Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted the principle of including social and economic development. Last evening we discussed the relevance of the word "sustainable". I will not delay too much on that except to say that as we finished our deliberations the definition of sustainable was not the usual one. The Minister was inclined to present it as something permanent. I do not define sustainability in those terms but according to the usage in common parlance of environmental and social development. The acceptance of the word "social", however, changes matters. We attempted to broaden the board to take these issues into account which the Minister also accepts.

There is a reason to include the word "cultural" too because there is a cultural deficit in the infrastructure of so many places where there are elaborate plans that will not proceed. For example, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Power, is aware of the vast project lying abandoned in Limerick city.

We are listening to two logics that could collide. There is the beneficial owner who enjoys planning permission and there may be pressure on the special purpose vehicle to sweat the site to yield the maximum commercial result. This is not necessarily compatible with the broader issue that in the present circumstances we should reconfigure our thinking to deliver a social and economic dividend where the word social includes cultural development. That has the immense advantage that it maximises public acceptability. The public is taking the grief of the guarantee but it has been told that there would be a social dividend. Being able to say that the dividend will be delivered is very important. Examples are useful to demonstrate this. An example arises in the ownership of the commercial arm of CIE where a site can be looked at in one way as having to yield a certain figure. This, however, may be totally incompatible with integrated planning for transport or sustainable development for social and economic urban planning. How does the Minister propose to give security to the concept he has accepted? Does he see it as being privileged where it is necessary even though it may be at the cost of a yield from an asset's value?

See this speech in context