Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

The average number of such votes was probably 15, although it reached 30 on occasion. It was almost like a system of carbon credits with people owing each other support on section 4 votes. Members from one side of the county would vote for something on the basis that they had credit from another councillor in another part of the county. That was disgraceful. I do not have time today to go into why the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 was originally introduced. At the time of its introduction there was a fundamental confusion in the Irish psyche as to the absolute rights of ownership. If one owed something the assumption was that one did what one liked with it. After all, there had been hundreds of years of foreign landlordism and so on. The 1963 Act sought to address that. During the irresponsible section 4 period in the mid-1970s to which I referred, I was, together with Michael Bannon, also a member of the Regional Studies Association which was trying to make the case for regional planning. I am in favour of effective regional planning rather than the cosmetic regionalism which stands today as a substitute for it.

As we discuss planning in 2010, we must acknowledge the growing acceptance internationally that we should be concerned about inter-generational justice. If there is one development that is taking place at a general level it is that the thinking in regard to the morality of politics is such, be it in terms of climate change, war and peace, world poverty, the elimination of disease and so on, that those of us who have the benefit of being elected politically should be interested in the consequences of our actions past an election period. Moreover, the Executive should be concerned, whether in respect of heritage, planning and so on, about the consequences of taking an irreversible decision. A failure to consider the consequences of such decisions is evident in the case of the Corrib gas field, the development at Tara and many other areas. The consequences have been quite disastrous.

That failure to consider the consequences of our actions is the reason we have a broken discourse on planning issues. What we have instead are pools of suspicion. I and colleagues in the Dáil received letters urging us to come together to express our support for the Shell development in Mayo. That was outrageous. It is entirely inappropriate that we seek to influence that type of planning decision. The particular way in which planning was handled in that case was in itself scandalous. The developers, having had their application refused, took part in a meeting with the then Taoiseach and other members of the Government which in turn led to the presentation to An Bord Pleanála on 19 September 2003 of what was referred to as the "case for indigenous gas". The chairman of that meeting pointed out that there could not be a presentation on the basis of a particular application, so we had a presentation on the case for indigenous gas.

It was remarkably similar to the letter I received pointing out how essential this development was and why all politicians should come out in favour of it before the decision was made. At a meeting attended by 800 people, including some who are still Members of the House on the Fianna Fáil side, it was proposed that a fresh application be submitted. And on it went. On 17 December 2003 Shell resubmitted its planning application to Mayo County Council and new submissions were made. On 30 April 2004 the council granted planning permission in response to which residents appealed to the Planning Appeals Board. However, on 23 October 2004, the board delivered a unanimous decision to approve planning permission.

I was a Member of the Seanad when Justin Keating announced there would be three guiding principles in respect of any such development: first, the State acting for the people as owners of the resources should be paid for those resources; second, companies engaging in offshore development on the Irish continental shelf should be subject to Irish taxation and, third, since the resources are public property, the State must have the right to participate in their exploitation.

Those principles were later overthrown. Irrespective of whether one agreed with them, at least they addressed the public interest. I will remind the House of the alternative that was introduced after the principles were reversed in the case I have mentioned. When the initial application was refused, representatives of the main developing company met the Taoiseach and a Minister. A letter was sent to public representatives in the region inviting us to a public meeting, but I refused to attend. A new decision was reached and we have had chaos since then. Regardless of whether one was for or against the proposal in question, it was not the best way to develop resources.

See this speech in context