Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

Fair play to the Minister. He makes a fair substitute for the Green wing.

As I was saying when the debate adjourned on Thursday last, it is fashionable nowadays to refer to all development as dubious, possibly corrupt, ill-advised, unwanted and surplus to requirements. However, closer examination shows that this is not true. The market has changed rapidly in the past and will change rapidly again.

I also referred to the quality of development, which has been much criticised in the past throughout the country. In my own constituency of Kildare North, the quality of development over the past 30 years has been excellent. High-quality houses have been built and there is fairly good backup in terms of support and recreational facilities and ancillary services, despite the criticism from all kinds of experts.

The architectural value of some of the more recent developments all over the country leaves much to be desired. I hope that if we learn one lesson, it is that certain types of development are suitable only for tropical climates — namely, those with wood veneers, fascias and soffits. They do not suit this environment at all and turn a horrible colour after a couple of years. They represent bad design, and the problem needs to be addressed.

I have had another worry in recent times. Over the years there has been a clear understanding that Ministers should no longer become involved in planning and development at local level — that they should be completely excluded. This was a good thing. However, I am afraid we are seeing a gradual re-emergence of ministerial interest in all developments, which is often not to the benefit of the developments or the people who reside in them. It would be much better if the people whose statutory duty it was to look after development at local level did so. They should, of course, be accountable.

All county development plans should be examined in the precise local area to which they apply. In other words, the Swords development plan should not be examined in Malahide. Discussion should be in public and there should be no second-hand information — all information should be in the public arena, and then the case can be made. We must remember that it is easy to make a logical case for something that has logic attached to it, but it is not so easy to make a case for something that has no relation to logic and no particular reason for existence other than to confer a benefit on an individual. If we ensured that development plans were always examined in this manner, it would improve the whole planning process. It has never been done as far as I am aware. I spent 20 years as a member of my own local authority and every time I suggested it, nobody would agree to it. It is quite simple — councillors in the local area to which the development plan refers should examine the plan publicly in the local hall or school, and this should be in the relevant area, not the adjacent area or somewhere 25 miles away.

Some issues of concern are not dealt with at all in the Bill. One issue that comes up again and again is the national spatial strategy. This is now being reviewed and we are likely to see a diktat that people cannot build in rural areas. The reason is supposedly that it pollutes the groundwater, but it does not. There is no pollution if the development is carried out properly. There are rumours of further regulations to the effect that there is to be no building at all in rural areas, for two reasons: pollution of groundwater, and economies of scale in the delivery of services. This is all rubbish and does not apply to any country other than this one. It is the result of a notion in somebody's mind that he or she has achieved the ultimate in terms of what is the right thing.

There is a development tradition in this country — a good tradition — that served us well over the years, until experts and clever guys started to get involved, advising everyone else how to do the job. We could refer back to some of the old philosophies in this regard, such as meeting local needs in the local area and providing for development in line with requirements or slightly ahead of them at all times. This would ensure that nobody could collar the market and drive property and land prices up to the extent to which they have been driven up over the past ten years. This is something that should be dealt with in the Act. Now is the time to do it, not some other time.

I am getting tired of expert opinion. Every time I turn on the radio or the television or read a newspaper, I get expert opinions. More often than not, these come from self-appointed experts who consult with some of their colleagues who are equally expert in the same fields. The sad thing about it is that they are not experts, but they usually generate a notion that they are. They assume a superior air that requires that everybody should acquiesce to them and their views. That is not the way things should be, and it is not the way they will be if we do things right.

Let us consider what has happened in the local authorities, many of which are being criticised for failing to do their jobs properly, although I do not accept this. Most of the development plans in the past eight or nine years have been produced by experts. Consultants produce reports and make recommendations to the local authority, whose county manager then issues a report which is either accepted or rejected. It is dangerous for an elected public representative to challenge the experts' views in any way, because they must know what they are talking about. However, I have bad news. Based on my observations of what is happening now, this so-called expert opinion needs to be carefully reviewed.

It must also be reviewed against the backdrop of the elected public representatives. If those elected representatives are wrong or have an opinion that is technically incorrect, it should be explained to them. It is not sufficient, however, for someone to suggest that elected representatives have doubtful motives. No one else's motives are doubted but those of elected representatives are always in doubt even though they are the only people who to go before the public to get elected.

There is an urgent need to bring us back to basics and ensure that when it comes to development, more than one issue is addressed. Recently it was deemed that every development that was flooded was built on a flood plain. Presumably then Ringsend was built on a flood plain, or Donnybrook or any other place that has flooded over the years. Where remedial action was taken, in line with the requests of the local authorities and the elected public representatives, no flooding took place.

It is always grand to be able to blame someone else, for Ministers to be able to stand aloof while criticising those horrible red-neck, hard-nosed councillors in remote areas, who are elected by those terrible people, to come up with a plan to suggest something should be built on a place where no one would have built it. They certainly would not have built it because they would not build anything anywhere anyway. People are starting to ask questions because they are fed up with the condescending sneering that takes place at present. Sneering at local representatives is sneering at the democratic system. There are those who sneer at that system; they think there should be a better system. Several alternative systems were tried and none of them worked; some of them had serious flaws.

We should not encourage long commutes to and from work. That does not exclude, however, people's rights. There is no law in any other country in the world that forbids people from living in certain areas except in Britain. There are certain areas in rural Britain that have no living inhabitants any more. If continued here, it will be detrimental to the community spirit in rural Ireland. The Minister of State knows that.

On one of the few times that I saw a television programme, it featured the Minister of State and other public representatives. Councillors from all parties on that programme expressed themselves well. They knew what they were talking about, a new occurrence because we often hear views expressed by those who claim they know what they are talking about that leave me amazed when I hear them. The councillors were correct about the planning process. They know how it works and their responsibilities.

There is a notion now that if someone supports a development, he is a crook. There was chicanery in the country and it had to be dealt with. There was chicanery in more areas than planning and local authorities. There are many other aspects in society and professions that can ill afford to scoff about this.

It is a pity that we do not have longer to talk about this. All Members who have served on local authorities, and the House would benefit if they could still do that, know that local authorities now tend to treat Oireachtas Members as dangerous observers and intruders in their areas. It is not good that things should be that way.

See this speech in context