Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

Yes. I want to make a small core point. If one says that the achievement of sustainability is an issue for the local authority and that responsibility for new large derelict sites - perhaps due to the collapse of commercial proposals - is a function of the local authority, this raises a resource issue for the local authority. This may appropriately be a matter for another discussion on the environment and planning. I accept that, but I cannot accept the suggestion that it can be achieved as some kind of residual outcome. Many commercial projects have taken advantage of the strategic infrastructure legislation - some have gone past the local authority planning process and gone directly to An Bord Pleanála. Many of them have a very strong commercial component, which may or may not be present. There may be dereliction on a very large site, one that could be used for transport, cultural or development purposes and so forth. The local authority would not have the capacity to develop it. In such a case, the local authority would have originally heard a flawed proposal that was commercially driven, but it now has neither the capacity nor the scope to develop it and may face many legal obstacles in regard to ownership of the site to enable it to do anything. What we are getting is another commercial version to succeed the previous failed one. I have reservations in this respect. I am not pressing the amendment on the basis that substainable development will be addressed in another part of the legislation, but I have to confess my unhappiness about the reference in the amendment to only the social and economic development of State. It is a kind of a cop-out because it suggests that this is a bigger issue beyond the scope of all of us and it will always be beyond the scope of the local authority. That thinking has created havoc in terms of good planning that can be perceived locally, regionally and elsewhere. In many cases if there is social and economic development, one begins with the shortfall in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, cultural and other issues, particularly public transport. I am glad Deputy Fahey is present because he will be as well aware as I am of the distinction between the use of a large site in the ownership of a semi-State body given the statutory responsibility for transport, and the sweating of the site for its commercial yield, with approximately 12% of it being used for public transport. That is a practical example. 12 o'clock

We should use the position we are in, and the new structures, to achieve a dividend for the public. My point to the Minister is that he must show, not only on paper, that he would like to see a social dividend and how it can be achieved and not be defeated by the application of a narrow and arcane definition. We have had this before. People would suggest, for example, that one could state because of global insecurity due to climate change, we cannot do anything locally or nationally. That argument does not run.

See this speech in context