Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 2018

Vol. 965 No. 8

Project Ireland 2040: Statements (Resumed)

We all welcome the concept of a development plan, looking to the future and planning for the future, and we know it has to happen. As a Government, a society and a people we need to look to the future and to try to plan ahead in order to know where we are going and what we are at now. The difficulty that many of us have spelled out with regard to this plan is that the draft which we saw in the beginning had many holes in it and many problems. A number of Deputies, particularly Opposition Deputies, came together, pointed to that and caused a bit of a row to ensure that something would happen in this regard.

I attended the launch in Sligo last Friday. While the Taoiseach spoke and complained about Opposition Deputies trying to cause division, I looked behind him and saw the Ministers, Deputy Michael Ring and Deputy Heather Humphreys, and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, as well as other Deputies sitting there. There was certainly little or nothing in the draft plan for their constituencies. I expect they were as vocal behind the scenes as we were out front as to what needed to be done to change this plan and to put something in place that would really deliver for rural areas. In fairness, the draft plan was not delivering for rural areas and the division the Taoiseach spoke about existed because of the absolute absence of measures to look after the midlands and the west. The big problem I have with many of these things is that long-term planning has a problem. There was also the big problem which I have with many of these things.

The problem with long-term planning is that when people look to something way into the future, it is a distraction from the immediate crisis. We are all conscious that we have an immediate crisis, particularly in housing and our health care services. We have an immediate crisis of rural depopulation in many parts of the country. Those crises need to be dealt with now. The real test of this plan will not be what it will do over 20 years but what it will do in the next three years. It is in the next three years that we need to see the money being put up to ensure that we deliver. Now is the time. Timing is everything in these situations. It is quite clear that unless something happens quickly, particularly in respect of the housing crisis, rural depopulation and transport services in the city of Dublin and many other places, we will have ongoing crises. Much of the criticism of the plan has been that the money that is proposed to be delivered is spread out over a lengthy time. Unless there is a lot of front-loading, we will not see the benefit of it.

Money that is spent will leverage more money. It will bring more private money out onto the field and get people working and things moving again. I particularly think of rural Ireland, being a Deputy representing Sligo-Leitrim, west Cavan, south Donegal and north Roscommon. We have a notorious problem with rural depopulation. Our small schools are closing down or are losing teachers because we do not have any children any more. Part of that problem is that people cannot build houses in rural Ireland. I know one-off rural housing is an issue in many places where there is an over-proliferation of it but, certainly where I come from, the problem is that we do not have any. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with. I know the Minister of State is aware of that and of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, guidelines. Something has to be done about the problem of meeting the confines of the Water Framework Directive. However, the EPA went too far and caused a crisis in the other direction. The lesson is that absolute rules do not work and we need to find a solution that is not as absolute as this one.

The issue was brought up at the launch of the €1 billion that is to be spent in rural towns over the next years. That is a good policy if it can happen. The scheme that is in place at present to help regenerate rural areas and small towns provides a loan of up to €40,000 to renovate a property to house a person on the local authority list. It has not worked. There is no take-up on it and it is not going to work. Something more substantive needs to be put in place. If we took ten small towns in County Leitrim, for example, and were €1 million to be spent in each of those towns, it would generate a lot of work. It would give a lot of people renewed hope that something was going to happen and it would provide housing in those towns. If we gave a 70% grant, we would get most of it back in the taxes that would be generated because when people get a grant to do something, they spend more money than what the grant provides. On the law of averages with tax, excise duty, income taxes, VAT and all those things, we would get most of that money back. There is also the multiplier effect because when activity is happening, it creates opportunity and more activity. That is the road the Government needs to go down as quickly as possible.

We need big projects to happen, such as the western rail corridor from Sligo, where we were on Friday, down through Galway and Limerick, through Tipperary and into the Port of Waterford. With Brexit looming, it would be a means of getting freight off the road and getting a port that can send goods straight across to the European mainland. This is an opportunity to do that. Under the European funding for low-carbon transport initiatives, under the TEN-T programme, the Government could get up to 75% funding if it made it an electric railway. That opportunity has been missed but may come up again in the next couple of years to be applied for and secured. It would make a great difference to that whole region.

There is a lot of stuff missing in this plan. Really the problem is the absence of imagination. Just repackaging old stuff, putting it out and calling it a plan is not good enough any more.

I am sharing time with Deputies Kelly and Sherlock. We will take about ten minutes each.

This is a very long plan, at 177 pages. In the introductory part on page 17, in a chapter headed "learning from the past", there is a reference to the 2002 national planning strategy as not having been a statutory plan with legislative backing. The text then refers to the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 as providing a legislative basis for the new national planning framework. The problem is that this Bill has not yet become law. In section 20C(1) of the Bill, under the heading "Matters to be addressed in National Planning Framework", it states:

Any document, published after the commencement of this Chapter, that amends or replaces the National Spatial Strategy or thereafter revises or replaces the National Planning Framework shall address the matters set out in subsection (2).

Section 20C(2) goes on to list the various matters that are to be addressed under the national planning framework. It is quite clear that the national planning framework was supposed to come after the commencement of the planning Act. I cannot see any way around this except to bring the whole thing back to the Houses of the Oireachtas after the enactment of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016. I note that the publication date of that Bill was January 2016. It was published by my colleague, Deputy Alan Kelly, two Ministers ago. I do not think waiting another month or two after more than two years would be too excessive in terms of getting this onto a proper statutory basis.

This is the crux of the problem in respect of the legitimacy of this whole exercise. No matter what Government spin is put on it, it cannot be glossed over. Last Friday in Sligo, we got a non-statutory, ad hoc publication delivered with all the razzmatazz of a vaudeville production. W.B. Yeats, being from Sligo, was quoted at various times during the launch. I am not sure what he would have made of it. I can think of a phrase of his: "to fumble in the greasy till". There was a lot of fumbling in the greasy till with the amount of money that went into that lavish production, not to mention its substantial cast.

Then there were the two-page spreads in selected local papers, although not all local papers, on Twitter and Facebook and even in the cinema. Incidentally, the money did not stretch to a hard copy for all Members. Normally we get a hard copy of any Government publication in our pigeon holes. Maybe the money was all spent on the razzmatazz.

I will get a copy for the Deputy.

Of course, we welcome the work that has been done in drafting the plan, the widespread consultation to which we contributed at each stage with written submissions, and the spending programme of €116 billion. The Labour Party favours public investment in projects that benefit the public and we also favour good strategic planning. However, we do not believe the plan is radical enough in addressing inequality, protecting our environment, developing sustainable transport, achieving regional balance or in a number of other areas. I want to talk particularly about regional balance and housing.

If the plan is implemented, I have no doubt that by 2040, the country will still be in the unhealthy state it is in, with an even more sprawling greater Dublin area. I say this after looking at the spending plans rather than buying the grand aspirations that are expressed, and there are lots of grand aspirations. I say it also in the context of the growth figures in the plan for Dublin, the other cities and towns and smaller urban centres in rural areas. I particularly want to speak about cities; my colleagues will speak further on other areas and matters.

Although the draft plan clearly stated that the cities of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford would be the major growth centres, there are limits set on their growth. I know last night the Minister said there were not caps but, effectively, they are caps. A submission was made by my region to the draft plan. It was agreed by the three local authorities, the chambers of commerce and a number of other bodies including Shannon Airport Authority. Shannon Airport gets scarcely a mention although there is funding for various other airports that are not nearly as strategic. The airport and the other bodies put forward a proposal after the draft plan came out. It was supported by me and by many other public representatives and it expressed greater ambition for Limerick but it is not reflected in the final document. Limerick is more ambitious for itself than the Government is for Limerick.

Others have confidence in us, too. Limerick was recently named European city of the future by the Financial Times in its population category and won a number of other awards as well. We intend to grow and prosper but this plan will constrain us.

I assure the Deputy it definitely will not.

That is the concerted view of a wide variety of bodies in the mid-west. I have no doubt that other cities may feel the same. I particularly reject the implication in the analysis of Edgar Morgenroth that one has to choose between investing in cities and connecting them to one another. He suggested that if we want growth in these places, the investment has to go into them and not between them.

It should not be one or the other. We need the M20. The linking of Galway, Limerick and Cork by a decent road network is essential if we are not to have all roads leading to Dublin, which is currently the case. It is needed to create the Atlantic corridor to counterbalance the eastern corridor and should go on to Waterford, which it does not. At a maximum cost of €900 million, it hardly matches the €3 billion for the metro link, €2 billion for the DART expansion, over €1 billion to bring water from the mid-west to the east and many other projects such as the second runway at Dublin Airport, etc. There should be investment in public transport in Dublin but the level of investment in other cities does not compare with what has been allocated to the capital. It is not acceptable to say that we can have a road but we cannot have investment in the city. It seems that the evidence-based comprehensive submission with strong support from stakeholders in the mid west found no favour in the final document and I wonder if it was pushed aside by the last-minute scramble to keep all members of the Cabinet happy and to ease the anxiety of Fine Gael backbenchers.

My colleagues will address several other aspects of the plan. I wish to briefly refer to a couple of things the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, said, particularly in respect of the new rural development, urban development, climate change and disruptive technologies regeneration funds. It appears that these will be highly competitive and that there will have to be matching funding. The urban regeneration plan discusses matching investment from the private sector, euro for euro. I am concerned that this will be a competitive, market-led process rather than addressing the regeneration needs of our urban centres and I wish to raise that with the Minister.

I could say far more about the plans for housing but my concern in that regard is the meeting of targets, particularly as many of the targets outlined in Rebuilding Ireland have not been met. It is essential that we provide homes for our people during the course of the plan.

The plan, as a whole, is very general and woolly. However, this is only the start of the next phase of the debate because in order to have a statutorily-based plan, there must be a parliamentary process when the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 is enacted.

As has been indicated, Deputy Kelly will also be contributing in this slot.

He is sharing time with Deputy Sherlock.

The Deputies have 22 minutes to share between them.

Twenty-two minutes.

When will we move to the next item of business?

I thank the Acting Chairman. I do not plan to take that much time.

I welcome the funding of approximately €900 million for the M20 Cork to Limerick route. All affected, including the chambers of commerce in Cork and Limerick, which did much work on this issue in terms of making submissions, various community groups, businesses and individuals who travel the route every day for work and other purposes are very welcoming of there finally being a financial commitment to the project. I travelled from my home town of Mallow to Galway yesterday and then on to Dublin. It is quite difficult to travel between Mallow, Buttevant and Charleville and there are serious traffic constraints. Once one reaches Limerick, however, it is a joy to travel on to Galway, while, similarly, if one is travelling east towards Dublin, it is a seamless journey for anyone partaking of it. When selecting the route for the M20 between Cork and Limerick, I ask that the Government take account of the serious blockages at Mallow, Buttevant and Charleville. Those towns deserve to be freed of such congestion and running the route somewhere adjacent to them would be the most advisable and sensible option.

The town of Cobh, known locally as the great island of Cobh, which has only one access route, is not mentioned in the plan. There was some discussion late last year in this Chamber about the need to ensure that Cobh is serviced by proper infrastructure. It is disappointing that there is no mention of the town in the significant list of inter-urban routes, which includes towns and cities such as Gorey, Cork and Limerick. The people of Cobh deserve an adequate access point to their town. Storm Ophelia demonstrated the need for such a route. I hope that, in the context of the iterative process under way in regard to the national development plan, the Minister of State, Deputy English, who is present, could mention that need because it is inadvisable for Cobh to be left out of the plan, given that it has an approximate population of 13,000 and that in the event of a natural phenomenon such as Storm Ophelia, there is no guarantee of proper access for emergency vehicles to the town, which does not have secondary or tertiary medical facilities and is all but closed off from time to time. I ask that consideration be given to this issue.

There must be absolute transparency in terms of the process currently under way in respect of the Cork events centre. This has been the subject of much debate in the context of requests for further funding in circumstances where taxpayers' money is involved and it appears that the representatives for the county and city of Cork have been left out of the loop regarding information flows on what is happening on the project. A request for additional funding was made but the people of Cork demand to know its purpose. People were foursquare behind the project when it was announced by the previous Government but somewhere along the way the goalposts were shifted, a request for additional funding came in and nobody is any the wiser as to how that money will be spent locally.

I am disappointed that the plan does not seem to address the additionality of capital services or spending for mental health services. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Finian McGrath, a member of the Independent Alliance, has waxed lyrical about the increases in current expenditure but Members on the front line who represent people who need access to services and a continuum of care from childhood to adulthood and into their senior years do not see evidence in the plan of moneys becoming available for capital expenditure on necessary mental health services, such as housing and other ancillary services. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy English, to be cognisant of that and to raise it as an issue. There is wording in the plan in that regard-----

I acknowledge that but I ask that there be a greater interrogation of what it means for those who need access to mental health services.

I am very conscious that there three Members are due to contribute in this slot and that we only have a finite amount of time. In that context, those are the three main issues I wish to address.

My final point relates to my home town, Mallow. I am glad that the Mallow relief road which I, when I was a Minister of State, ensured was included in the 2015 plan is also included in this plan. However, no funding amount has been allocated in respect of the project.

We need to see the colour of the Government's money on the northern relief road for Mallow.

I call Deputy Kelly. The Deputy will be aware that any remaining time in this slot will carry over when the debate resumes.

Unfortunately, yes. I welcome the Minister of State and his official, who I know well. The national planning framework, NPF, and capital plan, as outlined to such ridiculous fanfare last week, is a fraud. They have no basis in law - I say "they" because there are two parts to it - and contain nothing more than planning aspirations and a wish list of capital projects. Frankly, what the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, articulated in the Dáil yesterday simply is not true. To be blunt, these documents have no basis in law and cannot be put on a statutory footing without a vote on the national planning framework as currently drafted. If that does not take place, it will not be legal. I say this as the Minister who sponsored the original Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016, brought it to Government and had it passed through the Cabinet in the first place. Ironically, I spent more time working on this plan than either the current Minister or his predecessor because they had such short durations in the Custom House. The Bill clearly states that the Government "shall submit the draft of the revised or new National Planning Framework, together with the Environmental Report and Appropriate Assessment Report for the approval of each House of the Oireachtas before it is published". It is very clear.

I have been listening to Ministers repeatedly try to squirm out of this fact. They have failed miserably to do so. Consequently, this NPF and capital plan has no legal basis and there is no underpinning legislative basis that stands up about which they can be 100% sure.

The Minister of State, Deputy English, knows I have good time for him personally but I believe what he is doing is the most reckless action I have seen in this House since the bank bailout in 2008. If the Government pursues this strategy, I predict with great confidence, along with my colleagues, that the plans will collapse under legal attack and the names of the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and this Government will be all over it. I am not alone in that view.

The Taoiseach said the Government did not need a vote because the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill was not passed, but he did not tell us the legislation on which the Government was relying. That is to leave aside the moral argument that this Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill was, without a shadow of a doubt, and the Minister of State knows this, the actual underpinning legislation.

We then had Ministers waffling on about how there had already been a vote on the plan. It was embarrassing to watch them. There was not a vote on it. That is just a lie. There were statements on the old plan and then votes on the legislation underpinning the plan, which has not even been concluded yet. Where was the vote on the plan? There was not one.

We then had the unsightly scene, and I felt sorry for the Minister of State, Deputy English, last week where he had to filibuster - let us call a spade a spade-----

I had to answer the questions.

-----to stop his own Bill progressing in the Seanad because he did not want an amendment passed, which would have created more embarrassment for him.

I will refresh people's memories about the origins of this plan in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill and how it came to Government. The final report of the independent review of the performance of planning functions, having regard to specific issues raised in respect of six planning authorities, was submitted in July 2015. There are 29 recommendations in that report and I had to consider and publish them. In tandem with this, the remaining planning related recommendations of the Mahon tribunal had to be dealt with, particularly the establishment of a new independent office of the planning regulator.

A further related element concerned the development of the national planning framework currently being discussed, which was to be put on a statutory footing under the Bill in line with one of the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal. The link back to the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal has been lost in all of this and it is a very serious issue. I had this work completed and ready for Cabinet to be published in December 2015.

On 15 December, I, along with the then Minister of State, Senator Coffey, published a package of legislative and policy reforms in the planning area, namely, the planning review report, the Planning and Development (Amendment)(No. 2) Bill and details of the NPF plan. Launching the package, we made it clear in our press statements that after public consultation there would be the "publication of a draft framework by the third quarter of 2016, after which, in line with the new legislative arrangements being progressed under the Planning and Development (No. 2) Bill 2015, it will be submitted to Dáil Éireann for consideration and approval".

Top
Share