Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will address amendment No. 57, tabled by Senators Garvey and O’Reilly, amendment Nos. 58, 60, 61, 63 to 70, inclusive, 72, 73, 75 to 77, inclusive, 79, 80 and 82, tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, amendments Nos 59, 62 and 74, tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan, amendments Nos. 71 and 83, tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall; and amendments Nos. 78, 81 and 84, tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. This group of amendments primarily relate to chapter 2 of Part 3 and the national planning framework, NPF.

As the Senators are aware, the Bill provides that the NPF will continue to spearhead the planning agenda in Ireland and sets out a plan-led system where all tiers of planning from a regional level to a local level align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF.

Amendment No. 57, proposed by Senators Garvey and O'Reilly, seeks to insert a new definition for transport infrastructure. As matters stand, the concept of transport infrastructure is well understood by planning authorities. I do not see any real benefit accruing on foot of what this amendment proposes. Furthermore, it can be noted that transport infrastructure is already defined within Schedule 1, but in the context of strategic infrastructure development. The insertion of an additional definition at this point in the Bill could give rise to some operational confusion. We will look at it, I give a commitment to doing that, but it is also referenced in section 540, under development contributions. Cyclist and pedestrian facilities and public transport are referenced. I will not accept the amendment, but we will give some further consideration to it.

Amendments Nos 58 and 60, proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, relate to the United Nations sustainable development goals, SDGs. I do not favour the insertion of an explicit reference to the SDGs in the NPF as suggested in these amendments. Importantly, a national implementation plan for the sustainable development goals is already in effect and a corresponding policy map is available to track Ireland’s implementation of each specific goal. There is already a whole-of-government approach in relation to the SDGs. This is the responsibility of all Departments and all of society, and there is a reporting mechanism in place for the implementation of all 17 SDGs.

A secondary factor to consider is that not every matter covered by the sustainable development goals may be entirely proper to the NPF, for example, matters such as a reduction of inequality, or the achievement of gender equality. To create a legislative basis for the implementation of the SDGs in the context of the NPF could give rise to unforeseen legal challenges and would expand the scope of the framework beyond the areas to which it is intended to apply.

I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 59, proposed by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan, seeks to provide that the preparation and publication of the NPF will be subject to the approval of the Oireachtas. The reason it is appropriate that the NPF is approved by Government is because it sets out Government policy. The preparation and review of the NPF is a highly participative, transparent and deliberative process beyond the level of consultation, assessment and scrutiny typically involved in Government policy formation and implementation. Ultimately, the Government of the day must negotiate and agree an approach, including any associated targets that play a crucial role in guiding the delivery of infrastructure and delivery across almost every Department. The Bill provides for the extensive consultation on the development of the NPF with stakeholders, including the Oireachtas and local government as well as members of the public. For these reasons I do not believe it is necessary for the NPF to be approved by the Oireachtas so I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 61, as proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, seeks to amend section 21(2)(e) by inserting a specific reference to marine protected areas. The NPF is aligned to the national marine planning framework, which is where the marine protected areas are referenced. As appropriate, regard must be given to the national marine planning framework and there is no need for an additional reference to individual aspects of that framework. For this reason I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 62, as proposed by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan, seeks to provide that the NPF would include policies and proposals for the furtherance of objectives relating to the Irish language and the Gaeltacht. The planning system in Ireland recognises the importance of the Irish language, especially in Gaeltacht areas, and amendments have already been brought forward in Dáil Éireann providing for a distinct category, a priority area plan, for specific Gaeltacht and island communities. It has been extensively debated and discussed on Committee Stage in the Dáil, and this provides for suitable mechanisms for these communities to influence and shape planning for their areas and to accommodate specific language needs, so I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 63 to 70, inclusive, proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, seek to amend section 21(3) with respect to NPF content. I cannot accept amendment No. 63 as it deletes section 21(3)(b)(iv) in its entirety, and considering that energy and communication networks are an important national infrastructural priority, reference to same should be retained with respect to NPF content. Amendments Nos. 64 to 69, inclusive, are linked and all propose the same form of additional content in the NPF. In relation to amendments Nos. 65 and 66, I do not believe there is a need to make specific reference to social, public or green spaces as I consider all fall under the umbrella terms of cultural and recreational facilities and are already provided within the current version of the Bill under section 21(3)(b)(v). There are urban design guidelines for local authorities in terms of provision of open, public and active green spaces.

With respect to amendments Nos. 67 and 68, while recognising the importance of a night-time economy and the promotion of accessibility and inclusion for a person with a disability, I do not consider the NPF the correct vehicle for the progression of such matters that predominantly fall under the remit of another Department and with other legislative codes. The establishment of the night-time economy task force was undertaken by the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, and I attended one of the first meetings. A number of initiatives have been announced recently in relation to supports for the night-time economy, and it is a hugely valuable sector. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has statutory responsibility to promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Minister of State with special responsibility for disability has already submitted reports to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on Ireland's effort to protect and enhance the rights of people with disabilities.

With the respect to the inclusion of biodiversity as proposed in amendment No. 69, this is a matter already provided for under section 21(3)(d)(iii). I believe this is the correct location for this provision given that section 21(3)(d) relates to the conservation of the environment and its amenities. I am also of the view that removal of the wording "take account of the need to" from section 21(3)(c)(ii), as proposed by amendment No. 70, is incorrect and will confuse the purposes and aims of the NPF with the national climate action plan. Biodiversity protection generally has been strengthened throughout the Bill following commitments we gave to members of the committee. Specifically on climate, section 21(2)(f) provides for "the integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate" and biodiversity objectives in the preparation of the NPF so it is included there.

Amendment Nos. 71 and 74, proposed by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall, and Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan, respectively, relate to Gaeltacht and Irish language matters. As already stated, amendments have already been brought forward providing for a distinct category of priority area plan specific to Gaeltacht areas and the islands and therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

I understand Senator Higgins has stated she intends to withdraw amendments Nos. 72 and 73, proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, which relate to the addition of marine related content and regard for special areas of conservation. Land-sea interaction and the promotion of co-ordination of development between terrestrial and marine sectors is already provided for under section 21(3)(e) and, as previously stated, regard must be had to the national marine planning framework which has brought together marine-based human activities and marine spatial planning for the first time. Maybe a note on this might be of some assistance to go through that. With respect of special areas of conservation, section 21(3)(d) already provides for ecology and biodiversity in the context of conservation of the environment and its amenities, and for these reasons I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Senator Higgins mentioned specifically the marine protected areas, MPA, legislation and there have been delays with it. We are hopeful we will be able to publish it in the autumn. That is not to say there has not been action. We are almost at the 10% of strict protection under special protected areas for seabirds, the largest of which I announced earlier this year in the seas off Wexford, which is the largest SPA ever announced in the history of State. It has taken us from 2.6% to 9.8%, almost the 10% strict target for marine protection to which we have committed, so we are on track in terms of that. We have published the sensitivity analysis for the Celtic seas, which is a second sensitivity analysis. There is a huge amount of background work being done in relation to marine protected areas and I am conscious of the Senator's reference to the nature restoration plan and the public engagement on that which we will commence in September, 2024.

I fully acknowledge the intent behind amendments Nos. 75 to 77, inclusive, and I believe this approach should not be followed. Aside from the issue that matters such as fossil fuel infrastructure or weapons manufacturing fall beyond the remit of our Department and therefore the core policies in relation to those matters are proper to other Departments, there is an inherent risk associated with beginning to list items that should not be included in the NPF. There is most likely a wide range of additional items that are utterly unsuitable for the purpose of the NPF and that could therefore easily be added to those that are already listed under amendments Nos. 75 to 77, inclusive. The problem that can often arise is that an omission, whether intended or not, can mistakenly be perceived as a nod towards suitability. For this reason I do not favour listing matters that are not proper to or should not be considered as part of the NPF. I thank the Senators for the proposals, but for this reason I cannot accept these amendments.

Amendments Nos. 78 to 81, inclusive, concern additions to the list of consultees set out under section 23(2) for the review of the NPF. There is no need to specify elected representatives with respect to local authorities that are already in the scope based upon the definition of a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2001. I do not favour adding the other bodies as proposed under these amendments, although I agree they are all laudable and important bodies, as the Ministers with responsibility for those areas are already listed as consultees and I see no reason to list such bodies above other bodies such as the NTA that do not appear on the list but are still fully engaged in the NPF process. The list under section 23(2) will provide for extensive public consultation on the NPF, which attracts a very high volume of submissions from members of the public, special interest groups and a wide range of State bodies, because there is a huge amount of interest in it, and for those reasons I do not see a reason to alter the list further.

I cannot accept amendment No. 82. Most certainly, the NPF should be subject to a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, or an appropriate assessment, AA, or both, where such an assessment is required. Section 23(3) states that a new or revised NPF shall be subject to a screening assessment and, if necessary, an SEA, AA or both, in accordance with the SEA directive, the habitats directive and Part 6 of the Bill. It is not appropriate to delete “if necessary” as the first step in any environmental assessment is to undertake a screening assessment and then, if it is determined that an SEA or AA is required, that is also undertaken. It is not appropriate to carry out an assessment where no such assessment is required and to underpin this in legislation is certainly not something I could agree with. However, I note that the recently published draft revised NPF has undergone environmental assessment in relation to strategic environmental assessment, appropriate assessment and strategic flood risk assessment. These assessments have been placed on display, accompanying the draft revised NPF for public consultation.

Amendment No. 83 is similar to amendment No. 59 in that it seeks to provide that the preparation and publication of the NPF shall be subject to the approval of the Oireachtas. As I already mentioned, it is appropriate that the NPF is approved by Government as it sets out Government policy. Coupled with the extensive consultation requirements, it is not necessary for the NPF to be approved by the Oireachtas. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 84 intends to introduce a requirement for a debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas following the publication of an NPF. Following the comprehensive consultation processes that must be completed in advance of such publication, I do not see the merit in this proposal. Such debates can, of course, be scheduled and I would be pleased to engage in such a discussion. The scheduling of debates in the Dáil and Seanad is a matter for each House. I do not believe that imposing a requirement for a debate in the manner suggested is the correct way forward. I agree it is important that debates take place in both Houses, particularly in relation to the NPF. That is a matter for each House to discuss under the scheduling of the business committees. I agree it is important but I cannot accept this amendment.