Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

First, on the regional development amendments which I believe were championed by Deputy Deasy, and which the Government appears to have taken on board, I believe he is absolutely right. Far too often in Irish politics, in my observation, there has been a city against country, or rural against urban, fake war or fake debate which is sometimes used cynically by politicians on either side of the supposed rural-urban divide to play people off against one another. Sadly, some politicians on the left - not our bit of the left but other bits - have gone along with that, rather pathetically in my opinion, in a cheap effort to buy votes in urban areas. They will point the finger at the people in the rural areas and say they are getting everything, while politicians in the rural areas point the finger point back and say they are getting it all in the cities. It is a cheap political game, but when one actually looks at the issue seriously, one can see we need balanced regional development. I have no doubt Deputy Deasy's motives are honourable ones and involve looking at the issue seriously. As a Dublin Deputy, I am deeply worried about the over-centralisation of everything in Dublin, which is not good. It is not just bad for the countryside; it is bad for Dublin. It produces a whole series of ills and evils, one of which is the craziness we are seeing in the property market again, which produces issues like the housing crisis because everything gets centralised in one place.

Of course, this is the way the market works. The people with the big money, like lemmings, chase each other to where they think they can make the most money, regardless of the wider interests of society, the economy and balanced development - not just at a regional level but balanced development in every sense of the word - and regardless of the need to make sure that investment is directed and planned in such a way as to have a sustainable, cohesive and balanced economy and society. Of course, the big difference between the big money people and the lemming is that when the lemming charges over the cliff, it is the lemming that goes over the cliff, but with the big money people, it is we who go over the cliff, and the big money people win every time. I believe, therefore, that these amendments point towards the need not to have profit and the bottom line as the main, or only, criteria in deciding where investment goes. The starting point of the strategic investment fund should be a recognition of market failure and of the market's lack of concern with balanced development and with strategic priorities from the point of view of society and the economy as a whole. Whether it is in ensuring we have balanced regional development or the necessary infrastructure we need to make a society work properly, such as social housing, that is what the strategic investment fund should be about. That emphasis on regional development is critically important. It is good that the Government has acknowledged that point and added an amendment to that effect. However, what I do not understand is why, if the Government sees a need for that, it does it not wish to spell out the need for balance in other areas, such as housing and critical infrastructure. I just do not understand it. Is it because the Government is sensitive to the accusation that it is deserting its rural base and, therefore, it feels it has to include this, but there is less concern when it comes to other areas where balance and planning, to use an old-fashioned word, are needed? We need planning in investment because the market is not interested in rational planning; it is only interested in charging after the dollar, with the consequence of over-investment in one area, whether geographic or sectoral, and under-investment in other areas, whether geographic or sectoral. That is the problem. I fear that while the idea behind this Bill is a very good one, and one that is to be welcomed-----

See this speech in context