Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I am well aware that there can be petty jealousies in the engineering profession at times. I have been proposing since 1974 that a city architect be appointed in Galway city. I nearly secured such an appointment at one time, until someone said that a senior engineering post would have to be lost. One could have an architect buried in the planning department. I know what an architect is and I know what an engineer is. One could have an architect in the planning department who is responsible to someone else, but one could not have a city architect who is responsible for examining the shape of the city. The proposals in this Bill relate to similar forms of planning. I would like attention to be paid to An Bord Pleanála's new and accelerated powers in the response that is made at the end of this debate. For example, some of the powers of the former harbour authorities are to be divested through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to An Bord Pleanála.

The many references to regional planning in this Bill are very laudable. The legislation makes interesting reference to transport. CIE is the statutory authority with responsibility for public transport in the Galway area. It has made a proposal in respect of a major site that it owns. It is one of the largest sites in a European city, proportionately, in terms of acres. CIE has not carried out any study of current or future transport needs in the region. In effect, it has gone out to tender for the development of the site, less than 15% of which will be retained for public transport uses. It proposes to sweat the site for the cost of making a few minor amendments to public transport. Not one penny of the cost of this development in Galway city will be met from Transport 21. The local newspapers, which are too lazy to investigate the matter properly, have referred to CIE's €1 billion plan for a high-rise residential and retail development. As CIE could not get permission to knock a little stone building, it now regards it as a community shed to be used for artistic purposes.

The next large development in Galway is likely to take place at Galway Port, which is down by the side of the major CIE site. The local authority will wait for the details of the two development projects to come in from the developers before asking them to bear in mind the strategic elements of its city development plan. The point is that this Bill refers to local area plans — I know what they are — but does not make the local authority responsible for producing a master plan when development areas are adjacent to each other. Very fine proposals have been made in respect of Galway Port, for example, involving the reclamation of a considerable portion of land from the sea. In his concluding response, perhaps the Minister will tell the House who owns that land. I understand the port company proposes to dispose of its inner land to finance this proposal, as it is entitled to do. In fairness, it has shown its proposals, which involve the arrival of cruise liners, etc., to Galway City Council. That is in contrast with CIE, which has received three invitations to come to the city council. The manager has said that CIE has not refused to come — it just simply has not come.

That might all seem very particular, but it relates to the fundamental points I am making. Where is the commitment to the Aarhus Convention? Why do we have to offer deposits if we wish to offer an opinion on, or make an objection to, a particular plan? Where is the connection between the different projects that have come in together? A strategic master plan is required in such circumstances. What was the record of An Bord Pleanála when it came under political pressure at the very top? The other point I have made relates to quiet compliance. It is scandalous that so many elected representatives do it. I have spoken about the suggestion that all this stuff about birds and snails is a pain in the neck, and that real people just get on with it.

They did get on with it by building tens of thousands of houses. They built townhouses in villages in counties Roscommon and Leitrim and similar places. As one drives past them, one can see the place for the crèche and outside tubs were to be constructed in Ballydehob. What caused all this and which parties facilitated it? Some Members of this House have been weeping tears for the recent floods but who themselves wrote in favour of planning permissions for houses to be built on flood plains. I distinctly remember, for example, having opposed the building of houses on a flood plain in Oranmore, County Galway, being accused of being against development. I refer to the thick, ignorant, red-necked "do not hold me back" culture of which the construction industry, in fairness to it, was not part. I know many people in the construction industry and I respect those who build and design houses and who put block upon block. They were not the people who brought us to our present position. That was done by the people who speculated on the land, which went from 15% of the price of the finished product 15 years ago to 50% in the so-called boom times. Such people did not dirty their hands, handle a trowel or lift a hod. They were a small number of chancers who could run the little gambling club that was Anglo Irish Bank. I suppose everyone now is supposed to grieve for them in case they are obliged to run abroad. What a group they were and what a legacy they have left behind.

As Members go through this legislation, I wish to be entirely fair to it. I agree with some aspects of it, including, for example, some of the adjustments of local plans to regional strategies. I also welcome what must be done in respect of anticipating the future consequences of climate change. The last point I wish to make pertains to the new intellectual drift in respect of planning that Ireland needs a new North-South corridor, that is, a second eastern corridor. This view has been proposed by the Dublin Institute of Technology, for example, and is in complete contradiction of the Atlantic way proposals that have obtained heretofore. This constitutes poor planning, poor scholarship and bad methodology in the manner in which it was put together. I refer to the urban diseconomies that were experienced in the cities and which drove people out into counties Kildare, Meath and so forth and note that such people must now commute back from their houses in negative equity with all the consequences of being on the road and so forth. On the other side of such urban diseconomies lay the neglected infrastructure in all the towns and rural areas in which development could have taken place. Schools were closing for the lack of pupils while at the same time, there were shortages of schools in the areas in which urban diseconomies had been allowed.

It is time for all Members to make a commitment to planning and to staffing properly planning officers. This should be done instead of reducing An Bord Pleanála's planning quorum from three people to two in an effort to speed up its throughput. Were anyone in Europe or elsewhere in the world to read this, they would be laughing for a month. One must staff and resource planning properly and while politicians can become involved in planning if they so wish, they should not contaminate it in the manner I have just outlined.

See this speech in context