Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last night Senator Dooley had just concluded his contribution on section 11. Does any other Member wish to contribute on section 11? Does the Minister of State wish to reply on section 11?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the Minister of State is stepping in in these circumstances. There are a few things I want to say about section 11 but I do not want to overly delay the House.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not let you.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just want to point out that section 11(1) provides that a declaration that something is or is not an unauthorised user is conclusive of the matter stated therein in proceedings brought by an enforcement authority only against the person who requested the relevant declaration. There are two exceptions to that. One is where that person knowingly misled the planning authority, or the commission, which is a renamed An Bord Pleanála, by misleading it that the misleading information would have meant that the declaration would not be made. The second exception is if the person withheld information from the planning authority, or the commission, that the person knew to be material to the question as to whether or not there was a development or exempted development and the planning authority would, had it been aware of the information that was withheld, not have decided to issue the declaration.

Section 11(2), and this is very important, states that "a relevant declaration shall not be admissible in evidence in any proceedings relating to the act, operation or change in use in respect of which the relevant declaration was made", subject to subsection (1). Nobody can rely on it in any proceeding and cannot produce it in any proceeding other than a subsection (1) situation where there is a prosecution against the person who obtained the declaration, or who requested it. Therefore, a third party who has bought a business, enterprise or property from a person who obtained such a declaration is not entitled to produce the certificate in court. It is not admissible. That is an extraordinary situation that a person can buy a business that a declaration has issued in the past saying it is exempt development or it is not development at all. This would apply to something like an intensification of user situation or, say, an extension of a quarry. The person would have bought it and the vendor who sold them the factory, quarry, land, building or whatever else it is would have produced, in order to show compliance with the planning law, a certificate of exemption issued by the local authority or by the commission and that the person cannot produce it in court if someone brings a proceeding against them, claiming they are carrying on an authorised use of land or that the use constitutes a development when it was stated not to do. That is what worries me about this.

The ban on its admissibility is in any proceedings relating to the act, the operation or change in use. It refers to relevant proceedings as defined in subsection (3). Relevant declaration applies in that respect as well. Proceedings under sections 341, 344 or 345 are covered in respect of the person who applied for the relevant declaration but the provisions of subsection (1) do not apply in proceedings against anybody else. Is that remotely fair?

It is in that context that I draw the House’s attention to section 12. Section 12(1) states that a similar provision of the Act of 2000 shall continue and have effect as if made under section 10 but then the next subsection is really worrying. It states, notwithstanding the repeal of that section of the Act of 2000, "The Act of 2000 shall, subject to Part 17, continue to apply and have effect in relation to a request, application or appeal under that section made before that repeal."

What we are introducing here, after this Bill comes into operation, is a capacity to, effectively, deal with a situation that happened prior to the enactment of this legislation. It is a deeply worrying provision because no protection whatsoever is made for innocent third parties who have acted to their prejudice by purchasing business, land, operations or whatever in good faith on foot of a declaration that is later challenged by any third party or a local authority on the grounds that it was obtained by withholding information or giving misleading information.

I am particularly concerned with a situation concerning withholding information. Somebody could easily just not mention something to a local authority in their application, conceal it in that way and get a declaration. It would appear, on the face of it, to be entirely valid to a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice, of any withholding of any relevant information to mean that the current activity carried on at that place was entirely lawful.

The problem with section 11(2) is that it states a relevant declaration will not be admissible in any court if the purchaser is subsequently challenged as to whether a development was unauthorised or not. I do not see why this subsection is so wide in its application. I do not see why somebody who acted entirely innocently, and totally lawfully as far as he or she was concerned, and took every step to examine the certificate which stated the activity he or she was buying into was exempt development should suddenly be told that he or she cannot produce the certificate at all in any court to defend himself or herself. This is the point I am making.

The Minister of State seemed to nod sympathetically last night when I mentioned that he should deal with this on Report Stage, but I am really worried about it in its present form now because things get nodded through in a guillotine situation and then there is no recourse on the part of the Members of this House if there is no response at a later stage. I am opposed to this section.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having listened to Senator McDowell, he is suggesting we are creating a legal quagmire in this Bill for generations to come. Yesterday, it also transpired this measure would be applied retrospectively to every business as well. I did not think we could have legislation with a retrospective impact. It was pointed out yesterday, however, that this measure could be retrospectively applied to people who gave false information and that other people could be held accountable now through retrospective legislation. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say on this point.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has made a valid point. We are not going to solve it on Committee Stage, so perhaps it can be brought to the attention of the Attorney General. I suggest we deal with the issue on Report Stage by ensuring that in circumstances where a third party has purchased a premises and has had nothing to do with giving false or misleading information, in the limited circumstances where that would occur, the permission could not be revoked.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator McDowell is a colleague of mine but he is also a former Attorney General and a very experienced legal practitioner. He has raised a very serious question. We have to deal with what it is before us today, in the present moment. We simply do not know how the Government is going to conduct itself in relation to this Bill. We know it was guillotined in the Dáil and it is proposed it will be guillotined here. Clearly, we are not going to complete all our work by tomorrow afternoon, so another guillotine will be applied tomorrow. We have no confidence that this Bill will not be further guillotined at a later stage. Today is today. This is the parliamentary procedure. We are debating this Bill on Committee Stage.

I raised the matter of admissibility to relevant proceedings last night. I am deeply concerned about it. Senator McDowell has again highlighted and cautioned us about it today. This is the background to and reality of this situation. Officials, the Minister and the Ministers of State in the Department have significant time to examine this Bill and all its possible consequences, fallout and ramifications. It has gone through exhaustive scrutiny in the Department, the Office of the Attorney General, etc. Now, we have an issue we must deal with here today.

We are, of course, going to oppose this section because there are several issues with it. We will call a roll-call vote on it because it is that significant. We need to trap this particular stage in the proceedings and, therefore, we have one option, either to accept or oppose this section. It is open to every Member of the House to oppose this section. We will oppose it because there are now serious concerns about it.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for joining us. He does not have the benefit of having been here yesterday evening when Senator McDowell raised what are very serious concerns. I utterly reject the insinuation that anyone who votes for this section is in some way endorsing it. It is wrong to present it as a fait accompli when we are on Committee Stage and every Member of the House understands the Bill will come back to the House on Report Stage, when there will be further reflection and perhaps amendments. The issues raised are serious. I absolutely respect Senator McDowell's viewpoint on this. My colleague, Senator Dooley, suggested yesterday evening that we return to this matter on Report Stage following further consideration by the Department in consultation with the Attorney General. The Minister of State who was here last night committed to do so.

I urge Members to allow our work to proceed today. We have 12 hours of debate scheduled and we are very keen to progress this legislation and see amendments made to it, but no amendments can be made if we are all going to spend extra time repeating what we all know to be the case, which is that we are on Committee Stage. We have our own viewpoints, so let us make our views known and then move on. This approach would allow us to actually progress the Bill and get the best possible planning legislation that this country deserves.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I again note the concerns raised by the Senators. As Senator Fitzpatrick said, I was not here for the debate last night but I am taking on board the genuine concerns raised. Again, to keep proceedings flowing, I ask that we move on. I will ask the Attorney General to double-check and look at the issues that have been referred to.

Genuine concerns were raised by a number of Senators last night and again this morning.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept what my friends are saying. I do not want to delay proceedings or extend matters by calling for a walk through vote. We have to mark our disagreement with the section as it stands, however, and that must be done by means of a vote.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 46:

In page 57, line 20, after “application” to insert the following:

“, request for a declaration, request for information, further information, notice, request for a review or a referral under that section and made before that repeal or”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 57, line 20, after “appeal” to insert the following:

“and any such matter may be concluded in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act accordingly”.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The section is not agreed because it extends the ban on producing certificates to certificates that will be issued before this Bill comes into operation. It is retrospective in effect insofar as it catches them. That is why I am not agreeing it, but I am not going to ask for another vote.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir. The Minister of State does not want to reply.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 57, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

“Continued application of section 5 of Part 1 of Act of 2000 for certain purposes

13. (1) Notwithstanding the repeal of section 5 of Part I of the Act of 2000 effected by section 6, that Chapter shall, to the extent that it applied to a declaration, direction, referral, request or review immediately before that repeal, continue to apply and have effect in relation to each such—

(a) declaration, review or referral pending immediately before that repeal,

(b) direction or request made (but not fully complied with) before that repeal, and

(c) a matter which was initiated under section 5 of the Act of 2000, shall be entitled to continue to be processed under the provisions of section 5 of the Act of 2000 and chapter III of Part VI of the Act of 2000 and sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Act of 2000, as may be required, irrespective of whether these provisions have been repealed or not.

(2) Regulations under section 142 and otherwise relevant under the Act of 2000 shall, to such extent only as is necessary for the purposes of subsection (1), continue in force and have effect on and after the repeal of that section by section 6.”.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 49 to 56, inclusive, are related; and amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 52; and these amendments may be discussed together, by agreement.

Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 49:

In page 58, to delete line 38, and in page 59, to delete lines 1 to 14 and substitute the following:

“(5) A planning authority shall, in relation to an application in respect of—

(a) overground electronic communications infrastructure,

(b) any associated physical infrastructure under this section,

(c) require the applicant concerned:

(i) to publish a public notice;

(ii) to erect on the land on which the development concerned is situated, or affix

to any structure on such land, a site notice in relation to the application

concerned in accordance with such requirements as may be prescribed as if

the same were an application for permission for standard development under

section 92,

(d) cause a copy of the application and any information received by the planning

authority to be made available at the offices of the Planning Authority during

normal business hours, for—

(i) inspection by members of the public, and

(ii) purchase by members of the public for such fee not exceeding the reasonable

cost of making such copy, and

(iii) on the internet website of the planning authority.

(6) (a) Any person or body, on payment of the prescribed fee, may make a submission or

observation in writing to a planning authority in relation an application in relation

to an application in respect of—

(i) overground electronic communications infrastructure, or

(ii) any associated physical infrastructure under this section, within the period of

5 weeks beginning on the date of receipt by the authority of the application.

(b) Any submission or observation received shall—

(i) state the name of the person or body making the submission or observation,

and

(ii) indicate the address to which any correspondence relating to the application

should be sent.

(c) The planning authority shall acknowledge any submissions or observations as

soon as may be after receipt in the form prescribed in respect of an application

for permission for standard development under section 92 or a form substantially

to like effect.

(d) Where a submission or observation under this sub-section is received by the

planning authority after the period of 5 weeks beginning on the date of receipt of

the application, the planning authority shall return to the person or body

concerned the submission of observation received and the fee and notify the

person or body that their submission or observation cannot be considered by the

planning authority.

(e) Where the planning authority so consents, a submission or observation under this

sub-section may be made in electronic form.

(f) Where the last day of the 5-week period referred to in subsection (i) is a public

holiday (within the meaning of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997) or

any other day on which the offices of the planning authority are closed, a

submission or observation made under this sub-section shall be regarded as

having been received before the expiration of that period if received by the

authority on the next following day on which the offices of the authority are

open.”.

This amendment is about telecommunications masts, of which a proliferation have been erected in residential areas in recent years, without any public notification or consultation. I have counted 30 applications for monopole communication masts in the Dublin 15 area of the Fingal County Council area since 2020. This is due to the use of licences that can be granted under section 254 of the Planning and Development Act which regards overground electronic communications infrastructure and any associated physical infrastructure as exempted development. It therefore does not have to go through the standard planning process, which includes site notification and public consultation. That means that these 15 m and 18 m or higher telecommunications structures have appeared metres from people's homes, along public roads, sometimes without warning. This has led to legitimate questioning of the integrity of the planning system. In many cases, it is only when decisions are appealed to An Bord Pleanála that people find out about the masts and can then have a say. However, each submission then costs €50 instead of the €20 cost under a standard planning application. As a reference, to apply for a licence costs €125, while to appeal it to An Bord Pleanála costs €220.

I will give one example of a recent application which was refused a licence by Fingal County Council. It was for an 18 m monopole outside the gates of the Phoenix Park. The wall of the Phoenix Park and the park itself are protected structures.

An 18 m monopole would have an impact on the view from Phoenix Park. Fingal County Council has rightly refused it but the applicant has appealed and that is still being decided. Having gone through the instances in Dublin 15 where Fingal has refused and it has been appealed to An Bord Pleanála, in most cases the decision is overturned and the application granted.

I completely accept two things. First, high-quality, reliable mobile and broadband coverage is a strategic imperative for communities and the State for modern life, the digital economy, working from home and communication. It is an essential service and that is reflected in our national and international strategies, EU directives and statutory instruments. I also accept our local authorities doing due diligence when considering telecommunications masts. They have to look at the proper and sustainable development of the area, the local area plan and road safety, because in this instance it is on the roadside.

We know the necessary checks are taking place but we also have to be respectful of the public right to information and consultation, as protected under the Aarhus Convention. That is why I tabled this amendment. It recognises the legitimate and necessary purpose of mobile and broadband communications infrastructure but ensures transparency and public scrutiny of the particulars of an application and where the infrastructure goes. It gives exactly the same opportunity for public engagement as the standard planning code but applies it to telecommunications masts.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully support the amendment. Senator Currie has been very consistent on this issue for a long time in the Seanad. It makes absolute sense. There is a huge amount of unregulated telecommunications infrastructure around the country. In my local authority area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, there has been a constant call for strategic grid mapping of this infrastructure. We see it on roofs. Litigation has been taken against parish churches to have the stuff taken off, internally and externally, including on many protected structures. We see it on protected structures that are State-owned buildings. There is no comprehensive national mapping exercise, or certainty there was not when I was on the council. There are also health issues.

We have to have critical infrastructure and we rely on the digital economy and network. There are places along the coast where there are breaks in the system, but there has to be a strategic overview of it. There are guidelines on placing telecommunications around schools and near people below the age of 14 and 15. It is about the hardening of the human skull. There have been many documentaries and much research on this. This is not mad paranoia stuff. There are health concerns and the jury is still out on it. The cumulative effect of this unregulated and clustered movement of systems needs to be mapped. That is another day's work and something we need to look at. There are serious health issues.

The Green Party was long an advocate of a grid system so that we fully understand where it is. There is the physical look of it and there are the planning and health issues. Certainly we do not want to see such infrastructure tagged onto protected structures. Some of them are quite ghastly looking things.

We know from research on planning enforcement that local authorities do not fully know what is going on. There are changes. I spoke to somebody recently who said she woke up at 4 a.m. to a big hoist and crane going up above a shop opposite her house. When she complained to the planning authority, it knew nothing about it. It is being done at certain times. People are told it is an upgrade but suddenly it is twice the height or it is a bigger box.

What I also like about the amendment is the fact there will be a process and it will be documented. It reads "The planning authority shall acknowledge any submissions or observations as soon as may be after receipt [of same]". That is important. The cumulative effect is also important. I recognise, as Senator Currie did, the digital economy. There is a realisation we have to use telecommunications but it has to be done in a sensitive way. I commend the Senator on this important amendment.

Micheál Carrigy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, support the amendment. It is a common-sense approach. All of us in our involvement in public life and our work in local authorities have come across situations where public representatives and the public are not made aware of licence applications.

Section 254 of the 2000 Act list lists vending machines, town or landscape maps, hoarding, cables, wires, telephone kiosks or other appliances, apparatus or structures. Hidden under that is the reference to telecommunications structures. The section 254 licence was particularly popular during Covid when people had to apply for street furniture, but people were not aware you could apply for a licence to use public property - property owned by the public through the local authority - to put up telecommunications masts at no cost and not give an opportunity to the public or people living in the area. Senator Boyhan said they are beside schools and next door to houses and people have no opportunity to have a say before a licence is given. I have seen where local authority members were not even notified applications and licences were submitted, so they were not able to tell their constituents.

A common-sense approach needs to be taken. We represent the people and have to give them their say. The licence system is an underhand way for companies making vast profits to use public property to put up infrastructure. It is 100% needed so we have proper signals to our phones, but it is at no cost to the companies and with no regard for people living in the area. Masts have been put up next to schools and houses. I do not think it is acceptable. I ask the Minister of State to take the amendment on board.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We spoke last night about bread-and-butter issues in our work as public representatives. This is another one and I applaud Senator Currie for tabling the amendment. On any tall building in a town or on a roadside or on any tall hill, you will suddenly see a mast now. We are all in favour of telecommunications and note their importance but there is a lack of public consultation. As public representatives, we get almost weekly comments on this when a telecommunications mast suddenly appears. As Senator Carrigy said, people are asking why public representatives are not informed. The amendment will allow the public have its say and that is what planning is all about. This is a serious issue and one every public representative in every county has come across, without exception. The amendment should be considered by Government and included in the planning Bill.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to the grouping. Amendment No. 50 seeks to amend section 13(8)(a) by increasing the timeframe, from eight weeks to 12 weeks, for decisions relating to the licensing of appliances and cables on public roads. This is because such decisions are often very sensitive locally.

Amendment No. 51 also seeks to amend section 13(8)(a) to increase the timeframe for decisions following receipt of further information on licence applications.

Amendment No. 52 seeks to delete section 13(8)(b), which provides that where a planning authority fails to make a decision in the period referred to in paragraph (a) in relation to an application for overground electronic communications infrastructure or any associated physical infrastructure, a decision of the planning authority to grant the licence shall be deemed to have been made on the day following the expiration of the period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the application or four weeks from receipt of the applicant's response to a request for additional information.

This is extraordinarily problematic because it means that, where the planning process fails, permission will automatically be given.

Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 mirror the increase in timeframes from eight weeks to 12 weeks and four weeks to six weeks, respectively, in the case of section 13(8)(b).

Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a caveat into section 13(8) by way of a new paragraph (d), which would provide that, notwithstanding paragraph (b), where the licence involves an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment, no deemed grant of permission shall arise where a planning authority fails to make the decision within the periods referred to in paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 56 would insert a new subsection into section 13 that would provide that any person may appeal the decision by a planning authority on an application for a licence, a continuation of a licence, a condition of a licence or a revocation of a licence under this section to the commission not later than four weeks from the date of the publication of the decision of the planning authority, and no payment of any fee shall be required for the making of such an appeal unless the appellant is the applicant for the licence. This simplifies the wording around appeals in subsection (9) and lists what can be appealed in one simple provision compared to the complex and unclear wording. It also makes clear the publication requirements and that no fee is required on observations on the appeal unless the individual is the applicant for the licences.

We are discussing our public roads' infrastructure and we need to ensure effective public participation.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the sentiments that have been expressed about Senator Currie’s amendment in particular. There are undoubtedly issues with these masts. I see them in my own county. The planning authority decides that it does not have to consult the public on the licences and, all of a sudden, people find these structures being erected. I know a man who has a site on the edge of a village right beside his business. A massive telecommunications pole went up on the edge of the footpath and right in front of his site. He had no right to make an objection to it. People like him are looking for a right whereby they can make a case against the renewal of such licences. There are other places these masts could be put in the regions. The amendment is a good one. This is an issue we need to address.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Senator Currie on the amendment. It is often the case that these decisions are made by someone in an office far removed from the situation. We see these telecommunication structures going up and, regardless of whether they are good, bad, indifferent or needed, people presume the worst about them because of the lack of communication with local communities. I have attended many public meetings about them. Sometimes, the information there is not correct. It is when we do not communicate with communities that people’s imaginations get carried away. We need to take this issue seriously. It is easy for someone who lives nowhere near the area to put such structures in the middle of a town or village, but we have to listen to the concerns of people on the ground as well. A lack of communication is one of the main problems with such developments. It should not be acceptable that a planning authority does not have to communicate with the community whatsoever before installing these giant antennae. I am sure they are needed and we all want good mobile phone access and so on, but we must put them in the best places instead of trying to split up communities, which is the last thing we need. We want to keep communities and that lovely social thread unsplit by bad decisions that are made by someone in an office far away. A lack of communication always leads to fear and, sometimes, fearmongering. We have to take this issue seriously. The people on the ground want and deserve to be informed.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend Senator Currie’s amendment. I hope that we all recognise that we live in a world of instant communication. Everyone recognises the essential nature of telecommunications infrastructure. Like much infrastructure, though, it is planned by engineers in an abstract way based on the optimal performance of the technology. Where the tension arises is where that infrastructure intersects with our human existence.

I hope that, in the Minister of State’s response, he will be able to accept the amendment or, if the Government will not accept it, I hope the Government will advise the House on how it intends to address this issue. It is difficult for us ordinary laypeople who use and depend on this technology daily to understand why the infrastructure is not subject to the regular planning process that any of us would comply with if we were making modest extensions or amendments to our properties. What is the Government’s intention in terms of correcting that inadequacy in the process?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support Senator Currie’s amendment. This is simply about notifying the affected community – it can be a small community – where it is proposed to put a line of poles along the side of a road. I have experienced this in County Roscommon. Very reasonably, the broadband contractors notified local householders, including me, about their proposal to erect a third line of poles along our road. People should be entitled as of right to some degree of notice in respect of what is happening in their communities. In my case, the poles were a bit of a clutter and they did not improve the view from my house, but I appreciated that my neighbours were entitled to the infrastructure and I was at least notified of it. We have to have a notification system.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend my colleague, Senator Currie. She has been consistent on this matter. We understand the importance of the infrastructure. If the Minister of State does not accept Senator Currie’s amendment, perhaps he can take it upon himself to table an amendment on Report Stage that would adequately address the balance between the importance of the infrastructure and the right of the community to have its say on any infrastructure erected in its area.

I welcome that Senator Currie moved this amendment. It has given us the opportunity to tease out the matter. I look forward to the Minister of State’s response.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I read my note on the amendments, I accept the points raised by all Senators. It is something about which we all have concerns and about which our constituents bring us their concerns, for example, issues around the visual impacts and perceived health implications.

Senator Fitzpatrick mentioned that such infrastructure was largely planned by engineers. The element of public participation is important.

Senator Boyhan discussed strategic mapping. There are open source systems like OpenStreetMap where people can layer this infrastructure onto maps. It is not relevant to this Bill, but it is an important point and something that could be given consideration.

The genuine concerns raised by members of the public and raised with Senators in their offices are important. I accept Senator Currie's point about how due diligence in terms of using the development plan and engaging in proper planning and sustainable development is very much at the core of what local authorities do.

This group of amendments relates to section 13 of the Bill and the licensing of appliances on public roads, and broadly restates section 254 of the 2000 Act, with some modifications. Section 13 will not apply if an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required and planning permission is not required where a licence is granted under the section.

A person applying for a licence must provide the planning authority with such plans and other information concerning the position, design and capacity of the appliance, apparatus or structure as the authority may require. A licence may be granted by the planning authority for such a period and upon such conditions as may be specified. These may include conditions regarding location, design and the space taken up by the appliance.

Amendment No. 49 is proposed by Senator Currie and intends to replace the existing section 13(5), which gives a planning authority the powers to grant or refuse to grant a section 13 licence. I am unable to accept the amendment as proposed as it would actually delete the provision that enables the granting of a licence under section 13. Furthermore, Article 7 of the EU Directive 2014/61/EU on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communication networks requires, among other things, that applications for statutory permits required prior to undertaking works to install high-speed broadband electronic communications network infrastructure be decided within four months of submission of a complete application. Given the consultation arrangements proposed in amendment No. 49 alongside the decision-making timelines, the four-month period required under EU law may become unattainable. I also draw the Senator’s attention to section 39(b), under which any person may appeal the grant of a licence or continuation of a licence. This provides a suitable avenue for a person wishing to contest the granting of a licence. I ask the Senator to withdraw her amendment at this time as I have asked my officials to re-examine this provision in conjunction with the OPC to see if a consultation provision could be provided, something Senators have looked for, particularly for certain classes of applications for licences, while still complying with the EU directive. If appropriate, I may bring forward an amendment on Report Stage.

The remaining amendments in this grouping are proposed by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53 and 54 relate to the specified timeframes within section 13 and seek to amend section 13(8)(a), which provides that a planning authority has eight weeks to make a decision on a request for a licence or four weeks following an applicant’s response to an additional information request. The amendments would also amend section 13(8)(b), which provides that, where a planning authority fails to make a decision on an application for a licence in respect of electronic communications infrastructure, it shall be deemed granted if the later of eight weeks since the application was received or four weeks after an applicant’s response to an additional information request has passed. The proposed amendments would change the periods to 12 weeks from receipt of application and six weeks from receipt of response to an additional information request respectively. I am not in favour of extending the timeframes as already set out in the Bill and I believe the eight-week and four-week periods currently provided for are fair and reasonable. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 52 intends to delete 13(8)(b). Section 254 of the Act of 2000 provides for the current licensing process in respect of an application for a licence to erect, construct, place or maintain overground electronic communication infrastructure and any associated physical infrastructure, including telecommunication poles. Where a planning authority fails to make a decision within a period of four months commencing on the date of receipt of an application, a decision of the planning authority to grant a licence shall be deemed to have been made on the day following the expiration of that period. A deemed decision to grant a licence is subject to the condition that the network operator concerned shall inform the planning authority concerned and the National Roads Authority or road authority, where applicable, in advance of commencement of the works. The provisions relating to a deemed decision to grant a licence have been carried over for the purposes of the Bill and with respect to the timelines set out under section 13(8)(b)(ii). I believe this provision is fair and reasonable and should be retained in the new legislative framework. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 55 seeks to insert a provision that, notwithstanding the ability for deemed decisions to be made in relation to electronic communications infrastructure, no such decision shall be deemed to be granted where the licence involves an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment. As mentioned previously in Dáil Éireann, this provision is not considered necessary as section 13(13) already provides that a licence cannot be applied for where an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment is required. In such circumstances, planning permission must be sought so that the development can be appropriately assessed. For this reason, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 56 proposes to replace section 13(9), which relates to licence appeals, and provides that there would be no fee for third-party appeals, that appeals should be entered on the register and that observations may be made in respect of appeals. The fees for making appeals are set at levels intended to prevent frivolous or vexatious appeals while not acting to deter persons with a genuine concern or interest in proposed developments from making an appeal. Section 13(15) already permits the Minister to prescribe requirements in respect of the entry of information on databases in relation to applications or appeals made under section 13. I do not believe there is a need for this amendment, which is why I am unfortunately not in a position to accept it.

Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State very much. Knowing that he is going to examine the spirit of the amendment, I am happy to withdraw it. I thank everyone for their support. I do not believe there were any dissenting voices. However, I want to be upfront with people and to say that, in the case of telecommunications masts, proximity to schools and impacts on health have been removed from the guidelines as considerations. Leaving that development and what people feel about it aside, there should be transparency and public consultation and people should be provided with information on what is happening in their communities. We have to uphold the integrity of the planning code. I thank the Minister of State for taking all of that on board.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to speak to amendment No. 57.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That amendment is not in the group.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I will let the other Senators finish first.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that these amendments will not be accepted. They are very simple basic amendments. Given the serious concerns we have heard about from everybody here this morning, I feel very disappointed that these amendments will not be accepted. I hope that the Minister of State will be open to some amendments because everything seems to be getting rejected at this point. We have put a phenomenal amount of work into this Bill and it feels like nothing is being addressed or even looked at. It is all very disappointing. Perhaps, there is something in our amendments that the Minister of State would consider going forward.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following on from Senator Black's comments, this is the third largest Bill to have gone through the Houses and, in our opinion, it is one of the most important. As a group that stands for human rights and equality, our amendments are based on the public view as expressed to the committees we sit on. Some of our later amendments are based on human rights and equality. As Senator Black has rightly said, we feel that our amendments have not even got a look in. It is very disappointing for us. I wish to make Senators very aware that the public is watching and that votes are just around the corner. I ask that the amendments we have put in for people with disabilities, Travellers and ordinary people on the ground be respected. This is a Bill on planning and development. My mother - Lord, have mercy upon her - used to say that you should never take on a job you cannot handle. It looks like this is legislation we will have to keep coming back to. If we are going to do a job, we have to do it right. Deputy Noonan is the right Minister of State to have here today when we are dealing with human rights and equality. I urge both the Minister of State and our fellow Senators to really consider our amendments dealing with human rights and equality, especially those on Traveller accommodation.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be very brief. Senator Currie outlined concerns and the fact that things have actually been moving in the wrong direction. Considerations regarding health concerns and other matters have been taken out. Some of our amendments propose big changes, which we think are necessary, but we also have amendments that propose things like changing timeframes from six weeks to 12. Such changes can make a small difference and would show that some listening is happening. I refer to things like the fees and time periods. There is a lot of detail in the response but it is a blanket "No". That seems to be the attitude of the Government. We are just getting into the second day of however far we get. There is a guillotine coming at the end but, until that guillotine comes, I hope the Government will indicate a willingness to consider amendments because, so far, there has been no indication that they have been read or considered. I say that with respect but the Government has got stuff wrong. It took stuff on in the Dáil.

The Seanad is not a rubber stamp. We need a little more engagement and not an automatic, ""We are happy with our Bill. We are just ploughing it through and we have to sit through three days listening to ye". We need more genuine engagement as we go forward in the remaining 15 hours or so.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Currie for withdrawing her amendment. I give a commitment that we will look at those elements of public participation.

I will make a general point on the comments made by Senators Black, Flynn and Higgins. They are correct that this is the third largest Bill in the history of the State. We have spent close to 130 hours on Committee Stage, where a large number of Opposition amendments were accepted that have significantly improved the Bill. We appreciate the democratic process and the work that is put in by Senators, Deputies and their teams in bringing forward genuine amendments to try to help improve the Bill. I give that assurance.

Senator Flynn mentioned the issue of Traveller accommodation. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, had a meeting where there was very good progress on Traveller accommodation and budgets for such accommodation generally. That is not specific to these amendments but I make the general point that the Government is listening.

The Government has taken on board quite a lot of Opposition amendments, particularly at the select committee but also in the Dáil. It is important that we listen, and that the public participation element is embedded and enshrined in the Bill. We are taking those concerns on board. It is far from what the Senators said. We have given the Bill very significant consideration. Our officials are working diligently to ensure that it is as strong as it needs to be. It is very important legislation.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not being disrespectful in any way, shape or form in saying that Travellers are only mentioned twice in the legislation. In 2017, Fine Gael recognised Travellers as an ethnic minority group. Today, the Government has an opportunity to put its money where its mouth is by naming Travellers in the Bill in the context of appropriate accommodation. Again, some of our amendments, as Senator Higgins rightly said, are easy wins. I know we are not discussing this right now, but engagement with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is something that could be accepted.

I do not want to throw around allegations in the House. A lot of work has gone into the Bill, but I only get one bite of the cherry. I may never get the opportunity to be here again, no more than anybody else. I want to make sure that I do justice to people who are not really included in the third largest Bill to go through the Oireachtas. I urge the Minister of State to consider some of our amendments. We have more than 600 amendments. That is an awful lot. I know it is frustrating to the Opposition. It is not about wanting to cause trouble or anything of the sort. We are coming to this, as I said, from our committees and from listening to people on the ground. Some of our amendments, as Senators rightly said, are very simple.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 50:

In page 59, line 32, to delete “8 weeks” and substitute “12 weeks”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 59, line 34, to delete “4 weeks” and substitute “6 weeks”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 59, to delete lines 37 to 39, and in page 60, to delete lines 1 to 8.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 60, line 5, to delete “8 weeks” and substitute “12 weeks”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 54:

In page 60, line 6 delete “4 weeks” and substitute “6 weeks”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 60, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), where the licence involves an environmental impact assessment or an appropriate assessment, no deemed grant of permission shall arise where a planning authority fails to make the decision within the periods referred to in paragraph (b).”.

I will bring the amendment back on Report Stage. I point out that if the amendment is not accepted, that may well be in breach of the House.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 60, to delete lines 34 to 38, and in page 61, to delete lines 1 to 9, and substitute the following: “(9) (a) Any person may appeal the decision by a planning authority on an application for a licence, a continuation of a licence, a condition of a licence, or a revocation of a licence under this section to the Commission, not later than 4 weeks from the date of the publication of the decision of the planning authority, and no payment of any fee shall be required for the making of such an appeal unless they are the applicant for the licence.

(b) Any appeal sought under this section shall be included in the register of the relevant planning authority, and the particulars of the licence application and appeal shall be published on the website of the planning authority and on the website of the Commission within 3 days of such an appeal being sought.

(c) Any person may make observations on the appeal within 5 weeks of the publication of the particulars under paragraph (b), and no payment of any fee shall be required for the making of such observations unless they are the applicant for the licence.”.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 57 to 85, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Róisín Garvey (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 57:

In page 65, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “ “transport infrastructure” is infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians, public transport and road traffic;”.

On page 65 of the Bill, between lines 28 and 29, I want to make sure that we clarify that ""transport infrastructure” is infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians, public transport and road traffic”. We have to move things along and expand our realm of belief and conception so that not everything is just about the car. It would be very good if we clarified that ""transport infrastructure” is infrastructure for cyclists, pedestrians, public transport and road traffic”. The amendment simply seeks to clarify that transport infrastructure covers a range of transport options. It should not be confused with the definition in Schedule 1, which relates to large-scale infrastructure such as ports and railways. That is all.

We have to get this right as it is a very important Bill. Too much stuff has been going on for years whereby all infrastructure was deemed to be all about the car. This has led to many deaths and bad design in our urban centres, towns and villages. We have to make sure we include everybody and all road users in the Bill.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 58 seeks to ensure that we are working towards achieving the UN sustainable development goals. These goals should be included in the national planning framework and should inspire and drive us all. They include no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable energy, direct work and economic growth. These goals are international. When people are struggling to feed their families or heat their homes, are faced with racism and discrimination on a daily basis, or are denied employment, the last thing on their minds is climate change. When people do not have access to clean water or safe accommodation, how can they focus on their education? Achieving these goals will create the inclusive, sustainable society we need to move forward. I know that the sustainable development goals are close to the Minister of State and the Green Party. He has an opportunity to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 68 seeks to ensure accessibility and inclusion.

We need to ensure that we are fulfilling our obligation in reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the national planning framework, by recognising the needs of the disabled person in our planning laws. That is a given.

Amendment No. 77 highlights the importance of Irish neutrality. The Government has tried to undermine our neutrality in recent years and we must not allow this. We must ensure our commitment to peace and access to human rights in Europe and across the globe.

Amendment No. 80 seeks to include the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission among the list of organisations that the Minister will consult with before reviewing the national planning framework. Again, our amendments are simple, to the point and extremely doable. Today, we need the political will.

Mark Wall (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak to amendments Nos. 71 and 83. Regarding amendment No. 71, this planning framework needs to take cognisance of the Gaeltacht Act 2012 which requires the Irish language rights to be considered when looking at the overall framework plan. For amendment No. 83, we would require that the Government present any draft or any new or revised national planning framework to the Houses of the Oireachtas and that it would not be published or take effect in the four weeks of that framework being approved by the Oireachtas.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to follow up on some of the other amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 61 seeks to amend section 21(2)(e) by inserting a requirement that as well as providing for land-sea interactions and securing co-ordination with the national marine planning framework, the national planning framework should also provide for appropriate regard for marine protected areas.

We have discussed these issues back and forth and have been waiting for the marine protected area legislation for years. Meanwhile, planning has gone ahead and layers of plans relating to what happens in our marine areas have gone ahead. This is despite it being acknowledged from the beginning by every expert and indeed by many of the actors who seek to engage in areas, for example, offshore wind and others, that the ideal thing would be to have the marine protected areas designated first. It looks like they are going to fall off the edge of this Government and not be there at all. This is yet another layer whereby the national planning framework will look at the marine planning framework but marine protected areas are not referenced at all.

We have a legally binding obligation of 30% designation by 2030. We are already way behind in this regard. We also have additional legal requirements under the recently agreed nature restoration law that will require restoration measures to be in place in at least 30% of the areas that are not in good condition by 2030. This will increase to at least 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050 in six of the key ecological groups. Member states will have two years to draft their national restoration plans and within these they must quantify what percentage of soft sediments above 1,000 m are not in good condition. We need a benchmark of where we are at in order that we can then achieve the actions that we are meant to be taking by 2030, which is five and half years away. We have not even made the benchmark or done the previous basic thing, which is having marine protected areas legislation. If we plough ahead without ever designating our marine protected areas and without getting to that point, but we have done everything else, including all the various accelerations of development that are facilitated by this legislation and other legislation, there is a danger of saying we should not have built it there or we should not have done it that way. This will be when our marine ecosystems are lost and in some cases, they will be lost forever.

The marine protected areas legislation is crucial. This amendment makes sure that we prepare for and get some sign of faith that it is anticipated we will have marine protected areas. We have one already and that is why it can be put in currently. We have Lough Hyne. The marine protected areas, which will hopefully expand if we get our marine protected areas legislation, will be directly considered rather than simply looking at land-sea interactions which are largely concerned with how humans will use the sea for various purposes or indeed the marine planning framework, which largely refers to activities that require planning in marine areas. That core piece of protection needs to be in the mix within the planning framework.

Amendment No. 63 seeks to delete section 21(3)(b)(iv), which currently includes energy and communications networks within the list of national infrastructure priorities linked to strategic development requirements. There are concerns later in the Bill about the worrying inclusion of LNG terminals as potential strategic infrastructure. They should not be included as strategic national infrastructure. There are things that one may or may not wish to be built but when you give them that imprimatur, of being strategic development or strategic infrastructure is given, this gives them the fast track and less scrutiny than what might be given to a house built out in a field somewhere. Even though they are significant and the impacts are huge for everybody, it is effectively saying that these things will be prioritised.

I am going to focus on the communications infrastructure and will go into LNG further a little later. Is it the Minister of State's understanding that in the prioritisation of strategic development and infrastructure, communications infrastructure will include data centres? We are now in a situation where Ireland is not meeting its legally binding emission reduction targets. In 2022 alone, 18% of our electricity was used by data centres. There is a prediction that by 2030, a third of our electricity could be going to data centres. This is a figure that is widely out of step with what is happening anywhere else in Europe and which comes with huge problems. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Ryan, has said that data centres must go green or stay off the grid. That is not good enough. This has come after a long time where those looking at the issue have flagged the problem with data centres but the choice was made not to have a moratorium. This is something that will be even more problematic when this legislation goes through.

South Dublin County Council made a green and environmentally sound choice regarding their area and said it did not want more data centres in South Dublin County Council and would not be including that in its development plan. It was, however, overwritten by the Office of the Planning Regulator and was told it needed to put in data centres. This was at a time when there were problems and the climate committee were having session after session where the issues with data centres were being highlighted. This is where the thing of strategic development and strategic infrastructure is important. Government policy is not simply a matter of failing to regulate or issue a moratorium on data centres but is in fact demanding, insisting and pushing data centres as a priority. This is despite their using up our electricity to an extraordinary degree. They have huge issues. When the Minister says go green or stay off the national grid, they apply for backup generators. Why is it okay that they stay off the national grid and have a gas generator with a gas generation connection that we know they have been planning? I will go through some of this more. I have gone off my notes but to stay focused on time, data centres gorge fossil fuels and have been allowed to develop their own private fossil fuel infrastructure within the State.

A recent example is the very special industrial emissions licence granted to Microsoft by the EPA to run a large-scale gas power plant at the company's data centre in Tallaght, County Dublin. Other companies, including Google, Amazon and Meta, have applied for similar licences for scenarios in which they may have to come off-grid if there is significant pressure on the national grid. To be really clear, when those data centres are off the grid or on the grid, if they are consuming fossil fuels, they are contributing to emissions. Simply moving the mats around will not suffice, we are talking about a planetary reality. Emissions are real. The limited space we have for human survival on the planet is real and limited. The amount of emissions that can be produced is limited. If having Amazon Web Services making extra billions for Mr. Jeff Bezos off the back of a few potential jobs there may or may not be is the big priority over actually reducing emissions, that is a problem. If we decide to name these things as "energy and communications networks", I want clarification and assurances from the Minister of State that when we talk about communications infrastructure, it will not include data centres and then we can continue the battle about the need to actually regulate our data centres and the increase in their demand for electricity.

I apologise if it is not the exact figure, but in the committee, we looked at the fact that Ireland's electricity demand was going up by 9% when the rest of Europe was either levelling off of going down. We heard a lot about trying to get people to spend less time on the electric toothbrush and some people leaving lights on when they leave the room but actually, it is large energy users that are driving up electricity consumption. There has been in excess of a 200% increase in the energy usage by large energy users. It is a hugely dangerous hostage to fortune. If we allow them to hide under the special treatment whereby they are treated as an ultimate public good when the Minister of State talks about "strategic development" and strategic infrastructure, he is saying this is something which is absolutely essential for our State, we are effectively giving a carte blancheand they see it. That is why they are all piling in. We hear people talking about AI and we are very worried and let us all have committees and debates on it. All of that stuff exists in real places. AI does not float in space. It uses up real electricity and real water on the ground in real places, such as Ireland, that do not have the guts to properly regulate it.

Amendment No. 64 is a technical amendment relating to amendment No. 67.

Amendment No. 66 relates to the national planning framework and ensuring it meets communities' needs to have accessible green spaces that people can visit. A commitment to the provision of accessible green spaces should be explicitly outlined in this section. That should be explicitly named in terms of accessible, usable green spaces. We know how important and essential they are for the soul. We all saw that during Covid. Again, in a future pandemic, accessible green places will become crucial as well. It is an essential part, in terms of building healthy sustainable communities that are cohesive and welcoming. Given the scale of the housing crisis and the devastating impact it is having on people who are paying huge rents while struggling to afford a home, the need for the construction of more housing is absolutely clear. However, those homes need to be built in a way that still ensures both new and old communities have access to green space. In addition, we need to ensure that green space is accessible for people with disabilities and people of different ages. For too long, people with disabilities have pointed out the continuous use of ableist exclusionary design choices, such as kissing gates, that impede their access to enjoyment of public spaces. These areas should be a community amenity accessible to everyone. Inclusive and empowering design needs to be embedded into the fabric of all planning decisions. I worry that a unit-based approach to the planning framework will fail to have a liveable-based approach.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 67 seek to strengthen the language and provisions in the NPF, with an aim to ensure that any future development strategy considers cultural and social provision, with specific regard in amendment No. 67 to the night-time economy. As has been highlighted many times in recent years, access to social space has dramatically reduced in the past few decades. We have lost hundreds of music venues, nightclubs and cultural spaces that operate late into the night. Diversity of choice in the landscape of our night-time economy and society is absolutely absent. Something that is holding back the development of cultural and social activity late at night is the lack of co-ordinated planning in this area. If the NPF is the core document that guides our planning strategy, that sets out the vision for how we live together - that core piece that I always go back to again and again regarding the decisions about how want to live together - it has to reflect how we live together at night-time. Is there such a thing as community at night-time? Will that be acknowledged or reflected in the decisions and plans we make? I acknowledge that the Government's own night-time economy task force has approached cultural and social activity at night in a co-ordinated way. It has recognised the need for stakeholders from different Departments and Government agencies to co-operate in terms of developing coherent workable strategies and tackled things such as transport and safe spaces. The amendment also seeks to give regard to how important cultural and social activity is for society. There are very few real space opportunities for young and old adults to form connections with each other in a real place and that necessarily leaves people more vulnerable to only being able to find that sense of community out of hours, online or in that kind of space, which is fine, but it is not a substitute for having that actual sense of community and actual opportunity to engage, have fun, play together and not simply be working units or consuming units.

These real physical spaces of cultural and social activity enrich our lives, particularly people who may be marginalised within their families. It was important in the past for LGBTQ communities. Similarly, for migrants, it can be important to have spaces where they can go, be welcome and feel they are part of the life of a town, city or village. I am going to speak further, if I have an opportunity later, to the importance of these public and cultural spaces in terms of social development and social cohesion, but I urge that at the base level they are recognised properly within the national planning framework because if we do not plan for it, we will have the situation again where cultural and social activities happen at the fringes, pushed into ever smaller spaces, except for when they are in large-scale commercial spaces. It will only be cultural and social activity that fits a particular commercial model rather than allowing humans to be fully human together.

My colleague has spoken to amendment No. 68. It is crucial, as we have ratified the UNCRPD. We need to follow through and show that the UNCRPD is actually being reflected in our planning framework otherwise we are back to the miserable work that people with disabilities have had to do for decades in saying there is a problem here and there, this does not have a ramp, that does not have access and trying to retrofit our cities, villages and communities road by road and corner by corner rather than planning for it properly. That is why is needs to be planned for properly and in the NPF.

Amendment No. 69 inserts a new paragraph, requiring that the national planning framework makes provision for the promotion of measures to "protect and enhance biodiversity". I have a concern that within the framework, climate action and biodiversity are set out in quite narrow terms, only really relating to the areas of sustainable settlement patterns, transport strategies and conservation. Climate action and biodiversity protection or enhancement need to be core to anything within the framework, including our national infrastructure priorities and strategic development requirements.

I will make a further point on this later.

Amendment No. 70 seeks to remove the curiously weak language in section 21(3)(c). It seeks, in page 67, line 25, which concerns adapting to and mitigating climate change, to delete “take account of the need to”. This is really important. I rarely focus on people’s parties, but the Minister of State, as a Green Minister in the Department, should examine section 21(3)(c) over the summer. There is a bit of a trick being done here on those who care about climate change. This is what my two amendments relate to. We will be told that the national planning framework refers to greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to and mitigating climate change but these are mentioned only in a subsection. Surely, the national climate objective, mitigating climate change and reducing emissions should stand on their own in the NPF; however, they are referred to in the Bill in a way that would have them apply only to settlement patterns and transportation strategies. They are limiting the topics within the national planning framework to which the climate targets can apply. It is implied that we need to think about climate when designing roads and bicycle lanes and promoting density in city centres, because that is what we want, but not that we need to think about climate change when planning energy infrastructure, such as that for data centres and the LNG terminals, or anything else we might want to do. The objective is off the table because there is a narrowing down. The major priority of meeting our national climate objective is narrowed down to one of relevance or one worth naming only insofar as it relates to settlement patterns and transportation strategies. Obviously, it needs to have its own section and should apply to every aspect of the NPF. This basic point needs to be addressed on Report Stage. With respect, I suggest the Green Party needs to do so. Otherwise, the Minister of State will be fobbed off in that while he will be told the relevant words appear, they will do so in a way that ties people’s hands behind their backs. I had more detail on this but just wanted to make the direct point, which is that the language is intentionally weak and will create circumstances in which, if we ask about the climate, we will be told it is not an issue of climate but of transportation. The main objective is off the table and that needs to be tackled. I really urge the Minister of State to look into this.

The phrase “take account of the need to adapt to and mitigate” is very weak. Our framework needs to adapt to and mitigate climate change, not have us think about the need to do so. I assure the Minister of State that climate change will have an impact regardless of whether people decide they want to think about it. It will have a direct and devastating impact on some of the more vulnerable communities in our country.

Amendment No. 72 seeks to insert a new subparagraph into section 21(3)(d) that would require the national planning framework to make provision for the conservation of the marine environment. I will not go over all the relevant points again but we have genuine targets, including those under the nature restoration law. A very simple and effective one would ensure that the conservation of the marine environment is recognised as one of the aims of the framework, rather than something that might trot along after we have a planning framework. The planning framework should fit around the conservation obligation, not the other way around. I note that, in the numbered list, there is an error in one of the line numbers. However, if the Minister of the State is happy to accept the principle of my amendment, I will be happy to withdraw it and resubmit a different version on Report Stage, or indeed accept a version of the Minister of State.

Amendment No. 73 seeks to amend section 21(3)(e) by inserting “and regard for special areas of conservation and marine protected areas” into the provision on land-sea interactions. The language in the Bill, “land-sea interactions and the promotion of coordination of development”, refers only to development or human activity, and there is no acknowledgement of the marine area as something to be considered or concerned about in itself.

Amendment No. 75 would insert a new subsection into section 21 that would provide that for the avoidance of doubt, section 21(3)(b)(iv), including in respect of energy and communications networks in national infrastructure priorities,shall not include fossil fuel infrastructure or commercial data centres.

Amendment No. 76 would insert a new subsection into section 21 that would provide that, for the avoidance of doubt, section 21(3)(b)(iv) shall not include LNG infrastructure, other fossil fuel infrastructure or data centres. These are not peripheral issues; these are big-ticket items that would create huge hostages to fortune, not only regarding Ireland achieving its targets but also regarding its playing its part genuinely and globally to reduce its emissions.

On LNG, I strongly warn the House about the consequences if it is allowed to remain. We have had a vague moratorium but the opportunity to outlaw LNG properly has not been taken by the Government to date. There are creeping aspects of this legislation that could allow for it. Sometimes something is pushed for that would, crucially, go against the essence of what a party is. It happens a lot in coalitions. Coalitions can be good sometimes but we need to guard against pitfalls. We all have regrets over the abolition of town councils, and the Labour Party has been very honest that it should not have agreed to it. It sabotaged the party.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear. Well said.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It damaged itself, but it was pushed for by its colleagues in government. LNG is a danger that should not in any way be allowed. It will comprise an act of great self-sabotage for everyone who wants to work in the environmental movement. Many people across a broad spectrum want to ensure we get on track for climate change. LNG is a huge hostage to fortune and needs to be absolutely knocked on the head. It is still drifting around in a strategic-infrastructure, half-way-in-there argument. It needs to be explicitly excluded.

Amendment No. 77, on which my colleague has spoken, is necessary because there has been dangerous ambiguity over Ireland’s neutrality. If I start talking about neutrality, it will take too long in the debate. There are many things I would say. However, the amendment makes the crucial, simple point that, for the avoidance of doubt, section 21(3)(b) shall not include any infrastructure related to the production, manufacture or sale of weapons, munitions or other military equipment.

Regarding national infrastructure priorities related to strategic development, we must be absolutely clear that there will be no military production in this area. We have noted the very disappointing situation concerning the ammunition support Act and the Government’s position on it, even though the cluster munitions Act explicitly prohibits the State from investing in munitions. We need to be crystal clear on this. I have gone on about how Ireland was able to negotiate a global ban on cluster munitions, so I am not going to go into detail. The power of a neutral country is not about not doing things but about being able to do things credibly because it applies the same principles to everyone. Rather than being part of military alliances and friends’ clubs, it actually applies international law to everybody. Ireland was able to do that really credibly. I was in Croke Park when the weapons were banned. How many lives and limbs have been saved by the global ban on cluster munitions? It was negotiated because Ireland did not have the intensively lobbying arms industry that many other countries had.

I worry that there are those who look at all the money being spent on arms globally right now who want a piece of that pie and they want Ireland to be in on it. The cost in terms of what we can credibly do internationally and the contribution we can or cannot make to peace internationally is potentially immense. That is my final amendment in respect of the section.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendments Nos 59, 62 and 74. Amendment No. 62 would ensure the protection and promotion of the use of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht and beyond would be central to the national planning framework as an objective and when identifying national strategic development requirements. Conradh na Gaelige makes the point that the Minister’s guidelines in section 28 of the existing Act are strong in relation to the Gaeltacht but that they are not being enforced in the development plans. There are significant differences in policy between the various local authorities across the State in relation to housing in our Gaeltacht communities. Including this in the national planning framework would place more of an onus on local authorities to have greater regard for the Gaeltacht and for Irish language objectives.

Amendment No. 74 is based on a proposal from Conradh na Gaelige to include a specific provision to have regard to the “linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language ... by supporting the implementation of language plans” for Gaeltacht areas and service towns and líonraí Gaeilge.

Amendment No. 59 has the simple purpose of giving the Houses of the Oireachtas a say. Any future revision of a statutory plan should have the approval of the Oireachtas. Our local development plans have the approval of local democratically elected members. Elected Members of this House would have to give approval to statutory plans.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with most of what Senators Higgins and Warfield have said. There is no point repeating it. I would like to move amendments Nos 78, 81 and 84. I will explain the rationale behind those amendments now.

Section 23 deals with procedure for reviewing the national planning framework. Amendment No. 78 seeks to delete line 14 on page 69 and insert the phrase “local authorities and their elected representatives”. So much can be lost. When you talk to county councillors, they will say it is just the chief executive telling them and there is no inclusivity. For the avoidance of doubt, we must be clear that our city and county councillors have a strategic and important function and role. The Minister of State will be close to most of his party’s councillors. I propose that we make this simple change. I do not see a difficulty. I do not know what script the Minister of State has been given. I hope it has not been suggested to him by the officials in the Department that we should somehow water this down. I am making a strong ask to include simple words “and their elected representatives”. These are significant and important words which elected representatives would expect to be there. The amendment would add elected representatives of councils to the list of groups the Minister must consult in the context of reviewing the national planning framework.

Amendment No. 81 relates to the procedure for review of the national planning framework. Its purpose is to add the words "prescribed bodies" to the list of groups the Minister must consult when reviewing the national planning framework. We are very concerned about such bodies being left out at this particular juncture. It is important that they be included. I will not read out the list of prescribed bodies. The Minister of State will be well aware of them. He engages with many of them on an ongoing basis. I am thinking of the Heritage Council and the enormous work the Minister of State has done there. Of course, he will recognise its importance. Also, there are Inland Fisheries Ireland, Irish Water, another great thing that he champions, the National Transport Authority – something everyone is talking about – and Waterways Ireland, to name but a few. It is a simple addition in the interests of clarity.

Amendment No. 84 suggests the deletion of lines 1 to 3 on page 70 and the insertion of the following:

(6) The Minister shall, within 10 days of publication under subsection (5) lay a copy of the revised or new National Planning Framework so published before each House of the Oireachtas before a required debate in both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.

There has to be some sort of oversight and engagement. These are the Houses of the Oireachtas - the national Parliament. We talk so often about the engagement of the Parliament and its Members. The Oireachtas is broadly representative of the people who elect us. The rationale behind amendment No. 84 is that the Bill as it stands requires a report to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, but we need to have a debate. That is basically what I am seeking. These Houses are debating Chambers. We should not fear any engagement or debate on that. The national planning framework should be subject to scrutiny and commentary. It is not always negative. It places the importance of it all in terms of our Parliament. People have a lot of legitimate commentary to make and we should not shy away from it. This is a tripartite Government. It is committed to this Bill, the strategy involved and to being open and transparent and engaging. These are very reasonable amendments. I hope the Minister of State will be supportive of them.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. Before I call Senator Pauline O'Reilly, I welcome members of the National Learning Network from Athy. They are guests of our colleague, Senator Wall. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House. They are welcome.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for considering the amendment. Over the past year and a half, there has been extensive engagement between us in the Green Party and the Department in relation to this Bill. I thank the Department for including many of our amendments, coming back to us on occasions like to say it has considered what we said and giving us something that might move towards being acceptable to us.

The Minister of State referred to Schedule 1. There is a definition of transport in Schedule 1 but it refers to three things. One is intermodal transshipment facilities exceeding 5 ha. Another is long-distance railway and tramways, etc., and the third is harbours and ports. This gives rise to the difficulty for us. Nowhere in the Bill does it refer to transport as anything other than this. Nor is there any other definition. Part 3 is an important part of the Bill. As the Minister of State knows, it lays out the strategic elements of the national planning framework, new national planning statements and development plans, etc. There are 25 definitions at the start but no definition of transport infrastructure. Yet, in this Part, which is over 100 pages long, transport is consistently referred to. It would be helpful to have a definition that includes something other than these large transport infrastructure projects. We want to see transport, including cycling, pedestrians, public transport and road traffic, included. Last week, I attended a meeting of the housing committee with my colleague, Deputy Leddin, for three hours. We had a discussion about the national planning framework. The Minister of State can refer back to my comments but I am concerned that we are putting into the national planning framework the same things we did last time, with an emphasis on roads. They are important, but let us have balance and set it out in these 700 pages so we are quite clear there is that balance in how we move forward.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Senators Garvey and O'Reilly. I do not see that there is any confusion in adding that definition. It is pretty clear and comprehensive. In the absence of such a definition, there is a danger that we have the major projects. It is an issue we encountered in the climate committee a few years ago when we did our report on transport. There was not even a cost-benefit analysis of some of the smaller projects because when transport infrastructure was talked about, it was always large-scale developments, roads and so forth. I cannot see why there is any problem in putting in a definition.

With respect, the Minister of State said there was engagement and the Government accepted lots of amendments. No amendments from the Seanad have been accepted. We have not had 120 hours of debate in the Seanad. In fact, we are only getting just over 20 hours when there were 150 hours, I think, in the other House. We are individuals with mandates, including Government Senators with mandates. There needs to be some sense that there is credible engagement on issues, rather than saying that at this stage the Government does not want to include a definition. The Bill is at its halfway point. To suggest it is too late for changes is to make a mockery of the Seanad. It is a simple and sensible recommendation from the Minister of State's own colleagues. Frankly, saying that one hopes that is how it will be interpreted is not good enough. As Senator Flynn said, none of us in the Seanad know if we will be here again. This is one of the largest and most important Bills that will go through. We should endeavour to make it as strong as it can be.

On the idea of the risk in explicitly excluding LNG and data centres, there is greater risk that LNG and data centres could be included as part of strategic infrastructure. These are significant risks. To say that it is a risk and if one names one thing, one should name another - the risk is obvious concerning weapons. If one did not want to say "shall not include", one could simply say that it does not limit or that, without prejudice to other things, it may not include or it shall not include. It is a simple clarification, if one wishes to do so, to say that this list of things that are excluded is not a limited list of things that are excluded. If LNG is not named, let us be clear of the risk. In the case of the risks in fossil fuel infrastructure, commercial data centres and weapons, it is not simply a risk of drafting or that one Senator said it; the risk is greater on the side of these things being included because they have massive lobbies behind them. It is not like it will be floating as an ambiguity for civil servants to interpret. It will be floating as an ambiguity for civil servants to interpret with huge pressure on them to allow LNG and massive pressure for data centres from the tech companies and from the arms industry. Those will be genuine pressures on civil servants. When there is an ambiguity in interpretation, let us be clear where the pressure on that ambiguity will come. That is why we need to err on the side of naming and excluding those matters.

To take the Minister of State's argument - that when one names one thing, that could imply that other things were excluded - that is exactly what applies in relation to climate. Section 21(1)(f) states, "The integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective and National Biodiversity Action Plan into plan-led development in the State." It is extremely woolly wording but section 21(3)(c) technically fulfils that. It states we have integrated the climate objective into planning because we think about it when we do transportation strategies and settlement patterns - now it is integrated, so that is achieved.

Regarding the argument concerning naming one thing, the fact that there is explicit naming in this regard in relation to transportation strategies and settlement patterns implies, in the context of the argument made, that we do not need to think about these aspects in energy, communications, marine planning or any of these other areas because they are explicitly named in that in one area. The suggestion is that this meets the standard of integrating them and they are in the planning. There is no test that they should be in all plan-led development in the State or a suggestion that they should apply to everything.

I am referring, in particular, to having the hard and strong language that means something and not just the national climate objective with the number at the end and lots of woolly talk about whether we will get to it or not. Instead, there should be language that refers to explicitly adapting to and mitigating climate change and stopping emissions. A test for the hardcore thing that actually matters, namely, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is not being applied to everything in the national planning framework.

With respect, therefore, I believe there is still a major weakness in respect to climate in this national planning framework and I believe it does need to be reviewed. The Minister of State is obviously not going to accept my amendments at this point, but I genuinely say there is a need to go back and look at this aspect. I say this because as it stands, it is not strong. We can say that if, for example, liquified natural gas, fracked gas, which acts as an accelerant in devastating biodiversity internationally, were to come along, we can see when we look at the emissions of methane versus carbon dioxide, for example, that it would be literally pouring petrol on the fire we are already experiencing. In that context, I do not see the block in the Bill here whereby LNG will hit up against something that says the national planning framework stipulates we cannot have LNG because it is increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and we must address it. There is, therefore, still a major weakness there in this regard.

In terms of my colleague's recommendation about the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission being a body that would be consulted, and this relates to the SDGs too, if it is not thought that the national planning framework is relevant from a gender equality perspective, we definitely need IHREC to be one of the bodies consulted. Regarding saying there are things that do not really relate to this context, like gender equality, for example, in reality, this is an extremely relevant issue when planning is undertaken. It is a massively relevant issue. It is exactly the kind of situation where we need gender-proofing. When we look to the UN safer cities for women and girls programme, for example, that is a relevant aspect and these are relevant issues. Actually, then, things like gender equality are things that the Government should be thinking about in the context of this legislation.

There is a little bit of saying "We will parcel this here and parcel that there", but this is a national planning framework. It is the framework that will, effectively, decide how every square foot of land is used. Whole areas of our shared human life together, therefore, are being parcelled away as not being relevant to the national framework. I will come back to this in my last point. In terms of night life and culture, we all know what is happening with night life. There are no physical places for night life to happen because they are all vanishing. This is why it is all about festivals and being able to use a hall for a week. Merrion Square has basically become an events venue because there are no spaces in the city. The spaces where things were happening are gone.

I say this with respect because I think the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, has been doing a really good job in trying to encourage alternative spaces, etc. This is again, however, about picking around the edges of the issue of culture and arts, rather than about having a plan in this regard. We need a plan that takes account of the fact that everywhere we have 2,000 people in one place, they are going to want to do something cultural or social together. This aspect needs to be in the plan properly. I know there is a reference to cultural and recreational amenities, but this is not quite the same as the space we have talked about in terms of night life and those hours of the day outside working hours. Again, with respect, an area that could be reflected on over the summer is to try to get excited about the national planning framework and make it do more and do it better.

Instead of saying we will leave this Department to deal with this and the other Department to deal with the other, let us try to ensure we have a plan that has all that is needed in it, rather than a plan that is, effectively, centred on neoliberal economics. In the neoliberal economic approach, loads of things are cut out. The result is streamlined economics, but all the actual things that happen in society and life are kind of edited out. We need to look at this matter too and have a plan that prepares for the dangers as well as one that plans for the nice possibilities just a little bit more than it does now.

In this context, I encourage a review of the legislation. Frankly, as Senators, we cannot say that the Government has done great, that it has engaged with everyone and that it was brilliant TDs were talked to for hours and hours. The ideas here, not just coming from me but also from the Minister of State's own colleagues and others right across the House, are good ones. I ask the Minister of State to please take them away and reflect on them over the summer.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following on from the Senator's point, as women, in both Houses, we try to bring about gender equality and, especially, to make our streets safer for women. This comes down even to the lighting, pathways in parks, etc. The Minister of State said that IHREC has an obligation to ensure people with disabilities are being heard, but then he did not accept the amendment proposing to have IHREC referred to in the legislation. I am a little confused by this. Can the Minister of State explain to me how the commission has this responsibility and yet the Government is not accepting our amendment No. 80 in this regard? It proposes to include IHREC among the organisations the Minister will have to consult.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. I agree with what Senator Pauline O'Reilly and Senator Higgins have said in relation to the transport aspect. It is something we will give consideration to over the summer. I take on board the points made. In my opening statement, I said that there is a specific reference to mobility separately. Would that cover a broader area? If it is okay with the Senators, we will go back and look at this point.

To Senator Higgins on the general point, the Minister, all the Ministers of State and our whole Department agree wholeheartedly that the Bill needs to emerge as strong as it can be from this process. I assure the Senator that I am not talking about the disproportionate time, the 120 hours, we gave this legislation in the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage versus 50 hours in the Dáil and 20 hours in this House. All of this process is strengthening the Bill. Again, we have taken on board very considerable and good ideas that have come from the Opposition all the way through this process. I am conscious of this fact.

Regarding the amendments specifically in relation to the arms industry, etc., these are really matters for other Departments. Again, we cannot list these items specifically. To make a broad point about our emissions, the most recent EPA report showed a drop of 6.8%. Not every sector is performing as well as some others, and transport remains a particular challenge, but this is the largest drop in 30 years, despite there being record employment, record economic growth and a significant population increase. This is something to be lauded by Ireland and the Irish people in terms of where we have set out to be and again harks back to an ambitious programme for Government that my party was involved in negotiating. It was said that the 7% reduction could not be done and yet we are heading towards achieving it. This is a testament to the hard work of people in Ireland and all sectors that we have achieved this. We are heading in the right direction.

Again, I refer to the points made about adaptation and mitigation, which are all set out in the Climate Action Plan 2023 to which the national planning framework must adhere. Not only is the climate action plan a statutory plan but Ireland’s national biodiversity action plan has also been placed on a statutory footing for the first time. All public bodies must adhere to the national biodiversity action plan and report back to the Minister on their actions and objectives within it. We will also be embarking on the nature restoration plan, a new competency, which is also on a statutory footing.

We will take a look over the summer at the points raised about the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and creating safer spaces and streets for women and girls, be that through street lighting or the design of our public spaces. That is absolutely vital. It is a competency for local authorities primarily, through their development plans and local area plans, but if we can give credence to it in this Bill, we will look to do so over the summer. I will take on board the good points Senators made on that. They are valid and important points which we will look at.

In the revision of the NPF, national policy objective No. 12 is to ensure the creation of attractive, liveable, well-designed, high-quality urban places that are home to diverse and integrated communities that enjoy a high quality of life and well-being. Again, that objective is quite strong.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and his Department for agreeing to consider over the summer all the inputs I have made today. I will withdraw the amendment. I may reintroduce it on Report Stage after the summer.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 65, between lines 34 and 35 to insert the following: “ “United Nations Sustainable Development Goals” means the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 1 to 17 set out in the document entitled “Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, published by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015” or any document which amends or replaces that document;”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to Government amendment No. 85 and section 17. Following a review by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, this amendment is being introduced to redraft section 24 for the purpose of providing clarity and to aid comprehension. The substance of section 24 has not changed in comparison with the previous versions of the Bill.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 66, line 29, after “and” to insert “with the approval of both houses of the Oireachtas”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 67, between lines 2 and 3 to insert the following:

“(d) supporting the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 11 on sustainable cities and communities;”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 67, line 6, after “Framework” to insert “and appropriate regard for marine protected areas”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 67, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(g) protecting and promoting the use of Irish within Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas;

(h) outlining how the pursuit and achievement of the national objective of restoring Irish to use as a spoken language nationwide and as the community language of the Gaeltacht is to be integrated into plan-led development in the State.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 67, to delete line 19.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 67, line 19, delete “and”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 67, line 20, after “cultural”, to insert “, social”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 67, line 21, after “facilities” to insert “and of inclusive public and green spaces”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 67, between line 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(vi) the provision of cultural, social, retail and transport facilities in the night-time economy;”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 67, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(vi) the promotion of accessibility and inclusion consistent with the State’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons.”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 67, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(ii) protect and enhance biodiversity,”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 67, line 25, to delete “take account of the need to”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 67, between lines 28 to insert the following:

"(ii) the marine environment,".

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 67, line 33, after "sectors" to insert "and regard for special areas of conservation and marine protected areas".

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 67, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

"(g) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta, in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta, and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 67, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: "(4) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (3)(b)(iv) shall not include fossil fuel infrastructure or commercial data centres.".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 67, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: "(4) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (3)(b)(iv) shall not include LNG infrastructure, other fossil fuel infrastructure or data centres.".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 67, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: "(4) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (3)(b) shall not include any infrastructure related to production, manufacture or sale of weapons, munitions or other military equipment.”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 69, to delete line 14 and substitute the following: “(c) local authorities and their elected representatives,".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 69, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(f) the Climate Change Advisory Council,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 80:

In page 69, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(h) the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 81:

In page 69, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(k) prescribed bodies.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 82:

In page 69, line 24, to delete “if necessary”.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 83:

In page 70, to delete lines 1 to 5 and substitute the following: “(6) The Government shall submit the draft of a revised or new National Planning Framework, together with the Environmental Report and Appropriate Assessment Report, for the approval of each House of the Oireachtas before it is published.

(7) A revised or new National Planning Framework shall take effect 4 weeks after the date of its having been approved by each House of the Oireachtas.”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 84:

In page 70, to delete lines 1 to 3 and substitute the following: “(6) The Minister shall, within 10 days of publication under subsection (5) lay a copy of the revised or new National Planning Framework so published before each House of the Oireachtas before a required debate in both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.”.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 86 to 113, inclusive, are related; amendment No. 89 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 88; amendment No. 97 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 96; amendment No. 104 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 103; and amendment No. 110 is a physical alternative to 109. Amendments Nos. 86 to 113, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 86:

In page 70, line 28, to delete “Government” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

I will speak about two amendments in this grouping, namely amendments Nos. 86 and 106. Amendment No. 86 is straightforward. We are simply suggesting that the word "Government" be deleted and replaced with the word "Oireachtas". It is fairly self-explanatory. We want to see proper democratic oversight in the Bill and the word "Oireachtas" is more appropriate. I hope the Minister of State will accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 106 deals with the important issue of the night-time economy. We want to insert the following subparagraph: “(r) recognition, protection and regulation of night venues."

We have an ongoing crisis in our night-time economy. Indeed, Sinn Féin introduced a Private Member's Bill on it in this Chamber. The facts are stark. Of the 522 nightclubs in operation in 2000, only 85 remain. We have heard a lot of talk from the Government about the night-time economy, but frankly there has been zero delivery to date. The night-time economy is in crisis. The national planning statement should have regard to recognising, protecting and regulating night venues, given the 84% drop in venues since 2000. We need to see practical means of support for the night-time economy in the Give us the Night campaign.

There has been a failure to sufficiently update licensing laws. Night life and night-time entertainment in cities and towns are under severe threat. Property costs, prohibitive insurance premiums, restrictive licensing laws and associated fees have a crippling effect on businesses and cultural activity. The policy focus relating to night life and the night-time economy has revolved solely around alcohol rather than the holistic community and societal benefits of night-time culture. Night life is about communities and culture for people of all ages, those who consume alcohol and those who do not.

Public transport and taxi services are essential components of the night-time economy. Since 2019, 2,562 taxis have been lost from the transport system with the resulting shortage of taxis having an impact on the night-time economy.

We should all recognise the crisis. I am surprised the Government did not include this element in the national planning statement. It is a reasonable request. I have been following the debate closely today and I noticed that to date the Government has rejected every amendment that has been proposed. I hope, for a change, that the Minister of State will give due recognition to the importance of the night-time economy and accept these moderate and reasonable amendments.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we go into the debate on amendments on the national planning statement, it is important that we first understand what the national planning statement is. We were speaking earlier about the NPF. That is an appropriate thing. It is the idea of having a planning framework under which we figure out how planning will work across the country. It has a vision and different checks and balances it has to be set against. It tries to take various crucial areas, such as climate and others, and is tasked with integrating them into an overall framework and vision.

The national planning statement we will be speaking about for the next little while is an extraordinary and weird power grab, effectively, by the Government that sits separately. We are building this architecture on planning and we are all talking about it. There are local development plans and there are lots of problems with the architecture. However, to be clear, the national planning statement is simply statements or opinions the Minister comes up with. It is almost like the previous situation we had, where the Minister was able to issue ministerial guidelines that have effectively shifted, trumped and changed the direction of planning.

Section 25 states:

The Minister may, at any time, with the approval of the Government, issue a statement ... which shall comprise two parts as follows:

(a) national policies and measures on planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development

[I note again that we do not have a definition of "sustainable development". A choice was made not to attach the sustainable development goals to sustainable development. Is it just about sustaining development, so that development keeps happening or is it sustainable development? We do not have a definition in a meaningful way.]

(b) guidance as to the implementation of the policies and measures

We have the national planning framework, which everyone engages with in different ways, and then we have what the Minister says. The two are being placed alongside one another and the OPR is being asked to give them equal weighting, if not more weighting to the Minister, as it is the Minister who often asks the OPR to issue directions. That is important.

We will go into the discussion of the kinds of areas that need to be covered in statements and the kinds of areas we need policies in. However, I have to make the overall point that this should all be in the NPF. I certainly concur with the amendment proposed by Senator Gavan and us that at a minimum, these ministerial policies and this wide range of areas should be subject to the approval of the Oireachtas.

Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 seek to change the criteria for the Minister around the release and amendment of a national planning statement. The delivery and amendment of a national planning statement represents a significant shift in public policy. It is a policy shift that will have far-reaching consequences felt by stakeholders and citizens. It is therefore important that the national planning statement, which will set many policies and set out how they have to be implemented, would be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate, as outlined by Senator Gavan. While a Government with the parliamentary majority may have the democratic mandate to put forward its proposals and ideas, it is not an absolute power. It is a power that needs to be subject to others. It is the idea of the Executive and the Legislature or the Government and the Parliament, because those who are elected to the Parliament, whether or not they are Government members, also have a mandate to scrutinise and seek to influence policy decisions to create the best possible outcomes.

The mechanisms around the national planning statement as currently set out unfairly preclude debate in and scrutiny by the Parliament. Effectively, the Minister, with the approval of the Government, sets policy on an extraordinary wide range of areas, without having to test those policies against the often useful perspectives that might be offered by others. We are being asked in this legislation to cede a huge area that would normally be the subject of more direct law or the national planning framework and to pass it instead solely to the remit of the Minister.

Amendment No. 89 seeks to delete subsection (5), and introduce a new subsection that would require that the Minister: "shall, within 10 days of publication ... lay a copy of a National Planning Statement, ... before each House of the Oireachtas and, if a resolution annulling the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation is passed ... the National Planning Statement ... shall be annulled accordingly but, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." There are periods set out in the amendment.

Currently it is only required for the Minister to lay the national planning statement and any amendments or revocations - the Minister can, not only, have a national planning statement, but can amend it as he or she wishes - before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is more standard in legislation when it comes to ministerial regulations - this is almost like a mega omnibus of ministerial regulations - that they are not only laid before the Houses, but that there are opportunities for the Houses, for example, to annul them.

This legislation is filled with examples of ministerial overreach and the erosion of local democracy and public participation. The national planning statements, which effectively give any future Minister a carte blanche on the direction of travel in our planning system, are especially concerning. A properly functioning planning system is a fundamental pillar of a functioning democracy, one that should operate regardless of who is in government. These provisions chip away at that and push us back to a place where communities, locally elected representatives, regional assemblies, the general public and nationally elected parliamentarians are less empowered to have input into decisions about how we live together.

I am not happy abdicating my responsibility on those decisions about how we live together and I do not think others should be willing to accept it either.

Amendment No. 91 seeks the deletion of section 25(7) that currently provides that if the Minister fails to lay a copy of the national planning statement before the Houses of the Oireachtas or to give one to the planning authorities, regional assemblies and so forth within the correct time period, that would not invalid it. This means there is now a section stating a copy must just be laid before these bodies. They do not get to annul or challenge it; they just get maybe to see it. Even if the Minister does not let those bodies see a copy of the national planning statement, though, it still stands. This will be the case if the Minister has effectively failed to provide a copy within the relevant time.

Surely if the bodies largely responsible for our planning system, including an coimisiún pleanála, effectively An Bord Pleanála, the EPA and the Office of the Planning Regulator itself, do not have access to the statements becoming law, we cannot have a situation where these new laws and directions are meant to be enforced and have effect without even having been seen by those meant to give effect to them.

Amendment No. 92 seeks to insert a new section 25(8) to state that: "A National Planning Statement shall be consistent with the matters specified in section 21(2)". This is really important. I really believe this is an aspect the Minister of State should reconsider. What we mean by this proposed amendment is that the national planning statement should be consistent with the national planning framework. We just discussed that national planning framework and went into the detail of what should be there. There were differences of opinion about what is most important and how it is worded. Crucially, however, section 21(2) states that the national planning framework must have regard to all these issues, including climate, whether the text is worded strongly enough or not, the question of having regard to the UNCRPD, and I think it is regrettable that the Government has said it does not have to focus on it, conservation, etc. These are all the things a national planning framework should have to think about.

There is not, though, an equivalent list here in respect of the Minister's and Government's national planning statement, which is also law but does not have any of the tests or considerations attached that are listed in section 21(3), where it is stated the national planning framework will make provision for the matters specified. Our proposed amendment, then, is really important. It would, effectively, mean the national planning statement would be required to be consistent with all those matters specified in section 21(2). This section refers to national and regional development strategies, supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban areas, the national climate objective, as we discussed, and the marine planning framework. I think it is reasonable that the Minister's national planning statement would also have to be consistent with all those pretty big-ticket items.

Amendment No. 93 seeks to insert a new section 25(8) to provide that: "Any guidelines under section 52 of the Act of 2000 in force before the repeal of that section by section 6, shall continue in force until the full application of Part 10 or where a National Planning Statement is issued which provides an equal or greater level of protection.” The rationale for this amendment is to ensure an equal level of protection is given to what was contained in section 52 of the 2000 Act. This included guidelines on an area I know the Minister of State cares about, namely, guidelines on protected structures.

The amendment would mean that those protections would continue until Part 10 of this legislation is fully commenced or until an equal level of protection is given under the national planning statement. Going back to the national planning statement, there are all these policies. Rather than there being policies in the context of lots of individual regulations, with the checks and balances we have around Ministerial regulations, though, they are almost all now set within this grand statement. There is a danger, however, that if the grand statement happens to not properly regulate one of the areas where the regulations we have now are going to expire, we could have a lacuna. We know regulations concerning protected structures are especially important because we know the dangers here. We see it happening on weekends when there is a wait for a protection order to be issued on a Monday, and the structure gets demolished on Saturday. We know that gaps get used in terms of protected structures, so they are particularly vulnerable to such a lacuna.

It is also our view that this section represents further encroachment from the central government on the work of local authorities. Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 try to address this issue. Local development plans are some of the most important and impactful aspects in this context. We are going to have further discussion of them. Local development plans are crucial. They are not just work that councillors undertake, but work that members of the public co-create with their local councils and representatives. Their democratic mandate means their development plans have a particular, stand-alone legitimacy in our public realm.

This section appears, then, to infringe on the autonomy of those elected councillors. The recent Council of Europe report on Irish local democracy found Irish local government to be weak and underfunded by European standards and that successive Irish Governments have demonstrated a suspicious attitude to local government and sought to limit its autonomy. I have a list of the ways that has occurred, but given our time constraints, I am not going to go through them all. It is, though, a long list of impacts that have been taking effect bit by bit, from powers to services to resources to input on designs. Again and again, the voice, power and impact of the elected members of local authorities have been chipped away.

I should acknowledge that good work has been done by the Seanad Public Consultation Committee in examining this topic. When its report is published, I do hope the Government will heed the words of academic experts, councillors, representative bodies, former Ministers, party representatives and many others who appeared as witnesses. The Minister of State himself spoke at that committee, as did I, about the importance of independent and empowered local government. This view, however, does not seem to be reflected in the legislation before us. Sadly, we will see more of this when we come to the area of local development plans. I am saying that the tide in this regard needs to turn and this should be the point where it does begin to turn in the other direction. I again urge the Minister of State to accept these amendments. To be clear, amendment No. 97 seeks to delete "development plans" as one of the areas the Minister's national planning statement can override.

Amendment No. 98 seeks to insert a new paragraph into section 26(1) that would provide in setting out the national planning statement the Minister would have regard to the promotion of sustainable development to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, supporting adaptation to and mitigation of climate change and achieving the national climate objective, as well as supporting the circular economy strategy. This amendment mirrors concern regarding section 25, which is that climate action seems to be very narrowly constrained and applied in an area. I have spoken about that matter. If we are genuine about tackling climate change, then these are the real tools. It is very concerning that they do not seem to be attached even in the weak way they are reflected in the national planning framework. They are even less present in the national planning statement.

I am going to skip speaking about amendment No. 99 because my colleague, Senator Flynn, will speak on it. Turning to amendment No. 101, we believe this change should be obvious and uncontroversial. We need industrial and commercial development to support a growing and prosperous population and provide employment, but this development needs to be sustainable.

While this amendment represents a small change in the language, it is a really important clarification. The issue I was discussing earlier kind of arises here in that the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the adaption and mitigation of climate change, the achievement of the climate objective and all of that, as well as the circular economy, are corralled yet again into one tiny area of policy, which is sustainable settlement patterns. We know that is effectively saying super high density in the city centres, although I question some of the logic around that from an environmental perspective, as well as the transportation strategies in this regard. Those are the really narrow areas in which this hard language on climate and environment is being used.

However, in section 26(1)(l), it states, "creation of conditions conducive to commercial and industrial development and the creation of employment". Why is it not commercial and industrial development that is sustainable? It is a very simple change. If we are clear about sustainable development, it is not just sustainable development in terms of where people's houses are. It is not just about putting it back on individuals as to where their houses or apartments are and what kind of transport they are using. It is sustainable development that has to carry through. Why is all that climate language not attached in the area in which we talk about commercial and industrial development and how it needs to be promoted? That brings us back to some of the choices relating to things like data centres and certain commercial activities. When we think about the circular economy in particular, the circular economy strategy is attached to the issue on sustainable settlement patterns and transportation strategies, but it is not linked with the issue of how we do our commercial and industrial development. There is a disjoint there in how these are set out.

Amendment No. 102 seeks to amend section 26(1)(m) by expanding the areas to which the Minister may have regard when setting out a national planning statement from just "transportation strategies" to "development and transportation strategies".

Amendment No. 108 is a relatively simple amendment which seeks to amend section 26(2) by changing the provision that:

Before issuing a National Planning Statement, the Minister may consult— (a) such other Ministers of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate,

(b) such public bodies as the Minister considers appropriate,

(c) any stakeholders or other persons the Minister considers appropriate, and

(d) members of the public.

to the Minister "shall" consult with these bodies and, crucially, with members of the public. Currently, it is only a provision that the Minister may consult with members of the public on this incredibly influential national planning statement document which the Office of the Planning Regulator is going to be asked to enforce. When we talk about enforcement, we should bear in mind there are direction and enforcement measures coming later in the Bill for those who do not do what the national planning statement says. It seems this is a crucial area in which public consultation should be definite. It should state "shall" consult with members of the public rather than "may" consult.

Amendment No. 109 would delete section 26(4) and have the effect of requiring the Minister to conduct a strategic environmental assessment with the strategic environmental assessment regulations and to consult with members of the public before issuing the national planning statement. Environmental assessment is crucial. The Minister of State questioned whether some of that language is necessary. I refer to the idea of suggesting we might have a national planning framework for all of the planning in Ireland and that we will see if it happens to need an environmental impact assessment. It is the whole country. Of course it needs an environmental impact assessment and an SEA, as does this. You cannot have plans which cover every single part of the country and everything that happens there and then say we will see whether there are environmental implications. Of course there are environmental implications. It is the whole country.

Amendment No. 111 is a technical amendment to bring consistency with amendment No. 109.

Amendment No. 113, which is my final amendment in this grouping, seeks to amend section 27(1)(b) to ensure that guidelines issued under section 28 of the 2000 Act, which concerns guidelines to planning authorities, that are deemed replaced by a national planning statement would only be deemed to be replaced where such a statement “addresses the matters contained in such guidelines”. Again, this is a question in respect of the lacuna. If we have guidelines on issues such as heritage, protection, safety provisions and so forth, and the national planning statement happens to neglect an area or fail to provide for an area, the amendment seeks to ensure that we do not end up with a lacuna in terms of an area in which public guidelines are needed. I shall pass to my colleague, Senator Flynn. to deal with our other two amendments in the grouping.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Flynn may speak in turn. Senator Moynihan is next.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairperson and the Minister of State. I will speak to some of the amendments in the grouping. I will do so backwards if that is okay. First, I will speak to amendment No. 112, which seeks, in page 74, to delete lines 34 to 36 and to provide a substitution. That essentially means that any guidelines that are currently there under the Act, except ones that are specifically repealed, remain in place until they have been repealed and replaced. A concern has been raised by some of the outside groups, in particular, IBEC, that the guidelines will lead to a lack of continuity in guidelines and a lack of clarity in the interim period. We ask the Minister of State for a mechanism such as that to be put into the Bill in order for there to be clarity between current guidelines under the 2000 Act and the guidelines which will come into existence under the new planning Act.

I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 88 and 85 because Senator Higgins outlined very clearly how crucial this section is, as well as how crucial both the national planning framework and the national planning statement are in particular. One of my concerns throughout this Act is the things which have a massive impact. While I am very much in favour of a plan-led approach to planning and giving certainty to people in local areas, developers and planners, they have to be adequately discussed. There must be adequate consultation, accountability and democratic control of it, especially in the context of the national planning statement and how that fleshes out the national planning framework that is there. This goes back to the debate we had yesterday about the Planning Regulator. How the Planning Regulator interprets this is fundamental to how our daily planning system works. These are two simple amendments but they make sure ministerial approval is required for the national planning statement discussed in this House. It is one of the things of which we have not had adequate oversight.

Often, a circular, guidelines or a planning statement published by the Department is taken as a bible by local authorities. However, there has not been adequate consultation or feedback from people within local communities when it comes to the national planning statement. This is an essential part of our planning system as we move to a more plan-led approach. The amendments are simple but impactful. It gives Oireachtas oversight of the national planning statement.

We are taking several amendments on this Stage; the Government amendments have gone through and it is going back to the Dáil. Before we come to the final publication of this Bill and before it becomes an Act, it is crucial we have a system and oversight in place for planning statements, the national planning framework and ministerial guidelines. These will have a significant impact on the day-to-day working of the planning system. What is density and how that is calculated will provide certainty. Every single day in this House we have people coming in from rural areas. The Minister of State and I probably have very similar viewpoints on one-off rural housing and ribbon development. However, we have people coming in and saying individuals cannot get planning permission on their own land because of the national planning statement and that this is disgraceful. While I happen to disagree with them, people have the right to get clarity on this before they go for planning permission. That is essential. This is particularly important for the national planning statement and ministerial guidelines and how they feed into it.

If the amendments of the Opposition are not being accepted by the Minister of State today, as they do not seem to be, I ask that between now and enactment of the Bill work be done on how we are going to have proper public participation in formulating the plan for a plan-led approach that is envisaged under this Bill.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very glad that we have got to this point of the debate on this legislation. It is time to reflect for a little bit on what is involved in this Bill. This Bill's origins, as I see it, are a project spearheaded in a big way by my successor as Attorney General, Mr. Paul Gallagher, to restate and consolidate the planning law of the country. His office, in fact, took over in large measure the construction and drafting of this Bill and the form that it takes today. As I said yesterday, I am strongly of the view that this Bill should not have been produced before this House in its present form. If the Government intended to make reforms, it should have done those reforms in separate legislation and a consolidating Bill, for which provision is made under the Standing Orders of both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, should have followed so we can see what is new, what is not new and what the philosophy is in the legislation.

We are now faced with this massive supertanker coming into dock in a very small port, if I may put it that way, because no matter what is said in this House we are not going to debate most of the sections in this Bill because we are not going to have the opportunity to do so. Somebody, somehow, decided that it was hugely urgent that all of this should happen. There is some merit in relying on the proposition that the housing crisis needed a different approach but the housing crisis does not need this telephone directory of a Bill, which cost €71 to purchase if anybody has in fact purchased it. The housing crisis does not need this and doing something on housing does not need all of this gobbledegook that we are dealing with here.

In relation to the national planning framework and the national planning statements, I hope Senator Higgins will not be too disappointed when I say I find I agree with an awful lot of what she is saying. In fact, I agree with nearly everything she has said. This is a massive transfer of power to a departmental structure which consists of the Minister and the Office of the Planning Regulator and away from local authorities, local communities, this House and the other House and public accountability. There is no accountability in the national planning framework mechanism. There simply is not. It is a document which is redolent of something, and I hope do not annoy the left-wing people here, of Stalinist Russia such as Gosplan or something like that which has been brought up as the great framework in which and under which everything will happen in Ireland from now on. Everything will all be co-ordinated and everything will be interrelated and every factor will be taken into consideration in every decision that is made. It will all cohere together in an almost idealistic way to say that Ireland in future will be planned.

That is not the way real, free, dynamic, liberal economies work. It is not the way nearly everything we see around us came into being. It simply is not. The notion that one Minister can come up with a national planning framework and get his or her colleagues in government to approve it is absurd. That this has somehow descended from Mount Sinai like the tablets of the Ten Commandments and is brought down to earth where it then becomes the cornerstone of all development in this country is nonsense. This is not the real world. This is a recipe for sclerosis in a country. It is not the great opportunity where everything is going to be wonderful from now on. Everything is going to be regulated from now on. The OPR is going to say "No" from now on. Nobody is going to challenge the OPR because there is no mechanism to challenge the OPR. The OPR is independent. The OPR is not subject to our views and such limited rights as the Minister has to challenge OPR views as provided for in this Part are so difficult to engage politically that we are in fact giving to a Department and its daughter agency, the OPR, massive powers to determine not how Ireland develops in future but much more likely does not develop in future. This is a recipe for stopping things happening, rather than starting things happening.

I look to the housing crisis to which this Bill is the great antidote and ask myself very simple questions. The Department of housing and its predecessors have been involved for the last half century in dealing with the housing problem and the availability of public and affordable housing. At some stage, when I was in government there were too many houses being built and they were all being built in the wrong places we were told, and people could not buy or afford them in the end and we were told that half of them would have to be demolished. Funnily enough, when I am down in Dromad, Roosky, Scramoge and places like that in County Roscommon, I see houses that everyone said would never be occupied but that are now occupied. I see that this plan would probably say they would not be built there, they would be built somewhere else which the OPR will decide is a better place to build them.

The real question is this; is this the answer? Is the plan here, the national planning statement and the national planning framework going to produce more houses? I do not think it is. It is going to give oodles of people plenty of pretext to object to a whole series of things. It is going to introduce a vast complexity of criteria for anything to happen in future in this country. It is going to give the Office of the Planning Regulator in particular a veto over virtually anything that that independent, unregulated, unresponsible, unaccountable entity decides is in breach of guidelines which it, inevitably, will end up drafting.

The notion there is somebody down in the Custom House or wherever they are, who is going to draft up this framework and statements for the Minister and the OPR is going to come along afterwards and look at it is wrong. The OPR is going to be involved in the entire generation process for all of these plans. I am strongly of the view that what we are doing here is making this country a more difficult place for development to happen. We need development because we have a growing population. We need other values, too. People talk about the maintenance of rural Ireland, but to again go back to those places in County Roscommon that I mentioned - it is good to get out of Dublin sometimes - is to see communities dying on their feet for want of young people to play in their local football club, banks evaporating, pubs closing, hotels now closing for various reasons, the economy atrophying and main streets just mouldering. There are huge forces taking place in rural Ireland which deprives rural Ireland of its meaning. On the other hand, and I hope they will not take exception to this, we have the green lobby saying we must live in villages. We must increasingly live in towns and villages. It is wrong to have one-off housing. Look at an old Ordnance Survey map. Look at all the little black squares where people used to live. They do not live there any more.

The houses are all deserted. They are abandoned or falling down. In some areas, people cannot even get a quarter of an acre from their parents to build a house. People want to live close to their parents but they are told the problem is that if they build on a particular site, they will have a transport problem, which would be inconsistent with national energy policy or, alternatively, that the sewerage arrangements would not be as collective in nature as would be the case in a village or a town.

All of this is coming from the notion that there is somebody in either the OPR or the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in Dublin who knows how best to plan for this country. If that were the case, the Department would have transformed this country, dealt with the housing crisis, planned our cities and stopped urban sprawl. It would have done all those things effectively. It would have known when it abolished bedsits that it was a good thing. It would also have known that strategic housing developments were a good thing, even though they were later abandoned, and that it had the right approach to so many things. If I believed this conglomerate of executive power, namely the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the OPR, had all the answers and had a track record to prove it, I would have some sympathy with what is contained in the legislation. What I see is the direct opposite, however.

I see right across Ireland a very different reality, which is that we fail constantly. It is not for want of having a central plan or a big planning Act, it is for the very simple reason that in Dublin city there is no plan to CPO land in order to rebuild streets. There is no effective power of compulsory purchase to build a vibrant city centre any more. I was at a meeting recently at which an experienced Labour Party councillor told me that compulsory purchase in Dublin is impossible. It takes 15 years for a CPO to be conceived and implemented in Dublin city. The signs are all about us, including dereliction, underuse of land, and all the rest of it. We do not have a clue. We are in a position, however, to devise big projects on the outskirts of Dublin where land is more easily manageable, but we are not willing or capable of rebuilding our city's central core. We have hotels and all sorts of things planned for city centres but we do not have living communities there. I will not go into it, but now the same people have convinced themselves that traffic is the problem. Traffic is what is making Dublin a poor city to live in, but it is not. Traffic is not the problem, and clearing the city centre of traffic is not the answer either. That is a distraction.

I agree with the thrust of what Senator Higgins has said, which is that all of this is completely undemocratic. It is also unnecessary. When I criticised the OPR yesterday, I did it with a passion because I distrust the huge power and influence that agency, which is supposed to be independent and therefore unaccountable, is going to have over how Ireland develops in future. That agency was developed within the Department. I will not go into personalities, but it was devised by somebody who wanted a place for that person to operate in a different way. That is its origin. All power has been concentrated such that even a politically appointed Minister who comes up with these statements and who is supposed to generate - with the consent of the Government - a national planning framework is going to be subject to massive internal domination by the OPR.

I have supported amendments proposed by Senator Boyhan to add people who should be consulted, such as local councillors and the like, but I see litanies of people who have to be consulted before anything happens in future. I do not think this is the right way to go. I am not making some kind of ideological point. I believe there is a dead hand being created here - and an undemocratic dead hand - which is going to tell communities in Ireland that there are criteria by which they can develop and criteria by which they may not develop. It is a case of one size fits all.

There has been talk about cities, but is Limerick's problem the same as Dublin's problem or is Galway's problem the same as Dublin's problem? I do not think so. I do not think that Wexford's problems are the same as Monaghan's. There are major differences. Those differences should be accommodated by giving the people of Monaghan and those in the south east, whether we want to deal with it on the basis of the old county or regional strategies, the right to dictate the future of their areas or at least to create the criteria by which they want to live, quite separate from the views of the members of an elite in Dublin who think they know everything.

I will go back to a point made by Senator Boyhan yesterday. It is extraordinary that the chief planners in local authorities do not need to have any planning qualifications whatsoever. What the person must have, as I see it, is experience of the bureaucracy that is what I call a prefecture of management pretending to be part of a system of democratic local government.

I will not delay the House any further, but I strongly support the view that, at the very least, if we are going down this road – I doubt the wisdom of much of what is involved - it can only be done with a massively increased democratic accountability and a massively decreased bureaucratic dominance for Ministers, statements, frameworks, regulators and the like. This country does not need more of that, it probably needs a lot less of it.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is quite difficult to hold the Bill when standing because it is so large. I have listened to many of the contributions. There is much food for thought in what has been said. I am conscious that the Bill has been four years in the making, so it was not brought here in a rush. However, it contains a great deal.

I will respond to some of the comments made by Senator Higgins and Senator McDowell on the planning statement. I take on board Senator Gavan's comments on the night-time economy. I would also like to see a more thriving night-time economy in smaller towns and villages in rural Ireland. That does not really exist any more. That will come down to things like transport around those towns. Where I live in Castlebar, taxis are a big issue. It might be controversial, but I would love to see Uber available in Ireland. It is stated in section 26 that it is not limited to what is listed, so there is scope to include more. There is also scope to deal with the night-time economy in that context.

Senator McDowell mentioned rural Ireland. I agree with him that there is often a very Dublin-centric approach to planning and other such matters. Very often, the most senior positions available are based in Dublin, which makes it very difficult for somebody living in rural Ireland to obtain employment in one of those roles. I was made aware recently that the Housing Agency is looking for a director of service and a senior executive officer, but the positions are based in Dublin. To a certain extent, I understand the reason that many of those roles are based here, but this precludes people from the west in particular from taking them up. I refer to people that have lived experience of rural areas and what it is like to live in a rural area. I know Senator McDowell is a regular visitor to the west. I have grave concerns about some of the policies and the mentality that is coming from the Planning Regulator. I do not think it is intended to stifle rural Ireland or restrict the development or the continued vitality of rural areas, but it is an unintended consequence at times.

One of the things listed in the planning statement is the protection of the amenities, character and vitality of rural areas. Planning in rural areas is always contentious and is one of the biggest things I deal with as a public representative in a rural area. People should have the right to build a home on family land. I fundamentally believe and am passionate about that for many reasons. Senator McDowell mentioned wanting to live close to mom and dad. If parents want to live in their own home for longer, often that is facilitated by having a son or daughter living close by. The more difficult we make that, the more likely it is people will not be able to stay in their homes for as long as they would like because they do not have a son or daughter living close by. That is how we live in those areas. I do not think adequate regard is given to that. A big concern for many older people is their son or daughter will not get planning permission on family land or will not be able to live in the local village. Even if they are encouraged to live in the nearest town or village, if it is a 20- or 30-minute drive, that is a massive distance when it comes to keeping an eye or mom or dad when they are not in the best of health or in their later years. Facilitating people living close to their parents will have a knock-on impact on maintaining rural villages and keeping young families in the area, and it means they can look after their parents. It is intergenerational living, which we want to promote and sustain.

I question where we are going. We are still waiting on the rural housing guidelines. I said yesterday my preference is that when they are published they are right and that we get them right. There is not, unfortunately, a consensus around planning in this country. People have very different views. There are Members of this Chamber who do not support my position that people should be allowed to build one-off rural housing on family land. Those views are misplaced, maybe due to a lack of experience of what that means to a rural area.

A key reason a person gets planning in a rural area is he or she is from the area. There was a time when people had families of seven, eight or nine children and now we are down to families of one, two or three children. The number of people qualifying under that condition is reducing all the time. Straight away, we are limiting the ability of a village to maintain its population, never mind grow it, and then we see local services close down.

I am not as negative about rural Ireland as some of the comments Senator McDowell made on town centres. Some of our towns are thriving. During the Covid period there was a reset and people got to know their local areas very well. I have seen small local businesses pop up, such as coffee shops, because of that renewed focus on and greater appreciation of where we are from. That is not every town and we need more of a focus on reimagining and reusing vacant areas. The Croí Cónaithe scheme is working quite well for getting properties back up and running but the CPO procedure needs to be improved.

The intention behind the Bill is not to restrict development; in fact, it is to remove some of the blocks. There is huge frustration with the planning system. It regularly comes up. People who are not part of the local community can come in. I completely agree with the point made that local communities should be able to drive development in their area but we have people from outside those communities who make it their business to involve themselves in planning matters that, from what I can see, they should have no interest in. That is frustrating people. There was an onus on the Government to try to do something around the planning system to streamline it, make it easier to get a decision through and remove blockages.

I take on board the comments Senator Higgins made on the national planning framework but there is nothing to suggest the planning statement would not be consistent with that. Allegations have been made that addressing climate issues has been thrown out the window but that is not the case. It is clearly stated in the Bill multiple times that it is about sustainable development and we need to consider environmental concerns. Of course we will. We will not go backwards on those things. We have obligations under EU and domestic law so that is a red herring and an attempt to stoke fear and anger around the Bill. Those intentions are not in the Bill. There is scope to look at the ability of elected members to have input into these matters but Ministers and the Government have a mandate. They are elected by the people to govern. I do not have a difficulty with the Minister for housing and planning making a statement on housing and planning. It is his or her job to do those things, develop policies and lead on them. It is difficult to progress decisions if there is wide consultation on every minor detail. That is not to say we go the other way and have no consultation but a happy medium has to be struck. That is the intention behind the Bill.

I take on board the comments that it is quite a large piece of legislation. That is evident from the size of the Bill I am holding but the intention is to make planning easier and less frustrating and to get delivery on key areas like housing. Housing is the top priority of this Government. The Bill has been four years in the making, notwithstanding any suggestions it has been rushed through. It has taken time because of the size of it. Genuine concerns of Members of the House will be taken on board by the Minister. That has been said today and yesterday, and the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, will be in the Chamber tomorrow.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will comment on some of Senator Chambers's statements on scaremongering when it comes to climate change. That is not Senator Higgins's intention. We are afraid of what is happening in the Bill around climate change, especially for poor communities.

Let me be blunt. Having spent all weekend reading the Bill, I must say this is a Bill for one group of people: white, settled rich people. It is unfortunate, given it was four years in the making, that it does not include people with disabilities. Nor does it include members of the Traveller community, which has been failed for the last 20 years under the TAP programme. We talk about aggressive and personalised language. I am a member of the Traveller community and work for people who have disabilities and who expect me to speak up on their behalf. I called a vote today and it was unfortunate the Government did not vote with us on the UNCRPD. That is evident for people with disabilities to see. The organisations will be back in contact with their local Senators. I welcome that and I support the organisations to get in contact with their local Senators and tell them that if they support disability rights, the proof is in the pudding. I will be calling another vote on amendment No. 105 and, again, the proof will be in the pudding. In this Chamber, Members either support people with disabilities or they do not - end of story. They either support the UNCRPD or they do not.

I do not have to speak for hours on my amendment. I will get straight to the point. We have failed members of the Traveller community for decades regarding accommodation. Our amendment No. 99 talks about having a stand-alone Traveller strategy, which Traveller groups have sought for years and the expert group on Traveller accommodation called for in 2019. It is not me calling for it, but members of our community.

It is unfortunate it is the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, in front of me today because I have great time and respect for him and see him more as a friend than a colleague. I am playing a broken record. I am always the one to talk up about Travellers but we continue to fail and fail.

Senator Higgins rightly raised the sustainable development goals. There are still some people in this country who do not have access to running water. We should be ashamed of ourselves. People do not have adequate access to accommodation. I am speaking in an angry manner because I see people in the Labre Park halting site living in horrible and dire conditions. In rural Ireland, I am dealing with a young mother, a member of the Traveller community, who has been shoved into a one-bedroom apartment under HAP.

If you are a member of the Traveller community, you are a black person. You automatically will face racism when looking for rented accommodation. There are so many barriers that I have not even mentioned. I am only on amendment No. 99.

The sustainable development goals aim to move the people at the end up to the front. Senator Higgins's points regarding climate change are very important. She is right that we do not talk about it enough and we do not have solutions. We most definitely do not have the green solution about which the Minister of State's party talks so often. I absolutely beg him and his officials to accept our amendment No. 99. It is extremely personal to me. Having been born and reared on a halting site, I have seen nothing but failure from the State. Nobody is held to account. At a meeting of the Traveller committee last Thursday, I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, who is held responsible for the lack of implementation. His reply is on record for everybody to read. He said the responsibility lies with the local authorities.

In the case of the Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, the associated committees are the only committees county councillors are not paid to attend. Many councillors participate just to disrupt plans and stop Traveller accommodation from going ahead in their locality. However, there also are a lot of councillors who mean well and want to see Travellers thriving and being part of their communities. Amendment No. 99 relates to the stand-alone Traveller accommodation agency. I get it when people say this is not personal. In fact, it is personal. It is personal for people representing members of the Traveller community and trying their very best. It is personal for me when I sit on the disability matters committee. I spoke at that committee about how the park in Ardara, County Donegal, has no swing for children who are autistic. That is a very basic human right. It is very basic that children should have access to play facilities in our parks.

Amendment No. 105 seeks to ensure accessibility and inclusive facilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Saying people have a choice to live independently means absolutely nothing if we do not provide accessibility and inclusion facilities. I gave just one example of a play area for children with additional needs. We are talking about supports that enable and empower people to be themselves. I will call a vote on amendment No. 105. People in representative organisations are listening to this debate. I do not accept gaslighting and being told this is not personal. I say again it is very personal. Traveller children with additional needs are living on halting sites with no ramps for accessing trailers and no proper facilities. It is extremely personal. I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of disabled people and people from the Traveller community, who are too often left behind in all planning and development legislation. Whether in regard to housing or whatever else it might be, we are always the communities that are left behind. Now is the time to put us up front and support us. I ask colleagues to put their money where their mouth is.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I intend to move amendments Nos. 90, 94, 96, 103, 107 and 110. I do not propose to speak on any of them because they are self-explanatory. We will deal with them in due course. Colleagues will have read the amendments. I will leave it at that.

On the national planning statements, I take up where the Leader left off. I thank her for her ongoing support for one-off rural housing. She spoke in the House yesterday about the guidelines on such housing. Yes, we must get those guidelines right. However, they have been promised for seven years. I write repeatedly to the Department on this matter. I am continuously promised they will be published within weeks. Many colleagues will be aware of the Flemish decree and the challenges it presents for Ireland in regard to rural housing. We keep getting the same response. We have had parliamentary questions in the Dáil and Commencement matters in this House. We have had various Ministers in to discuss the issue. We keep being told the same story.

I reiterate that it is important we have the guidelines. I publish a press release approximately once a month calling for them. Let us publish the guidelines. They will then have to undergo a period of consultation. I believe in engagement and consultation. We have talked a lot about both. I do not understand the delay. Will the Minister of State explain it? He is involved in these issues locally and he is highly respected. He represents a rural constituency. He is familiar with the challenges outside Kilkenny city in the rural parts of Graiguenamanagh, Gowran and lots of other places. I know of people in those locations who cannot get planning permission to build on small landholdings. They want to live close to their elderly parents. This is an area the Minister of State represents, and represents well. We need fewer excuses. We need him to tell us today what he knows.

This issue feeds into the national planning statements. We certainly need a substantial section on rural housing in those statements. There are all sorts of suggestions. We are sometimes told to be careful what we wish for because the Green Party wants no progress in this area. I do not believe that to be the case. I simply do not know. The Minister of State is one of the Ministers with responsibility in this area. Will he elaborate on what is being done in regard to one-off rural housing? We are talking about proper planning and sustainable development. No one is against that. However, it is getting beyond a joke when we keep getting fobbed off on this issue.

I ask the Minister of State and the Government to publish the rural housing guidelines, which we have been told are ready, and put them out to consultation for a period over the summer. It is important that we have feedback. We know from the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, Macra na Feirme and lots of other organisations that represent farming and rural Ireland that they want to see those guidelines and to have an opportunity to comment on them. This is a significant issue. It is about having proper, sustainable development within our rural communities in order to sustain those communities. We talk about our commitment to rebuilding all over Ireland, north, south, east and west. We talk about balanced regional development. There are communities that want to grow and thrive or at least to survive. For many of them, it is about survival. Let us support them. I call for the publication of the draft guidelines and for them to be put out for a period of public consultation. We must try to make progress.

As I said, I will not address amendments Nos. 90, 94, 96, 103, 107 and 110. I will move them as we reach them.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Senator Dolan.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had indicated, Acting Chairperson.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Dolan was first to indicate.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Murphy is next after Senator Dolan.

Aisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will focus on the national planning statements that will be presented to the Minister. We are discussing amendments relating to the provisions in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Bill. My questions specifically concern the regional spatial and economic strategy.

The Northern and Western Regional Assembly released its regional infrastructure tracker just yesterday or the day before. The regional infrastructure tracker for the RSES reveals a challenge. The Northern and Western Regional Assembly covers all the counties west of the Shannon and north up to Cavan, and then there is the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly. In my area there is a growth town like Athlone and two other towns indicated like Ballinasloe and Roscommon town. Athlone crisscrosses two RSES areas and it is an actual growth town. There are only three indicated in the Northern and Western Regional Assembly, NWRA. At a practical level from what I understand both Roscommon County Council and Westmeath County Council have worked together to develop the town. When the Minister is reviewing the national planning statement and looking at the high-level objectives, taking into account the RSES which is based on the census, how does that align if there are differences between one RSES for a particular town and another which is covered by the Northern and Western Regional Assembly? That is my question relating to the Minister's involvement in the national planning statement.

Importantly the framework is linked to the census for a minimum of ten years. The challenge with the high-level information being given in the top part of the national planning statement from the Minister relates to the enormous deficits. The infrastructure tracker refers to Uisce Éireann water infrastructure capacity constraints. It indicates that Galway city has 0% capacity available to meet the requirements of the population increase. I come from a town where I want to see it double. Athlone has about 20,000 people and will move up to about 30,000 people by 2032 which is the timeframe of those regional economic strategies. Galway County Council is at about 20%. Roscommon fares much better at 76% capacity which means that the towns in the county are able to take on an increase. However, there are major challenges relating to infrastructure in rural areas. At a European level, the NWRA is the only region in Ireland that is defined as being in transition.

I appreciate that this is a recent report. It refers to the regional competitiveness index which is done by development stage and index score. The northern and western area, which is a transition region, ranks 218th out of 234 NUTS 2 regions. We rank fairly poorly in this regard. In this national planning statement, not all things are equal across the regional areas. I have heard Senator Chambers talk about the challenges there. We have nearly 18 people working in the NWRA. There needs to be a regional balance and it must take into account that all things are not fair in this world and not all areas are starting from the same base level. We, in the Northern and Western Regional Assembly area, are starting at a significant deficit. When the Minister is reviewing these national planning statements how will the proposals that come from the three be taken into account? There is the national planning stage, the three regional spatial and economic strategies, RSESs, and then approximately 30 area plans as well.

The regional assemblies will ensure the RSESs take into account many of these reports. They do excellent work and are made-up of local public representatives across those counties. The challenge is with the deficit we are dealing with. We are bringing in more people to live and work in the west. Day in, day out I talk about what a wonderful place it is to live in. During campaigning for the local elections, I met many people in their 30s and 40s with families moving back to places like Athlone because they can get work or they can work remotely. They may just need to be in Dublin one or two days a week. In Dublin city centre I met someone from home who travelled up on the train. While some train services have been increased, some basic coach services, including Aircoach, have been taken off. I am calling for a review of the route 20 service, for example, which crisscrosses in travelling from Dublin to Galway. These are infrastructural needs but they crisscross RSES areas. When we indicate a significant need and it crisscrosses like that in Athlone, how is that managed with the Minister's statement?

My last issue is with housing. About four years ago one of the Northern and Western Regional Assembly regional statements indicated that over 95% of housing in that area was at B2 level or below. Obviously that area has a much older cohort. When we talk about development, this is where things like the vacant refurbishment grant comes in. I know we are doing work on retrofitting and so on and we need new housing. We obviously want to see better access to water, water infrastructure and wastewater treatment plants in our towns. How will we have the capacity to expand in the likes of Ballinasloe or Roscommon town when so much of our housing does not even meet the basic need of B2? These are some of the key issues in my area when it comes to planning. When we talk about planning so far ahead, I feel we are so far behind. That is where the Minister's statement looking at development across these regions will be crucial.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to Senator Dolan; I had not realised she had been in the Chamber earlier and had gone out. It was not in any way intentional.

I support the comments by Senators Chambers and Dolan on the need for real infrastructural development particularly in the west and midlands. As both said, we are a long way behind and need to move forward. We certainly do not want the west and midlands to be a wilderness. We need to properly develop all the wonderful tourism attractions we have, including the walking routes, the cycling routes, the beautiful lakes and rivers. As the Minister of State knows, we have a significant heritage. I compliment him because I know he regularly travels down the country. I often see him taking photographs of old shop fronts and old pub fronts, which is great to see. Heritage is very important to people. In order to keep all that going and develop that, we need plenty of people living in the locality.

There was mention of Scramogue, where I live. It poses the question as to how far we can really plan ahead certainly for housing. Going back to 2010, 2011 or 2012 when those housing estates were closed up, the cry was to knock them down. Even in the small village of Scramogue, which has 80 or 90 houses in two developments, people wanted them knocked down. In other parts of Roscommon and in all parts of Ireland people wanted them knocked down. Japanese knotweed was growing up on the sites and hundreds of millions of euro were spent to treat the Japanese knotweed. However, today every one of those houses is now occupied. We can talk about Scramogue, Roscommon, Longford, Westmeath, Galway and Kilkenny I presume. How much can be written in stone when it comes to planning? We have seen what has happened with the population explosion in our country in recent years. It was not possible to be ready for that and we have a housing crisis now.

I am making that point regarding how we develop strategies. In that regard, it is really important to have local input from local politicians and local developers. I accept we need the national controls. Nobody does not want national controls, but it must work in tandem with people in different parts of the country to ensure that people get fair play.

The vacant house grant in rural areas has been very positive. It is highly successful and it is good to see it happening. It is a wonderful idea. I know that several hundred houses in Roscommon are being redeveloped, mainly for young couples and people coming back.

I go back to the point Senator Boyhan made ,that in many families, one or two members want to live close to their ageing parents to be able to look after them. I believe Senator Chambers may have made the same point. They just want to be there to look after them. That is also taking a burden off the State if such people can be looked after. We are all talking about people living in their own homes. The vacant home grants for rural houses is very good, as is the vacancy grant for rural villages and towns. Presently there are a lot of roadblocks in the planning system, and it is very frustrating for people because of delays. Sometimes planning people will say the delays are due to lack of staff and they simply cannot handle all they have to handle. It is frustrating for a lot of people. I go back to the point about An Bord Pleanála, and even though the Government has given the board quite a few extra staff, we still have the backlog of 20,000. There are a lot of people who are totally frustrated because they have been waiting a long time for decisions. I am sure the Minister of State is well aware of this.

I commend Senator Flynn on her very passionate views on Traveller accommodation. I agree we have a long way to go on this matter. I am dealing with a very decent genuine Traveller family in Ballinasloe in County Galway at the moment. Many people, including me, worked very hard with Galway County Council to get housing for those people. One of the roadblocks all along was that when the council was more or less agreeing on a house, Tusla said the house was not suitable because it was not big enough, although it was big enough to cater for the family. That type of roadblock has to be taken into account as well. It is not all the fault of planners and councillors. There are other bodies, who may say they are doing their job but who are actually frustrating people getting housing. Sadly, that family I referred to lived in terrible conditions, with eight people in a very small caravan. I visited it and it was shocking and really upset me. They were then allocated a house in an area that was not suitable at all. It is an issue we need to tackle and to look at seriously to get it right because everybody is entitled to a roof over their heads and I think everybody would agree with that.

Those are a few observations. Of course I will be supporting the Government on all these amendments, but there is some very good material coming from some people in the Opposition and I am sure the Minister of State would agree with this. I acknowledge that and I acknowledge there are some difficulties. As Senator Dolan said, we are a long way behind in some parts of the country and we need to develop that infrastructure.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will start with the need for a new planning Bill. Any of us who have been on local authorities and trying to navigate the existing planning legislation will understand the need to overhaul it. I acknowledge the role this Government played in this regard because many other governments thought about doing it and ran away from it. However, this Government took it on and has now produced a new planning Bill. Yes, it will be amended on many occasions in years to come. Nothing is perfect and it is a living document, but it was something that needed to be taken on and that has been done.

I will pick up on a few comments Senator McDowell made. I will start where he ended up when he said we have made the system more complex. I will probably agree with him that the system has now become very bureaucratic and very onerous, whether you go from the NPF to the regional plans to the county plans to the local plans. It has been that. Maybe that is slowing down a certain level of development, but to say the NPF was not needed is incorrect. We need a plan to plan. The worst thing this country does is large, critical infrastructure. We are absolutely useless at it, if we think about. I sat on the housing committee in the previous Dáil where we talked about the extraction of the water from the Shannon in 2016. It is needed for the east coast so that we can keep developing. Where has it progressed? It is being talked about again and it is now 2024. We look at the children's hospital, large sewerage infrastructure and rail infrastructure. These need high-level plans so that we can put in place the critical infrastructure that is needed in the country for us to live in it.

Senator McDowell indicated that the NPF was undemocratic. I disagree with him on this point. The NPF started in 2014, and by the time it was adopted, I think it was 2018. It was the Oireachtas that adopted the draft plan, and I believe that was some time in 2017. Then the Government, after consultation, adopted the final national planning framework, which then fed into the regional plans, which involved consultation, and then fed into our county development plans, which equally had a process of consultation. On the point that it was undemocratic, I would say there is nearly too much consultation in the process and that does cause delays.

Much has been said about rural housing and rural planning. This is something very close to my own heart, coming from Glendalough. In the 12 years I spent as a councillor, my biggest role was one-off rural housing. When the draft NPF document was published, it was I who identified that when it came to one-off rural housing, it focused on economic need only. I sat down with the Department, Niall Cussen and others, and we included social need. The reason we now have two definitions of social need and economic need is to deal with the ruling of the Flemish Decree and to stop saying, son or daughter or niece or nephew specifically and generalise it to a person having either an economic need or a social need to live in a rural area. That is at a very high level and then each county development plan takes on those two criteria. This is where it falls down, because it depends on interpretation. Every one of us who has served on a local authority will scratch our head at times when we see two different decisions being made and we wonder how that happened. There is a level of inconsistency in the planning decision-making process when it comes to one-off rural housing, because there are so many factors involved. I might interpret guidelines differently from another planner. We have the sustainable rural housing guidelines, which my former colleague, Dick Roche, adopted in 2005, and they are still in place. We need a new set of guidelines for today, but my fear is about the interpretation of the guidelines.

Another issue in respect of one-off rural housing about which I have a bee in my bonnet is the preplanning consultation. Every county treats the preplanning process completely differently. My own county of Wicklow is probably the worst. It is an email, full stop. In Wexford, a person can have a meeting. If anything is to happen around one-off rural housing, then it should be that there is a clear process put into legislation that each local authority must comply with. One of the hardest things is to get over the qualification criteria for one-off rural housing. Do I or do I not qualify for one-off rural housing? Do I have social need or economic need? If you can overcome that, then you are not wasting money on architects for design and on environmental assessment in relation to wastewater and the landscape. People are throwing good money after bad because they end up not qualifying for one-off rural housing. The process of qualification and of preplanning consultations needs to be made much more specific about what each applicant is entitled to and what they are entitled to get out of the process. That would help resolve some of the one-off planning issues.

The NPF is a valuable document and is needed. Senator Boyhan and I had several arguments with Niall Cussen. I had a major issue with the population targets and how they were distributed. At the time I thought there were very low and, as it has since evolved, that has proven to be correct.

The other issue is the NPF was not a transitional document. It came with a set of rules and then the county development plans had to adopt those rules. It did not allow for a transition period where there was shortage of where we wanted to put population growth, but the critical infrastructure was not there at that time, be it sewerage or transport.

The OPR is only the enforcer of the national planning framework and has no say, in fact, on it. The national planning framework was adopted before the OPR was even commenced or appointed. Yes, that office is there to add a layer of scrutiny to ensure that all plans, whether they be regional or local, comply with all national plans. To say that he or she is controlling it is wrong because the NPF was adopted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was a democratic process. We cannot say it was not.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since so many Senators are coming in on this point, it is probably a good idea to have everybody's views aired on whether we go for this fully-planned approach to our infrastructure in Ireland, or whether we just fly by the seat of our pants and take it decision by decision. I am favour of the former, but I have problems with the draft national planning framework. I went to the committee meeting last week on the first day that the consultation opened to air those views. I encourage everybody, now that it is open for consultation, to have those views aired. I completely agree with what Senator Casey said. When enacted, this Bill will be changed over and over again. That is what we do in this House as legislators; we change things over time. This bit is not working; let us tweak it. We have been talking about this Bill for years. We could spend years more talking about the Bill. If Members really genuinely care about what is in the Bill, they should get involved at the earliest possible stage. It is not enough to come in and say lots of things when it comes before the Seanad.

When it came to the climate Act, I worked beforehand and when I did not like something in it, I worked with the Department officials and advisers. I did not just wait until it came to Committee Stage and ask whether I could table this amendment. Genuinely, that is not how things work. What is important is that we have the Minister of State here so that when we are concerned about something, we get it on the record, we speak briefly, we get him to put something on the record of this House, we move on and encourage him to come back on Report Stage. This is a process. It is an ongoing process. We are all involved in it. Let us hear from everybody and then move on to the next amendment.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is quite a lot to respond to. Before I respond specifically to the amendments, I will make a few points on the contributions made, starting with Senator Gavan.

The night-time economy and general points about the closure of venues were raised earlier. There is a really significant role both in the town centre first policies and town centre teams at local level. The issues of transport hackneys and policing forums were raised, all of which have an important role. At local level, the animation of the night-time economy and the work led by the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin with the night-time economy task force was valuable. It really is down at local level that communities can play an active part in the revitalisation of their towns, but also to ensure that for those who are living in towns, they make our towns vibrant for living in, not just in the daytime but in the evening-time as well. That is hugely important.

Senator Higgins raised the issue of a power grab and the broader issue of sustainable development and the SDGs, which we discussed earlier. The wider discussion about the definition of "sustainable development", be it the Brundtland Commission's 1972 definition around one which meets the present needs without compromising the needs of future generations, has evolved significantly since then. The issues around protected structures and the role of local government and elected members have been raised consistently by Members this afternoon. The legislation will not deal with the issues around the power imbalance. I welcome, and partook in, the consultation led by the Seanad on the future of local of government. That is going to be an important report, but it is for another day.

Senator Moynihan raised issues regarding the national planning statements, rural housing and the need to publish the rural housing guidelines, as did a number of Senators. The guidelines are subject to a legal review by the Attorney General's office and the position remains, as set out in the updated and revised NPF, that we should support rural communities and rural housing based on local need and the social and economic issues raised by Senator Casey as well. These are expressed in county development plans currently. Many issues relating to rural housing are not just about local need, but are also about service, quality of well water, the deterioration of groundwater supplies, the inspection of sceptic tanks and rural transport. I recognise the competing demands, but also that all of us are representing different areas and have different views on that. That is where the rural housing guidelines are at present.

Senator McDowell raised the issue of power grabs and a recipe for stopping things from happening. I fundamentally disagree with the points raised by him, where he effectively said that this Bill was not necessary; it is absolutely necessary. He has also brought into question issues of CPO powers and local authorities. Again, there are differing experiences across the country. Some seem to do it better than others, but I concede that it is an onerous and very difficult task for local authorities. Comments such as this being drafted by "an elite in Dublin" are simply not the case. We all live in this country together and all have a role to play. The planners live in their own communities as well. We all want to see a planning system that works for everybody, that is participative and inclusive, and that supports communities and balanced development.

Senator Chambers raised the issue of the Planning Regulator, as did a number of Members. To reiterate, as Senator Casey mentioned this as well, the OPR will have no role in the preparation of the NPF, or national planning statements. It is the role of the Minister, not the OPR. The OPR is an independent regulator. Policy is set by the Minister in government, not by the OPR. The Planning Regulator does not produce policy. The most senior level planner in each local authority is at least at senior planner level. I think a comment was made that they are not planners. That is a senior local authority grade with a role to produce advice to directors of services, chief executives and the elected members, who have a critically important role, a reserved function in the development of development plans. The OPR has three main strategy functions: to independently assess all statutory forward planning of all local authorities, including development plans and local area plans; to carry out organisation reviews of the systems and procedures used by any planning authority, including An Bord Pleanála, in the performance of any of their planning functions; and to drive national research, training, education and public information programmes. The criticism of the OPR seems to have been consistent with this Bill and its passage through the Houses. It has been completely unwarranted. The OPR is in place for a specific role. It has an important oversight role and is performing a valuable function in our planning system.

Senator Flynn raised points about the Traveller community. I will speak to that amendment separately but will make a general comment about the needs of Traveller communities and Traveller-specific accommodation. I know only too well from the work I do with Traveller families in my own constituency that the needs of Traveller families are changing. From one Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, to another, they are moving. Many families are not opting for Traveller-specific accommodation. The local Traveller accommodation consultative committees, LTACCs, have a vital role in ensuring that in developing the TAP at a local level, there is meaningful engagement with Traveller families. Sometimes there is not. It is important that members of the Travelling community are included in the development of the Traveller accommodation plans.

As Senator Flynn acknowledged during a conversation we had earlier, the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon; and his predecessors, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell; and the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, in their roles as Minister of State with responsibility for Traveller accommodation have made significant strides in ensuring that local authorities meet their requirements by spending their budgets and ensuring there is no interference in the allocation of Traveller-specific accommodation. That is important, and needs to happen at a local level. I have seen instances where elected members have intervened in the allocation of houses for Traveller families. That should not happen, plain and simple. I recognise that this Government has made significant strides to ensure that local authorities meet the requirements for Traveller accommodation. It is important that the Travelling community and Traveller representative organisations are included in those processes.

Senator Dolan raised points about the regional assemblies, including the Northern and Western Regional Assembly, NWRA, and the development of the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES. She mentioned Athlone specifically. There are objectives in the RSESs of both the NWRA and the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly for them to work together in planning for the development of Athlone as a Border settlement. That is facilitated specifically by a provision in sections 29(10) and 29(11) of the planning Bill. The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery, and Reform, and the national planning framework, NPF, recognise the need to address relatively lower levels of growth in the north west, including through infrastructure. This is supported by the national development plan, NDP. There is an NDP project tracker online that illustrates public investment in areas. That is important. I recognise the points that have been made about regional imbalance, particularly in the northern, midlands and western regions where there is a significant challenge. That is not to say that the local authorities and regional assemblies are not doing fantastic work but it is important that at a central government level, we are conscious of the need for balanced regional development.

I think those were the main points that were raised.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What of the rural housing guidelines?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I mentioned those specifically. The rural housing guidelines are currently subject to a legal review by the Attorney General. As things stand, the position remains as set out in the revised NPF. The intention is to support rural communities and provide rural housing based on local need, be it social or economic.

The challenge is that over the past 20 or 30 years, we have seen an awful lot of urban-generated rural housing. People are building houses in the countryside and not contributing to the local schools but instead ferrying their children into schools in the urban areas. They are not contributing to local GAA clubs or communities. It is critical to get the rural housing guidelines right. The points about local need, particularly in farming communities, have been well made. I acknowledge the point that was made about a perceived inconsistency in decision making. We want to ensure that is addressed.

I will specifically address the amendments that have been tabled. Amendment No. 86 was tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan, Gavan, Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 87, 89, 91 to 93, inclusive, 97 to 99, inclusive, 101, 102, 105, 108, 109, 111 and 113 were tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendments Nos. 88, 95, 100, 104 and 112 were tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall. Amendments Nos. 90, 94, 103, 107 and 110 were tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. Amendment No. 96 was tabled by Senators Boyhan, McDowell, Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn. Amendment No. 106 was tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan. This group of amendments relates to the Chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Bill, which relates to national planning statements. Under this Chapter, the Minister will issue, with the approval of the Government, a national planning statement for the purpose of setting out policy and providing guidance in respect of planning matters, and to support proper planning and sustainable development. National planning statements will eventually replace section 28 guidelines and section 29 ministerial policy objectives made under the Act of 2000. National planning statements will contain two separate parts, the first part being a high-level statement of national planning policies and measures to be integrated into regional and local plan making and the second part consisting of practical guidance that will afford flexibility to planning authorities as to how to implement the principles of national planning policy.

Amendments Nos. 86 to 90, inclusive, seek to replace references to "the Government" in section 25 with a reference to "the Oireachtas", or to insert additional approval requirements with respect to approving, amending or revoking national planning statements. This matter was debated at length at pre-legislative scrutiny and in Dáil Éireann. These amendments all deal with the same substantive issue, that is, whether the policies of the planning system should be agreed by the Government or passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. As I have already stated in response to previous similar amendments relating to the national planning framework, it is appropriate and right that the Government has responsibility for setting and agreeing Government policy, whether it relates to planning or other matters. It is widely acknowledged that planning is a discipline that affects almost every facet of daily life and is critical to the well-being of our citizens, as well as to the success of the wider economy and our response to the climate and biodiversity crisis. National planning statements will be a key mechanism introduced under the Bill to improve consistency within the tiers of the planning system. National planning statements will be subject to comprehensive consultation processes and once issued, the Bill provides that other tiers of the planning system, be they local or regional, will be obliged to review their own plans to ensure alignment with national policy.

The process as currently set out in the Bill improves alignment throughout the planning system while also allowing it the inherent flexibility for regional and local plan-led approaches to continue. This addresses the points made by Senator McDowell. The proposed amendments wish to add a further level of Oireachtas approval but are unclear as to how this can be reconciled with extensive assessments and consultation already provided for within the Bill or for the wider programme for Government. It is for these reasons that I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

I oppose amendment No. 91, which seeks to remove a provision stating that a failure to comply with post-publication requirements within a specified time period shall not invalidate a national planning statement. Given the extensive work, resources and consultation that will be required to produce a national planning statement, I consider the existing provision to be reasonable and practical, and, in any event, included as a precaution only. I, therefore, cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 92 is not required as not only must the NPF and national planning statements relate to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development, the items listed under section 20(2) are provided for, albeit at a more granular level, under section 26(1), with the exception of guidance in relation to the national marine planning framework. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 93 relates to a transitional provision for the architectural heritage protection guidelines issued under section 52 of the Act of 2000. My intention is for the first issuing of a relevant national planning statement to result in such guidelines ceasing to have effect. An entirely new regime will exist in its own right and not as a replacement for those guidelines. The continuing in force of the guidelines pending the issuing of the national planning statement is purely a stopgap to ensure there is no regulatory vacuum. In saying that, I will ask my officials to further review this matter to ensure no further clarification is required in respect of the construct of section 25(8). If it is determined necessary, I will bring an amendment on Report Stage.

However, as things stand, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 94 is not required as guidelines issued under section 28 of the Act of 2000 will ultimately be replaced by national planning policy guidance issued under the enacted Bill. Section 27 of the Bill provides a transitional provision that will keep section 28 guidelines in force following the repeal of the Act of 2000, but this will only be until those guidelines are revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement issued under Part 3 of the Bill. For this reason, along with its problematic drafting, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 95 to 106,inclusive,all relate to section 26 of the Bill and the considerations for the Minister in the issuance of a national planning statement. Amendment No. 95 seeks to amend section 26(1) in order to change the matters the Minister must have regard to when preparing or issuing a national planning statement. I do not agree with the approach proposed under this amendment. As currently drafted, section 26(1) obliges the Minister of the day to have regard to “the desirability of setting out policy and providing guidance in relation to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development”. The amendment proposed would alter this so that the Minister must have regard to “the performance of functions” under Part 3 of the Bill relating to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development. As things stand, I see no reason to limit the scope of matters to be considered in the manner proposed by way of this amendment, and to do so would needlessly restrict the scope of national planning statements.

Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 seek to delete all or part of section 26(1)(a). This paragraph is essential as it requires the Minister, when formulating or issuing a national planning statement, to provide guidance in support of proper planning and sustainable development in the preparation of regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans, co-ordinated area plans and development schemes. As this issuing of guidance as set out here is a primary purpose of national planning statements and a key element of the new regime, I must oppose the deletion of paragraph (a) as proposed.

Amendment No. 98is already provided for under the Bill as drafted. In the chapeau to section 26(1), the Bill provides that when considering what policy and guidance is to be provided under a national planning statement, the matters set out under paragraphs (a) to (q) must be considered. This includes the promotion of sustainable development patterns in urban and rural areas relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the support of the circular economy and climate change mitigation. In addition to this, section 26(1)(p) also provides for the integration of relevant climate action-related policies and measures, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans.

Amendment No. 99 seeks to include a specific reference for the provision of Traveller accommodation. The matter is already captured under section 26(1)(d) in relation to types of development or particular uses of land, including housing and housing supply. It is important to note that the matters under section 26(1) will apply equally to the needs of groups or stakeholders. We will give a commitment to look at this, specifically in respect of development plans but not under the planning statements. As I said, the needs of Traveller families are changing. It is important, under housing strategies at local level, that those are included in the plans, in addition to the Traveller accommodation programme. The roles will tack at a local level. We will look at this issue but not specifically as it relates to planning statements.

Amendment No. 100relates to the Gaeltacht and Irish language matters. As I previously stated with regard to the national planning framework, amendments have already been made to the Bill that provide for a distinct category of priority area plan specific to Gaeltacht areas and the islands. That is the most appropriate approach to take on this issue.

Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are similar to amendment No. 98 as they also relate to sustainable development. I will reiterate that the matters set out under paragraphs (a) to (q) are to be taken into consideration when determining what policy and guidance to support sustainable development are contained in a national planning statement. Sustainable development itself should not be a matter for consideration, rather, the matters to be considered are the provision of policy and guidance on sustainable development.

Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 propose to delete all or part of section 26(1)(n), which relates to integration of appropriate architectural urban design and quality standards into development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans, co-ordinated area plans, the preparation of development schemes and the assessment of any application for development consent under Part 4 of the Bill. Architectural urban design and standards are important matters for proper planning and sustainable development. I see no good reason they should not be a matter for consideration with respect to national planning statements.

Amendment No. 105relates to a matter already discussed in the context of the NPF. 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. The Minister of State with special responsibility for disability and the matters listed under section 26(1) already provides for the form and layout of development or amenity space, and the promotion or restriction of development or particular uses of land, including housing.

Amendment No. 106also relates to a matter already discussed in the context of the NPF in that it relates to night venues. It is important to note that the list of matters under section 26(1) is not exhaustive. The matters already provided for, be they housing or infrastructure, will apply equally to the needs of groups or stakeholders proposed by Senators.

I thank Senators for their proposals regarding section 26(1) but for the reasons I outlined, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendments Nos. 107, 108, and 110 relate to additional consultation requirements for national planning statements. I have already addressed this matter in some detail. Accordingly, I will not be accepting any further amendments to the already comprehensive consultation and participation requirements currently set out in the Bill.

Amendments No. 109 and 111 remove reasonable flexibility from sections 26(4) and 26(5) as regards determining whether national planning statements fall within the scope of the SEA Directive. As I expressed in respect of the NPF, it is not appropriate to carry out an assessment where there is no requirement to carry out such an assessment. I cannot accept these amendments.

On Amendment No. 112, all guidelines issued under section 28 of the Act of 2000 will continue to be in effect following the repeal of that Act, but only until they are revoked by the Minister or replaced by a national planning statement issued under Part 3 of the Bill. This is purely a stopgap to ensure that there is no regulatory vacuum. For this reason, I cannot accept the amendment. This addresses the concerns raised by IBEC.

On Amendment No. 113, the additional wording as proposed may not be necessary, given that the chapeau to section 27(1) does not refer to the replacement of all guidelines issued under section 28 of the Act of 2000. In saying that, I will ask officials to review this matter again in order to determine whether additional clarity should be provided in section 27(1)(b). If an amendment is required, I will bring forward a corresponding proposal on Report Stage.

Senator Gavan raised the issue of the Government not accepting amendments. However, the Government has consistently accepted the spirit of amendments that have put forward by the Opposition, if not the wording of them. That has been the tenet of our work to date on the Bill.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will note a few things. When I spoke to the Minister of State outside the Chamber, I rightly said to him that the Minister of State, Deputy Kieran O'Donnell, who previously had responsibility for Traveller accommodation, was absolutely brilliant. We did not have to do things, as Senator O'Reilly said, through committees and all that jazz. We did things in private. We got things done for the Traveller community that were remarkable. I thank that Minister of State for all his hard work on Traveller accommodation. Over the four years I have been in the House, he really had a commitment to Traveller accommodation. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, also brought around some changes.

However, could the Minister of State name one Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, that has worked for Travellers in the past 20 years? Could any Senator in the Chamber name one such TAP? This is not a fight. I was born and reared in these communities. If you go to St. Margaret's halting site, you will see the dire needs of Travellers who are living in rundown accommodation. The Minister of State made a point that was extremely important. It goes right back to the report on itinerants and the Traveller community.

Society wants us to be fake settled people, so we have trespass legislation that stops Travellers from travelling. I own my own house in Donegal but I can promise you that if I were to put a camper van or trailer into the garden, the Garda would be called. A man up the estate has a lovely little trailer in his garden but there is not a word about it. I thank the Minister of State for his comments. We hope we can really consider Traveller accommodation on Report Stage.

I thank Senator O'Reilly. We are glad she knows how to do her job. We also know how to do ours.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not-----

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, but it is important we are all clear on this. We all have our own way of working.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I come in?

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, because there is personalisation going on here. It is not good.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unfair. If Senator Flynn thinks this has something to do with her, she should realise it absolutely does not.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am just going to clarify because I believe it is very important. I came in here because I heard Senator McDowell say we do not need the Bill, the national planning framework and these strategies. I am saying that while I might disagree with many of the points in the Bill and the national planning framework, it does not mean I do not engage in the democratic process. That is what we are all doing here. It was to Senator McDowell's comments and nothing else that I was referring. That we are all here having our opinions heard is very important and part of the democratic process. This is exactly why I went to the committee last week and why everybody should get involved in the consultation. However, I do not agree with the approach that we should not have any plans because we do not like the plans that exist. We all have to try as best we can to improve the system.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very important that I respond. Of course, I knew the Senator was not referring to me, but I believe, even with respect to her colleagues beside her, that it is a wee bit patronising to tell people how to do their job. That is my point. I am sure people know how to do their job. The Senator knows how to do hers.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Flynn needs to speak to the amendments. This is going slightly off track.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay. The Senator went off track earlier, too.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With due respect, Senator Flynn has been given considerable latitude. There is a parliamentary discourse going on. It is not personal to the Senator. There is a parliamentary discourse-----

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is personal to me. This is the second time today the Chair has told me to stop being personal.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Actually, I was supporting the Senator 100%.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take this extremely personally. We have to live in these conditions and the Senator does not know what it is like to live in dire conditions. Nobody gives a damn about members of the Traveller community. I am here as a member of the Traveller community and I have to stand up. My colleagues and I will keep standing up and doing the right thing. It is personal.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that the Senator is speaking very passionately and advocating passionately-----

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just keep saying it is personal, because it is. To me, it is very personal.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was not personal to me because I was not making any personal comments, so I respectfully say we should leave it.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to bring this to a close. This is not helpful to parliamentary discourse.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have forgotten where I was.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On planning and housing.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator was speaking about rural housing.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Boyhan is very good.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was keeping an eye out. I was a guiding light for the Senator.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is a fantastic colleague, as always, and is very helpful.

I have a few follow-up comments. I listened closely to the Minister of State's response. I thank him for referring to the comments of everybody who contributed. My ears always prick up when I hear Ministers talk about rural planning and then about water quality and septic tanks.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an issue.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept it is an issue. My starting point is that one-off rural housing should be maintained. I believe it is the right of rural people to build on family land without question. We have technology available to us to deal with water quality issues. If septic tanks are working properly, there is no issue. It is the language that concerns me as a person from rural Ireland, knowing the position of people within the Department. I understand the environmental concerns and I am not against addressing them. If a septic tank is not working properly, it is very problematic and needs to be addressed. We have to improve water quality. We know that, and we get the point on agriculture and rural housing.

The Minister of State mentioned transport. I do not believe any person building in a rural area, particularly a more remote one, expects a public bus to land at the front door. We are not looking for that. However, we do not want the inability to provide public transport to our front doors to be somehow used as a way to block people from getting planning permission. My point is on the mentality in this regard.

The Minister of State mentioned urban-generated rural housing. In Castlebar, where I live, very few properties are available to buy and the newer ones are quite expensive. If you and your partner are from the town, it is nearly impossible to get planning in a rural area. You have no option if you want to build your own house. That needs to be facilitated. Serviced sites would be very helpful. They comprise a way to bridge the gap. There are people who do not qualify for social housing who would like to build their own homes. If they are from the town, it is not an option for them. In the context of trying to encourage the development of housing of all types, that needs to be considered as well.

I have not picked up on the provision of age-appropriate housing. We need to provide housing in rural communities for older persons who would like to move out and downsize. That is not an option currently. It needs to be taken into consideration.

I will refer briefly to amendment No. 105. I disagree with the point that, by not supporting it, one somehow does not support people with disabilities. I absolutely reject such an inflammatory assertion from any Member of this House – an assertion made because there is a view that the amendment is not required, is catered for elsewhere or is not worded properly. It is very inflammatory to tell two thirds of the Chamber that they somehow have no concern for people with disabilities. I really reject that. It is really unnecessary language to be using.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come in on a few of the Minister of State's responses. Let us tease things out for a minute. Senator McDowell was speaking about the national planning framework and the national planning statement. To be clear, I am in favour of plans and a national planning framework, with all the caveats and suggestions for changes I have made, but the section we are now discussing is a new proposal for a new layer to the planning system that centres, remarkably, around ministerial and departmental discretion in setting policy. I am referring to the national planning statement. There are intense democratic issues. Let us be clear regarding the listing of consultations here and there. On the matter of the national planning statement, there is only a provision stating the public may be consulted. There is no guarantee of consultation with the public.

Let me refer to couple of the points made. I do not believe it is appropriate to use a word like "inflammatory" in respect of those who say a very important decision is being made on persons with a disability and that it will have effect. When we make laws, they have effect. On the making of a decision on a matter of law, I say to those opposite that it is not personal, in a sense, to say the decision on how you vote on something does have an impact on persons, on the public. Let us see who is getting caught out by much of the process. We talked yesterday about the public and how unexempted developments do not get the same look in. When we talk about the Minister's grand planning statement, we should note the public may be consulted, or they may not, but they will feel the impacts because the Office of the Planning Regulator will be required to implement and, indeed, give direction to local authorities on what is in the Minister's planning statement and penalise local authorities if they do not do what the Minister has determined to be the best things. That is why the detail matters. It matters, for example, in my amendment, which the Minister of State did not really address. It relates to the fact that the crosscutting constraints or requirements we can all point to, the factors listed in section 21(2) to which the national planning framework must have regard, do not apply to the Minister when coming up with a statement, bearing in mind all the impacts, rules, guidelines, requirements and constraints that will come with the ministerial statement.

The language does matter. If we have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and I do not think anybody would suggest we are in a situation where the rights of persons with disabilities are currently vindicated in the State, the idea we would not name the rights of persons with disabilities, which has huge spatial and planning implications, as one of the core things that needs to be reflected and developed in one of the largest pieces of legislation while business, industry and lots of other things are named, that does have consequences. It is not something that should have to get picked up after the fact by people who go around town by town having to campaign to make their own street accessible to them. It should be there from the beginning. It affects 18% of the population. Of course it should be there.

In terms of another accusation, we are talking about things that are important. They affect persons, the public, and we are their representatives and we are speaking about them. In that regard, they matter. During a moment when I stepped out of the Chamber it was suggested I was scaremongering about the climate. Let us be very clear, on climate change we should be scared. We should be very concerned because, right now, Ireland is nowhere near on target to achieve the 51% reductions we need by 2030 and those reductions in themselves are grossly inadequate to what our actual fair share of climate emissions reduction would be when we look at the global picture, where hundreds of millions of people are in parts of the world that will very soon become unliveable. I make absolutely no apology for being very serious about climate and where it is put in and suggesting it needs to be put into some other places in the Bill. There is reference to the national climate objective and anthropogenic greenhouse gases but there are constraints in terms of where they are referenced and I do not think they are referenced in enough aspects.

The Minister of State suggested sustainable development underpins everything so we do not need to talk about it separately but why are we not adding the word "sustainable", which is one of my amendments, when we talk about commercial and industrial? When we mention sustainable development, if it is so crucial and the Minister of the day will supposedly be doing in his or her planning statement, what do we mean by sustainable development? I would appreciate an answer on that because there is not a definition there. The sustainable development goals have been rejected as something to be named in the Bill as an anchor when we talk about sustainable development. Do we mean sustaining development, development that is environmentally sustainable or what do we mean by it? That is something that needs to be addressed on Report Stage. If we are not adding in these specific name-checked issues on climate in the various points suggested and we are relying on the vague language of sustainable development being referenced, let us be really clear. I would expect that it would be at a minimum equivalent to what we see in the sustainable development goals, though they may need to be revised further and upwards.

I have a couple of other areas and will be very brief because in many of them we have a substantial disagreement. Oversight from the Oireachtas is crucially important. This is the appropriate Stage where many of us are bringing amendments but we will not get to them. Right now on Committee Stage is the time for us to bring in points. I agree with Senator O'Reilly that people should bring in some of the work and we have brought in the work. I commend the Civil Engagement Group team who have been amazing and others across the Oireachtas who have all been working to bring in suggestions and changes. We have to be clear.

People are speaking about their terrible concerns with the Office of the Planning Regulator. I have concerns when the Leader of the House, who has chosen to guillotine this legislation, speaks at length about her concerns about the Office of the panning Regulator when there is every chance we will not even get to the sections of the Bill that deal with it because there was a choice made to guillotine the legislation. If the Leader chooses to guillotine the legislation on the Office of the Planning Regulator but still wants to be able to give out about it, that is where the questions comes in. Make choices that allow good changes and laws to happen rather than giving a speech saying "I am very sorry". There are a number of areas of this Bill and that will come out of the national planning statement where a lot of people will be complaining after the fact. Maybe if they are lucky enough to be in the party the Minister happens to be in, they will have a little back road to try to get something into the national planning statement and express concerns. For many in the public who will be personally affected by the issues in the national planning statement, they cannot. Their local authorities will be overruled by the national planning statement. Their national parliamentary representatives will not have oversight of or an opportunity to reject the national planning statement. For many people in the public personally affected by the many issues in this Bill and the national planning statements, unless our amendments are accepted right now, they do not have an avenue for getting these issues addressed. It is important and very significant. There are some aspects of the Bill to be scared about. We will go through some of the rest of these other issues again in terms of local development plans when we come to that section. I support the comments made about nightlife by Senator Gavan.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the national planning statements, the Minister of State confirmed to the House, and that was new to me, so I thank him, that the Attorney General is now reviewing the draft rural housing guidelines. That is important and is progress. We had not heard about it before. What is the likely timeframe for this? Is it envisaged to be for the whole summer?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot say.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an important point to make and to follow up because the Minister of State said it and it is progress. At least we are another stage along the road. Clearly, the Attorney General will advise the Government. That is his call and his business. In line with the Minister of State's response, however, I reiterate my call that the message has to go out loud and clear and it would be important to have some sort of announcement about the commitment to put these guidelines out to public consultation. If we want consultation, it has to be all of the way, with everything. I am not selective, as I know the Minister of State is not, about the commitment to or need for to public consultation. I reiterate these are very important. There have been a lot of promises made by a lot of politicians on this, and no one seems to be delivering, stepping up to the plate and explaining to rural communities what is happening to them and their families with their family lands, their housing needs and their desire to build homes in their communities. Again, I thank the Minister of State for that clarification that the Attorney General is now reviewing these draft guidelines, and that is progress.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like my colleague Senator Boyhan stated, that is a very welcome move but we need these rural planning guidelines to be published as soon as possible. These have been a long time in the pipeline. The Minister of State knows rural Kilkenny as well l as I do parts of rural Wexford, and he will appreciate the problems that are created. I speak in support of my colleague Senator Chambers's remarks on some of this. Let us be clear, sustainability is built into this legislation, but sustainability in local communities will be driven, for the most part, by those families who have lived in those communities over a long number of years.

One of the difficulties is the sense that the Office of the Planning Regulator often tries to micromanage at a local level without the necessary local knowledge as to what is happening.

I have a particular concern because of where I am from. Over a long period, people from outside, mostly from Dublin, have come down, particularly to the Wexford coastal areas, looking to build homes or convert holiday homes. They often price locals out of the market, so it is right that there are restrictions in place to cater for local families and those with immediate connections to particular areas. Part of the problem is that there are variations in how this is being enforced from one local authority area to another. When it comes to some of the local area plans, there has also been a very high level of hands-on control on the part of the Office of the Planning Regulator. That said, I support the principle and agree that we need a central body to direct planning in general.

One of my concerns is that while in many ways we restrict a good deal of rural planning for very good reason, the next expectation then is to try to encourage people to live in villages. However, the difficulty with many villages is that they do not have the water or wastewater capacity to enable them to grow and become sustainable. In north Wexford, for example, the only village which has any water or sewerage capacity is Coolgreany. There is no other village in which people can live, despite the big demand. There is a lack of engagement between the Office of the Planning Regulator and Uisce Éireann. Ferns, which has some capacity, is currently in its third week of a boil water notice. Unusually, for those living in one-off rural houses with their own wells, the water is perfectly safe because people are maintaining it but we have a problem with the maintenance in Ferns village. What this has done is forced more and more people to live in Gorey town. They are not being granted planning permission in rural areas and are continually being refused permission to build on the outskirts of villages because of water and sewerage capacity. At the same time, as part of the national planning framework, towns and villages in Wicklow and Wexford are being told that their populations have already exceeded the numbers that were anticipated. The question I put to the Minister of State is, which houses should we tear down? If we are going to apply the direct logic of the planning framework and the total numbers that are being set out, this is what we are facing.

I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, committed yesterday to a review of the Office of the Planning Regulator. Like Senator Boyhan, I also welcome the fact we are going to see the planning guidelines. I would hope to see them published by the autumn, with a short consultation period. Clarity is needed around these issues. It is also needed with regard to short-term letting as part of the rural planning guidelines. I appreciate this is a separate issue but we still have not heard what exemptions will be put in place.

I disagree that the legislation does not address questions of sustainability and climate change. They are built into it entirely but it is important to understand in the context of rural housing and where it needs to be built that if the necessary infrastructure and support services are not in place, we have a major problem. I support the idea that if a family has lived within a rural community for several generations, it is not unreasonable for them to expect to be able to continue to live there.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of information, I did not want to interrupt a colleague but I am seeking clarity. Are we supposed to be dealing with a group of amendments here?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can Members keep to the group?

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Since yesterday morning, I have heard people talking about the debate being cut short. However, hours have been wasted on repetitive points and points that have zero relevance to the actual amendments we are discussing.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members are free-----

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask colleagues to be mindful of the groupings. There are plenty of opportunities to make points, but Members are not speaking to the actual grouping.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where in the group is there a reference to rural planning guidelines?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in the hands of the Chair.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is not-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is national planning, but it is open to any-----

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not, in fairness. We are not going to make any progress.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is open to any Member to ask a speaker to give way if he or she feels that the speaker drifting off. Under standing orders-----

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which is what I have done and I did not interrupt anyone.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, you are entitled to interrupt and ask a Member to give way.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to interrupt anyone.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You can point out that the Member is drifting off the amendments but it is such a broad topic that we are allowing for leeway. I am not sure we will get to all of the amendments that are ahead of us.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We certainly will not.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Notwithstanding what Senator Cummins said, and he is right, it has been a very interesting debate. I acknowledge in particular the contributions of Senator Higgins in respect of the national planning statement and her assertion that it represents another layer within the system. For half a day last week and over a number of months, the Leas-Chathaoirleach and I, as rapporteur, have been discussing the impact on the local authority and planning systems and the delivery of same. In an ever urbanised Ireland, it is only right that the infrastructural and housing development policies of Government would align with the very essence of where people are going to live. There should be an alignment between all layers of Government and if anything, it has a been criticism of Governments over decades in this country that there has not been such. Communities have been left deficient in what they require because there have not been the types of statements, policies and alignments that create consistency across all arms of Government. In many ways we have failed our population by not having them. Through national planning statements and through alignments between the national development plan and our national planning statements vis-à-vis where people will live, we can get to a scenario where the best services are provided for people where they need them.

Last week, during the debate on the future of local government, we discussed the impact of the OPR and so forth. I was a councillor for 17 years prior to any of these procedures coming into place and I saw the stagnation of growth in certain areas because of over-zoning in some instances. As I said, some people would have zoned a lake if they could have got away with it. Not having that hierarchy and that system meant that large urban centres were not growing to the capacity needed to justify the development of infrastructure on a large-scale capital basis. I refer, for example, to the restoration of the Navan rail line, a €1 billion project that is now being advanced by the Government because the centralisation, urbanisation and level of development that we need is being achieved through the new rules that have been brought in. When we discuss these things, one would think they were going to have only negative consequences for this country and its population but I would offer a different opinion. In fact, they will offer a chance for the population to realise what they are entitled to, which is good services, proper planning and the proper creation of communities in a manner that actually aligns with where things should be built.

In the context of that debate, we should acknowledge that. I would say that, respectfully, through the Chair, to Senator Higgins. I accept the contentions the Senator is making but the modus operandihere is that you deliver for people, not thwart them.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a closing contribution. I will not make any further contributions because I want to try to progress this before the 6 p.m. break.

On the critical points about the OPR, I must question the consistent running down of or misunderstanding about the role of the OPR. I have outlined it here this afternoon. There is, as Senator Boyhan mentioned, a scheduled periodic critical review of the OPR that happens after five years of existence. That has just commenced. The OPR has no role in rural housing.

In relation to the national planning statements, NPS, in the Bill and the issue of public engagement, this replaces section 28 guidelines, which are ministerial but do not have a mandatory consultation or any consultation provision. The national planning statements will have Government approval. We have outlined, in section 26, considerations for issuance of national planning statements, that the Minister shall have regard to this. The two issues mentioned by Senator Higgins, in relation to climate action and separately in relation to biodiversity, are addressed in section 26(1)(p) and (q). The consultation provisions are there.

Senator Higgins asked the question as to what is sustainable development. My understanding of it was always from the Brundtland Commission, the 1972 definition, that is, development which meets the needs of present generations and does not compromise the needs of future generations to meet their own needs. That was the classic definition of sustainable development. That has been refined and altered over the years. It was of its time. In planning terms, it is defined. Proper planning and sustainable development of an area is a clear definition in planning terms.

Previously, we discussed the sustainable development goals and cross-Government reporting on all 17 of the SDGs as well.

To conclude on the points on rural housing, the Attorney General's office is deliberating on that.

In response to Senator Chambers about water quality, there is a need for well-water testing. Many septic tanks in the country are not working properly and they are a threat to groundwater and water quality generally.

I agree with the point that local needs are critically important but infrastructure is hugely important. The point raised by Senator Malcolm Byrne around water and wastewater infrastructure in the rural towns and village to allow them to expand is significant because there are thousands of good houses and properties in towns and villages across the country that could be reused for families.

Senator Flynn raised the issue of temporary bays through the Traveller accommodation programme. Again, that is a local issue. As I stated earlier, the LTACCs need to engage in a meaningful way with the Traveller community. Generally, my understanding is that if there is a local need for temporary bays when families like to go travelling during the summer months, they should be provided for. That is not always the case. It is something that is part of Traveller heritage and Traveller culture. The right to be able to travel and to be able to go out travelling during the summer months, as many families like to do, should exist.

I think that has addressed all of the points that have been raised in this round by Senators.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Senator Gavan pressing the amendment?

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 87:

In page 70, line 36, to delete "the Government" and substitute "both Houses of the Oireachtas".

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 71, to delete lines 10 to 12 and substitute the following: “(5) The Minister shall not publish a National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation under subsection (3) unless a resolution approving a draft of the proposed National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation has been approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 89:

In page 71, to delete lines 10 to 12, and substitute the following: "(5) The Minister shall, within 10 days of publication under subsection (3), lay a copy of a National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation so published before each House of the Oireachtas and, if a resolution annulling the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation is laid before it, the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation, as the case may be, shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.".

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 90:

In page 71, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: "(6) The proposed National Planning Statement shall be the subject of a vote in both Houses of the Oireachtas and must be approved by the Oireachtas before coming into effect.".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 91:

In page 71, to delete lines 21 and 22.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 92:

In page 71, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: "(8) A National Planning Statement shall be consistent with the matters specified in section 21(2).".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 93:

In page 71, to delete lines 23 to 25, and substitute the following: "(8) Any guidelines under section 52 of the Act of 2000 in force before the repeal of that section by section 6, shall continue in force until the full application of Part 10 or where a National Planning Statement is issued which provides an equal or greater level of protection.".

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 94:

In page 71, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: "(9) SSPRs as defined by the Act of 2000 shall be abolished.".

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 95:

In page 71, lines 28 to 30, to delete all words from and including "the”" where it secondly occurs in line 28 down to and including "development" in line 30 and substitute the following: "the desirability of setting out policy and providing guidance in relation to the performance of functions under this Part relating to planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development".

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 96:

In page 71, to delete lines 31 and 32.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 97:

In page 71, line 31, to delete "development plans".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 98:

In page 71, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: "(d) the promotion of sustainable development—

(i) to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions;

(ii) to support adaptation to and mitigation of climate change;

(iii) to achieve the national climate objective, and

(iv) to support the circular economy strategy (within the meaning of section 6 of the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022);".

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 99:

In page 72, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: "(i) provision of suitable Traveller accommodation;".

I withdraw it for re-submission on Report Stage.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 100:

In page 72, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(j) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns, and Irish Language Networks, pursuant to the Gaeltacht Act 2012;”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 101:

In page 72, line 17, after "conducive to" to insert "sustainable".

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 102:

In page 72, line 19, to delete "and transportation strategies" and substitute ", development and transportation strategies".

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 103:

In page 72, to delete lines 26 to 29.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 104:

In page 72, lines 28 and 29, to delete “and the assessment of any application for development consent under Part 4”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 72, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:“(o)integration of accessible urban design and the provision of accessible and inclusive facilities as required under the United Nations on the Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons;”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 106:

In page 72, after line 40, to insert the following: “(r)recognition, protection and regulation of night venues.”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 107:

In page 72, after line 40 to insert the following:“(2) The Minister shall consult with stakeholders in all local planning authorities.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 108:

In page 73, line 1, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 109:

In page 73, to delete lines 8 to 21, and substitute the following: “(4) The Minister shall,”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 113:

In page 74, line 38, after “Chapter” to insert “where such a National Planning Statement addresses the matters contained in such guidelines”.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 114 to 133, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 122 to 124, inclusive, which are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is to amend sections 29, 30 and 35.

I will start with amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive, which relate to the monitoring of the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES. I understand that some amendments we made to the Bill in the Dáil in respect of this matter. The amendments are designed to reduce the time for the making of the regional economic and spatial strategy from four years to three, which was a welcome move. However, there is an inconsistency in or a sequencing issue with section 35(4). I understand what the Bill seeks to achieve in that the document would be drawn up and that there would be a report on it the following year. If it is made within three years of the passing of this Bill and there is then monitoring and reporting in respect of it within four years of the passage of the Bill, that would be fine for the first sequence. If we take it from 2024, that would mean the first RSES would be published in 2027 and that the monitoring report would come out in 2028. However, if you fast forward to the next one, three years on from that is 2030. There is actually a gap of two years when it comes to the monitoring report, which will go to three years, and then, in the next cycle, it will be in the same year. Amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive, seek to put them in the same year. The most important one is probably amendment No. 124, where I suggest that in the event that the commencement of the review of the RSES is due to occur in the same year as the preparation and monitoring report of the economic strategy, the progress report under subsection (3) and the monitoring report under subsection (5) would be prepared and published one year earlier than the timeline set out in order to ensure that the sequencing is correct.

It achieves what we want, which is the correct sequencing, but perhaps the officials have a different way of addressing it. It is a really important point that I have identified in section 35.

Amendment No. 119 relates to the new metropolitan area strategic plans, MASPs. I propose that as part of that, there must be new metropolitan area strategic plans as part of the process. I have highlighted this issue at committee and I have raised it previously. I believe there is a serious issue regarding the MASP boundary lines for Waterford.

I will give the Minister of State, who knows Waterford very well, the example of Tramore, which is 7 km or 8 km out the road from Waterford city. Basically, the population of Tramore works in Waterford city, as do many people in south Kilkenny, but yet they are not contained within the boundary of the MASP for Waterford that was set down by the Department. It artificially lowers the population of Waterford, which feeds into the national planning framework that we are discussing at the moment and means that the population targets are not accurate because it excludes a town of 11,500 people that is a suburb of Waterford city.

To re-emphasise and reinforce that point, Shannon is included in the Limerick MASP. Salthill is included in the Galway MASP. Carrigaline is included in the Cork MASP. All are far further away from their respective cities than is Tramore from Waterford city. I believe the regional assemblies should have a role in creating the boundaries for the MASP and there is reference to commuting zones and I probably should have brought forward an amendment to the definitions set out in section 17 where there should be a definition of what a commuting zone is. I suggest it should refer to the geographic area of the city and surrounding areas characterised by the regular and frequent movement of residents between their homes and primary places of education and employment, typically with a travel time that is considered reasonable and practical for daily commuting. That covers what we are trying to achieve but there is no definition for it.

If you took Dublin, and you just said "commuting zone", you would probably be down in Wexford which is not what you want to achieve in terms of the MASP. However, it would cover Tramore because it absolutely should be included. Perhaps that was my omission in not bringing such an amendment in the definitions, but it is relevant to these sections in the context of the MASP. The other amendment I have, amendment No. 118, follows engagement with the regional assemblies themselves where they are looking for an implementation and delivery board within each of the assemblies for each of the metropolitan area strategic plan areas. There is merit in that and the implementation and delivery boards would implement monitoring and delivery objectives. That is exactly what the amendment is proposing. I think it has merit and it should be considered.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 117 seeks to strengthen the language around social development in a similar manner to amendment No. 65. It includes the word "social", which performs slightly different work than does "cultural" by itself, even though I am a big fan of cultural and I know others have amendments in this section looking at the very important issue of cultural matters, cultural spaces and cultural planning at a regional level. I insert the word "social" because something slightly different is captured by that, which pertains to ensuring there is planning, spaces and strategy to ensure those opportunities for social engagement that may or may not be cultural but are crucial in terms of social cohesion and lives fully lived, as I have discussed earlier in respect of amendment No. 65. I hope the Minister of State will consider the inclusion of the world "social" in that context.

Amendment No. 120 is technical and relates to amendment No. 121. Amendment No. 121 seeks to insert protections for cultural infrastructure into regional, spatial and economic strategies. As we have seen in cities and towns across the country, cultural spaces are facing an existential crisis and are disappearing at an extraordinary rate. It went from 5,000 to about 85 or something, the figures are shocking. I will not quote those exactly but I know that it is a scale similar to that when we talk about the disappearance of some of the social and cultural spaces such as nightclubs and other nightlife spaces, for example. There are provisions within the subsection that all seem to protect the cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht. We know that cultural infrastructure and facilities are spaces where living culture exists today, where our heritage develops and evolves, where artists and musicians perform, develop their artistry and their expressive reflection of the society in which we live. In the future, our cultural heritage is not going to exist in a box. It is going to exist in a lived capacity and that means we need to plan for it and make spaces which accommodate it.

Amendment No. 125 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 126 seeks the deletion of the line - there is a pattern the Minister of State will see here - that provides that "the Minister or a regional assembly may, at any time, notify the Office of the Planning Regulator of any provision in a regional, spatial or economic strategy" that is "materially inconsistent with ... National Planning Policies and Measures".. There is a weird thing that happens here, where national planning policies and measures sound weighty, serious and thought through. That literally is just shorthand for the national planning statement we were just talking about. That is just the national planning statement. The definition, when you go back to national planning policies and measures, is the national planning statement.

It would probably look a little crass if it said the Minister can tell the Office of the Planning Regulator to go after a regional assembly that is not doing the things he or she said in its national planning statement but that is what that section actually provides. That is what that provision really is. I do not have a problem with the direction where there is an inconsistency with the national planning framework or indeed the national marine planning framework. I do not seek to remove those pieces. I propose to remove the provision that states the Minister, who effectively decided these sets of policies in the national planning statement, can then tell the OPR to go after and potentially sanction a regional plan that does not do exactly what he or she wanted in its framework. It is not the same. I do not believe the planning statement should carry the same weight in that regard as the framework or the marine framework. I also think we should not have a situation where the Minister effectively has excessive power here in both setting out the framework and demanding its enforcement. Again, this is another example of overreach and an almost authoritarian approach, especially given that the statement does not have those same checks and balances that maybe do apply to the planning framework.

Amendment No. 127 is of a similar principle. It is the same issue in relation to carrying out assessments that the Office of the Planning Regulator should not, for the purpose of forming an opinion, be giving the same weighting to the national planning policy frameworks as it may to the national planning framework. Amendment No. 128 is about the same issue again. It proposes to delete the provision that allows the Office of the Planning Regulator to form a view that a regional, spatial or economic strategy should be suspended because it is inconsistent with national planning policy and measures, which is the national planning statement. This is a really heavy-handed power that has been given whereby the Office of the Planning Regulator is able to call for the suspension of a strategy. The Minister is able to request that the Office of the Planning Regulator look at and potentially call for a suspension of a regional strategy that does not do exactly what the Minister might want it to do in his or her national planning statement.

We can see how an individual Minister's individual statement could end up railroading over a large amount of extraordinarily nuanced planning.

Amendment No. 129 is with regard to the power of the Office of the Planning Regulator to recommend to the Minister a draft direction where a regional statement is inconsistent with the national planning statement.

Amendment No. 131 is a very simple amendment. It is a protective measure. If a measure made by the regional assembly is impugned by the Office of the Planning Regulator it writes to the Minister who has eight weeks to reply. We do not want a situation where protective measures do not apply for these eight weeks. If they were environmental or heritage protective measures we would create a potential limbo during which irreversible damage may be done. Protective measures should apply during this period so that if the Minister declines to suspend the measure it does not come too late.

Amendment No. 133 seeks to delete another quite alarming paragraph from the Bill. This is the subsection that allows a ministerial directive to remain in force notwithstanding a successful judicial review finding the Minister came to some of the conclusions necessary to ground the directive in an unlawful manner. This provision is really something and this amendment is very important. This is not me paraphrasing what I think the Bill does; this is what it actually states:

Where, in any application for judicial review of a direction made pursuant to this section [etc.] the Court concludes that the Minister was not entitled to form the opinion that one or more of the criteria in ... subsection (8) of section 38 is met, this shall not warrant the quashing of the direction where— (a) the Minister was also of the opinion that one or more of the other criteria... is met.

Under this provision a Minister can state an intention to quash or overturn something in a regional plan on particular grounds. If the courts find the Minister was wrong in this the directive will go ahead anyway if the Minister can give another reason it should happen. It is a short circuit. It is very strange. It seems like it is almost sanctioning a fishing expedition for Ministers if they wish. It is the type of thing that creates a very unhealthy power dynamic, if we think of discussions with regional and local assemblies. We could almost have a situation where a Minister who does not like what is being done can tie this up forever and block it forever. If the Minister likes some bits of the regional strategy but not other bits they will need to be got rid of to get it through. There is a real danger. This is all a power imbalance in how it is approached.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak briefly on amendment No. 121, which seeks to insert protection for cultural infrastructure and facilities. These are the spaces where living culture exists. As a member of the Traveller community, I have seen my culture regularly dismissed and even criminalised by wider society. Earlier I touched on the damaging impact of the report of the commission on itinerants in 1963, which is still felt by the Traveller community after more than 60 years. The report framed Traveller culture and the Traveller way of life as a problem rather than a culture to be embraced and celebrated in Irish society. We can still see the impact of the report through policies, legislation and people's attitude towards the Traveller community. The difference of cultures in all of our communities should be enhanced. We should celebrate differences in Irish society instead of stating we are all the same and that everybody should be treated the same as everybody else. We are not all the same. As individuals we all have different needs and we are all different. We should be able to celebrate this on a wider level. In the Planning and Development Bill, no culture or people with cultures should be left behind.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak on amendment No. 116 on regional spatial and economic strategies. They should include a specific strategy for cultural matters, including space, infrastructure and facilities for creation, performance and culture engagement. Access to space is a big issue in the cultural and creative sector. Culture begins in the local community. It begins at home and in school with friends and family. Consequently, cultural activity is built on community. Local authorities have a big role to play in cultural engagement and in funding arts and culture. They do this to the tune of €70 million or €80 million throughout the State. Until very recently this was in line with the Arts Council spend until that jumped. It is significant for the culture and the arts.

To be selfish and mention my city of Dublin, there are 2,500 working artists and only 529 artists' workspaces in the city. Many of these are poorly structured. They have heating and light issues and do not have the necessary resources for various art forms. Many of them are under threat because there is a market failure issue. This is where the State can step in. This is why we propose the amendment, which I hope the Government will consider. All of the State agencies and the Arts Council state that workspace is the next issue to be tackled. The national campaign for the arts has highlighted workspace as a key issue for the sector. I have drafted a Bill, which I will launch over the summer, to give the Arts Council a function in the area of capital workspaces and affordable State-owned workspaces for artists. I hope this can contribute to the conversation we need to have.

I commend the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, on the funding increases but there will always be a market failure issue. We have seen nightclubs being lost. My colleague, Senator Gavan, mentioned earlier that we have gone from having more than 500 nightclubs in 2000 to 80 to 90 nightclubs now. There is pressure on space at a time when people need these environments. Robbie Kitt always says that if people were investing in something they would probably invest in the digital space or in something on their phone rather than in a meeting space where people can hang out, break down barriers and form connections. This is why nightlife is so important. It is where connections are made. This is a very important amendment and I hope the Minister of State will give it good consideration.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to indicate our support for Senator Warfield's amendment. I apologise as I had mentioned 5,000 nightclubs being reduced to 85. This was an obvious exaggeration as the decrease was 500 to 85, which is still extraordinarily alarming.

We will support the amendment put by the Labour Party Senators regarding the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Irish language in Gaeltacht communities, which are crucial, not least at regional level, given that in many cases a Gaeltacht area will cross county boundaries, for example, as is the promotion of Irish as a community language where there is a community of speakers, specifically in the context of supporting the implementation of language plans, as set out in the Gaeltacht Act 2012. As I said, if we do not plan for it, it will not happen, which is why it needs to be reflected at regional level as well.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond to some of the points raised by the Senators and then speak to the amendments. Senator Higgins spoke about the centralisation of power towards the Minister in the national planning statements. I again ask her to look at the guidance on the preparation of national planning statements, which state that the Minister shall have regard to what is quite an exhaustive list. That guidance ensures the Minister, whoever he or she is, will have to have regard to that clear set of guidelines and to the public consultation element. In regard to the protection of monuments, there is a significant volume of other legislation protecting built and archaeological heritage, such as the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Miscellaneous Provisions Act, elements of which are being enacted now. It is very significant legislation for the protection of monuments.

I agree with Senator Flynn about the recognition of Traveller culture, something I am keen to champion in my own work all the time. Where would we be without the John Dohertys, the Raineys or the Fureys in the context of Traveller music and the rich legacy of music that has been handed on to Ireland? Were it not for the Traveller community, we would lose so much language and music. The recognition of Travellers as an ethnic minority by the Dáil should not be tokenistic. It should be given effect and have meaning and I absolutely agree with that. I have funded the Heritage Council to employ an intercultural heritage officer, which includes working with the Traveller community, and some fantastic work has been done around tinsmithing and other aspects of Traveller culture.

I will address the wider issue of access to cultural space specifically in the context of how the amendments affect the Bill. Much of the general tone of today's debate has related to the removal of power from councils, but the provision of space for cultural facilities is a central role for local authorities and local authority members. The State provides funding through the urban regeneration and development fund, URDF, the rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF, and the THRIVE fund, which was for specific buildings that could be brought back into use. There is no shortage of initiatives of State funding for the readaptation or reuse of buildings in urban centres for cultural spaces, but it does involve the local authorities being very proactive about their arts strategies, their play policies and their cultural policies. Local authority members have a significant role to play there. Some local authorities are better than others, but I again point to the significant role and responsibility for the budgeting and resourcing of their arts strategies and play policies.

Government amendment No. 114 relates to section 29, which sets out the content of an RSES. The amendment clarifies that an RSES shall contain a strategy relating to onshore renewable energy. The word "onshore" has been added to clarify that an RSES shall deal with onshore renewable energy strategies only. Offshore renewable energy strategies will be a matter for the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, under the maritime spatial plans provided for under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021.

Government amendment No. 132 relates to section 39 and the issuance of a draft direction by the Office of the Planning Regulator in respect of an RSES. Section 39 currently provides that the Office of the Planning Regulator has four weeks from the final date on which submissions can be made in respect of a draft direction to consider the submissions and make a recommendation to the Minister as to whether to issue a direction. This amendment will alter this period to give the Office of the Planning Regulator a six-week period to consider such submissions prior to making a recommendation. Under the Act of 2000, a seven-week period was allowed. The proposed four-week period was not considered sufficient to allow the OPR to enough time to consider all submissions received and, therefore, a six-week period is now proposed.

Turning to Opposition amendments, amendment No. 115 was tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall, amendment No. 116 was tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan, amendments Nos. 117, 120, 121, 125 to 131, inclusive, and 133 were tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn and amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 122 to 124, inclusive, were tabled by Senator Cummins. Amendments Nos. 115 to 118, inclusive, relate to the content of an RSES. As discussed in respect of other parts of the Bill, amendment No. 115 seeks to insert provisions relating to Gaeltacht and Irish language matters. As I mentioned previously, sufficient Government amendments have been made regarding the Gaeltacht. Section 29(1) provides for the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht and, as with other related proposed amendments, this is considered sufficient because it is not appropriate, at the regional level of our planning system, to become excessively granular so as to end up replicating work that should be carried out at the local level of our planning system. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 relate to the addition of cultural matters to the content of an RSES and the inclusion of “social facilities” in the measures relating to the implementation and monitoring of an RSES and a corresponding metropolitan area strategic plan. Cultural facilities are already referenced in section 29(1)(n) in the context of an RSES relating to economic matters, which, I believe, is appropriate content for a spatial and economic strategy. Strategies and policies relating to cultural matters are already provided for in the national cultural policy framework and the Culture Ireland Strategy 2022-2025. Section 29(13)(a) lists different categories of facilities in respect of priorities for infrastructure of scale that can be used for the implementation and monitoring of an RSES and a corresponding metropolitan area strategic plan. As things stand, I do not consider the addition of the words “social facilities” to have relevance here in the context of infrastructure of scale, but I will ask officials to consider the matter further to determine whether such facilities should be referenced here. I ask the Senators to withdraw amendment No. 117 in light of this in order that we can consider the matter further on Report Stage.

In regard to amendment No. 118, I do not see the need for the formation of an implementation and delivery board for each regional assembly or a metropolitan area strategic plan implementation and delivery board, as proposed under the amendment. Section 35 provides for the implementation and monitoring of an RSES, including reporting requirements, statutory timelines and consultation with the Office of the Planning Regulator. I believe this is sufficient and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

I acknowledge the intent behind amendment No. 119 and the addition of a new paragraph under section 30(2) relating to the making of new metropolitan area strategic plans. However, a metropolitan area strategic plan does not sit separate to an RSES, under section 29(4). An RSES may include a metropolitan area strategic plan and, accordingly, any reference to an RSES under section 30(2) also includes a reference to a metropolitan area strategic plan. It is for this reason that I cannot accept the amendment, while noting the points Senator Cummins made about Waterford and Tramore.

I do not consider amendments Nos. 120 and 121 to be workable because it is not possible for an RSES to affect the provision or existence of cultural infrastructure or facilities in the manner suggested. In section 32(2)(b), however, in respect of the preparation or revision of an RSES, due account must be taken of any relevant policies or objectives of the Government or of any Minister of the Government, including any national plans, policies or strategies specified by the Minister to be of relevance to the determination of strategic economic policies.

I am not in a position to accept amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive. Section 35(3) provides that a regional assembly shall prepare regular monitoring reports.

It is appropriate that these reports are every four years because the regional assembly will need to receive and review the reports from local authorities and other bodies, which will be done every three years. It would not be appropriate for regional assemblies to have to prepare their reports every three years because it would mean that they would not have time to review the reports from other bodies and reflect them in their own monitoring reports. I ask Senator Cummins to withdraw these amendments and we will give consideration to the matter on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 125 to 130, inclusive, relate to assessments by the Office of the Planning Regulator of a RSES to ensure that the regional tier of the planning system remains aligned with the national tier of the planning system. This is to ensure consistency and coherence across the planning system. The proposed amendments would delete all references to national planning policies and measures in relation to this assessment.

Considering that national planning policies and measures form an integral part of national planning statements, which are being introduced to provide national policy and guidance on planning matters in support of proper planning and sustainable development, I believe all references to national planning policies and measures in section 38 need to be retained for the purposes of the assessments carried out under that section. In order to ensure that a proper method of control exists to retain and readjust the alignment between national and regional planning tiers, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 131 makes reference to a "protective measure" in a RSES but, without a corresponding definition of this term or further provision to elaborate or explain the meaning of such a measure, I am unable to understand the purpose of the amendment. Again, I ask the Senators to elaborate further if possible but, as things stand, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 133 would delete a reasonable and precautionary provision ensuring that, in the context of a judicial review, where a direction relates to the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive, of subsection (8) of section 38, and where only certain criteria are considered to have been met, once one or more of the other criteria listed in paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive, have been met, and once the court finds that the Minister was entitled to form the opinion the subject of the direction, then the direction will not be quashed by the court. I believe this provision is sound and should be retained, and for that reason I cannot accept this amendment.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the request to withdraw amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive. I want some clarity. The Minister of State understands the point I am making about the sequencing. Notwithstanding that one report is every three years and another report is every four years, if we start from 2024, today, and fast forward three years, as is in the Bill, that gets us to 2027, and if we fast forward four years from now, we get to 2028. That is perfect; the reports are one year apart. If, however, we fast forward three years on from 2027, it gets us to 2030, and if we fast forward four years on from 2028, it gets us to 2032, in which case there are two years between the reports. If we keep fast forwarding by three and four years, respectively, there will be three years in the gap, and the next time there will be four years in it, in which case the reports will be produced in the same year, which is not the purpose of this. We want to maintain a year between the reports. To withdraw the amendments is fine, but there has to be a commitment that we will align the reports to ensure that they are one year apart. That is what I have sought to try to amend here, and I think it is reasonable.

I accept that the MASP amendment does not fit exactly in section 30. I have made these points and will continue to make them. This is probably about the definition of what a commuting zone is, but the regional assembly should have a role in defining the boundary of the MASP. The existing MASPs were handed down by the Department, with no role for the regional assemblies or the local authorities. In the case of Waterford - I was on the council - Waterford City and County Council made submissions on the basis that Tramore had been excluded. This is not a parochial issue because only five areas can be defined under the legislation as metropolitan area strategic plans, but nobody has yet justified to me how Shannon is included in the Limerick MASP, Salthill is included in the Galway MASP and Carrigaline is included in the Cork MASP but Tramore, which is a shorter distance from the city than all of them, is not in the Waterford MASP. That results in a lower defined population of Waterford city and, as a result, the population targets for everything we are talking about here are wrong because they do not take that into account.

Whatever way it is achieved, we have to define the commuting zone. I would like the Minister of State to commit on Report Stage to defining the commuting zone, as I have suggested, which would typically be the travel time that is considered reasonable and practical for daily commuting. I think that would resolve the matter and I ask the Minister of State to commit to that.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I find this very disheartening as the only member of the Traveller community who comes in here and speaks very openly about culture and way of life, working on amendments with my colleagues. I am talking about infrastructure, spaces where Travellers can celebrate our way of life, be that during Traveller Pride Week or at equine centres for Traveller men to be able to create jobs. It would create so many opportunities for members of our community if the Minister of State were to accept amendment No. 121. Again, it is so regrettable to stand up here as a member of the Traveller community and beg for our rights to celebrate culture and to have spaces in local communities that celebrate culture. I do not want to come across as aggressive or as somebody who is fighting, but the sad reality is that it is a challenge when we have one of the largest documents in the history of the State in front of us and again we are excluding the Traveller community. I know there are many Travellers viewing this debate who will be very disappointed that the Minister of State is not accepting our amendment No. 121. I get that he said that through museums, tinsmiths and so on we can celebrate Traveller culture, yet we do not have the spaces to be able to celebrate. He can come back on this but he has clearly said he will not accept the amendment. I just feel like going home. What is the point in me coming here and bringing the voice of the Traveller community when not one of the amendments of our CEG - not one - has been accepted all day? Not one of Sinn Féin's amendments or Labour's amendments has been accepted. I think the Government has already made up its mind.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is an issue here, which is that we have been told this is plan-led development. The framework is plan-led development; the Minister's statement I regard as not really as credible as the planning framework. The language, "national planning policies and measures", sounds really weighty and authoritative and so on, but if we track it back to section 25, it is literally just a way of saying the things the Minister put in the planning statement.

That is what that is. There is an assumption that the national planning framework, NPF, and the national planning statement will in themselves be consistent with each other but there is no requirement for the Minister's national planning statement to be consistent with the NPF, and I have amendments on that. A situation could arise with some of these measures where we are asking the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, to take action where there could be tension. This is why it would be better to have the OPR functioning directly with the NPF.

The Minister of State asked for clarification about amendment No. 131. It was very simple. That section mentions a provision of a regional strategy where the OPR has issued a direction relating to it and that the Minister is considering what the OPR's opinion on that is. In the circumstances, that provision of that regional strategy will stand suspended. My point is that if one of those provisions was a protective measure such as a measure protecting woodlands, there would be a concern that in that period of suspension, ground could be lost, so I am saying that, where it is a protective measure, there is an eight-week period during which the Minister decides what action to take and whether the provision should remain suspended. The very fact of suspending a protective measure could lead to a situation of jeopardy, which could be very significant from an environmental or heritage perspective.

We had a statement here that the NPF has a public consultation. This is not necessarily the case. The Bill does not require a public consultation. It simply says there may be consultation with the public regarding the national planning statement. Again, this is a really quick fix but we need to stop acting as if there is definitely going to be public consultation when the Bill does not require that. Bear in mind that there are revisions of it. The Minister can revoke parts of it and change it. There is no guarantee of public consultation on any of that in this Bill.

Going back to what Senators Flynn and Warfield said, there is a suggestion that, on one level, we are getting this very plan-led joined-up thing, but whenever something tricky emerges and the kind of things people tell you matter to them emerge, that is thrown back to the local level. It is being thrown back to local authority with the proviso that it may be overruled by national level, national frameworks, national statements and regional strategies but, effectively, it is passing the buck. Even the suggestion that the aspect of culture has to sit solely within local authorities and their budgets, they do not have budgets. They do not have the resources. There needs to be a vision that leads in terms of the provision of cultural and social spaces. The NPF has to plan for all of the people all of the time. It has to plan for what happens at night-time and for what happens if you are part of a group recognised in the State as an ethnic minority. That needs to be reflected in the national plan if it involves a national ethnic minority. It has to come through at the national plan level and not simply be dependent on local level.

Regarding the night-time economy activation strategy, the Department organised a specific event looking at best practice guidance for local authorities in provisions for planning effectively. Action 16 of the night-time economy report said the Department should develop best practice guidance to assist local authorities in planning for the night-time economy. These statements, the regional strategies and the framework are where those guidelines sit, yet the amendments relating to those issues have been rejected. If it is one of the clear actions that there needs to be guidance at national level upon which the local authorities can draw, it needs to sit somewhere within the national planning infrastructure and it needs to be more robust than it is currently in the legislation.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding Senator Cummins's point on amendment No. 119, he mentioned Limerick-Shannon. That is a metropolitan area strategic plan. It is not for primary legislation to define a city commuting zone but I am more than happy for anyone in the regional assembly to have a role in that.

To go back to Senator Flynn's comments, it is not the case that there is any discrimination against the Traveller community in what we are doing here in this Bill. Far from it. It is quite the opposite. Regarding some of the measures that have been brought on access to cultural space, access to cultural space in terms of criteria attached to funding for development of cultural spaces usually incorporates everybody and is fully inclusive. That should be the case with all funding for cultural spaces. I again go back to the point raised by Senator Higgins about the local role in the development of arts strategies, cultural policy and play policy within local authorities. There is a very strong function there. Best practice guidance is what the State will provide to give guidance to local authorities but it is up to local authorities to provide those facilities. The State has put in significant funding in terms of the RDF or RDF town centre first heritage revival scheme, THRIVE, funds to support local authorities to develop. There is no shortage of vacant buildings, including former banks and post offices, in the country that can be used and adapted to become cultural spaces. Local authorities need to be creative. Even public open spaces can be used as active spaces for cultural activities. This is hugely important. Regarding amendment No. 131, it was unclear to me so, if the Senator wishes to resubmit it on Report Stage, that might be useful.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry if the Minister of State heard the word "discrimination". I am sure I did not say it was discriminatory that the Minister of State is not accepting amendment No. 121. I did not say anything about discrimination because I would not-----

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no need to apologise. The Senator understands the rationale behind my inability to accept the amendment. I point to the initiatives that are in place. Again, that access to cultural space should be fully inclusive and, again, that responsibility falls at local level. I hope we get to discuss it later regarding development plans, but that is hugely important. I agree with the sentiment and what the Senator is trying to achieve.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 115:

In page 76, to delete lines 37 and 38 and substitute the following: “(l) the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans pursuant to the Gaeltacht Act 2012;”.

I will withdraw the amendment and possibly resubmit it on Report Stage.

Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 116:

In page 78, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(s) a strategy relating to cultural matters, including consideration of requirements for cultural spaces.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 117:

In page 80, line 6, after “cultural” to insert “, social”.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 118:

In page 80, to delete lines 14 to 16 and substitute the following: “(f) the formation of a metropolitan area strategic plan implementation and delivery board within each regional assembly for each metropolitan area strategic plan area, and the formation of an implementation and delivery board for each regional assembly, to include constituent local authorities, relevant public bodies, and their relevant agencies and other relevant bodies. These implementation and delivery boards shall implement and monitor the delivery of the objectives of the regional spatial and economic strategy.”.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 119:

In page 80, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(d) make new metropolitan area strategic plans in accordance with section 29(5).”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 120:

In page 84, line 15, to delete “and”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 121:

In page 84, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(v) where a regional spatial and economic strategy affects the provision or existence of cultural infrastructure and facilities, the need to protect such infrastructure and facilities, and”.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I moved amendment No. 122:

In page 89, line 32, to delete “4 years” and substitute “3 years”.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 123:

In page 89, line 33, to delete “4 years” and substitute “3 years”.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 124:

In page 89, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following “(5) In the event that the commencement of a review of a regional spatial and economic strategy is due to occur in the same year as the preparation of a monitoring report of the regional spatial and economic strategy in the same regional assembly area, the progress report under subsection (3) and the monitoring report under subsection (5) shall be prepared and published one year earlier than the timelines set out in those subsections; or as otherwise determined by the Minister.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 125:

In page 94, line 23, to delete “, or” and substitute “.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 126:

In page 94, to delete line 24.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 127:

In page 94, to delete line 37.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 128:

In page 95, to delete line 13.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 129:

In page 96, to delete line 11.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 130:

In page 97, between lines 23 and 34 to insert the following: “(15) Where a regional assembly demonstrates that the regional spatial and economic strategy is consistent with the National Planning Framework and the National Maritime Planning Framework and to be brought into alignment with a National Planning Statement would lead to inconsistency with either the National Planning Framework or the National Maritime Planning Framework, a draft direction shall not be issued on any provisions of the regional spatial and economic strategy concerned.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 131:

In page 98, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(4) Where a provision is subject to a draft direction in accordance with subsection (2) but that provision is considered a protective measure such provision shall continue to have effect pending the decision of the Minister under section 40(4).”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 133:

In page 103, to delete lines 15 to 22.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 134 to 154, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 135 to 137, inclusive, are physical alternatives to amendment No. 134. Amendment No. 137 is a physical and logistical alternative to amendment No. 136. Amendment No. 142 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 141. Amendments Nos. 134 to 154, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 134:

In page 104, to delete lines 17 to 22 and substitute the following: “(1) Subject to paragraph (b) of subsection (5), a planning authority shall make a development plan for its functional area every 7 years.

(2) Not later than 3 years after the making of each development plan for the functional area of a planning authority, the planning authority shall commence a review of the development plan in accordance with section 53 and 54, with a view to making a new development plan in accordance with section 55.”.

Amendment No. 134, relates to the development plans. The latter are one of the most important aspects of planning about which we have spoken in great length during this process. This is where our city and county councillors are active on the ground. They want to have their say when it comes to their county or city development plans. I will talk about this in some detail.

Section 42 relates to the obligations to make and review a development plan. The rationale behind the amendment is simple. Ten years is too long for a planning authority to draw up a development plan for its functional area. We had elections recently in which city and county councillors were elected to serve for a five-year period. We are already a month or two into that term. In effect, this means that the councillors elected in June may be involved in a review or the beginning of a review after four years, but they will not be in a position see a new county development plan right the way through within the life cycle of their local authorities. For many, it may be their only chance to do so because they may never serve on a local authority again.

Three county development plans at different stages passed through my hands when I was a councillor. I know the significant and hard work involved, but it is important. This is about public representatives, sitting county councillors, representing the communities they are elected to represent. They are best placed to know of the demands and the infrastructure deficits relating to healthcare, education, roads, energy, technology and innovation. On the whole, they, along with planning departments, make a valuable contribution.

I draw attention to the AILG, which sent an email to every Senator setting out the case in respect of this amendment and a number of others. In the context of the proposed extension of the lifetime of a development plan from six years to ten, the email states that in light of the rapid changes in social and economic life and in the interests of local democracy, the current six-year lifetime should be retained. That is the request. I have spoken to a number of the members of the executive of the AILG who understand that this request was to be given favourable consideration by Senators. That is for them to speak about if they wish. It is their prerogative or their call.

It is important that we have a plan. The AILG also made submissions to the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage on this proposal. The association runs conferences. Many Senators and TDs are in regular contact with it. LAMA has made a similar request. I have the AILG request in front of me . I want to be exact in quoting this organisation's view. I am in a position to be because I have, as I said, the document in front of me.

I am not suggesting five or six years. I have gone for the median in suggesting a seven-year plan. The AILG suggested five or six years. There is some merit in extending the time. The officials made that quite clear, but it is important that we have a reasonable period. Ten years is suggested in the Bill, with the proviso that it can only go to 12 years in exceptional circumstances. That is a long time. We are electing people, and the making of a city or council development plan is a reserved function of the elected members. Let us not fool ourselves.

Senator Daly chairs a Seanad consultation committee on local government. One of the recurring themes from councillors of all parties and none is the need to protect the powers and reserved functions of elected members. They have repeated that in their deliberations before us. They have talked about the need to continue to have their financial powers. I spoke about this earlier with respect to the chief planner. Councillors are not planners, accountants, economists, architects or engineers. As a result, they need independent professional advice. This is one of the most important functions. The Planning Regulator will say it is his plan, and rightly so. He supports the local councillors in that process and runs education and training on advanced issues around new and evolving planning policy which is of great assistance to the members.

My proposal is that these plans should be drawn up every seven years and that we must have a robust review, particularly as the reviews of city and county development plans have been weak. I have been there. I know what I am talking about. It is just a box-ticking exercise. There is no real measure. There will be an increase of the possibilities for variation, but we know the difficulties councillors have experienced in recent years in varying their plans. Ultimately, this is a reserved function and we are taking it away. Let us be honest. Let us not cod ourselves or have bits of paper telling us it is something else. This Bill will change the status quofor councillors. Currently, they can draw up plans every five or six years within the cycle of a council. They are now being told that it will be pushed out to ten years and, possibly, 12 in special circumstances. The majority of councillors I have spoken to do not want that. The AILG has made a strong case. I have gone for a number between the one suggested by the AILG and the one the Government is suggesting in the Bill. It is a pragmatic, reasonable and fair approach and it is responsive to requests from our city and county councillors. I would like the Minister of State to consider it.

Amendment No. 144 relates to section 42 and is about the obligations to make and review a development plan. It proposes:

In page 105, to deletes line 1 to 5 and substitute the following:

“(6) Any assessment carried out in relation to a development plan for the purposes of complying with the requires of Article 6 (3) of Habitats Directive or the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive shall take account of the fact that the development plan may, by virtue [of] paragraph (b)of subsection (5), have effect for a period of 10 years.”.

The Government has something similar in there. I will not go on at great length. I am conscious that we need to push on with this legislation. This is a reasonable and fair request from a well-respected association that represents the members of local government. I gave a commitment that I would pursue it on the association's behalf. I do not give commitments lightly and when I do, I see it through. I have brought this to the table as that is what I was asked to do. I appeal to Members across the Chamber to give this proposal their full support.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am concerned that we are seeing a deeper erosion of local democracy and further centralisation. The move from a six-year local development plan to a ten-year one means that elected councillors who already do not have the powers may never get an opportunity to work on the development plan for their local area. This is a key reserved power. By diluting it, the Bill will further undermine local democracy at a time when it is widely accepted that local government needs more power, not less, to allow it to deliver for communities. As my colleague Senator Boyhan said, the AILG and LAMA have been extremely outspoken in their opposition to this proposed change. I am concerned that the Government is not taking on board the experience and expertise of councillors, who understand their communities and the needs of those communities. They have a democratic mandate to represent the people. The requirement to align development plans with the national planning statement goes completely against the principles of subsidiarity and the idea that decisions should be made as close to the citizen as possible.

I urge the Minister of State to listen to the councillors - I know he was a councillor at one point - including councillors from his own party and to reconsider this change.

Amendments Nos. 135 and 140 seek to keep the duration of development plans at six years rather than the proposed ten years. Amendment No. 137 seeks for the review to be conducted four years into the plan rather than eight. I ask the Minister of State to very much consider accepting these amendments.

Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 seek to explore the pressing need for the creation of a statutory basis for the provision of independent political and technical advice to local councillors. This is very important. The need for this advice has been raised by the councillors' representative bodies, such as the AILG and LAMA, and has been a regular part of the contributions made by councillors appearing before the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, which was chaired by the Leas-Chathaoirleach, during its examination of the future of local democracy. We learned so much in that committee. The role of councillors is incredibly demanding, particularly given that many of them have additional work or caring responsibilities. That issue came up a great deal. The work of local authority strategic policy committees is very detailed and councillors need high-quality advice to be able to represent the interests of constituents.

We all know as Members of the Oireachtas that we would be lost without the help of our staff and the independent advice we get from the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers, OPLA, the Library and Research Service, the Civil Service and the secretariat in the case of the Government. The work we do is complex. It requires people with a democratic mandate to consult those with special expertise to make an informed decision in line with our values. The extraordinary size and intricacy of this Bill confirms that such assistance is needed. There is no doubt about it. Councillors lack all of that help. This is a problem particularly for newly elected councillors, Independent councillors and councillors from small parties who may not have experienced party veterans to rely on for guidance. Again, I ask the Minister of State to accept at least one of these amendments to take this issue forward. I ask him to listen to the councillors who are engaging in good faith to lay out the support they need to serve their communities. They do phenomenal work and this support is vital for their work. Let us make the changes we need to ensure they get what they need.

Amendment No. 141 seeks to delete section 42(5)(b). We have already outlined in some detail our opposition to the extension of the time between local development plans. This is why we are also perturbed by the prospect of an already unacceptably and undemocratically long ten-year window being extended by ministerial order. Even if this is a provision which is designed to be used sparingly, a potential 12-year period for local development plans freezes out newly elected councillors with a new vision for the area. This undermines their democratic mandate and makes the development less responsive and legitimate. This subsection is misconceived and should absolutely be deleted.

If the Minister of State will not accept our previous amendments seeking to delete section 42(5)(b), perhaps he will consider adopting one of these two amendments. Amendment No. 142 would allow the Minister to extend the plan at the behest of the elected council itself rather than an unelected manager. We continue to be sceptical about the wisdom of the 12-year plan in the Bill. At least, however, this extension would have come at the request of the elected councillors themselves, which seems more legitimate than the existing proposal in the subsection. Alternatively, amendment No. 143 would empower local councillors to overturn an extension requested by the chief executive. This would provide a democratic control on this power and would make the request for an extension more legitimate. We have tried to be constructive and to come up with multiple alternatives to make this section fairer. I hope the Minister of State will engage with this issue and give these proposals real consideration. I would very much ask him to do so.

Amendment No. 150 seeks to include considerations as to the location of cultural, social and recreational facilities in the city in a settlement strategy. Due to the extreme lack of access to space that cultural communities face in Ireland, cultural infrastructure must often be set up in ad hoclocations randomly dotted around cities. This can lead to tension, especially in areas where music, performance or dance venues exist close to residents. If cultural development is to happen in a way that works for both cultural spaces and residents, there needs to be a co-ordinated approach to this. These resources could also be incredibly useful to the public as there is very little data available to event producers and organisations on what spaces are even available to them. The Arts Council recently conducted a survey of venues in the night-time economy. It would be far more appropriate for our planning systems to be providing this data. Having an idea of the location and extent of these types of spaces could serve a dual purpose: from a planning perspective and also in creating a valuable resource for cultural organisers.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It seems that the Planning Regulator has a huge role in these plans. When one takes the regional assemblies into account and the plans they bring forward in the making of their own regional and economic strategies, it seems to me from my reading of this Bill, which is quite complex and complicated, that the Planning Regulator feeds into the regional assembly and that is what then feeds down into county development plans, and shapes them and what one can do at local authority level.

It is proposed to allow a county development plan to be extended to anything from seven to ten years, which is a huge length of time. If one goes back over ten years, one will see that we have had very significant changes, for example with regard to electric cars, batteries and charging points. One could make a plan today for the next ten years and before that period elapses, the issue may not be cars but might be small aeroplanes that people may be flying, or whatever. Technology is changing fast, which means that ten years for a county development plan is a very significant length of time. I agree with the previous speakers that it certainly should not be any more than ten years.

I agree with the proposal that local authority members might have the power to bring forward variations. They do not have that power at present, however. It is at the behest of the manager that a variation is brought forward, or not if the manager does not see fit. He or she is basically controlled in many cases by the Planning Regulator. If he or she does not bring forward a variation of a plan, then it will not be brought forward. The local authority members, therefore, have no power at all. The only power they have is to agree or adopt a variation of the plan and that is my interpretation of it. The Minister of State might clarify that point.

When one reads the entirety of the Bill and one takes a number of the sections into account, one sees that the Planning Regulator has all of the power. On a rolling basis, he or she is feeding into the regional assemblies and authorities in the making of regional plans. That is what shapes the county development plans and the councillors have to take that into account. The Planning Regulator, as I said yesterday, has told us that nearly anything can be put into a county development plan but he or she, at the same time, has all of the power where he or she feeds into the regional assemblies and regional plans. That is where the power really is. I would agree with the speakers here that ten years is too long for a county development plan. There are too many changes that can happen. Technology is changing. The local authority members should have the power to bring forward variations. If land is not zoned, they should have the power to bring forward that zoning by a variation to say that houses can be built here, or that we need an extra piece of land here for industrial development, or whatever. They should have that power to do that. Otherwise, it is at the behest of the manager and that is the way it is.

The Minister of State should have a good look at this before coming back on Report Stage.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Burke has made some really important points. It relates to the hierarchy of plans in the planning system. We have the national planning framework, the national planning statement and the regional economic strategies which then feed down to development plans. They are all meant to interact with one other. I agree they should be extended to ten years. I have been through two development plan processes, along with Senator Fitzpatrick. I think we made some of our worst mistakes in coming up to a deadline of, say, 12 o’clock, that we were set by statutory processes and by which time we had to make decisions on really important things. We had been in for five days on the trot and were absolutely exhausted What Senator Burke said about the power to vary is really important - it is essential – and the power for local authority members to bring forward variations. In my time on a local authority, we were often superseded by things like ministerial guidelines, particularly when it came to things such as height in Dublin city. That comes back to the debate we had earlier on the national planning framework, the ministerial guidelines and the power of the OPR in the interpretation of those things. There are other elements of this planning Bill in the plan-led approach that need to be tightened up in respect of public consultation at that early stage of plan-led approaches in order that we do not have things like development plans being superseded. While I think ten years of a development plan is reasonable, the power to vary is absolutely key. When it comes to Dublin city, which is the one I have experience of, we varied the development plan quite often and we varied local area plans quite often too, but we had to convince the manager to be able to do it. That is one of the key points.

I wish to speak on another amendment I have in this grouping, namely, amendment No. 154. It relates to affordable housing zoning. There are many ways to try to achieve affordability in the context of land. How to get good supply of affordable development land in the places we need it has defeated so many people. It can be done through the taxation system. You can try to do it through the development plan system or things like having zoned land taxes. This amendment would allow local authorities to have affordable housing zoning. I am not saying it is a panacea or that it would automatically guarantee affordability but it would allow local authorities and their members to decide certain designations where only affordable housing can be built. It can be an essential part of the toolkit, particularly in urban areas, to try to engineer affordability into what is built in the area. I will give an example. In Dublin 8 a couple of years ago, there was a lot of derelict land in the Newmarket area. It would have been really good for residential housing zoning, and it was zoned residential. However, what we got was student accommodation almost exclusively. We got student accommodation development after student accommodation development. When An Bord Pleanála was before the housing committee a couple of years ago, it agreed that certain areas of Dublin have an over-concentration of student housing. Dublin 7 was one such area, Dublin 8 was another, and I think Dublin 1 was the other. However, because the sites were zoned for residential, An Bord Pleanála could not turn down permissions even though it knew there was an over-concentration of student accommodation there and no other standards of accommodation were being provided. This amendment seeks to at least allow the mix of affordable housing zoning to be in a development plan. That is what the local authority tried to do in Dublin city but it was told that there was no legislative basis for so doing. I will not say this is a panacea. I get that a lot of things go in behind affordability. I understand that zoning something affordable does not make it affordable and zoning something a green space does not make it a nice green space and so on. However, it would give local authority members a suite of measures through which they can try to engineer affordability and particularly into our urban settings. I ask the Minister of State to consider accepting the amendment.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first amendment proposed by Senator Boyhan and me reflects his reasonable nature. I would be more radical than that. I do not believe in ten-year plans. I do not believe in ten-year plans that can be extended to 12 years. In particular, I do not believe in plans of this kind which are effectively pre-cooked by the Office of the Planning Regulator and, in effect, preordained in large measure as to their substance because of the obligation to consult with that office and then, in the end, subject to actual correction at the hands of the Planning Regulator and those of the Minister, who is obliged to obey the Planning Regulator or else come before the Houses to explain why he is not so doing.

This is a very sad piece of legislation. It marks the end of any real hope of local democracy in Ireland and of a functioning system of local government. It is a sad, sad piece of work and it is an immensely worrying development that the Department of housing is reconstructing local government in Ireland to remove as much as possible of the discretion and the independence of each local authority and to arrogate to itself and, as I said earlier, its daughter institution the Office of the Planning Regulator, virtually complete control over planning and development in Ireland. I really feel a sense of almost disgust at this legislation. I have to say that to the Minister of State, in all sincerity. I think this is one of the saddest and worst pieces of legislation that has ever come before this House. The fact that it is so enormous is almost bound to wear down the capacity of legislators to put their heads above the parapet and see what kind of Ireland we are creating. Who is this Planning Regulator? It is supposed to be an independent office. When you get to the end of the Bill, which we never will, it is an independent office with functions which are supposed to be independent. Independent of whom? This is probably the result of a slide that started with the various planning tribunals and planning corruption scandals. We are now cementing into place and building on the most secure foundations the most antidemocratic, centralised system of development law probably of any state in western Europe. I cannot imagine any other state accepting this. Britain would not accept it. No English local authority would accept this kind of behaviour. What is it about us? I know we are a small country and some people argue we have a population the size of greater Manchester and the like, but we did become independent as a small country. In this spurious attempt to pretend we have real local government and local democracy, which is reflected in the watered-down terms of Article 28A of the Constitution, we have at least the aspiration to create a genuine system of local democracy where local people really do choose what their community will do. What we are dealing with here is farcical. By constitutional requirement, there are local government elections every five years.

Local government members are then stuck with a development plan that may have come into existence before they were elected, will see them out well after and that they cannot vary except at the instance of and with the co-operation of the executives, who are all subject to the overriding and baleful control of the Planning Regulator. What is the function of a local authority member? Why do we have elections? I looked back at the recent local elections and one thing that struck me was that none of the candidates who sought my vote in writing said anything remotely intelligent about the development plan except for a few pious platitudes. I was not invited to make any decision by any of the aspirant local authority members where I live, which spoke to the kind of Dublin they were in a position to bring about. When we consider that in the future they will be stuck with a local authority development plan put in place by people who lost their seats and have been replaced, this reduces to a farce the whole local government process. How can it possibly be that local government elected members' mandates are five years and the life of a development plan, which is so difficult to vary, is ten? It is a sick joke. It is suggested that we need a planning regulator because, for instance, Dublin City Council might do something that contravenes a national planning framework or national planning statement. What can Dublin City Council do except carry out the functions conferred on it by statute and develop plans to try to improve the city? I got a message since my contribution earlier today: unless CPO powers are changed dramatically, Dublin City Council is emasculated in carrying out its functions. It must be able to, with ease, purchase compulsorily land, use it, change the nature of the areas over which it has control, redevelop areas that are derelict, underdeveloped or underused, take entire blocks of the city and say it has a different plan for that precinct of the city and will, like the wide street commissioners in the 18th century, redevelop that part of the city to make it a real living city and not await individual landowners putting together handkerchief sites and then come up with schemes for high-rise developments that bear no relation to the place in which they are. Unless we put in place such powers, give them to local authorities and give local authority elected members some considerable authority over the chief executive and planning executives in their authority and carry out that revolution, everything we do is fundamentally futile.

This House is now more or less inured to the notion that local government cannot be radically changed and that we have to have the same relationship that exists in the future as exists now between local authority elected members and their managers. We do not encourage, for example, the Dublin city manager, Richard Shakespeare, who is a good man, to have a vision that he implements for the city centre. Let us consider upper O'Connell Street and what has happened there. The Carlton cinema site has been vacant for 20 years and nobody seems to be in a position to change that. What kind of crummy system of local government do we have that this has happened? Why is it O'Connell Street and the north inner city is so deprived and increasingly deprived of any concept of a living city? I do not know why it is permitted to happen but we in our smug laziness in this House consider that is enough for this city. It is the only city I am intimately aware of. What happens is absolutely pathetic. What does not happen is twice as sad. We live in a totally dysfunctional, non-functional society as regards genuine local government. This Bill is the dregs when it comes to that. It proposes to change the existing life of development plans by extending them to ten years and providing that they can, in circumstances in which the local executive requests it, be extended to 12 years. What function do local authority members have any more except to bicker about bicycle lanes in their areas? If the development plan is effectively precooked by a process involving the Planning Regulator being consulted before it even starts and then having the power to strike out anything the Planning Regulator so-called independently feels is inconsistent with its interpretation of these framework documents and planning statements, how sad and pathetic is that?

This Bill should never have been brought before this House. Things need to be done to increase housing supply and prevent fraudulent and abusive objections to planning permissions. This Bill does a bit of that but grabs more and more power for the Custom House and its daughter institution, the Office of the Planning Regulator, sucking the blood out of local democracy, such as is still left. It embeds in Ireland a system that has failed for so long. I support Senator Boyhan's amendment with some degree of reluctance since he makes a concession for seven years. The Bill is a sad reflection of a decadent democracy. The more I read about it and the relationship between this so-called independent regulator, the manner in which they are appointed, the Minister and government of the day, draft directions and obligations of Ministers, I see a Bill that is the death knell of Irish local democracy. This is not the charter for a developing Ireland; this is a charter for a sclerotic stagnation over the next ten or 15 years. It should not be enacted. The particular provision with which we are dealing in the amendment proposed by Senator Boyhan is that the development plan should take place every ten years and possibly as much as every 12 years when things go slightly wrong, and that people would be elected to local authorities, never be involved in the development of a plan for their area and be bound by the decisions of the people elected five or ten years before them is grotesque. I will not put it any further than that.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know where to start after listening to that tirade from Senator McDowell. Perhaps when I am making my contribution, the Senator might go beyond page 108 of the Bill, go to page 137, and actually read section 58, which refers to variations of the development plan. He will see some of the recommendations that we as members of the joint committee, including a number of us present, fed in as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, where we made similar points to those made by Senator Burke about local authority members having a role in the variation of a development plan. If the Senator reads section 58, he will see that has been inserted in the Bill, so much of his commentary for the past ten minutes is irrelevant based on the section, which I and members of the joint committee will welcome, because it was one of our recommendations as part of pre-legislative scrutiny.

It is true that during that pre-legislative scrutiny on the matter of the length of time for making a development plan, there were various discussions where different opinions were given from different sections on the merits and demerits of extending the plan from five to seven years to five to ten years. Much of that debate surrounded the local authority members and their ability to have ownership over the Bill. I agree with the premise of that. Part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process was that a significant and robust interim review of that development plan would be built into the process. When we look at strategic infrastructure within our cities, towns and villages, those of us who have been members of local authorities all know that many of the recommendations that are written into a development plan in a five-year cycle are not achieved. We know that probably in reality, they will be achieved in the cycle of the next development plan, but they are included in the five-year development plan because it is aspirational and we do not want to impede what could happen. There is merit to extending to ten years. Where I may disagree with some officials in the Minister of State's Department is about what that will necessitate. I believe that will necessitate further zoned land for residential development, which is an important point to make, because if we are looking at a ten-year rather than a five-year horizon, additional land will require to be zoned.

It is important to note that this Bill is inserting the ability of local authority members to have that variation process. As Senator Moynihan correctly said, that is an integral part if we lengthen the time in which a development plan would be in force. Far from the perception that has been painted here that local authority members elected in 2024 would have no ability to be able to vary the plan that has been put in place, it is actually not the case when taken in the context of the overall Bill.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I reply to that?

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will call Senator Flynn then bring Senator McDowell in.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 seek to address the need for local councillors to access independent political and technical advice. When we vote for our local councillors, we vote for a person who will represent our communities. We must make sure they have all the supports they need to make these decisions in our best interests. These amendments would empower local councillors by giving them important tools to use when considering and acting on issues that come before them. Amendment No. 142 would allow the Minister to extend the plan at the request of the elected councillors themselves rather than an unelected manager. From speaking with local councillors up and down the country, I have heard that, too often, our councillors do not have the authority to bring about local changes they believe are needed. Councillors will tell you themselves that they have little to no powers.

Decisions like these should be made by elected councillors who are answerable to the people rather than unelected officials. I would like to see us addressing how to give more power to councillors, the elected representatives of the people. This is an example of an area where we can. A lot of the time when we look at Traveller accommodation, we tend to blame local councillors. However, if I have learned anything in the past four or five years, although there are many councillors who are - this is my first time to use the word - discriminatory and racist towards members of the Traveller community and believe that land, in some cases, is too valuable for Travellers, and we have seen Ministers get to be Ministers because they are anti-Traveller and racist, I know of 76 councillors who voted for a member of the Traveller community to come in here and be a voice for local councillors. That says an awful lot for our local authorities and not every single councillor on the local authorities is racist and does not want land or the best outcomes for Traveller accommodation, because that is not the case for every single councillor. While we see even Ministers get in here on the back of being racist and discriminatory, I think that the more power councillors have, the more changes they can bring about in local communities.

While we blame councillors and many people do not know what little power county councillors have at a local level, the issue is with the system. I remember the corporation in the 1990s. Now there is Dublin City Council and the different local authorities. It is the same system underneath a different name and I genuinely believe that amendments Nos. 138, 139, 142 and 143 will give more powers to councillors, whom people in the area elected to be a voice for them.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having had the privilege of serving on the country's largest local authority from when I was first elected in 2004, I take a particular interest in this section. As Senator Moynihan said, the pains and frustrations of the planning system are ones I am all too familiar with. When we apply ourselves to the exercise we are engaged in, in scrutinising this legislation, we would be well served by restricting our considerations to the legislation in front of us, and not to stuff that has gone on in the past or stuff that may or may not happen in the future, and applying ourselves to trying to put in place the best legislation to achieve the best mechanism to deliver the best planning outcomes. When I look at this section and the section on development plans, we currently have six years and Senator Boyhan is suggesting seven years.

I am not sure what magically is going to happen in those 12 months given it takes most local authorities at least 24 months to complete their development plan review, composition and the making of it. I welcome the ten-year process. As somebody who has had the privilege of being part of making the development plan I know the effort that goes into it not just by the elected members, but also the executive and most importantly the public. Residents' associations, community groups, sports groups, businesses and all types of organisations engage in that process. Let us not forget what it is. It is a strategic plan. It is not an operational plan or an individual planning permission, but a strategic plan to give strategic guidance. With that strategic guidance in place a certain strategic certainty is created for a meaningful period of time. I welcome that.

I am absolutely determined to not just protect but enhance the role of elected members of our local authorities. I commend the improvements that have been made in the conditions of local authority members by this Government. They have been welcomed. Do they go far enough? No, of course they do not. The Minister of State knows this as he hears it from us often enough. We need to keep pushing in that direction. However, I am not going to bring amendments to a planning Bill to improve the powers or the capacities of local authority members because that would not be good practice. What this Bill does in section 58, as a really important amendment to the making of a development plan, is give the power to the local authority members at any point during the lifetime of the plan to trigger a variation to the plan. That is a really important power local authority members will have. It is important to read the full section 58. It states:

The members of a planning authority may at any time, by resolution request the chief executive of the planning authority to prepare a report on a proposal by them [not by anybody else, but by them] to initiate a process to consider the variation of the development plan for the time being in force.

It goes on to compel the chief executive to submit a report to the members within a specified period, namely, four weeks. The chief executive is going to have to come back to the elected members and respond to their request with a written report within four weeks. I am very conscious of the clock and I am not going to stand here talking all night and reading a document we can all read ourselves and that the public can read because it will be there for them to read. However, it very clearly sets out a process that puts the power into the hands of the local authority members at any point in the lifetime of the development plan to trigger a variation. It compels the chief executive to act on it and to do it all within specified periods of time. On that basis I am very happy to support this section and hope we can move on.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been asked whether I read section 58. I read it, but I read on to what happens when a variation is proposed. First, it has to be sent to the OPR for examination. If the OPR decides it contravenes, in the OPR’s so-called independent view, any of the national planning criteria we spoke about earlier the Bill provides that a draft direction can be cooked up by the OPR to tell the local authority not to make the amendment. That is the end of it unless a Minister comes to this House and says he disagrees with the OPR, states the reasons for same and that the OPR’s view is technically incorrect. The Planning Regulator and his office have been put into this position of correcting the homework of every council and every initiative to vary any draft plan, and to veto it unless a Minister comes before this House and the other House and says he wants, for stated reasons, to disagree with-----

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That happens.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the decision of the OPR.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That happens.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring Senator Cummins back in again.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When does it happen is the question I have to ask. It is very easy to mutter about this and say it can happen, but it does not happen. The same machine that is in the Department of housing and local government is the parent of the daughter institution, the OPR. They select each other for all these positions as managers, or now chief executives, of county councils. There is a prefecture installed in Ireland that obeys a code of its own. That is the reality of the situation. Senator Fitzpatrick says a local authority can initiate a process to vary its development plan. It can, but when this is initiated the chief executive is bound to come back with a report to the elected members and if he or she tells them he or she thinks it contradicts the national planning framework, ministerial guidelines or whatever, then at that stage it is dead in the water unless the members insist on it. By the time that happens the OPR has been consulted on it, has consulted the chief executive of the local authority and its planning section and the die is cast.

Let us not cod ourselves here. We are putting together an antidemocratic centralised control system. I do not particularly worry about what Wexford County Council members are planning for Wexford. I wish them well in planning their area as they wish. I do not want somebody sitting in Dublin saying "Hold it" because the Government, at the insistence of the Minister, issued a national planning framework and the council does not seem to be paying it sufficient attention. I do not want to hear about national planning statements and the deference that has to be given to them by local authority members. All of that is a symptom of our unwillingness to trust elected local authority members to the same extent as those on United Kingdom local authorities are permitted to exercise their judgment. If these provisions were put before Westminster they would be laughed out of it, but we are prepared to subjugate local government to centralised control, centralised revision and centralised reversal. I know of no other country in the world that does that. I know of no common law country or civil law country which says a man or woman called the planning regulator shall be independent in their functions and shall effectively veto what is, subject to not being overridden by a Minister, the democratic wishes of a local authority. It does not have to be like this. We have grown accustomed to it. We have become house-trained by the gradual changes that took place in our planning system because we were so afraid of corruption by local authority members we thought they should be supervised to the extent they are. The great majority of local authority members are decent, straightforward, honourable people who are not corrupt and never have been corrupt, for that matter.

Only a tiny minority at one stage engaged in dubious and corrupt activity in respect of rezoning. However, this is not the remedy.

I will return to the point about which I was contacted today. Unless local authorities can acquire land easily, without going to the High Court or going through the ridiculous obstacle course of compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, unless they have an effective system of mobilising the land resources in their local authority functional areas, unless they can drive development rather than wait for random proposals from the private sector, and unless we have a system that radically changes, we will not have beautiful cities but ugly cities. We will not have adequate social housing or a mix of social, affordable and private housing to an adequate extent. We will have areas which are blighted and we will have the mess of Upper O'Connell Street.

I travel down the southern quays every day and I will be doing so until some day in mid-August when it will become illegal to do so. I notice across the river the site of the Ormond Hotel, which features in Ulysses. It has now been demolished and left empty for eight to ten years in a strategic and scenic part of our city. In any other world, the local authority would have taken that land from the developers, handed it to somebody and asked them to develop it quickly, within a year or two. The authority would have given that person a building lease and taken a use-it-or-lose-it approach. We do not have use-it-or-lose-it laws. We have derelict site laws that are grossly ineffective. As I said, the Carlton Cinema saga shows precisely how weak and ineffectual Irish local government is on its premier thoroughfare, which has been blighted for 20 or 30 years now. No other capital city anywhere in the civilised world would permit that situation to continue but that is what we have done.

You can have permissive. There are two things here. A Scandinavian academic went to Galway City Council and asked to see its plan for the city. He was shown the development plan and said it was not a plan but a series of restrictions. He asked what the council was going to do to build, rebuild and redevelop the city. The representatives of the council looked at him as if he was from another planet. We do not have positive planning in this country. We allow developers to put together sites randomly and to come up with random plans to develop their sites when there is sufficient profit to be made. We do not have the approach that made Dublin beautiful. Pembroke estate lies to the south of this House. It did not happen as a result of random planning. Gardiner Street, Mountjoy Square and all of those areas on the north side of the city did not arise from permissive planning but from positive planning. The sad fact is we are cementing into place negative and permissive so-called planning, which, in fact, does not plan and does not have any positive aspect to it but merely tells people what they cannot do and what certain people would love other people to do, but not what local authorities will do, to bring about positive development in their areas.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go back to consideration of amendment No. 134, with which we are dealing in this set of amendments, and to recap something Senator Fitzpatrick talked about. What is an additional year on six or seven years? To be clear, I am not asking for an additional year. I reiterate that the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, is composed of members of the Minister of State's party, of every other party and of no party at all. The president is a Fianna Fáil councillor in Wicklow, Mr. Gail Dunne, who wrote to Senators. I do not know at what aspect of what I have said Senator Fitzpatrick is laughing at. I am not sure which was the funny part of that sentence.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is reminding me of members of my own party.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Senators to speak to the amendments.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The AILG comprises practitioners and councillors, and this is the request it has made. Let us be clear that this is an opportunity to put where we stand on the record. We do not speak out of both sides of our mouths. We must make a commitment, honour it and make the best case for it. I am here to make the best case for Mr. Dunne, the president of the AILG, and all its members, of all parties and none. They were against ten years. They suggested in their submission to Members of this House that if they could not get ten years for their development plans, they could come down to eight years. It is clear they do not want a development plan that lasts for ten years. They want to know where people stand and I am going to tell them where I stand because that is all I am about. I would like to convince other people but it is a matter for them to decide. We will, I hope, be voting on this amendment in a few moments. To be crystal clear, I suggested a seven-year period as a sort of compromise. The AILG had suggested ten years or eight years. I think the seven-year period is reasonable. There has been much litigation in respect of development plans over the years. A famous case mentioned legitimate expectations. The citizens have a legitimate expectation of their city and county development plans and how they will map out and set out proper planning and sustainable development for their areas. I restate that I am here on behalf of the AILG to articulate its views on this particular aspect of the Bill. Its request is reasonable and we should support it. If we do not want to do so, that is fair enough and it will be a matter for other people to explain that on another day. I believe it is the right and appropriate thing to do. I hope we have support for the AILG in this House.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to be brief so we can get through some of these amendments. I will make a general point in reply to the comments made by Senator McDowell. I have tremendous respect for him but I fundamentally disagree. He is consistently putting down the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR. He has talked about draft directions that are precooked by the OPR. That is disingenuous. He suggested we are being house-trained. He also put down local government consistently in his contributions. I ask him to look at the force for good that local government is in Ireland. We have had this debate in the Chamber. I sat in on one of the sessions relating to the future of local government. I ask him to look at the good and positive work that is going on.

The Senator mentioned Mountjoy Square and many of the plans in that area have been led by the local community and by councillors. Budgets have been voted through and supported by councillors. There is a considerable amount of good and positive work going on within local government and it was disappointing to hear the Senator's contribution. He is not the only one who has been putting down the OPR during the debate, but it is disappointing. The office is there for a valid reason. I will remind Senators of the three functions of the OPR, which are to independently assess all statutory forward planning of all local authorities, including development plans and local area plans; to carry out organisational reviews of the systems and procedures used by any planning authority, including An Bord Pleanála, in the performance of its functions; and to drive national research, training, education and public information programmes. The issues around the role of the OPR are being misrepresented by the Senator. He has his view of the Bill, and it is clear he is not a supporter of it, as is his democratic right. However, the OPR does not precook plans and the Minister is not required to obey the regulator. In fact, he has, on quite a number of occasions, disagreed with the OPR. In a way, the Senator appears to be deflecting all the woes of our planning system onto the OPR to account for past failures. I ask the Senator to reflect on that. I have tremendous respect for him but some of what he has said this evening has been out of order.

Terms such as "dysfunctional" have been mentioned. It is not dysfunctional. There certainly have been issues and challenges in our planning system which it is hoped the Bill will address. I ask Senator McDowell to reflect on this. The bigger challenge regarding the democratic role of elected representatives, particularly the making of development plans and the reserved function, is very important. There are wider issues which the Government has addressed regarding the role of local government and local authority members. The mechanism for directly elected mayors in every urban area or county is important.

To make a general point, moving to ten-year plans will release local authority members from the repetition of the six-year development plan cycle, two years of which is spent in process, as Senator Fitzpatrick has said, to engage in real local plans for local development. Specific land area plans will be done by people who would otherwise be engaged in the six-year cycle. They have a very important role in climate plans, biodiversity plans, arts policies, housing strategies, and local economic and community plans. There is so much planning work in which local authority members are involved outside of the actual development plan and we cannot discount this.

I will now speak specifically to the amendments. I do not think there is anything else I need to address. I have to say the constant putting down of the Office of the Planning Regulator and the important role it has is disappointing.

I will now address amendments Nos. 134, 144 and 145 tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell, Nos. 135, 137 to 143, inclusive and 150 tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn, Nos. 136 and 154 tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall, and Nos. 146 to 149, inclusive and 151 to 153, inclusive, tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan.

Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 140 relate to the lifespan of a development plan and amendments Nos. 136 and 137 refer to the period of time after which a planning authority must review an existing development plan. The key purpose behind the change in development plan duration is to align the cycle of development plans with the cycle of census data availability. This will provide for more informed plans with greater certainty regarding the availability of adequate zoned land to align with the needs of housing development strategies and economic development strategies. In short, this change will provide greater certainty over a longer period for all stakeholders. The point has been made on the ability of elected members to vary development plans at any point in the lifetime of that plan.

As set out under section 56(4), elected members of local authorities will review the performance of their development plans after five years and may propose amendments to plans to take account of wider changes that may have occurred since the plan's inception. A point was raised with regard to changes in the lifespan of a plan. The timelines set out in subsections (1) and (2) of section 42 have been carefully considered and are intended to ensure adequate time is provided to prepare and finalise development plans and, most importantly, that sufficient time is now available to planning authorities for the implementation of their development plans. I thank the Senators for their proposals but I am not in a position to accept them.

Amendment No. 138 relates to discretionary consultation by elected members of local authorities with independent legal or technical advisers. I have not been able to determine why legislation may be required on this. If there are other provisions in law that for some reason prohibit elected members from carrying out non-compulsory consultation, then I can consider the matter in greater detail, but on the face of it I am unable to see the need for this provision and for this reason I am not in a position to accept it.

I cannot accept amendment No. 139 as I am unable to determine the purpose, scope or process for producing a report as proposed. It is unclear what "viability" is supposed to refer to in the amendment. For example, does it mean the ability of elected members of a local authority to obtain independent services, or perhaps the cost-effectiveness of such a process, or even the availability of services that elected members can avail of? Not only am I unclear as to the purpose and the scope of this amendment, I am also unable to determine how the Department could be in a position to produce a report as proposed. For these reasons I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments No. 141 proposes to delete section 42(5)(b). This paragraph enables the Minster, only at the request of a chief executive of a planning authority, to extend the period of a development plan, but only in situations where exceptional circumstances exist and only for a period of not more than two years. I would consider that recent events alone provide more than enough justification as to why such a power may be required. As a precaution, given the safeguards relating to exceptional circumstances and the limited time periods involved, it is entirely worthwhile retaining this provision and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

In relation to the Minister’s ability to extend a development plan in exceptional circumstances, amendments Nos. 142 and 143 seek to substitute the "elected council of a local authority" in place of the "chief executive of a planning authority" and to give elected members of a local authority the power to overturn the extension request. I see no reason to further amend section 42(5) in the manner proposed as I do not believe there is a necessity to provide for the additional powers as set out under this amendment. As I have mentioned, there are adequate safeguards built into the provision as currently drafted to ensure its proper operation. For these reasons I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 144 cannot be accepted as the period of 12 years as currently set out under section 42(6) is correct and to reduce this period to ten years would be inappropriate based on the extension to a development plan's duration that is permitted by way of paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of that section.

In relation to amendment No. 145, which links back to amendment No. 3 and the proposed definition of a chief planning officer, for the same reasons I already outlined in respect of amendment No. 3 concerning the purposes, scope and functions of planning roles and the recruitment of staff being a matter for local authorities themselves, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendments Nos. 146 to 153, inclusive, propose additions to the content of development plans relating to a range of matters such as cultural spaces, night venues and artistic creativity. As drafted, section 48 makes adequate provision for the improvement, extension and preservation of amenities, facilities and services to meet, among other things, the cultural requirements of the functional area to which a development plan relates. This is a requirement of the process to make the development plan. I point Members to section 48(2)(a) and 48(2)(b), which are very strong in this regard.

Section 45 makes provision for an economic strategy to identify the attributes of particular places that are essential to enhancing economic performance and the social, community and cultural facilities in a given functional area. I am of the view that the matters to which the Senators refer are already sufficiently and effectively catered for in the Bill. Again, I point Senators to the sections I have just mentioned. Furthermore, their provision is balanced with other necessary and appropriate objectives, which are necessary to develop a rounded framework for the development of an administrative area.

With respect to night venues, the Department did participate actively in the night-time economy task force set up by my colleague the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin. I participated on it myself. The support for, and future development of, the night-time economy is a matter for planning policy rather than being specifically referred to in legislation. This is due to the varying considerations that apply to the night-time economy depending on the location of a given functional area within the State. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 154, proposed by Senator Moynihan, proposes that a development plan's written statement, as required under section 43(2), contains provision for the zoning of land for affordable housing within the meaning of the Affordable Housing Act 2021. While the sections of the Bill relating to the content of a development plan set out a series of strategies, they do not stand alone and, instead, form part of an interconnected series that consist of the core of a development plan, the essential function of which is to set out an integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of an area. Section 46 provides for the obligation to prepare a housing development strategy, which must be materially consistent with the housing strategy prepared under Part 7 and which, in turn, must include an estimate of the amount of social, affordable and cost-rental housing and Traveller accommodation required during the lifetime of the development plan. Section 46(5) provides that any land zoned for residential use, or a mix of residential use, can be developed exclusively for social or affordable housing. The provisions relating to the housing strategy and the housing development strategy under the Bill are carefully balanced and take account of the various inputs that are factored into consideration when dealing with housing policy and its spatial implications within a functional area. I cannot accept this amendment.

Senator McDowell mentioned UK local authorities several times. UK Ministers have powers with regard to local planning decisions and they can intervene in a similar way.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They have some powers but they do not have an opposite planning regulation which vetoes everybody's activities.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not to labour the point, but I ask the Senator to look at section 58(12)(e). Where, in proposing a variation the members of an authority are not in compliance with the Office of the Planning Regulator or the Minister, they have to give notice of the reasons for the decision not to comply with the recommendations concerned.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Then they get a veto.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, that is it. There is no recommendation. Let us be very clear. Senator McDowell is suggesting that there is some sort of other veto, but that is not in the Bill before us. We need to be honest about that. It is clear in section 58(12)(e).

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is also section 62 whereby the Office of the Planning Regulator can require them to make a variation, so there are major issues.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point is-----

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is entirely different.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point is that there were powers to make variation.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we let Senator Higgins make her contribution, please? I will allow any Member who wants to come in to do so. We are here until 9.30 p.m. so there are 20 minutes to go.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am keen to move towards votes as well but it is important to mention the powers to vary were in the 2000 Act. In the powers to vary in this Act, there are differences and the Office of the Planning Regulator is an issue in relation to that. That is completely legitimate. It is not about any individual but about concerns we have about the powers in section 62. I was not going to raise it but it is important to mention because it is another point of intersection between the power of variation and the Office of the Planning Regulator.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the Public Gallery Mary Tully, the esteemed wife of our colleague and friend Senator Joe O’Reilly. I also welcome Barry Sweeny and his brother Conan, who are here from Donegal. Hard luck last weekend and it is great to see them. I welcome Johnny McGuinness and his partner Tracy to Leinster House and thank them for being here. I thank them for their public service as well. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 135:

In page 104, line 18, to delete “10 years” and substitute “6 years”.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 136:

In page 104, line 19, to delete “8 years” and substitute “7 years”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 137:

In page 104, line 19, to delete “8 years” and substitute “4 years”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 138:

In page 104, between line 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(3) Elected members of the planning authority shall be able to consult independent legal and technical experts to assist them in their work on the creation of or review of the development plan.”.