In principle, the idea of getting State bodies to co-ordinate to accelerate the delivery of critical infrastructure and removing unnecessary obstacles to its development is a good one. I have concerns about the legislation but I would love to know whether it might be helpful in dealing with an issue in my constituency. This gets to the heart of my anxieties and concerns about what the Government's real motives and objectives are. I have raised a number of times the town centre in Cherrywood, which is the biggest residential development in the country. The entire development was really predicated on there being a town centre so you did not have to get in your car. You could walk everywhere in ten minutes because there would be community facilities, shop facilities and all of the rest of it. The developers built all of the houses and made a lot of money. They are still flipping properties and they are still getting rezonings and changes to the SDZs. Whatever developers ask for, they get from the State. They have made a lot of money but for the town centre, which the people who have moved in there need, as well as the amenities and critical structure, there is nothing. Well, sorry, there is one Tesco Express and a big hole in the ground. The developers do not want to build the town centre because it is not really profitable for them. They are building houses and flipping properties after they got planning permission. They have started to sell properties again after getting a recent upzoning of the SDZs at higher densities. That is more money for them but they do not want to build the town centre. The Minister should tell me whether this will help get the developers to deliver the town centre. They will not even build a bridge from one part of Cherrywood to the other part, which is needed to link the two together, because it is not profitable for them. They are allowed to get away with this. We have been screaming about it, the residents have been screaming about it and they are allowed get away with it. That is the sort of knocking heads together and getting Departments together I would like to see. Will the Government do something about that? Here is another bit of co-ordination. In the same area where there is all this residential development, we need AstroTurf pitches and sports facilities. The clubs are crying out for them. They cannot get money or AstroTurf pitches for love nor money from the council, even though there is all of this residential development. Then, I hear that private developers have decided in the Cherrywood site that they want to build two ice hockey rinks and a convention centre for about €240 million. They want rezoning for it, which they got. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael councillors voted for it and the developers have asked the State for I do not know how much and the State will not even tell me. I have asked two parliamentary questions and the Department will not tell me for how much it has been asked for a private development for an ice hockey stadium. Nobody in the area is asking for an ice hockey stadium. They want a town centre. They want AstroTurf pitches. They want their bridge. They want the affordable housing they were promised. They did not ask for a ice hockey rink. I am not against ice hockey, do not get me wrong, but the Government's councillors voted to give the developers the zoning they wanted and the Government will not even tell us how much money they have asked the Department for but the rumour is €60 million to €80 million. Football clubs cannot get an AstroTurf pitch, which costs less than €1 million, but we might be giving a private consortium €60 to €80 million to build ice hockey rinks that nobody asked for. That worries me but it speaks to whom the Government prioritises. When the Government says about this legislation that it wants to remove obstacles, it does not seem to be anything about that but instead it is about the objectors. The objectors are the problem and the people who put in submissions to developments are the problem and not the 90,000 planning permissions that have been given and granted for houses in this country. Property developers sit on them, however, and do not do anything with them because it is profitable to sit on them and wait for the prices to go up, stay up or they flip the properties. No, there is nothing done about that but the Government is giving out about the objectors and it does not want oversight in respect of climate obligations, that is, the disapplication of section 15. To me, that smacks of LNG. That is what I hear in respect of LNG. We do not want any of the obligations under climate legislation to impact on our ability to develop liquid natural gas infrastructure. I seriously ask the question if this will apply to private, for-profit developments? We need renewable wind resources but why is it the Government has given away all of the sites to private companies? When the wind energy and our marine resources are developed for wind energy, we get nothing from it. We are giving to international consortiums. Even the French state will own more of the wind produced off the east coast of Ireland than the people of Ireland will because the Government has given away the sites to the French state energy company. I seriously worry what the Government's motives and objectives are here. I would like to hear some soothing words of reassurance that it will actually deal with the issues but the fact is the Government hands over responsibility to private developers for so much of the infrastructure, whether it is housing, energy and of course the data centres. I mean, Jesus, by 2030, it is estimated 30% of the electricity in this country will go to the data centres. They are hoovering up the energy we are creating for the benefit of some of the wealthiest companies in the world but doing very little for employment and serving no real purpose other than to make profits for these companies. Yes, the Government should knock heads together, remove unnecessary sequential planning decisions and so on but I am seriously concerned the Government is actually just trying to remove climate obligations through the backdoor and its over-reliance or prioritisation of private developers' interests mean it will be them who benefit from it rather than the public interest.

Sentiment score: 0.10