I understand the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, is sharing time with the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Project Ireland 2040: Statements
Last Friday, the Government launched Project Ireland 2040 in Sligo. This includes two core elements: a national planning framework, led by the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy; and a €116 billion national development plan which sets out an ambitious and strategic vision for Ireland’s investment in public infrastructure over the next decade. With this plan, investment levels in Ireland will continue to increase at a sustainable rate and, very importantly, our infrastructure investment will be strictly guided by the national planning framework to create a single vision for our country as a whole, both rural and urban. This will deliver modern public infrastructure over the coming years to improve the lives of people throughout Ireland and allow our companies and economy to continue to compete with the best in the world.
This kind of investment will play a critical role in ensuring a whole-of-Government approach and implementation of the national planning framework. It will change how we invest in public infrastructure from the way we did this in the past. It moves beyond the approach which saw public investment spread too thinly and, crucially, it moves away from investment decisions which did not align with planning strategy. These practices contributed to some of the major issues that we face today, particularly the predominance of Dublin in terms of economic growth, alongside the challenges facing rural communities. This development plan is, therefore, strictly aligned to the vision set out in the national planning framework and its ten strategic outcomes, which were developed following extensive consultation over the course of 2017.
The capital plan detailed in the national development plan is underpinned by sensible and moderate projections of the economy’s potential growth, which are assumed at 2% over the period 2022 to 2027. This aligns with the most recent projection on growth from the European Commission for Ireland for the 2020s, while being lower than the OECD long-term projection of almost 3% for the same period. This plan will see public investment in Ireland increase from relatively low levels following the recession to being among the highest in the EU by 2021, and this will be sustained over the entire remaining period of the plan. The plan sets out a total public investment programme of €116 billion for the period 2018 to 2027, including both Exchequer and commercial State-owned enterprise investment.
The average capital investment in the EU over the past 20 years was in the region of 3% of national income. Under the national development plan, it is projected that public capital investment will reach 3.8% of national income, or GNI*, in 2021 and 4% by 2024, with sustained investment averaging 4% on an annual basis over the period 2022 to 2027. This reflects the bottom-up demand for increased public capital investment identified in the evidence base produced for the review of the capital plan last September. This approach will ensure that public investment underpins the sustainability of economic growth and avoids contributing to economic instability and exacerbating any risks of unbalanced and inflationary growth.
The plan includes many new projects and programmes that were not listed in the previous plan published in 2015. I refer, for example, to the M20 Cork to Limerick road, the new hospital for Cork, the BusConnects programmes for Cork, Dublin and Galway, and a major investment programme across the cultural institutions, to name but a few.
While some projects may have been announced previously, those announcements were outside of a long-term funding framework and reflect the commitments that we now have to communities and citizens throughout the country. The existence of plans that were not joined up on a cross-sectoral basis, or with the resources to implement them, was highlighted by the International Monetary Fund as a weakness in our public management investment system. In the past, various strategies were announced but the resources needed to implement them were not available.
Before the launch of the national development plan, the Government was committed to investing €29 billion of Exchequer resources over the next four years. Under this new plan, the Government is now making a commitment to provide €90 billion in Exchequer resources over the next decade to deliver identified strategic investment priorities explicitly knitted into the objectives of the national planning framework. Identifying and funding long-term investment priorities was just one of a number of innovations included in the national development plan that are designed to improve capital expenditure policy in Ireland. The funding reform was introduced to encourage Departments to develop investment proposals directly targeted at delivering planning priorities and which contribute to the clear articulation of a strategic ten-year vision for Ireland’s public capital infrastructure.
I will highlight the four new funds established under the new plan. These funds will have a combined allocation of €4 billion and will be allocated on a competitive basis for projects which meet the criteria of the funds. These funds will help us to meet challenges in the areas of rural development, urban development, climate change and disruptive technology. The rural regeneration and development fund will amount to €1 billion over the next ten years. This fund will be under the control of the Department of Rural and Community Development and will promote rural renewal in order to enable towns, villages and outlying rural areas to grow sustainably and support delivery of the strategic objectives of the national planning framework. The urban regeneration and development fund will amount to €2 billion over the next ten years. This fund will be under the control of the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government and will support the co-development of the framework's growth enablers for the five cities and other large urban centres. Examples of projects that have the potential to receive support from the fund would include the development of the Cork docklands, the Limerick 2030 initiative, the Waterford north quays strategic development zone regeneration project, the plans for the regeneration of Galway city centre and the Portlaoise urban design and renewal initiative. Each of the funds will be operational from January 2019, but work on preparing applications can start immediately for submission this year. Further details on the application process and selection criteria will be published in coming weeks.
There are a number of existing models that we will draw on in designing the funds, including the local infrastructure housing activation fund, LIHAF, operated by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government. The intention is that the funds will play an important role in moving away from providing funding resources to individual organisations - essentially on the basis of current investment patterns - in favour of supporting collaborative bids for funding important projects on a competitive basis. The plan also commits to the establishment of a new national regeneration and development agency that will maximise the potential use of under-utilised landbanks in cities and towns across Ireland. This agency will work closely with the local government sector, central government, a range of existing agencies and public bodies and the semi-State sector in order to identify how specific land holdings, mostly already in public ownership, can and will be used to better potential to deliver on the objectives of the national planning framework and national development plan. The body will also identify a clear and practical sequence of steps to be taken by the relevant stakeholders in achieving the tasks set for it and all relevant public bodies by the Government. This will make a significant difference when it comes to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our public infrastructure investments over the coming period.
The national development plan will also facilitate the implementation of the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund’s public investment management assessment, which was carried out in 2017. This will lead to a greater focus by the Government on achieving value for taxpayers’ money when it comes to public capital investment in Ireland over the period of the plan. In particular, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will establish an infrastructure projects steering group, IPSG, on which senior representatives from all of the infrastructure and investment Departments will serve and which will lead in developing cross-sectoral dialogue on infrastructure, including identification of national priorities and actions and standardisation of data presentation. This reform agenda began with the publication in September of a major capital projects tracker on the website of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Its purpose is to inform citizens of the variety of projects currently in the planning and construction phase and to also give a greater oversight to construction and infrastructure sectors of the Government’s investment commitments and opportunities. It will provide the public, businesses and other stakeholders with reliable information about current and future infrastructure delivery. It will be updated to reflect the further projects now included in the national development plan and will be further developed with technical assistance from the International Monetary Fund to become the primary tool for public transparency on infrastructure project priorities, timelines and performance targets.
Potential overheating risks and supply side constraints in the construction sector were addressed as part of the review of the capital plan published last year. This plan highlights the importance of carefully increasing capital spending to ensure that the national development plan is delivered with good value to taxpayers. The measured but ambitious increase in capital expenditure and long-term planning included in the national development plan, and detailed in the major capital projects tracker, will provide greater certainty to the construction industry as to what infrastructure requirements are coming down the tracks and enable them to plan accordingly and increase their capacity and productivity in order to deliver the projects which are now in the pipeline.
In order to ensure regular and open dialogue between the Government and the construction sector, a construction sector working group will be established. A healthy and well-functioning construction industry that offers good, long-term and quality employment and construction output is essential to the achievement of the goals underlying the national planning framework and the delivery of the projects outlined in the national development plan. The approach we have outlined, and the processes by means of which we hope to facilitate it, have been broadly welcomed by the sectors of the economy that we will rely on to make the plan happen. This is because the experience of the past 15 years highlights the dangers for society and the economy when the construction sector expands too greatly and contracts too steeply.
The national development plan sets out a detailed and positive vision for Ireland’s infrastructure over the next decade. It includes a number of major new projects and, very importantly, sets out the funding which is being made available to deliver those projects. This reflects a number of innovations in capital expenditure policy which are included in the national development plan and which will improve how we invest in public infrastructure in Ireland. Now that this plan has been published, following extensive consultation, our focus will turn to ensuring its timely delivery in a manner that guarantees value for money for the Irish citizen. This plan will ensure the implementation of the national planning framework through investment levels that will be among the highest in the EU, thereby delivering the kind of state-of-the-art public infrastructure which is vital for our economy and society to thrive in the ever-evolving modern world.
At the outset, I thank my officials in the Department for the huge amount of work that they have done over the past number of years in preparing the national planning framework. They did that work over more than a three-year period and under Ministers who held this portfolio prior to me - the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, who worked at the time with the Minister of State, Deputy English, on the plan and the then Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Kelly, before that. When we look at the national planning framework as part of Project Ireland 2040, it is a huge credit to the civil servants in the Department and the work they have done over that time.
We face serious challenges today in Irish society. In my own Department, in particular, in housing, planning and local government, we have a challenge and a crisis in housing and homelessness and to face that challenge today, of course, we put in plans for the immediate term. Rebuilding Ireland is one such plan, for a five-year period, involving more than €6 billion worth of investment to deal with the crisis we have in homelessness and the challenge we face in the shortage of housing. When I came into my role as Minister in this Department, I said that if we did not plan for the longer term, in facing these immediate challenges we risked building in crises and problems into the future. We have a responsibility as a Government to plan long term, to take a long-term time horizon into the work that we do.
However, it is also a great opportunity for us as a Government. Ten years on from when the banking crisis first began with the guarantee of the banks, with the national accounts balanced we can look to the future, and not only imagine a future Ireland for our people, but implement it. That, in essence, is what Project Ireland 2040 is all about.
We know the world is changing. We know we face significant risks from issues, such as Brexit. We are not quite sure yet how they will manifest themselves. We know that when it comes to climate change, we have to implement a number of new measures over the course of the coming years, in terms of climate mitigation and works that need to go on up and down the country. The national planning framework, in and of itself, in terms of managing our growth and managing where people will live, is one such climate mitigation measure. We know when we look at technology, and the disruption it can bring to Irish life in both positive and negative ways, that these will be challenges that we will face, as a Government and as a society, into the future.
Regardless of those challenges we face today and those risks that are coming down the line for good or for ill, we know that from the point of view of demographics, we have to plan for the future. At the very least, 1 million extra people will live in our country by 2040. That will require at least half a million new homes to be built in the State. Where will we build them? It will also require additional jobs - at least 660,000 net new jobs - in the economy because over that period of the next 20 years, many jobs of course also will be destroyed through technology and innovation. Consequently, we will have to create 660,000 net new jobs in the economy over that period. By 2040, one in four of us will be over the age of 65, one in six of us will be under the age of 15 and many of the jobs in which those born today in Ireland will work when they graduate from college, 20 or 25 years from now, have not yet been invented. That pressure of 6 million people in this country, on our existing communities and on the environment, both built and natural, demands that we plan for the future as a Government. It demands that we not only meet that responsibility but also take that opportunity.
At a high level, the country is doing very well. We are in the top ten countries in the world when we look at such matters as foreign investment, human development and democracy but we fall into only the top 20 countries in the world when we look at such matters as the environment or quality of life. When we take metrics such as liveable cities, we then fall into the top 30. Of course, we know that many people in our country today are facing significant difficulties in their lives because of the long tail from the banking crisis that began ten years ago, particularly when we look at issues in the housing sector for which I am responsible and the crisis that people face in homelessness but also the affordability difficulties that people have in Ireland today. When we look at other ways of measuring quality of life issues, we look at such matters as commuting times. In 2016, based on the census results, 230,000 people travelled an hour each day each way in and out of work - two hours a day over five days. That puts significant strains on people's lives in terms of their quality of life, it costs them additional money and, of course, it is not good for the environment.
Therefore, we need a paradigm shift when it comes to Government planning, Government thinking and implementation. That is what Project Ireland 2040 is about. It is joined up across every Department and thus every aspect of our lives. It is protected in law as a plan and there is a hierarchy of other plans that must follow from it so that there is consistency in our planning framework for the next 20 years. As the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, has said, it is aligned with our public investment for the next ten years and more to make sure that our money follows the plan in terms of how we are investing in terms of the strategic decisions that we make in that plan. Of course, as a part of that plan as well, we set up an office of independent regulator to make sure that we do what we say we will do and to be an independent arbiter on the Government in so far as it is implementing the national planning framework and the national development plan as part of Project Ireland 2040.
A huge amount of consultation has been undertaken in developing the national planning framework. Three years of work went into it by the Department, being led by an expert advisory group and I thank them for the input they have given over the course of that period. There were more than 40 road shows across the country to talk to people about our ideas but also to get feedback on those ideas. We had two significant periods of public consultation. In the most recent period of public consultation, we received more than 1,000 submissions from the public, including over 150 submissions from elected representatives up and down the country. We had somewhere between seven and nine hours of debate in the Dáil where one third of Members spoke. We then had a motion in both the Dáil and Seanad that tasked the Oireachtas joint committee with considering the national planning framework and reporting to us on the contents of the draft document, and then we reflected on that in the final document that has been decided on by Government. The plan is better for that period of public consultation that we did. Each of the phases of consultation that we did, each of the road shows that were attended and each of the submissions that we got helped improve the plan and made it a better plan for that consultation and feedback.
It is, of course, by its nature a framework document. We cannot be alive to every single thing that might happen, economically, socially or politically, over the next 20 years and we put in place a framework to act as a guide for investment for different parts of the country as to how they might grow into the future. It sets in train that process. We now have the national planning framework and the national development plan.
In the course of this year, each of our three regions will develop regional, spatial and economic strategies to act as the next level in that hierarchical or tiered approach that we have to planning and from that, each county and city plan will then align over the course of the reviews of their own plans in line with the regional, spatial and economic strategies and in line with the national planning framework and the national development plan.
Because it is a framework document and because it looks to a 20-year time horizon, it is, of course, open to review. In 2021, we will have an informal review of the document based on the population changes that have been evidenced in the census review in 2021 and a more formal review will then follow following the census in 2026 to make sure that our targets are aligned with how the population is growing over that period.
The ambition, from the framework and the work that we have done in aligning it with our investment decisions, is to have a shared vision for every community up and down the country. They are expressed in the document as our national strategic outcomes - these ten shared goals around our quality of life, be it access to health care, access to education, connectivity, improving every village, town and city, and our rural fabric, and everything in between in our country in that period. Therefore, the national strategic outcomes are the key linkage between the national planning framework and the national development plan. That is our measure of shared success when we look to 2040, namely, achieving those ten national strategic outcomes.
When we look at the structure of the national planning framework, we structured it based on the 2014 reforms that were made for the administration and planning of local government in the country in the three regions that were established in 2014 and how we looked to manage the additional 1 million people who will live in our country by 2040. We are talking about managing 75% outside of Dublin. As to what that means for Dublin, in itself, 25% growth in that period would still be quite significant for Dublin, based on growth patterns in the previous number of years. We looked at what we want to do with that 25%, say, roughly 250,000 people. Half of those, we believe, need to live, work and study within the M50 and that will mean significant strategy decisions being made in Dublin to grow inwards and upwards and to increase density in the city. Another way of looking at how we want manage the population growth over the next 20 years is that 50:50 split: 50% of growth in our cities, that is, in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick; and 50% everywhere else. What that means for Cork, Waterford, Galway and Limerick is those cities growing at a rate of 50% to 60% - twice the national average and twice as fast as Dublin. That has never been achieved before and if we can do that, it will be of great significance for those cities. Of course, when we look to the rest of the country, we are talking about 30% of growth being in our existing larger villages and towns and 20% in our smaller villages and rural fabric.
Another way of looking at the population changes that we might see between now and 2040 is the split between the regions. With 50% cent of the growth being in the eastern and midlands region, crucially, between the northern and western region and the southern region, in the northern and western region an increase in population of 160,000 and 180,000 will bring its population to over 1 million, and the southern region an increase in population of between 340,000 and 380,000 will bring its population to almost 2 million.
We recognised in the consultation period and received much feedback around certain key regional centres in the northern and western region, for example, Sligo and Letterkenny. We also recognised the need to strengthen reference to the Atlantic economic corridor and the huge role that will play for the development and investment that we plan between now and 2040. In the midlands, we saw the strategic role that Athlone plays in terms of the three regions.
We also looked to the important cross-Border linkages that are there: Drogheda and Dundalk into Newry, and Letterkenny into Derry. They have been reflected in the plan. Regarding the structure of the plan, I have mentioned the ten national strategic objectives in the plan. In terms of the meat and the planning detail, there are 75 national policy objectives from which the regional spatial economic strategies and the local authorities will now develop their own planning based on the guidance that is provided in those 75 objectives.
A key principle in the national planning framework and in our vision for our country between now and 2040 is compact growth, taking advantage of our villages, towns and city centres, where there is already significant built infrastructure, and of those economies, be it a matter of reduction of our carbon footprint, the public transport that is already there, brownfield infill sites or the revitalisation of villages and towns for business and people living there. We want to achieve that 40% for compact growth. One of the key mechanisms we have to achieve this is the use of the development funds to which the Minister for Finance already referred, one for urban Ireland and one for rural Ireland. This funding is separate to the investment we have in roads, hospitals and schools. We wish to use this funding to invest in and regenerate village centres, town centres and parts of our cities in line with those objectives regarding the growth we have, in particular compact growth, to improve the livability of our villages, towns and centres.
Another key policy tool is the establishment of the new regeneration and development agency. We recognise as a Government that there are certain strategic landbanks that are not in the hands of local authorities but in the hands of other State bodies, State agencies or the semi-State sector. We will need an overarching body to work with the local authorities, my Department, the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Minister for Finance to ensure we are using those strategic landbanks in the best interests of our citizens to arrive at some of the strategic outcomes we have for our population to improve its quality of life. Using these two tools, we hope to achieve these national strategic outcomes, in particular around the aspect of compact growth. We also recognise the great vibrancy and the huge importance of rural Ireland and its fabric, our smaller villages and ensuring we have - and we do in this plan - a proper vision for those communities that can be shared across every community in this country.
Members in this House have raised concerns about some elements of the plan. Some of these concerns are legitimate questions but some are perhaps not so legitimate. I will speak to a number of these concerns. The first thing it is important to say is that this is not a naming document. It is a high-level strategy. We have principles in respect of compact growth, tools such as the funds and the agency I mentioned, the protections in putting the national planning framework on a statutory basis and having an independent office of a planning regulator, and the investment in line with the national strategic outcomes. We should see Project Ireland 2040 as a tool for the three regions we have in our country, for every community, not to dictate from central government but to empower them and guide them in respect of investment, development and regeneration. I have also heard some Members of the Opposition talk about how this plan will place caps on towns and villages. That is not the case. We have in the document targets for each region of the country. They are very ambitious targets and they have never been achieved before. If we can achieve 160,000 to 180,000 new people living in the northern and western region, bringing the population to over 1 million people, it will be a significant success for our country if we can balance our growth between now and 2040 in that way. Every part of this country can grow under Ireland 2040. Another concern that has been raised has concerned the process that we have undertaken to date. It was never the intention that there would be a final vote on the final document. If that were the intention, the draft legislation would say that. That draft legislation has not changed since I came into the Department-----
It will not be statutory then.
-----or since the Minister, Deputy Coveney, came into the Department. When the planning legislation that is currently going through the Seanad is enacted, the national planning framework will then be on a statutory basis. It was always expected that the Government would consult on the draft document, would then make changes to the plan based on that consultation period that we had and would not need to go back to the Dáil for a vote on those changes made following the consultation. Again, if that was the intention of the legislation, it would say as much in the legislation, and it does not. We have followed the process faithfully. There was a motion before both Houses last year, the motion at the Oireachtas joint committee to submit a report, and we reflected on that report as part of the draft consultation and on those concerns raised. We tried to incorporate them into the final document as best we could. When the planning legislation passes in the Seanad, it will put the national planning framework on a statutory basis. If we were to wait for the planning legislation to pass in the Seanad before the Government finalised the national planning framework and the national development plan, it would not have changed in any way the process that we undertook and would not give any greater power to the Oireachtas than those powers that have already been exercised in the process that we followed. However, if the planning legislation were delayed, many of the recommendations of the Mahon tribunal would not be implemented, we would not be able to set up the independent office of the planning regulator, which I am already in the process of trying to do and which I want to do as quickly as possible, and we would not be able to do other important things such as designating data centres as national strategic infrastructure.
I very much welcome the housing commitments in the national development plan beyond those in Rebuilding Ireland. In 2021, under Rebuilding Ireland, we will bring approximately 12,000 new homes into the social housing stock. This ambition is maintained for every year of the national development plan to 2027. This means that roughly one third of all houses produced in the State from 2021 onwards will be social housing homes brought into that social housing stock by the State for citizens who need our help the most. I also welcome the commitment on water in the national development plan. More than €5 billion in additional funding is now being provided to Irish Water and to our strategic water ambitions beyond that which is already committed in the existing plan for Irish Water to 2021. Project Ireland 2040 is a very ambitious plan for our country. This is a great opportunity for us as a Government but also as an Oireachtas to put in place a strategic plan for every citizen in every community in our country.
The process to initiate a national planning framework began three years ago, we are told, and culminated last Friday. It was wrong of the Government to combine its publication with that of the national development plan and doubly wrong to term the combination Ireland 2040. Such a decision seeks to create, and to some extent has succeeded in creating, some confusion among the electorate and does not do justice to either document. Furthermore, the Dáil should be dealing with the two documents separately. The Government undoubtedly will say that the process in which we are engaged was agreed by the Business Committee but I am sure neither the Business Committee nor any member thereof was to know or be privy to what unfolded last Friday. I will make a statement on the national planning framework. I would rather it were not a statement; I would rather it were a debate. I would rather if the Government were answerable to the Dáil on the issue and the various questions that arise following its publication but again, I contend the Business Committee was taken for a ride.
The national planning framework replaces, or should be an improvement upon, the delivery of a concept first initiated and recorded in the form of the national spatial strategy in 2002. Its potential within that was driven in the main by the prioritisation of the national primary road network and its motorways together with the expansion of Dublin Airport, which, among other capital infrastructure and projects, served Ireland well and meant we were in a strong position to take advantage of the upturn following the crash. Unfortunately, Phil Hogan scrapped the national spatial strategy in 2012. I say "unfortunately" because it has not been strengthened or replaced since. This decision showed a disregard for national planning processes and has created regional and local uncertainty ever since. Fine Gael has had six years to replace it, and despite that length of time, that space, its replacement was binned a few short months ago and a SWAT team put in place to produce Friday's publication. As I said, Friday's publication was then intertwined with a national development plan. This reduced its impact and the ability of this House to debate it separately, which I think is necessary.
A national planning framework is a major planning blueprint for the future development of the country. Its concept, we were told, would take politics out of the planning process and out of any plan that might emanate from it. It was a major initiative, not necessarily to stifle Dublin's growth but to counterbalance its development and to bring the cities into play. We acknowledge, accept, and agree with this concept. To achieve this, the plan sought to direct and improve the capacity of other cities and build on their critical mass in order for them to extend or exaggerate the natural pull on their regions, which they should drive. Anyone would expect that when one seeks to achieve this, it would not be at the expense or neglect of rural Ireland or other regions which do not have that natural critical mass in a city within its region. However, this is exactly what was done, and this was plainly evident in the draft document that was produced. That is what Fine Gael does: Fine Gael tells people what is best for them.
We remember the last election when Fine Gael told the regions they were in the midst of a recovery. It does not do leg ups, it does leave behinds. In this instance, thankfully, it was not let do so. The meaningless preparation and the fruitless consultation yielded a worthless document, support for which did not go beyond the politburo of the Fine Gael Cabinet members. The backlash from Opposition parties, stakeholders and the public was palpable and real. Despite being six years in the making and despite, one would have thought, having learned and improved upon the national spatial strategy, the Government was wholly inadequate in what it produced and it failed to meet the response necessary to tap into the mood of the regions. That was proved beyond doubt by the vehemence of the backlash.
I made a submission on behalf of Fianna Fáil in response to representations from my parliamentary colleagues, councillors, members of our party and many constituents. It specifically and plainly laid out the deficiencies and failings we saw in the plan. To be fair, some of them have been responded to adequately but more of them have not, hence the need, I would have thought and hoped, for a more honest and open debate on this issue rather than the statements that have been made.
With regard to fostering economic growth, we sought more broadly based regional and rural economic growth, and this has been addressed in some shape. The Minister mentioned the independent planning regulator. This is not necessarily a child of this process, but rather the planning tribunals, but we are glad to see legislation is forthcoming and it is mentioned in the planning and development Bill going through the Houses.
We mentioned the fact there did not appear to be an all-island approach, and very little mention, if any, of Brexit. We are glad to see this has been addressed and there is cognisance of it. We did not think the Minister went far enough on climate change and we see now in the planning framework there have been improvements in this area. The Minister mentioned the specific targeting of brownfield development in towns and cities, and I welcome the commitment in this regard. The implementation, monitoring and reviewing of plans over the course of its lifetime was not strong enough. This has been strengthened and I welcome it.
With regard to rural housing, the Minister specifically stated in the initial plan that the economic need for rural housing had to be the realisation of those who wish to pursue it. There is now mention of a social need, but in future there has to be autonomy for local authorities, whereby they can set their policy to meet and set the targets under which social and economic need can be met, because all counties are different. In my county, for example, priority is given to landowners or family members of landowners, those who can prove a tie to an area, and the provision of clusters of houses in areas where people congregate in villages and towns. This should also form part of it.
With regard to balanced regional development, any development would seek to weigh against the dominance we have seen in Dublin, which will be likely to continue in the future. As I stated earlier, the original plan had no vision, sight or recognition of balanced regional development, so much so that it had no provision, let alone a vision, for the north west or the midlands. It was unashamedly at the expense of those regions and neglected them. Has this been addressed? It has definitely sought to do so, but I contend it has not succeeded. It has taken away all together the population cap that seemed to be specific to various tier 2 towns in the region. I assume the emphasis will move to the regional plan and the spotlight will be taken off it in the context of a national perspective. The Minister will hope to get the caps through that process but I hope we will be able to withstand it.
The plan retains tier 1 growth. Taking my region in the midlands as an example, I will show how it has failed in this regard. Far from talking down my region, I will briefly quote some facts available in the January 2018 ESRI report on the prospects for Irish regions and counties. The plan takes the midlands region as an encompassment of Dublin and the east, which is a mistake. I do not know how much of the report the Minister referred to with regard to the provisions made in the plan, but when the midlands region of Laois, Offaly, Westmeath and Longford without the inclusion of eastern counties is compared with the Border, Dublin, mid-east, south-east, west and south-west regions, it is the lowest with regard to jobs growth prospects and jobs growth history. It is also the lowest with regard to share of population growth in the past five to ten years. It is the same with regard to start-ups and IDA Ireland investment and visits. In almost every such analysis we will see these statistics. The national spatial strategy in its concept recognised the fabric and psyche of the midlands as I do, and as do Deputies from Mullingar and Portlaoise and as Deputies from Athlone did.
In developing economic scale outside Dublin, and given the absence of a significant city in areas such as the midlands, an integrated approach had the best potential to succeed. The ESRI projections show the greater Dublin area will continue to grow disproportionately unless there is an effective planning framework to address it. It shows that traffic delays, rising house prices, capacity constraints and infrastructure in Dublin will get worse. This is unnecessary as there is underused capacity in key midlands towns such as Mullingar, Tullamore and Portlaoise. Downplaying these towns as the plan seeks to do only accelerates continued overdevelopment in Dublin. Last week's Copenhagen Economics report on Brexit published by the Government suggests regional areas are likely to suffer most from job losses. This will be reinforced by downplaying resources in the towns I have mentioned and will affect the region on a greater scale.
There is a case in the midlands for an integrated plan which involves adequate resources for land use, transport and housing as well as the development of industrial tourism and agri-services. The potential to develop towns in the midlands that received only tier 2 status will be greatly limited by this. In this revised plan, there is an overemphasis on the definition of a city or town as the focus for development. In Ireland, particularly in the region I am using as an example, a city region-type approach has merit, and by this I mean a cluster of towns in a region. The midlands does not have one town that is large enough, has a critical mass or is vastly superior to others. It has four or five towns which have little distance between them. These towns are downplayed in the plan, and their potential for development and growth in a wide range of areas is greatly damaged.
I am sure now, having studied this, the final decision was not based on any scientific analysis or reputable independent report, such as the Indecon report commissioned by local authorities in the midlands in years past. It was based on the "yahoo" factor. Tier 1 status for Athlone means the region is included in the Dublin figures and the statistics will stack up. As I said to somebody last week, if it was that easy and we wanted the "yahoo" factor, we would have made Clara the capital of the midlands ten years ago. When we study what emanates from the website, which goes about studying each town and what benefits will accrue to it, it speaks about a water pipe running through - "yahoo" for that. It speaks about 3,500 houses in the four counties of the region, but in one of those counties only 12 were built in the past six years. There is nothing specific to relate it to this great status it has associated with it, but everything to lose for the others that are moved to tier 2 status. It reminds me of something I read recently where Will Ferrell stated ignorance is a key component of comedy.
Although not exclusively the remit of this process, but rather on foot of the planning tribunal recommendation, we welcome the establishment of the regulator, which is part of the planning and development Bill going through the Houses. This leads me to several other points I want to mention. In my submission on behalf of Fianna Fáil, I recommended the establishment of a national infrastructural committee, which could realistically recommend and implement capital infrastructure to follow the national planning framework, which would follow the statutory placement of the national planning framework as devised and approved by Dáil Éireann.
That would take the politics out of it. For Fine Gael and for the Minister to say again tonight that the national planning framework is on a statutory basis is a lie, I am afraid.
I said that it will be, following the legislation.
For Fine Gael to say that any objection to the national planning framework or to what is contained in it in some way deflects or stands in the way of the development plan is a lie. That lie has been repeated by An Taoiseach, and by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, on "Morning Ireland" the other day. It was repeated by the Minister himself on the "Today with Sean O'Rourke" programme, and it was repeated by the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, on "The Week in Politics" on Sunday. It needs to be corrected. The Minister must come into this House and be straight with the Irish people. Amendments to the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 that is currently going through the Oireachtas were tabled last week, and the Minister talked them down. He must give a commitment. If those amendments are accepted, will he adhere to the spirit of that legislation and put the planning framework before the House, to be adjudicated and passed here? That is the commitment the Minister must make to put an end to the lies I have heard in recent days.
The Government rushed the production of the national planning framework to get it published quickly, so that it could be called Government policy and it would not be subject to the Oireachtas. Last Wednesday, an amendment on this question was before the Seanad. The Government talked it down. The Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy English, was in the Seanad representing the Government on that issue. The Government does not want to adhere to the spirit of the Dáil. It does not want to adhere to the spirit of the amended legislation. It will adhere to the spirit of the legislation if it is not amended, all right-----
We will debate it here, too.
-----because the Government could get away with it if that was the case.
The Dáil has been disregarded again, and it is not the first time, I am afraid. The only regard the Government is showing for the public in this area is through the prism of the special communications unit.
Last Thursday, sectoral interests, including the Construction Industry Federation, CIF, the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and IBEC were briefed about this document before any elected Member had it. Later that day, selected members of the press were briefed before an elected Member got the detail of it here. The next day saw the razzmatazz in Sligo. We have seen the block-booking of half-page and full-page advertisements in national and local media. We have seen space taken in cinemas across the country. Short of putting in a freedom of information request to find out how much all of this is costing, I want to remind the Government of something. This is not Fine Gael's money. This is taxpayers' money, and Ministers had better remember that. The taxpayers need to know where their money is being spent and what money is being used to address the here and now in 2018, let alone what is being spent to tell us about what is on the never-never for 2040. It does not pull the wool over our eyes and I do not think it will pull the wool over the eyes of the majority in this House.
For our part, we in Fianna Fáil will seek to dissect each aspect of the framework on one hand, and expose the duplicity in the development plan on the other. We will expose the double counting that has taken place in the development plan and allow the public to cast their eye on the fact that much of this is predicated on 4% growth, despite the impact Brexit may have during next few years.
We want to expose the lack of cost-benefit analysis, which was exposed by "Morning Ireland" in the presence of the Minister for Finance the other day. The Dáil will seek to expose it even further, as this shortcoming relates to many of the promises contained in this plan. We will expose the failure to provide timelines and schedules. It is our job and that of everybody else in this side of the House to get the truth, to cut through the spin, jargon and yahooing in order to allow the public to ascertain how much of the €116 billion has been announced before. How far can the commitments in this programme go and can they realistically be met? In 2015, Fine Gael launched a plan which supposedly cost €42 billion. Some 25 roads were contained in that plan. Only five have been started to date.
They are the kind of facts that will be in statements coming from this side of the House in the coming weeks. I again implore members of the Business Committee to meet with the Government Whip to investigate ways and means by which this would be debated and by which Members would ask questions to make the Government answerable. Before tonight's debate is over, I want a commitment from the Government's side of the House to acknowledge that the spirit of the legislation should be the spirit of the legislation amended by the Oireachtas - not the spirit of the legislation that Fine Gael introduced to the House and behind which it is hiding.
Deputy Cowen has dealt with the planning framework. I intend to focus my remarks on the so-called national development plan, NDP. It is ironic that the Ireland 2040 promotional campaign includes cinema advertisements at a time when the film awards season is at its height. Based on the actual content of the plan, in contrast to the hype surrounding its launch, various Ministers could be in line for best actor and best actress awards-----
I would say best supporting actor.
-----and the plan itself would most definitely would win an award for screenplays. The hype of the launch was designed to distract from the many flaws in the plan. It was intended to distract from the Government's overall incompetence in delivering on big infrastructure projects to date.
On housing, this Fine Gael-led government and its Fine Gael-led predecessor have launched four housing plans, with at least a dozen PR events, accompanied by an endless supply of ministerial hard hats and high-visibility jackets. Yet more than 8,000 people, including 3,000 children, are homeless this evening. If the Government cannot deliver homes for children, how will it deliver on Ireland 2040?
On broadband, the Fine Gael-led government and its Fine Gael-led predecessor have made three separate announcements on rolling out a national broadband plan. The Government has missed all of its own deadlines, leaving tens of thousands of homes without broadband. If the Government cannot deliver on basic broadband, how will it deliver on Ireland 2040?
Then there is public transport. Where is he again, the Scarlet Pimpernel of transport, Lord Ross? Before Christmas, Ministers queued up to be on the cross-city Luas with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross, and the Taoiseach. However, they are all missing in action since the delays that have occurred because of the chaotic roll-out of this new service, which my colleagues will highlight this evening. If the Minister, Deputy Ross, cannot deliver a basic train service, how will he deliver on Ireland 2040? I could continue in this vein, but time is against me. However, when it comes to major infrastructure plans, the Government has a record of selling pups to the Irish people. This time they are not going to buy it.
I welcome the ambition. The Minister will know that I wanted to see capital expenditure increase to above EU levels. I have been calling for this for some time. However, the Government has sought to overwhelm us with the figure of almost €116 billion. If we divide €116 billion by ten years and consider that nearly €49 billion of that has already been committed to projects between 2016 and 2021, the increase in the proposed annual spend is relatively small.
Moreover, in what may become the biggest flaw in a plan of flaws, this plan and its promises are prepared on the basis that there will be no major economic shocks to the country during its ten-year implementation period, despite the potential impact of Brexit on our economic growth prospects. There is an irony in the fact that this plan was published in the same week as the Copenhagen Economics report on the impact of Brexit, as Deputy Cowen has mentioned. Published by a Department without any spin, this report showed that in a worst-case Brexit scenario, Ireland's output could be reduced by between €3 billion and €7 billion per year. Nobody wants to see that happen but if it does, what will become of Ireland 2040 then?
In his opening remarks, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, referred to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, public investment management assessment report of 2017, but as with so much within the NDP, there is very little action towards it. Last December, I published a Bill on behalf of Fianna Fáil that would implement that report's recommendations to ensure that taxpayers would get value for money and that best practice would be followed in each project. The Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Bill 2017 would mandate the Comptroller and Auditor General to formally review the performance of key projects that reach certain spending levels to ensure taxpayers get value for money. This Bill would bring Ireland into line with international best practice standards. In South Korea, for example, a fundamental review is triggered if the costs of a project rise by more than 20% in real terms, or if forecast demand falls by more than 30%.
Infrastructure has to be about more than ribbon-cutting opportunities for Ministers. This Bill will ensure that projects deliver on what they promised, that there is accountability around the spending of public money and that there is follow-up on poor performance. We have also proposed, as Deputy Cowen said, a national infrastructure commission.
Once again, dozens of organisations and Departments will be tasked with delivering this plan. This will lead to inevitable duplication and delay. In fact, many Government organisations will object to some of the provisions within this plan. In Fianna Fáil we have proposed a new national infrastructure commission should be established, tasked with planning ahead over a 25-year period.
The commission should be tasked with a series of targets including achieving 4% of GDP infrastructure investment; decarbonising Ireland; developing a strong transport network that balances regional development; making Ireland an IT nation with telecommunications connectivity that is relevant to the day; and a secure, balanced energy mix. The commission's reports should be laid before the Oireachtas and subject to scrutiny, unlike this plan. Departments will be required to draw up plans based on the commission’s recommendations as passed by the Oireachtas. What is wrong with setting up a body to deliver the plan and having the ambition to make the plan accountable?
Both Ministers referred to the new funds for urban and rural regeneration, around which there has been the greatest hype. There is no doubt that the concept of both these funds is excellent. However, an initial analysis shows flaws. The urban regeneration and development fund seems to pit projects in the chosen cities of Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway against projects in the 41 towns with a population in excess of 10,000. A sum of €2 billion over ten years equates to €200 million a year. Ambitious and worthy projects were previously identified within the five cities, which will reduce the fund further, leaving crumbs for the 41 towns. So much for regional balance. In the case of both funds, local authorities are mentioned as potential partners for co-financing. These are the same local authorities under the charge of the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government that do not have the money to fix regional and local roads after such a bad winter, yet he expects them to be partners in a multi-billion euro fund. He should get real about the financial condition of our local authority. We will engage with him in the roll-out of the terms and conditions of the funds but he should not hype them to the extent that he has.
How many of the announced projects, whether they were announced previously or are new announcements, have planning permission? In recent years, our planning system has become clogged with large projects, objections and further delays caused by a lack of resources in An Bord Pleanála. If the Government is serious about implementing the plan, as opposed to launching it, the Minister needs to power up An Bord Pleanála to give it the intellectual, financial and IT capacity to deal with what emerges from the plan. A fully resourced board will ensure Ireland 2040 does not become Ireland 2080.
During these statements - this is not a debate - my colleagues will deal with the specific areas of the plan that relate to their various portfolios. I refer to my county. I welcome the commitments in respect of Ireland West Airport Knock and the specific recognition given to it in both the NDP and the NPF. The consultation with the European Commission was referred to by the Taoiseach last Friday evening as something "that was about to begin" regarding state aid but that has been under way for some years. The Minister for Finance initiated it when he was Minister for Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport years ago. That is still going on and needs to be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible in order that this investment can proceed. A strategic development zone, SDZ, is being developed at the airport. Mayo County Council needs to given the proper resources to bring this SDZ to market as soon as possible
I welcome to the commitment to a review of the potential of the western rail line extension from Athenry to Tuam and from Tuam to CIaremorris. The western rail corridor offers a major opportunity to improve the industrial and manufacturing offering of the west and could make a significant contribution to decarbonising our economy. However, this review needs to be open to the communities and organisations involved and not become a box ticking exercise in some Department with a predetermined outcome. I welcome also the proposed upgrades to the N5 between Scramogue and Ballaghdereen, but my earlier warnings on planning apply. The N5 Turlough to Westport upgrade was reannounced in this plan. However, when this was previously announced, all we got was a row of glorified garden fences and, therefore, I will withhold judgment until I see a road. I am angry at the virtual deletion of the N26, which connects Ballina to the N5, from the national roads programme to 2027. It receives a mere nod in this plan with no indication of follow up in terms of budget or timelines. This road is necessary and long overdue, as it is an essential social and industrial artery. The notion that it has been delayed because of planning challenges represents a failure of commitment and imagination that is in evidence in respect of other roads in similar condition and that must be reversed. Similarly, in the long list of regional roads featuring in the plan, which funnily align with the constituencies of Ministers, the R312 between Erris and Castlebar is not deemed worthy of Government support. Connectivity is the buzz word of this plan but the meat within in suggests that connectivity will be weak. There are many other flaws but I will deal with them on another occasion.
Last Friday, the emperor and his foot soldiers gathered under the shadow of Ben Bulben and offered a new dawn for Ireland. We had Yeats and every other kind of poetry going. The Minister for Finance used doctored quotes from Ted Kennedy. However, in offering that new dawn, it was the same dawn the Government has offered on two or three occasions previously except this time the dawn was brighter because it was painted brighter and the spinning, packaging and pizzazz was better. The Ministers must be proud but I do not know if they will feature in the advertisements, "Coming to a cinema near you". This dawn will turn out like all those promised by the Government previously - it will never turn into day.
Is it on Netflix?
One never knows but I do not think they will get a second series.
I wish to share time with Deputies Pearse Doherty and Martin Kenny.
I welcome the Ministers back from Sligo. As I watched the launch of the plan on the Sligo IT website last Friday, it struck me that it was probably the most expensive press conference in the history of the State. Not only was there a fancy website that people were busy uploading nicely produced documents to all morning, but there were radio, television and cinema advertisements, as previous speakers said. Is that the first time advertisements promoting something like this have been shown in a cinema? It had the feel of the launch of an election campaign rather than a strategic document but people can make up their own minds on that. The speeches were incredibly poetic, particularly those of the Ministers for Finance and Housing, Planning and Local Government. However, there was a lack of detail and I hope we will get clarity on some issues during the debate over the next number of days.
Sinn Féin supports the principle of a national planning framework and we support the idea of a high level strategic document. We tried to focus on high level strategic issues in our contributions and submissions. We also support the NPF being placed on a statutory footing and I will come back to that crucial issue later. I acknowledge the work of departmental officials not only in the preparation of the documentation, but particularly in their willingness to make themselves available to the housing committee and to committee members to assist us in properly understanding the complexities of the issues at hand. We have benefited from that.
Sinn Féin was critical of the final draft of the document and some of those criticisms are worth mentioning. The population targets were too concentrated on Dublin and its commuter belt and we were concerned at the weakness of the all-Ireland dimension. We were absolutely concerned at the silence on the north west, a crucial part of our island. We commented in submissions on the weakness on issues such as public transport and climate change mitigation and, most important, on an issue I raised from the outset, which is the spatial dimension of socio-economic disadvantage and the way in which generation after generation in particular parts of our country and our cities have continually been left behind because of bad decisions or lack of decisions by successive Governments and the need for that to be explicitly dealt with the framework if that is to be reversed.
I acknowledge that there are significant changes in the final document which relate to issues we raised in our submissions, but many of us continue to have genuine concerns about the content. I do not accept it represents a paradigmatic shift, as the Ministers suggested. More work is needed but I would like to focus on the policy objectives. If the NPF is ever put on a statutory footing, it will have legal force and strength vis-à-vis county development plans and regional development plans. Chapter 2, "A New Way Forward", deals with population. The Minister is correct that 75% of population growth will take place outside Dublin but 50% will be in the east and midlands regions and I am genuinely concerned that without proper action by central and local government, that 50% growth will be concentrated in Dublin city and the commuter belt and, therefore, even though 75% of growth is projected to take place outside Dublin, 50% will be in Dublin and its commuter belt with negative impacts.
I know that is not the intention of the plan but it is a real concern which needs to be addressed not just in the regional and local plans but in the direction of the central plan. It is not clear from reading the document how that will be avoided. I would like the Minister to respond to that question.
I welcome the inclusion of the north-western region, which was not there earlier, in this section. I also welcome the setting of targets for the north west and mention of interconnections between Letterkenny, Dundalk, Drogheda and Newry. While it is valuable that they are now included in the policy objectives, the outworkings of the investment decisions and the benefits for the people along those crucial corridors have to be further spelt out.
Employment targets need to be more than regional because within the regions certain areas are already lagging behind. While there is job growth in the south east it is not as fast as, for example, in the south west or other parts of the State. Therefore, if we are to ensure that the job growth at regional level adequately spills down to the sub-regional level, further attention needs to be paid to that.
Inner city communities in all the large urban areas, or working class suburban areas that have suffered historic State neglect, also need to be adequately focused on. It is not clear from the document how it is intended to address those. While this is a high level strategic document that does not detail its implementation, there needs to be a little more direction to the regional assemblies and local authorities to ensure that while they develop local detail they are mindful of regions or urban areas that suffer more acute levels of socio-economic disadvantage and are not experiencing the job growth of other areas.
I welcome Chapter 3, "Effective Regional Development", which is the big addition to the plan. It is not clear why the primary focus is on building up the larger cities, how that development will filter down in meaningful and structured ways to those broader regions. I am not asking for all the detail to be provided but for some direction to be given to the regional and local authorities so that they can do that. I also note in this section that there are no policy objectives. There are priorities in terms of development and so-called growth enablers but I presume they do not have the same legal standing as core policy objectives, as would be the case for a county or city development plan, an important distinction if this plan is ever put on a statutory footing. The north west remains the weakest served area in this section of the document. That needs more attention, particularly the area north of Sligo. The all-Ireland dimension is still too weak. While there are improvements more can be done.
I fully support the focus in Chapter 4, "Making Stronger Urban Places", on rebuilding and repopulating our urban cores. That is an eminently sensible policy objective and we all need to get behind it. I also support the focus on brownfield development and density although not at the expense of standards in respect of the quality or size of the accommodation. Residential development in urban centres must be accompanied by adequate transport and public services and that is why the national development plan, which Deputy Pearse Doherty will address, is so crucial. Affordability is also central. One of the reasons our inner city cores are depopulated is the high price of land. It is all very well to say we will develop those inner city cores but if there is not a real, concerted effort to ensure that the residential development there is genuinely affordable for average working families it will not succeed. The Minister knows I am very critical of his approach to affordability. Something on that front will have to change if that area is to be tackled seriously.
The regeneration and development agency has real potential if it is given significant powers not only to co-operate and collaborate with other public agencies and local authorities but to take hold of that land to ensure it is used in the most effective way. An example is the recent TV coverage of RTÉ looking to sell prime residential land for profit rather than the land being mobilised in the most effective way to meet affordable housing need in that area. Just across the road is the CIÉ bus station in Donnybrook, a place where there should be no bus garage. If there was a strong land management agency it could work with those relevant authorities and in some cases force them, if it had the powers, to swap those landholdings for lands held by local authorities on the edges of the city, near the M50, to ensure the best possible use of that land. If that is the Government's intention, and if it is in the legislation that it brings forward, it will have our support because that could be the most valuable element of the additional changes to this plan. The agency needs to be in the business of land swaps and acquisitions, including streamlined compulsory purchase orders of strategically significant pieces of land that could be used for residential or mixed residential and commercial development.
In respect of Chapter 5, "Planning for Diverse Rural Places", the idea in the public debate in recent weeks that this plan is rural versus urban was frustrating. Those of us who were critical of the over-concentration on Dublin at an earlier stage made the point that it was as bad for Dublin as for rural Ireland. We need to ensure the plan assures those social and economic spill-over effects into the less populated parts of the island just as it does for the regions.
We also need to have a grown up and honest debate about one-off rural housing. Some of the changes in the document are welcome but one-off housing cannot be allowed to proliferate at huge cost to the taxpayer because of the expense of delivering those homes. At the same time we cannot say to people living on rural farmland that they cannot develop if there is no affordable housing on the edges of towns or in the inner cities. The debate needs to be about how we square that circle of ensuring that people have affordable homes close to their places of work or where they come from in a way that does not impose too heavy a cost on the environment or on the taxpayer through the provision of public services. I am not sure we have had that debate yet, although it is not just a matter for Government, it is for all of us.
I do not have time to go into detail about chapters 6, 7 and 8 but unless there is adequate investment in the areas these chapters cover, the aspirations and policy objectives in the document will not be very meaningful. The target of 550,000 new homes is meaningless unless there is a clear mechanism for delivering them. For example, it is disappointing that there is nothing on vacant housing stock or better management of the vacant housing stock alongside the introduction of new units. Unless there is a realisation that direct investment by the State in the delivery of affordable homes to rent and buy on public lands becomes a major policy objective and spending commitment those areas will not see significant progress.
The new statutory guidelines in section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 are potentially very interesting but we need to see more detail. That is not in the document. I like the idea of the housing need demand assessment by local authorities but I would like to see it done on a five-year cycle to govern long-term planning for local authorities rather than the present two to three year housing plans. I could say more about public transport and rural Ireland and the sustainable future sections but I will leave them to my colleagues. These are weak sections, given the kind of ambition in the rhetoric in Sligo on Friday versus their detail.
The Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2016 before the Seanad states that the draft of the planning framework would come to both Houses of the Oireachtas for approval and then be published. No draft has been approved by either House. The Minister is right to say a motion was passed by the Houses on 3 October to refer it to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government for comment. No vote on the approval of the draft has taken place. Therefore, I do not understand how the national planning framework can be on a statutory footing and nothing the Minister has said has clarified that. I have written to the Chairman of the committee asking that it seek independent legal advice, as is our right, to clarify that matter.
I hope I get the support of other colleagues on this. The Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, should want this to be clarified and, clearly, on a statutory footing. I do not accept the version of events he has given today. I do not accept the Government's assurance that what has happened to date will mean this is on a statutory footing when the Bill becomes law, which we expect it to do. Perhaps the best way to do it is to allow the housing committee to seek that legal advice to get the clarity we all need.
This is a better draft than the earlier version. If I had more time I would go into more details. It would have been much better, however, if the Minister had brought the draft that was published on Friday into a committee process in the House. This would have allowed a real detailed scrutiny rather than the Second Stage speeches we are left with here today. It would have given Members the option of making amendments to the document, as happens in county and city plans. If the Minister had done this, Members would have taken the responsibility seriously and we would have engaged with the Minister constructively. The plan would have been all the better for it. The Minister chose not to do that. As a consequence the plan is weaker. We will continue to work constructively with the Government on it because we want to ensure the plan is right. There will have to be a vote in the Oireachtas on a plan if it is to be on a statutory footing. When we get the legal advice to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government it will be confirmed and we will be back debating this issue at some point in the near future.
I now invite Deputy Pearse Doherty, and as the Member in possession I ask that he adjourns the debate at 8 p.m.
Now that we have regained our balance after all the spin of the weekend we are left with a document called the national development plan representing the new capital plan. I say "new" but when one actually reads through it there is a real taste of reheated dinner here. It is a plan that is meant to catch up for the last decade that was lost to austerity as Government after Government made the wrong choices, despite being told by Sinn Féin and others that this was exactly what they were doing.
Capital spending was always the low hanging fruit and unfortunately we had a Fianna Fáil Government and a Fine Gael Government that picked at it until the tree was bare. Now we have a massive housing crisis, hospital wards are overcrowded with trolleys and there is creaking infrastructure. Mar a thuilleann tú a gheobhaidh tú. Tá muidne fós ag fulaingt de bharr easpa infheistíochta agus polasaí an rualoiscthe a bhí curtha i bhfeidhm ag na páirtithe coimeádacha. Aithním go molann an plean seo tuilleadh infheistíochta a dhéanamh, ach ní théann sé fada go leor agus muidne chomh fada sin ar chúl. It is a cynical plan in promising nice things in the far future but little in the here and now. This really sums up the plan. It also represents a recommitment to the flawed, wasteful and expensive public private partnership model. It is a plan dripping with partitionism. It is not a fit plan for a modern or united Ireland. It is not even a real plan for a partitioned Ireland lagging behind on public services and infrastructure.
If there is an issue with the fiscal rules then a full campaign to achieve flexibility, especially in light of Brexit, must be waged. Sinn Féin would support the Government in doing this. There is more money on the table here for investment over the next few years. That is always to be welcomed. It is important to say that. The return on investment and the cost to be paid for underinvesting are well established.
No country can ever stand still. Roads will crack, buildings will grow too small as populations grow, water pipes will rust and bust, and hospital wards will become outdated and in some cases they will become dangerous. For far too long short-term spending and unsustainable tax cuts have poisoned political discourse in the State. There is a whole part of the picture missing in the plan with no comment on the need for engineering skills and reforms of procurement policies. This is a major gap in the plan. It is impossible to balance the spin in this plan about investment and future proofing while in the same building the Department of Finance officials plan on how to cut more and more taxes.
Is this plan good enough? Is it good enough for the next generation? Is it good enough for the children who will start school in September? Is it good enough for those people who are on waiting lists today? The answer to all of these questions is that it is far from good enough. This is a plan for standing still. It is a plan to build a State that is not far from falling part but far from excelling in public infrastructure. When we cut through the spin it is a lot of headlines covering an attempt to build a country on the cheap. The scale of investment that is needed is not reflected in this plan. This is at the core of the capital plan. Brexit is looming and Ireland is a decade behind others, as the Taoiseach likes to point out, but over the next four years only an extra 10% in capital spending is planned above what has already been announced and with only 9% more next year. This is hardly visionary. It is the bare minimum. The immediate up-front spend is lacking in the plan. The fiscal rules allow for money to be front-loaded this way but it seems a political calculation has been made that people will not notice the smog if they are looking at the clouds. The more detailed the proposals the more distant they are. Cé gur cuid riachtanach dár infreastruchtúr é an leathanbhanda, mar shampla, tá na mílte teaghlach is comhlacht fós ag fanacht air. Gheall Rialtas Fhianna Fáil go soláthrófar seirbhísí leathanbhanda deich mbliana ó shin. Cén uair a chuirfear na seirbhísí seo ar fáil? Níl am ar bith leagtha síos sa phlean. Níl gealltanas ar bith tugtha. Níl a fhios againn cén uair a bheidh leathanbhanda ar fáil. Níl aon bharúil againn faoin mhéad a chosnóidh sé faoin bplean. Níl cliú againn cé a chuirfidh ar fáil é mar níl sé sin sa phlean ach oiread.
Let us consider the promises made in health. A ward block was announced for University Hospital Limerick even though it was needed years ago. Without a doubt it is welcome but let us consider the reality. University Hospital Limerick consistently has some 40 to 50 patients on trolleys each day. Last year in University Hospital Limerick there were 8,869 patients left on trolleys. I could say the same for Donegal but that does not appear in the plan. Two of the headline announcements in the health section of the plan are the national children’s hospital and the national maternity hospital but these projects were announced years ago. A new endoscopy suite was announced for Naas General Hospital. While this proposal is welcome I hope it fares better than the surgery theatre there that has not been used once in 15 years because they do not have the staff to run it. This is despite the fact that nearly 7,000 people are on waiting lists there. I hope the proposed endoscopy suite for Naas General Hospital fares better than the maternity theatre that was built in Letterkenny General Hospital in 2000 and which has never once been used because this Government, like the previous Governments, was unwilling to put in the resources to staff the theatre. While thousands and thousands of people linger on the waiting lists consultants fight for theatre space and theatre time.
The Government wonders why people are cynical about this plan. The long-term planning is still lacking in vision once we chip away the frills. Important roads like the Letterkenny bypass are to be looked at and hopefully progressed. The high-speed Dublin-Belfast rail link is to get a feasibility study. This is a plan up to 2040. The Government was free to let its imagination run riot and to put out an ambitious plan for the future of Ireland up to 2040. However, no one in the whole Government dared to try to imagine a rail link to the north west. When we cut through the spin we have a political wish list that will fool nobody.
It is disheartening to see that after the collapse of Carillion and the overwhelming evidence now that public private partnerships, PPPs, are the wrong choice, this plan recommits to their use. We have, apparently, had a review of PPPs and we are told that everything is grand. The criticism from the IMF has been brushed away and the Government is to commit to decades more of public money being wasted on these inefficient schemes. Whatever case could be made in the bad times for PPPs as an emergency measure is long gone. After the collapse of Carillion a Member of the British House of Lords said:
PPPs enabled you, at least in the short term, to dress up considerable amounts of public expenditure and put them off the public sector balance sheet. That is not a good reason for adopting something which, in my judgment, does not give good value for money for the taxpayer, and it introduces a degree of moral hazard, which we see very much in the Carillion affair.
This was not a mad leftie. This speaker was Nigel Lawson, who was Maggie Thatcher's Chancellor. PPPs are a bad idea and including them in this plan as a key element is a costly mistake. This plan is a lie in its very name. This is not a national development plan. It is a plan for a partitioned country. It is a partitionist development plan. It speaks of the development of Ireland’s three regions while ignoring the north of our country. The plan speaks of Ireland’s main cities but does not mention Derry or the industrial city of Belfast.
It also speaks of roads to some place called the Border. Unfortunately, this does not cut it. We will deal with it further on Committee Stage.