilable differences, decisions will have to be taken and we will move on to a new experience.
Senator Cosgrave and many other contributors dealt with the need for balance in planning. He rightly said that not all planners are experts. One could also say that not all public representatives are experts. There is a growing need to have a more sensible approach which takes account of the consultative process and the desire for involvement by the public in what is happening in their own areas. This is not to be misinterpreted as supporting all kinds of objections. Senator O'Toole dealt with this very well. Very often there is the notion that if one is well accommodated one has the right to prevent other development from taking place close to one's home. It is important that we keep the correct balance. I hope to have discussions with planning authorities so that we can have consistent guidelines. This does not have to mean that the same types of decisions have to be made throughout Ireland. It is possible to accommodate different types of decisions but there should be a perceptible understanding that there is a broad consistency in the way we do things, that it is fair, open, transparent and that people are invited to be involved.
When Minister responsible for science and technology I visited a young engineering company to award them a quality ISO 9000 accreditation. I noticed during a walk through that factory a most fantastic piece of engineering equipment. I asked where it came from and was told that the company designed it themselves. At one stage their best competitors were the Dutch and it took seven hours to produce a unit of their product. The company have now reduced this production time to four minutes. One of their engineers designed it, based on an idea given to him by one of the men working on the floor. I never forgot this. We underestimate public contributions and we sometimes overestimate academic, technical or even political contributions. Ordinary people who are a part of the anatomy of the system have ideas which are sometimes frustrated and not listened to. We want to be more open to such ideas.
Fundamental to our planning system is the right to object. I looked at planning systems in different parts of Europe and am very happy that third party appeals in Ireland are perfectly acceptable and legitimate and have a statutory foundation. This is not possible in other countries. The right to object is fundamental. Even if I disagree strongly with someone else I am perfectly happy to say that I can be proved wrong. I have changed my views over the last 20 years on many issues. I am happy to listen to another view.
To answer Senator O'Sullivan's point on frivolous objections, Bord Pleanála has the legal power to dismiss an objection which they consider to be frivolous or which has no foundation and is only a tactic to delay development.
Senator Finneran was worried about copy book planners. I do not know what his personal experience in this area might be but I am satisfied that there is room for ensuring that elected representatives and the executive find greater accommodation in the way things are done. It cannot be good for democracy if the people who have the executive functions are going in a different direction from the elected members. I am not saying that the Senator is right or wrong but it cannot be good for Ireland or good for the system if the people who are permanently employed to carry out an executive function are going in a different direction from those elected by the people. I have to work towards finding solutions to some of these more complicated problems. I understand that the Senator's area is close to being the fastest growing area for trees in the country. Those teething problems need to be dealt with and I will certainly look at the matter.
I dealt already with some of the points raised by Senator O' Toole. His greatest concern may be better dealt with in the context of the provisions of this Bill where the consultative process is involved. The first requirement of good consultation is not that we talk to each other but that we all understand what is involved so that the final decision is based on perfectly sound and solid foundations which are properly understood.
Public accountability and public information systems were also welcomed by Senator Gallagher. She was anxious about the limited category of exemptions and called for my vigilance. Many Senators were quite complimentary and trusting of me in this area. While I appreciate this, I well understand my own limitations. I have tried to make sure that there is no additional power in the Bill which will leave the door open for the making of any decisions which we may regret in the future. This is why I accepted in the Dáil the amendments to which Senator Dardis referred. In relation to the original section 3 which was deleted and the additional residual powers which were removed, there is some risk in taking out what I may have been legally advised to include but I am quite prepared to take that risk on the basis that the limitations and exemptions in the Bill are such that they achieve only what I intend.
I will look at the toxic waste recycling plant to which Senator Farrelly referred. I do not know the up-to-date position on it. Certain steps are being taken by the local authority, but I need to be more familiar with it before I deal with that point. Later on in the year there will be a national forum and conference on waste management. This is an area which I am interested in and which I must confront. Public debate is an important way to ensure that we acknowledge the problems, understand the solutions and are prepared to make the necessary choices.
Senator Daly made a passionate plea for the Mullaghmore interpretative centre. We would prefer if the names of prominent people on the opposite side of the argument were not mentioned. I know Dr. Emer Colleran and I have disagreed and agreed with her over the years. This will probably be the position in the future. Éamon de Buitléar served in this House and he has, as Senator Henry said, brought an understanding of wildlife and beauty into our homes in a unique way. This epitomises a great love for the work which he does.
Senator Henry referred to major landscape changes. We must always be careful about plans which could lead to such changes. The landscape will keep changing, but we must master that change. The forces at work now are different from those in the past. For example, developments in transport, roads and new technologies must be addressed. Although the Newbridge bypass will allow Senator Taylor-Quinn to return to County Clare more quickly to fight for her seat in the other House, she is happy to stay on the old road. I will salute the Senator as I pass her at 70 miles an hour on the new road while travelling to my constituency for a half day each weekend.
That is fine. Long may the Minister reign in his State car.
Senator Dardis tried to involve me in an argument about Kill dump. I will not allow that to happen this afternoon.
That is a sensible decision.
Perhaps the reason for this decision is my own naivety. Senator Taylor-Quinn distrusts the way I handle situations.
I expressed trust in the Minister. I was worried about his successors.
The Senator was nervous about the exemptions and anxious that the local authorities should have imposed upon them the full rigours of the planning code. It is not sensible for the local authority to apply to itself.
I did not suggest that.
Neither is it sensible to conduct planning development or development at local authority level without making changes. This Bill proposes that the local authority will publish a proposed development so that the local people may have their say. They will then look for submissions, prepare a report and finally the democratically elected members in County Clare, whom Senator Taylor-Quinn does not want to trust in this situation——
I trust them.
——will decide whether to go ahead with that decision or not. The project may relate to housing developments, sites for itinerants or whatever. It will be decided at local level. There is a provision which allows for a specialised person, either An Bord Pleanála or myself, to arbitrate in a dispute or difficulty. The latter would not be Senator Taylor-Quinn's choice.
We trust the Minister. On a point of order, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, I must clarify the position for the Minister. I stated that I trusted the Minister because he understands local authorities. However, his successors may be different and I may not trust them.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a point of order, Senator.
I wanted to clarify the position for the House.
That is more appropriate for Committee Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister, without interruption.
I welcome the vote of confidence——
I would hate the Minister to think I did not trust him.
——by Senator Taylor-Quinn. I hope I have an opportunity to fulfil the ambitious programme she has laid out for me.
During the debate fundamental issues were dealt with. The main consideration is to make the planning system more open and effective. It is important to resolve the difficulties regarding the interpretative centres and examine the processes which caused those difficulties. I assure the House that the decision by the Government on the consultation process is open and genuine. We do not want to continue with a pointless debate. We want to see a solution to this matter which reconciles the conflicting elements and allows use to proceed.
Two contributions were made from the garden of Ireland. Some 17 per cent of this country is covered by trees. It is a pity that those shimmering leaves——
That is pure poetry, Minister.
——could not descend upon my two colleagues and bring them together in a way which would give me confidence that the consultative process, which I am providing, will succeed.
It would be a great union.
Every garden has its pests.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must ask that the Minister be allowed to conclude, without interruption.
It is a pity that these two diametrically opposed contributions epitomise the differences and the problems which are ahead. Both Senator Ross and Senator Roche have strong views. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate. I was extremely happy with the effort which was made to bring the different and wide-ranging planning matters together in a harmonious way. The tone of the debate gives us confidence that we can make the changes which are provided for in this legislation and that they can be carried through the transitional period with the help of public involvement. If this Bill produces that effect when enacted, I will be happy that our efforts in the Department of the Environment complemented the work which Senators did.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Crowley, Brain.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Henry, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Magner, Pat.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Roche, Dick.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wright, G.V.
Níl
- Belton, Louis J.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dardis, John.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Mullooly and Magner; Níl, Senators Cosgrave and Neville.
Question declared carried.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.