In the Seanad on 7 March 2006, on the 2nd Stage of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill 2006, I said:

Let us call a spade a spade. I have no doubt that the Bill represents a curtailment of democratic rights that we have enjoyed in the planning process for the best part of 40 years. At a stroke, it removes an entire layer from the existing process of securing planning permission for a project. It also removes the local element of the planning process completely, the principle that all projects are examined by the relevant local authority before being considered on appeal by the national body. I hope the Government, which shares its predecessors? habit of spinning everything, will not obscure those facts.

The issue is not that we are curtailing democratic rights, since that goes without saying, but whether such a curtailment is necessary in the national interest. The Minister will argue that it is such. If so, we must face the fact that we are treading on ground many consider sacred. That should not prevent us from doing so if it is the right thing. However, we should acknowledge the seriousness of the issues.

If we are grown up about this, we should admit that people never like to have removed from them something to which they have grown used. We once understandably criticised the Unionists for their slogan ?What we have, we hold?. The truth is that the attitude in question is a natural and human reaction to a situation that is all too common.

I remember when my company introduced loyalty cards. Their great benefit is that one can identify good customers and their habits. There is a great temptation to give very good customers gold cards, not so good customers silver cards, and others bronze ones. I experienced that with British Airways many years ago. One year when I did a great deal of flying, I ended up with a gold card and was very pleased with myself. The trouble was that the following year, having been demoted, I did not get a gold one. I felt annoyed at the airline.

That is the difficulty whenever we have had something for a while and it is taken from us. We must strike a balance and decide whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. The lesson I learned was to be careful about removing things from people. If one gives something, one must consider the possibility that one may wish to take it away at some point, rowing back on that generosity. If the down side of taking away what one has given people outweighs the up side of giving it in the first place, one must think long and hard before deciding what one wishes to do.

The Government?s dilemma in the case before us is that no one foresaw in the 1960s, when the planning process was first created, that we might ever need to row back on it. At the time, it made perfect sense to build the scheme on two pillars, the first being a local application process, and the second a national appeals procedure. In practice, over the last 40 years, the two-pillar approach has seemed to fit the bill a great deal of the time. Over that period, some have come to view the two pillars as inflexible and immovable features.

I expect that the Bill will run into strong opposition. People who object to the change will see it as an attempt by an impatient Government to short-circuit democracy. Many will view it as the second part of a two-pronged attack by the Government on the whole planning process. The first prong of the attack was the National Monuments Act 2004, which moved the goalposts on environmental matters right out of the arena and locked them up in a place where no one but the Government could reach them.

Consequently, how should Members consider this Bill? Should they pay attention to these objections and refuse the Government the leave which it seeks to abridge our democratic rights regarding planning? Instead, should Members admit that the national interest demands the abridgement of those rights, if the range of necessary infrastructural projects are to be delivered within a reasonable timeframe?

In this context, one should consider the length of time it takes to get through that planning process. In respect of many such infrastructural projects, it has been interesting to note that in recent years, having eventually passed through the planning stages, they were put out to competitive tender and were completed ahead of schedule and within budget. While I am impressed by the speed with which things can be done once all red tape has been removed, its removal appears to interfere with the democratic rights to which we have become accustomed.

In support of this second approach, the Government argues that the present system creates unnecessary delays which present a barrier to our catching up in respect of infrastructural development, as we clearly need to do. It asserts there is a need to balance the thirst for democracy with the need to get things done.

In addition, it points to another problem regarding the present manner in which we balance the planning process between local and national bodies. This arises from the NIMBY, not in my backyard, principle, whereby no one wants anything which is even vaguely detrimental to take place in their own backyard. I understand that the Minister has had some experience in this respect, given the criticism he has received. This natural desire undermines the entire local focus of the planning process because it means that no local body will ever approve a controversial project. It will almost always allow such a project to be imposed on it by the national body and the local authority?s members will then assert that nothing could be done, as the decision was taken from their hands. This assumes that the national body in question could gather the support to so do.

On which side of this argument should Members come down? While this a very difficult decision, when all matters are taken into account, the balance of the argument goes to the Government. Therefore, I am prepared to support this Bill, although I do so while regarding it as a necessary evil.

I also support it on the questionable assumption that it will deliver what it promises. In that regard, the omens are not good, as the fact it has taken so many years to introduce this Bill should lead Members to question the depth of the Government?s commitment on the delay issue.

Another point that might lead Members to doubt whether this Bill will deliver on its promises stems from its introduction by a Government which has consistently, the longer it remains in power, sought to close down criticism of how it operates and has sought ways to provide itself with the easiest possible ride. This is not an unfair comment because traditionally, when Governments remain in power for a long time, this tends to happen.

Given these reasons, I foresee that the efforts of those who oppose the infrastructural projects envisaged in this Bill will be redoubled, even within the narrower frame of operation left to them. I would not be overly surprised if, ultimately, this legislation fails to deliver the speeding up of the planning process which is its main justification in the first instance.

I reluctantly support this Bill and wish the Minister the best of luck with it.