I welcome everyone to the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. We are recommence Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister of State, Malcolm Noonan, and his officials to the committee. We were discussing amendments Nos. 105 to 118, inclusive, when we last adjourned. We had discussed as far as amendments Nos. 112 to 114, inclusive. The Minister of State had responded on those. I now go to Deputy O'Callaghan because he is also associated with these amendments.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 12
Debate resumed on amendment No. 105:
In page 52, line 23, after “maintain” to insert “, retain or relocate”.
-(Deputy Steven Matthews)
This question relates a lot to section 12, not just specifically to my amendments. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of State about section 12 and the issues around licensing, utilities, and the digging up of roads and the damage that is done. Reinstatements are done, but after the temporary reinstatement, when the permanent reinstatement is done, often that is defective a year or two later. You can see that the trench has somewhat collapsed, and then the local authority comes back and does a full resurface of the road at the expense of the local authority and the public. This is an ongoing issue. With this licensing for roads to be dug up, the ultimate cost of properly reinstating the road far too often ends up being picked up by the public and the local authority, albeit a year or two later, after the so-called permanent reinstatement is done by the utility or the company. In general, what provisions are there in section 12 to deal with that? Are there any new provisions to deal with it in this Bill, compared with previous legislation? It is certainly a problem and something that is costing significant amounts.
I refer specifically to my amendments in this grouping and the default grant of the licence in subsection 12(8)(b), which refers to "overground electronic communications infrastructure, or ... any associated physical infrastructure". Can the Minister of State clarify that? For example, we were talking yesterday about the issues of phone boxes being turned into advertising structures, perhaps with a Wi-Fi spot included. That would be overground, it would be electronic, it would be communications and it would be infrastructure. Where is the definition of overground electronic communications infrastructure? It is mentioned in subsection 12(2) all right, but I do not see a definition with it.
It is, as in an advertisement structure. The Deputy is talking about where advertisement structures are being put back in, where-----
I am asking if subsection 12(8)(b)(i), where it refers to "overground electronic communications infrastructure"-----
No, it does not.
It does not include overground-----
It does not. The definition in section 12 is "a public electronic communications network, within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2018/1972".
Where is that?
It is in subsection 12(1)(a).
Subsection 12(1) relates to the definition of "network operator", not a definition of a public electronic communications network. Surely there is a difference between subsection 12(8)(b)(1), "overground electronic communications infrastructure" - that is a different phrase - and the explanation of what a network operator is in subsection 12(1)(a), which refers to "a public electronic communications network". Is the Minister of State trying to say that the definition of a network operator in subsection 12(1) provides a definition for an overground electronic communications infrastructure?
Where it is defined, that is the overground electronic communications infrastructure, so there is no definition there. It is taken as read.
I am concerned because an advertising structure with a Wi-Fi spot is overground and electronic. If the Wi-Fi is communications, surely that fits into this overground electronic communications infrastructure.
Yes. It would be read in conjunction with subsection 12(1)(a), which relates to "a public electronic communications network".
Should there not be a reference, then, in subsection 12(8)(b) stating that-----
Okay, because the reference is in paragraph (a). I understand.
In response to the Deputy's first question, I agree with him. It is something we have all come across, whereby roads have been removed for infrastructure and have not been returned or there has been maybe a settling of materials. It is a matter for the local engineer, the local authority, to rectify that. In any of the cases I have had in my constituency, that would be the case. The local authority is responsible for the upkeep of the roads.
The issue is that sometimes a good engineer manages to capture this and sometimes he or she does not. We are dealing with the legislation that allows for the licences and the opening of the roads. From what I can see, this is costing the public millions in proper repairs when substandard repairs have been done and let go over time, or when the local engineers or whatever feel they do not have enough legislative powers to pursue a company or utility that has dug up roads and done insufficient reinstatements. They cannot go back a year or two later, when the trench that was reinstated has sunk, or anything like that. Would this Bill not therefore be the place to try to address that?
No. There are functions under the Roads Act, certainly, but it is not in this Bill. Generally, it is the case that it is work that is carried out by the local authority in its day-to-day roads programme, and sometimes that is the resurfacing, including repairs to works that have previously been done by contractors.
I would take a different view on that. If there is a good road surface, and if a utility or a company gets a licence under this Bill to dig it up and reinstate it, the cost for proper reinstatement of that surface should not fall with the public or the local authority. I appreciate there are provisions in the Roads Act, but this section of the Bill relates specifically to the granting of licences, so should there not be measures relating to the granting of licences that protect the public interest here?
Subsection 12(5) states:
A planning authority may, upon an application under this section—
(i) grant a licence under this section in respect of such period, and upon such conditions (including conditions relating to location and design), as the planning authority may specify ...
I would assume, therefore, that it would be included in that. They do require a road opening licence, so there are conditions attached to the road opening licence in terms of returning it to the condition it was in previous to the road opening.
Yes, but if these legislative provisions are no different from the ones at the moment, and it is definitely my strong view that the ones at the moment are not working sufficiently to protect the public interest, that wording about conditions, "including conditions relating to location and design", does not specify this area. If a utility or a company keeps getting licences, opening up roads and doing poor reinstatements, there is no provision, nothing here, really, to mean that a local authority or a planning authority could refuse its next application on the basis of picking up the bill for proper reinstatements previously. Should those sorts of protections not be outlined in the Bill to protect the public interest?
They should be covered under the road opening licence issued by the authority. That is where those conditions should be put in place as regards returning the road surface to the condition it was in.
Yes, but if a utility or a company gets a licence to lay down cables under the road surface, for example, is the local authority's ability to refuse a road opening licence based on previous poor reinstatement of works not limited and restricted?
The companies effectively have a right under this Bill, understandably, to get a licence for putting in these cables.
Section 12(6) states:
Where, in the opinion of the planning authority, an appliance, apparatus or structure for which a licence has been granted under this section or section 254 of the Act of 2000 causes an obstruction, or becomes dangerous, by reason of the increase or alteration of traffic on a road, the widening of a road or any improvement of or relating to a road, the planning authority may by notice in writing revoke the licence and require the licensee to remove the appliance, apparatus or structure at his or her own expense.
That covers it. If the Deputy is talking about future cases where they may not have returned it to a good condition, that mechanism is there in the Bill for this.
I do not think that covers this. The Bill states:
Where, in the opinion of the planning authority, an appliance, apparatus or structure for which a licence has been granted under this section ... causes an obstruction, or becomes dangerous ...
If a company has a licence to put it in a piece of infrastructure that becomes dangerous or becomes an obstruction I am sure there would be an issue, but I do not know if that covers poor-quality reinstatements that are not necessarily obstructions. One could argue they become dangerous over time, but that seems to be quite a stretch.
To go back, the road opening licence covers that, if members will excuse the pun. It covers the reinstatement afterward. Section 12(7)(d) provides that in considering an application for a licence under this section, a planning authority shall have regard to "the convenience and safety of road users including pedestrians". Although it is covered under the Roads Act, I think that line covers the fact that the road surfaces, paving surfaces, footpaths, etc. should be returned to a condition where they do not cause a hindrance to the safety of pedestrians or road users, including cyclists.
I will let the Chair in after I make one more point. All that could be implicit here. It is certainly not explicit. It is open to interpretation. Ultimately, if a planning authority refused permission for a licence based on that and it ended up in court there is a lot of ambiguity there. One could well have a case about whether those provisions are sufficient for a planning authority to refuse a licence based on poor performance previously. It is not explicit in the legislation.
The conditions of the granting of the licence, the road opening licence and the subsections I have read out collectively address those issues. The road opening licence would have to have those conditions in place around the reinstatement of the road to a good condition - I do not know the terminology - or to the condition it was in previously. That would be a standard provision. This is covered both here and in the road opening licence.
My point is that there is nothing new in these provisions, as far as we know, and the current situation is one where millions of euro are being spent on proper reinstatement and the cost is picked up by the public when there is poor practice. That is also unfair to the utilities and companies that put in good practice at considerable cost and do a good job. Others do a poor job and effectively the public comes back a year or two later to pick up the cost of it, through local authority reinstatement.
I do not think it is a fault of the legislation. If the provisions here are not any different it is because they are there to ensure utility companies reinstate the surfaces as they were. Again, it is a matter of application at the level of each local authority, I imagine.
Yes, but the legislation here should be strengthened. It is an area I might return to on Report Stage.
I was just going to say I read a planning decision where a condition had been removed from the very issue the Deputy is referring to by the senior planner because they said this is catered for under the Roads Act, but then the An Bord Pleanála decision upheld the original decision. From my reading of that, it seems to be understood at both local authority and An Bord Pleanála level that the matter is covered under the Roads Act. I was only reading that decision today and that is why I brought that up.
We move to Deputy Ó Broin.
I have a small question about my three amendments we discussed yesterday. I am going to withdraw amendment No. 112 because as the Minister of State outlined yesterday, section 12(8)(d) essentially provides for the same thing.
With respect to amendment No. 113, because paragraph (d) does not provide for any additional time, and as the Minister of State said in his answer yesterday the EU directive underpinning this requires a decision to be made in four months, my amendment to give simply an extra two weeks to the planning authority if it required it on foot of additional information would still be within the four months. I am wondering, therefore, whether any consideration was given to it because where the application has been submitted and if within eight weeks of the application the planning authority utilises paragraph (d) it is another eight weeks, so it is four months which makes sense. In my instance, within eight weeks the request for information is another four weeks, meaning we would still be two weeks shy of the four months. I am wondering whether that is something that could be looked at. It is only two weeks, but I see no reason not to support it.
We discussed this at length yesterday in terms of the exceptional reasons. It is important to align it with the general consenting timelines for local authorities. That is the rationale behind it.
The way the Minister of State explained that yesterday was very helpful. I am saying my request for an additional two weeks in cases of additional information being supplied would still operate within those consenting timelines of four months as per the directive and indeed would still be shy of the four months.
Certainly it would, but what we have set out here gives that. It is about general alignment and consistency for local authorities. That is the approach we have taken with it.
On that basis I will be pressing amendment No. 113. I would also like to let the Chair know that because of the Minister of State's answer yesterday, I will be withdrawing amendment No. 114.
We do not see it as needed. The four weeks are sufficient.
Okay. That is probably a better answer-----
-----than the other one, but I will press the amendment.
The Deputy is talking about amendments Nos. 112 and 114.
I am going to withdraw amendments Nos. 112 and 114 when we get to them.
I do not know whether the Deputies submitted these together.
Deputy O'Callaghan can press them if he wants.
It is up to him. He may wish to press them.
I am giving the Chair an indication of my intentions.
Great. Have we covered amendments Nos. 115 and 116?
No. I will move onto them now. They are separate, so I would not mind us dealing with them separately.
That is okay.
When I read section 12(9), I could not understand why it was split between paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and even paragraph (b) itself was split. Clearly there is a set of rights to appeal. Is there a rationale for those different rights? Section 12(9)(a) provides that "Any person may appeal the refusal". Section 12(9)(b)(i) provides that any person may appeal "the grant of a licence", but section 12(9)(b)(ii) - a separate subparagraph - provides that any person may appeal "the decision of a planning authority to attach a condition" and section 12(9)(c) - a separate paragraph - provides that any person "may appeal the revocation of a licence". I do not understand why these measures are not set out in a single provision, rather than separate ones. Is it the intention to enact these separately? It seems to be a strange way to draft it. I thought I should put in an amendment to allow me to ask the question.
It was a drafting decision by the OPC, just in terms of the layout of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 12(9).
It has no function other than layout. Subsection (9) is separated into various paragraphs.
Again, it was just a drafting decision.
I want it to be said definitively on the record that subsection (9) could only be enacted as a single subsection. Would it be possible to separate the different paragraphs within it and enact them separately?
My other question is on the second amendment, which also relates to this section.
Is this amendment No. 116?
Yes. The Minister of State has clarified amendment No. 115 for me.
Regarding amendment No. 116, one thing that does not seem to be provided for in this section is the right to appeal the revocation. Is it possible to appeal the refusal of a licence under section 12(9)(a)?
Yes. It provides that any person "Any person may appeal the refusal by a planning authority".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved.
I move amendment No. 108:
In page 52, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
“(3) (a) An advertising structure or town or landscape map shall only be granted a licence by a planning authority under this section where advertisements on a structure and information on a map are in the Irish language or in both official languages.
(b) A planning authority may issue guidelines on how an advertisement structure may comply with paragraph (a) so as to ensure that no less than 50 per cent of the text area is in Irish, with the Irish text no less prominent than the English text, or in the case of digital or rotating ad space on an advertisement structure, that no less than 30 minutes of every hour is spent advertising in the Irish language.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 109:
In page 53, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
“(a) an appliance, apparatus or structure that is—
(i) authorised in accordance with a permission granted under Part 4, or
(ii) exempted development for the purposes of this Act,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 110 to 112, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 113:
In page 54, line 28, to delete “4 weeks” and substitute “6 weeks”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 114:
In page 54, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
“(c) Notwithstanding this subsection, where the licence involves environmental impact assessment or 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) or (d).”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 115:
In page 55, to delete lines 19 to 32 and substitute the following:
“(9) (a) Any person may appeal the decision by a planning authority of 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.“.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 116:
In page 56, to delete lines 27 and 28 and substitute the following:
“(V) revoke the licence,
or
(ii) refuse the licence.”,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 117:
In page 56, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(f) Where a person appeals—
(i) the refusal by a planning authority of an application for the continuation of a licence under this section, or
(ii) the revocation by the planning authority of a licence under this section, to the Commission, the licence shall, notwithstanding such refusal or revocation, remain in force pending the decision of the Commission in relation to the appeal.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 118:
In page 57, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(iii) create excessive street clutter and signage.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 57, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Licences under section 254 of Act of 2000
13. (1) A licence granted under section 254 of the Act of 2000 that was in force immediately before the repeal of that section by section 6 shall remain in force and have effect on and after that repeal as if the Act of 2000 had not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of section 254 of the Act of 2000 by section 6, that section shall continue to apply and have effect for the purposes of any—
(a) application for a licence under the said section 254 pending immediately before that repeal,
(b) appeal referred to in the said section 254 pending immediately before that repeal,
or
(c) any decision in relation to such an application or appeal made before that repeal.”.
I apologise, but the Chair is moving a bit too quickly. Did he say there is an amendment to this section?
We are dealing with amendment No. 119 in the name of the Minister. It has already been discussed with No. 2. I am now putting the question that the new section be there inserted.
Will the Cathaoirleach give me literally 30 seconds?
The amendment has already been discussed.
I just want to make sure I am happy to let it go through.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I have a couple of questions on this section. I would like clarification on two very minor points. I assume these are transitional arrangements to deal with that period. It would be helpful if, for the record, the Minister of State could outline what sections 261 and 261A of the 2000 Act do that this transitional mechanism relates to. It would be valuable to have that on the record. I may have a supplementary question depending on the answer.
Section 261 relates to unauthorised quarries. Section 261A has regard to the environmental impact assessment directive and the habitats directive.
Section 14 of the Bill states:
The repeal of section 261 of the Act of 2000 shall not have effect for the purpose of any notice issued under that section at any time before such repeal.
What is it that someone is doing up until the point of repeal that he or she can continue to do? I am asking so that we can be clear on it. What happens post repeal? Is that dealt with in some other provision of the Act? Is a replacement mechanism provided?
The quarries are already covered under the existing provision. This section relates to any outstanding enforcement proceedings relating to quarrying activity.
The Minister of State is saying the section means that this repeal will not in any way invalidate any enforcement proceedings currently under way.
Exactly.
When sections 261 and 261A are repealed, what will replace them? I assume there is a provision somewhere else in the Act or in the Minister of State's amendments to replace them.
The normal provisions are required in relation to... Will the Deputy hold on one second?
Yes, take your time. There is no rush.
It falls under enforcement and retrospective consent.
We have dealt with retrospective consent and enforcement comes later on. Whatever was captured by sections 261 and 261A of the 2000 Act will be captured by either the retrospective consent or enforcement sections of this Bill.
That is fine. I just wished to clarify.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15
This section starts with amendment No. 120, which falls into quite a large grouping of amendments in various names. Amendment No. 120 is in the name of the Minister of State. Would he like to move that amendment and then speak to the amendments? He may have them set out in subgroups. He may speak to them in whatever way he wishes
I move amendment No. 120:
In page 58, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“ “built up area” means a collection of statistical small areas, identified by the Central Statistics Office as a built up area following a census of population of the State;”.
I also intend to move amendments Nos. 124 and 160 and to withdraw amendments Nos. 123, 156, 159 and 251. These amendments relate to the procedures for-----
I am sorry; the Minister of State was a bit too fast. He is withdrawing No. 123 and which other amendments?
I will withdraw amendments Nos. 123, 156, 159 and 251. Amendments Nos. 120 and 124 are minor amendments to the definitions in section 15 to reflect new terminology used by the CSO to define towns for the purpose of a census. The CSO has introduced the use of the term "built up areas", BUAs, in the context of primary urban geography in future censuses. This term replaces that of "census towns", and these amendments reflects this terminology in the Bill. The amendments provide for a new definition of “built up area”, as well as a revised definition for a “settlement”, which will now include a reference to a built up area.
Amendment No. 160 amends the procedures for preparing the national planning framework to take account of the time required to incorporate the census statistics into a revised NPF. The NPF relies heavily on the census statistics, which are often only available one and a half years after the census occurs. The Bill currently provides that a review of the NPF must be completed two years from the second occurrence of the census held after the previous review. Tying the timeframe for reviewing the NPF to the occurrence of the census rather than the publication of the results of said census may result in an inadequate period for the review and reflection of census data in the NPF. This amendment proposes to tie the NPF review timeframe to one year from the publication of the results from the second occurrence of the census held after the previous review.
This will ensure that the review of the NPF is linked to the publication of census results to provide an up-to-date evidence base for planning-led development.
Before I speak to amendments Nos. 120 and 160, will the Minister of State repeat the list of the amendments he intends to withdraw?
I will be withdrawing amendments Nos. 123, 156, 159-----
Bear with me. Just so I can-----
Amendments Nos. 123, 156, 159 and 251 are going to be withdrawn.
When I read the definition, and I appreciate it is from the CSO, it seemed pretty arbitrary in terms of a BUA. It just seemed to involve gathering together a number of smaller areas. Is the Minister of State in a position to clarify why the CSO uses that definition? I appreciate that the Department wants to use the same definition, given that the census is the data that will inform NPFs and the reviews relating to them. However, what is the logic or the rationale for the CSO's definition? If the Minister of State can explain that, it would be helpful. When we dispense with amendment No. 120, I will comment on amendment No. 160.
In the context of putting this into legislation, are we sure that the CSO's language in terms of small areas is not going to change? Should the criteria of what constitutes a BUA not be more specifically defined? Is the definition robust enough? What is the significance of an area being defined as a BUA? Will the Minister of State explain the significance of that.
This is the up-to-date definition. Using the CSO's definition provides that consistency. In the context of what the definition states, BUAs are a new urban geographical construct for statistical purposed introduced in census 2022. They are created by combining small areas in order to identify the footprint of urban centres throughout Ireland. They are generated using an objective algorithm across the State that is used to group buildings together into BUAs. What is being done also relates to the NPF target for brownfield and infill development. Does that explain the matter?
Deputy O'Callaghan's final question is important namely, what is the advantage or purpose of having this definition? What do we get from it?
It defines settlements and towns to allow for their addition to what is proposed. It is a pretty prescriptive definition and is distinct in terms of urban settlements.
It is not the same as towns, villages or key towns. Clearly, there is a reason why there is a separate designation of a BUA rather than a town. I am not objecting to it. It is more to understand what is proposed because it is new.
I see what the Deputy is saying.
I will put the question in a slightly different way. The CSO has this definition of BUAs and this is being recognised in the Bill. Is that being done for reasons of convenience? Is it being done to ensure consistency with how the CSO is doing this?
That is it.
What is the planning rationale behind BUAs? Is it simply that this is what the CSO does and the Bill and future planning legislation have to be aligned with that? In coming up with this definition, did the CSO have a planning rationale? In relation to amendment No. 124 and the distance of 100 m between dwellings referred to in section 15, is there a planning rationale behind the latter or is it just an arbitrary measurement that the CSO has come up with? The section also refers to 50 occupied dwellings, so that excludes vacant dwellings. Is there a rationale as to why vacant dwellings are not counted? I just want to understand what is intended.
Yes. That is okay.
For clarification, the Road Traffic Bill that is before the House at the moment also defines a BUA. My understanding is there may be a definition in the Local Government Act as well. I understand that guidance is to be issued by the Department of Transport. I understand that these are two separate items of legislation, but I would expect that they should be aligned in some way for clarity. That might be something to consider.
The Cathaoirleach is right. The Department has worked with the CSO to align the definition with the NPF. I cannot speak to the Road Traffic Bill or Local Government Act. I assume there is a coherence across the various items of legislation in relation to this matter.
Deputy O'Callaghan is right that we are trying to ensure consistency and an ability to measure percentage of development in BUAs of all settlement types. That is the rationale behind it. The Deputy also asked why vacant dwellings are not included.
I am not saying they should be; I am just wondering what is the thinking or that rationale behind this.
That is just one of the accepted definitions. Section 15 states:
“settlement” means a village, town or city identified by the Central Statistics Office in its ‘Alphabetical List of Towns’, or such equivalent document issued by the Central Statistics Office, containing a minimum of 50 occupied dwellings with a maximum distance between any dwelling and the building closest to it of 100 metres.
In planning terms, that could mean that a settlement with 60 dwellings where only 49 are occupied would have a different status from a settlement with-----
It is a minimum of 50 occupied dwellings-----
In other words, a settlement where only 49 of 100 dwellings are occupied would have a different planning status from a settlement where 55 out of 60 dwellings are occupied. In terms of good, sustainable planning, I do not know why more could be done in the context of a settlement of 60 dwellings than would be the case with a settlement of 100 dwellings where the occupancy rate is lower.
The NPF targets are a percentage of the development in BUAs. Does that go further towards explaining it?
Deputy Ó Broin indicated to speak.
I will let the Minister of State finish his response and then I will come in with my related question.
It is 50% in cities and 30% elsewhere.
For clarity, BUAs can be within cities, towns or villages or they can be separate from them. It is not that it is a different designation.
Is this then for the purposes of not just calculating the underlying targets of the NPF - because they are done through housing needs demand assessment - but also for situations where planning authorities can, at a granular level, make decisions in respect of whether areas are built up?
I am trying to work out the functionality of this definition.
I would imagine it is exactly as the Deputy is saying.
Okay. That clarifies it for me.
Turning to amendment No. 160, to be clear, I have an amendment to the same sentence. My original concern with the review of the national planning framework and the two-year period the Government is amending is that it could be up to two years after a census has been conducted before the new census data could be worked into an NPF. What is the import of the Government's amendment? On the face of it, it looks like it will shorten the period but, in fact, if it is from the date of publication, it could be longer than two years, as originally set out in section 20 (3). Am I correct in reading it that way, whereby it could be longer than two years rather than shorter, depending on the date of publication?
When the amendment says "publication", to what is that referring? As the Minister of State knows, when a census is carried out, there is first the preliminary report, which is followed by the various other reports. Which publication is it referring to?
I will return to my note on this. Tying the timeframe for reviewing the NPF to the occurrence of the census rather than to the publication of the results of that census may result in an inadequate period for the review and the reflection of the census data in the NPF. The amendment proposes to tie the NPF review timeframe to one year from the publication of the results from the second occurrence of the census held after the previous review.
The amendment refers to the "final results".
When the Minister of State refers to the "second occurrence", will he put that in plain English, please? Is that the second census?
For clarity’s sake, let us use the example of the 2016 census. The Government agreed the current NPF in 2018. A big debate we had in 2019, 2020 and 2021 related to whether the underlying population growth projection data and headroom growth data from the 2016 census were out of date by the time the 2018 national planning framework was being agreed. Is the Minister of State saying in the context of this amendment that, in that instance, it would not be the 2022 census but the subsequent census, and the final publication of the results thereof, that would be subject to the review of the underlying assumptions of the NPF? Is that what "second occurrence" means? How long does it ordinarily take from the conducting of the census to the publication of the final results? It seems to me there could be 18 months to 24 months between the date of the census and the date of the final publication. In fact, therefore, we could be looking at two census cycles plus two years, which seems bizarre given that huge parts of our debate regarding, for example, housing targets have related to whether the 2016 data was adequate. I do not want to open that debate but the Minister of State knows my views on it.
The Deputy might give me a moment.
There is no rush. This is an important part of the section.
It will ensure the review will be carried out every ten years. The section on the national planning framework provides that the national planning framework in effect at any time must plan for a period of more than ten years and not more than 20 years. It will modify section 20(c) of the Act to link the review of the national planning framework to the census results. The first review shall be completed by 28 May 2024, or another date as prescribed, aligning with the publication of the census results of 2022. Thereafter, the national planning framework will be subject to a mandatory review every ten years, corresponding with the two census cycles. It is to align with the legislative timeline for the NPF and the county development plans, which will be ten-year plans.
It will really be 12 years because it will be the ten years of the two census cycles plus the two years it is going to take to publish the final results. That is why it is currently 2024, given there is an assumption it will take two years. What the Minister of State is really saying with his amendments, therefore, is that there will be a review every 12 years. Is that not correct?
If I could come in there, that seems to be the upper limit of when it must be done by, but it could be done before that. That is what I am reading it as.
The Minister of State is saying it will be every ten years, but he is also saying it will relate to the publication of the final report. We will get the final report of the 2022 census this year, so it invariably takes two years between the date of the census and the publication of the final report. That really means it will be ten years plus however long it takes the final report to be produced, which is currently two years. The legislation, therefore, says it will be ten years plus a few years. Of course, the publication schedule could be changed to get it done in, say, 18 months.
It is a strategic plan and-----
I understand that-----
-----and there is a ten-year gap between cycles.
I will come to the argument in a moment as to why I think this is the wrong way of doing it, but before I criticise it I want to make sure I understand it, because I am not yet clear. In reality, the import of the Government amendment to the section is that it will be every 12 years, if it takes two years to produce the final report of the second census. Is that not correct?
It does not refer to the final report, however. It refers to the “occurrence” of the census.
I appreciate that but there is a logic to where I am going with this. The problem is that if that is the upper limit, that is the worst case scenario. There is a reason I am pursuing this line of argument.
The Deputy is referring to the two-year period from the publication of the 2022 census to the completion of a review. Is that correct?
No. My understanding is the review will be carried out after every second census, that is, every ten years, but it will not be immediately after the conducting of the census. The Government amendment refers to the publication of the final results of the second occurrence of the census. That means there will be the ten years for the two census cycles and the CSO will then produce the data, the final report of which will take one to two years. In the worst case scenario or the longest timeframe, therefore, it will not kick in until 12 years afterwards rather than ten years.
In a good scenario, however, if the census is conducted more quickly-----
Exactly. That is my point. The Minister of State is saying that if it takes the CSO two years to produce its final report, that will add two years to the ten, whereas if it gets it done within six months, that will add six months. Is that not correct?
Why are we making it such a long period? I fully understand it is a strategic plan and we cannot chop and change every two years. Nevertheless, if we look at what happened demographically between 2016 and 2022, there were significant levels of increased economic growth, which have led to return migration of Irish folks beyond what was predicted in 2016.
We have an increase in inward migration, again, driven by economic growth with people coming through work visa programmes and the international protection system.
We also have a very unusual event in the war in Ukraine and a significant number of people are being given temporary protection.
There must surely be a mechanism, if, within five years there is a census and that census starts to throw up very significant changes which would not be typically normal under a long duration. Surely there should be a possibility to review the national planning framework in that context. If one is only saying that the outer limit is every ten years, and if it takes two years to produce a final report, which is the current position, that is 12 years. The data could be so out of date. How do we ensure that the underpinning assumptions of the national planning framework are as up-to-date as possible and, where required, changes are driven by an outer limit as set by this section of this amendment and by data in real time as it is developing? Otherwise, one is aiming at targets and we could have a discussion around the underpinning housing need and demand assessment, HDNA, targets for the current national planning framework, NPF, being out of date on the very day they are used, let alone several years on.
On delivery, I can see the point the Deputy is making as things happen quickly and it is important to be in front of all such change. That is critically important. The main population elements of the census take about a year but it is important, as the Deputy has said, to have all the of the census data in order to do the NPF properly. Even though it is a standard plan for ten years, a review can happen at any time within that period. The review can take place given the change in our recording of demographics which we-----
That would be at the discretion of the Minister and the Government of the day.
Yes and it can be reviewed at any time. As the Deputy has said, there are so many outside factors which can influence such a plan.
The current NPF is going to be reviewed within one census cycle from 2016 to 2022 and we will do it in 2024 when we have the final data. Why does this happen in every second occurrence of the census and why not every first, that is every census?
It is because these are ten year plans and are also in line with the commitments of the development plans.
That would make sense if one’s census and NPF review were perfectly aligned but the problem is that they are not.
So we will have an NPF review in 2024 as per the existing legislation. That will be a ten-year plan until 2034. There will be a census then in 2026, but it will be the following census-----
It will be in 2027.
Will it be that census or the following census which will trigger the review under this provision of the revised NPF? Will it not be the next one?
It will still be in the plan period as the census is to take place within the planned period. Therefore, as I said, it will be reviewed using the census data of 2027.
Sure, but the Minister of State is putting in a provision that makes the general rule of thumb to be within the second occurrence of the census during the lifetime of the plan.
Yes, the NPF plan period will be up to 2030.
On the ten-year plans, will the Minister of State do a review in 2024?
If we have our census in 2027, we will have full data by 2029 on the results of the census review.
That is the first occurrence and not the second occurrence within that review period, or it is the second occurrence within the current NPF? Which is it?
As I said, it can be reviewed at any time within-----
Sure, I get that. Again, I just ask this for clarity and it could be that I am confused. Within the current NPF, 2018 was approved, the first occurrence of the census was in 2022 so the second occurrence of the census is in 2027. That would obviously trigger then a review but that is obviously going to be the next NPF, which is the one from 2030 onwards.
Okay. One then gets a new NPF, the second one from 2030 onwards but it would not be the 2032 census but it would be the 2037 census then which would trigger the review under this provision of the second NPF. Is that correct? That just seems like a very long interval and, sure, anybody can do a review at any stage, but the Minister of State has an explicit provision in the Bill requiring a review following the second occurrence of the census within the lifetime of the NPF. It just seems an incredibly long time as I would have just thought that every census should automatically trigger a review within the quickest period of time to ensure that the NPF was kept up-to-date with those figures.
The current process is a revision and a review is a much more fundamental in-depth process. Again, the fact is that one has a ten-year NPF, the census is non-aligned with that and will never be aligned.
Surely the better option would have been this one, which is to automatically trigger, every time there is a census and as quick as the data is available, a review at least of the elements of the NPF which are underpinned by the census, in case there is some dramatic shift.
It may not be needed after every census.
A review would throw that up. If one had a requirement to have such a review after every census, it could be a quick review to say that there has been virtually no change and that we can move on. My worry is that even though the Chair is right in that there is nothing stopping somebody doing a review, if we link it explicitly to the second occurrence of the census, that is more than likely what is going to happen, particularly with resourcing and staffing pressures.
Yes. It certainly can be examined after each census but in what has been set out, with the procedure for the review and the public engagement, there are so many additional elements to that which are also significant. I certainly see the point the Deputy is making but there are provisions in there to ensure that it is a fluid process and is able to keep up with changing trends and demographics, in particular.
The only process the Minister of State has said there is that it is at the discretion of a Minister. If they are doing their job right they could trigger an earlier review but it is not required or explicitly stated.
The Bill also states in section 20(3) that: “Each … review [should] be completed before the expiry of a period of 2 years, which period shall begin on the second occurrence of a census of population…”.
Section 20 (4) also states: “Without prejudice to the requirement in subsection (3), the Government may review the National Planning Framework before the expiry of a period of 2 years…”, if it wants to.
I do not think it is adequate but the Minister of State has explained it very clearly. I thank the Minister of State.
I am happy to move on to other amendments, through the Chair.
Deputy O'Callaghan had indicated an interest to speak there. Is he satisfied with the Minister of the State’s response or does he wish to ask further questions on this section 20.
I want to ask about the rationale for the review not to be with every census. A key part of what the national planning framework is trying to do is to put in place the framework for meeting the needs of our current population and, indeed, future population. The census, by its very nature, is the best indicator and huge public resources go into it at great expense, together everything else. To actually count the population with the information that one gets from that is key in demographic trends and forecasting. The Bill is deciding to have a national planning framework that is not required to tie in legislatively with each census or to use the up-to-date information from each census.
What is the rationale for having all those resources going into collecting all the information and key data for the national planning framework without deciding in the Bill that each census will feed into the framework in real time?
As a ten-year strategic plan, it gives consideration to demographic trends and future projections, as well as having an element of flexibility around reviews. As I said in response to Deputy Ó Broin, because of the sequencing of the census periods as relating to the NPF periods, they are never going to align. It is important, therefore, that an opportunity be there to review it in that sense.
By not tying it in with each census specifically, however, it almost assumes the census data is likely to be quite stable and that there are not going to be unpredictable changes, given it will be tied in with only every second census. That seems to be quite a wild assumption to make.
As I said, under the procedures for review, quite an expansive and participatory process is required at least every ten years, but it will be possible to review it more frequently taking into account census population changes. As Deputy Ó Broin pointed out, we have had a substantial population increase coupled with substantial inward migration over recent years. Those changes are really significant and can have a huge impact on the State's resources. In that regard, it is important to have that mechanism to review frequently.
I will not labour this but I might make the point one more time. There is a compelling case, in respect of the data that comes in from each census regarding the population, demographic trends and so on, that each national planning framework would be reviewed each time data from the census becomes available. What is the reason for not doing that as a matter of routine in the legislation? I acknowledge there is nothing to prevent it happening but often, due to resource issues, what is required in legislation is all that happens. It can be rare that additional reviews are put in and so on because of the resources they take. What is the rationale for not automatically tying in the national planning framework, which is key to our whole planning system, with each census? Is there a rationale in that regard?
Deputies McAuliffe and Ó Broin also have questions.
I can see the logic and consistency in extending it to a ten-year period, given that is what we are doing with development plans, so there will be a degree of consistency regarding the timelines for long-term planning. My only fear relates to the co-ordination of those two cycles, whereby there could end up being a significant gap between the two if they do not co-ordinate. I will not expand on the point but the Minister of State might consider that. It could also cause some uncertainty to developments and, in the context of other amendments, add uncertainty to the process. That is the only reason I raise it, but I acknowledge the Minister of State's argument.
To emphasise Deputy McAuliffe's point, there was the census in 2016, the planning framework was created in 2018 and a series of development plan reviews are almost complete, with only a small number outstanding. There has been almost seven years between 2018 and 2024, when the NPF will be reviewed, and over recent years there has been widespread commentary, both within this House and from professional bodies in the development community, that the underlying assumptions of the NPF, in respect of population growth targets and, therefore, rising housing need and demand assessments and how that is worked into zoning, housing targets and so on, are fatally flawed. Under the current system, which required review halfway through the lifecycle of the planning framework, it is to happen every seven years, but it will be actually nine years from when that census was conducted. My fear with how this has been formulated is that given the default position will be ten years plus however long it takes to publish the census results, it could be 12 years.
All of this is meant to align the various series of plans but, in fact, it could just open further gaps between development plans, housing plans, housing need and demand assessments, census data and the NPF and NPF reviews, and that is before we have any consideration of pent-up demand, which is not captured in the census because it does not quantify that, which is one of the other big problems with the underlying assumptions of the current NPF. I think waiting until the second occurrence of the census is too long and thought needs to be given to doing it after each census, but moreover, not after the publication of the final report but as soon as the core data of the census becomes available. In that way, it could be determined whether the review were a substantive review because there was substantive new information or whether it simply confirmed that things were moving in the right direction. At the moment, there is a review of the NPF nine years after the census, whereas this will be 12 years plus, and I think demographic change is going to be much more unpredictable in the coming period, for all the reasons the Minister of State knows, than it has been heretofore.
On the reference to the initial data rather than to the final results, was there a reason for opting for the final results?
Again, that is to ensure we will have all the census data. We will get the preliminary census data but, to paint a full picture and properly inform the national planning framework, we will need all the census data.
Amendment No. 127 is in the name of Deputy Flaherty. Is he pressing that amendment?
Amendment No. 132 is in the names of Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Broin. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and thank the Minister of State for his attendance.
I welcome the Minister and thank the Minister of State. In regard to amendment No. 132, section 19 sets out the core criteria for consideration in the development of a national planning framework and section 19(2)(e) will require the NPF to provide for land-sea interactions and secure co-ordination with the national marine planning framework. The amendment will strengthen that in two ways. One is by replacing the text as it is with references to maritime spatial planning and maritime spatial plans because they are two key elements of the planning framework, but I am also of the view we need to insert the words "legally compliant" there. There are concerns that aspects of maritime spatial planning and maritime spatial plans could be at variance with aspects of the ecosystems approach of the relevant directives and, therefore, as a kind of belt-and-braces approach, I propose alternative wording.
I am proposing this in order that there will be a more comprehensive approach to this to ensure proper consideration of compliance with the maritime spatial planning directive.
The draft national marine planning framework had a matrix showing the interactions of about 75 policies and objectives, which clearly showed the complexity in this area. In terms of compliance, having this explicitly stated in the Bill would be beneficial.
I thank the Deputies. They have outlined briefly the rationale for supporting co-ordination for land-sea interactions with a legally compliant approach to maritime spatial planning and legally compliant maritime spatial plans”. That provision is already in the Maritime Area Planning Act, which this Oireachtas debated at length. Deputies will recall that Members had different views as to the timing but that legislation represented very significant change. For the first time, we have a maritime area plan to look after our maritime area which is about six and a half to seven times our land area. It is already set out on a legal basis in the Maritime Area Planning Act. That Act governs the legal basis for maritime spatial planning and plans. I ask the Deputies to expand on this further because I am not sure of the rationale for this amendment. Are they tying the national planning framework in with maritime spatial plans, which would occur at different times? I listened to the previous debate in relation to timing and how the census interacts with the NPF. The national planning framework is obviously for on-land development. This Government made a very significant step forward in relation to legislating for our maritime area under the Maritime Area Planning Act, which provides for maritime spatial plans for the first time. It is a real advance. I am not sure what the benefit of this amendment would be or how it would actually work in practice. I do not think it is necessary, to be honest, because it is already covered under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. If the Deputies want to expand a little bit further on it so I can understand the rationale behind it, I am happy to listen to them.
The Bill as currently written refers, in Section 19(2)(e) to "providing for land-sea interactions and securing coordination with the National Marine Planning Framework" but not with the actual plans. The framework and the plans are not the same thing.
The plans are at a lower level and are already provided for. The plans-----
Yes and the framework is high level. The devil is in the detail in terms of planning and development, particularly when we are talking about the interaction of things that would happen on the sea and on the land. To my mind, this is to ensure not just that it is in co-ordination with things at a high level but also in co-ordination with the actual plans which need to be legally compliant.
As I said in my opening remarks, it is already covered in the Bill. That interaction is already covered in Section 19(2)(e) which refers to "providing for land-sea interactions and securing coordination with the National Marine Planning Framework". The maritime spatial plans would sit under that and they are governed by the Maritime Area Planning Act. They are legally bound to do so already, so this provision is unnecessary. I will not be accepting the amendment but I am happy to listen to the other Deputies if they want to elaborate further.
I will respond briefly because I want to move on to the other amendments. When we think about it, we have the national marine planning framework which is not unlike the national planning framework. It sits on top and contains our high-level strategic objectives. The maritime spatial plans are not unlike development plans in that they get into an awful lot of granular detail. The reason for the amendment is that the subsection is meant to be about "providing for land-sea interactions and securing coordination with" and our preference is to be much more explicit that it is not just co-ordination with the high-level strategic objectives but in specific geographical locations where there are plans or planning, to require it there. The Minister's argument is that it is implicit in the inclusion of the national marine planning framework. What we are saying is that we want it to be much more explicit so that there is nothing lost in terms of the interaction in a specific geographical location between a specific land-sea interaction and the relevant maritime plan for that area or planning in that area. That is the rationale.
My concern is not just about this specific part and this amendment but about things not being explicit in the Bill more generally. It is a 700-page Bill and when people look at it, they will not always look at the supporting legislation, even though they should. If we want to make sure of legal compliance with maritime spatial planning and plans then that needs to be explicit and our amendment needs to be adopted. There is quite a difference between saying "securing coordination with the National Marine Planning Framework." and saying, as per the wording we have put forward, "supporting coordination with a legally compliant approach to Maritime Spatial Planning and legally compliant Maritime Spatial Plans”. The amendment we have put forward is more explicit, more detailed and more prescriptive and that is the intention behind it. The phrase "coordination with the National Marine Planning Framework" is not as specific. Co-ordination is a looser term and the section as currently written does not talk about the maritime spatial plans. That is the rationale for putting forward this amendment.
The word "coordination" is actually in the amendment and in the Bill.
The important phrase is "legally compliant" though.
It has to be compliant because it sits under the framework. A marine area plan must be compliant with the national marine planning framework. That is the hierarchy of plan making. Effectively, it is already covered. I think we are splitting hairs here, to be frank. The Marine Area Planning Act for the first time sets out the national marine planning framework and this whole section deals with how the NPF will interact with the national marine planning framework. Anything under that sits in a clearly-stated legal position under the Marine Area Planning Act. It is explicit and what we have included in the Bill, as published, is absolutely sufficient. It is explicit and speaks very clearly to that coordination within it. I have outlined clearly why there should not be any concern whatsoever that maritime spatial plans do not have any legal standing. They absolutely do and the legal standing they have is detailed in the Marine Area Planning Act. That Act has brought forward major changes to how we operate our maritime area. This section of Chapter 2 deals with the interaction and coordination between both frameworks - the NPF and the National Marine Planning Framework. What the Deputies are asking for is already there.
Thanks Minister. We will now move on to the next amendment in the group, amendment No. 148.
Amendment No. 148 relates to Section 19(3)(d), which lists the environmental, archaeological and heritage considerations of the NPF.
The list is kind of sparse; it speaks of landscape ecology, biodiversity, archaeology, architecture and natural heritage. Our amendment proposes to expand that to add the following: the conservation of the environment and its amenities, as the Minister has already outlined, but to include landscape, landscape features, including hedgerows, ecology, biodiversity, water resources, archaeological, historical, architectural and natural heritage. It would also propose to add the establishment of metrics and criteria for evaluating these elements of the environment and monitoring them and their effects within the life of the plan. This is trying to strengthen this section, which is obviously important for the function of the national planning framework, in terms of what is listed as well as how we assess monitor, account for, and evaluate those particular aspects. I am sure that the Minister will understand the spirit of it, but I hope he will be in a position to support the text of it as well.
Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are very similar regarding those extra conditions.
I will come back in when the Minister gives his response.
These are things that the national planning framework has to make provision for. In the Bill that is before us, the Minister says that it has to make provision for the conservation of the environment and its amenities, including landscape, ecology and biodiversity, as well as archaeological, architectural and natural heritage. Our amendment proposes to add that we should include landscape features, including hedgerows, but critically it proposes to add that there must be metrics and criteria for evaluating these elements. In other words, it is very easy to pay lip service to the conservation of all these things that we absolutely should be committed to conserving, but how do we evaluate whether we are truly into ensuring the conservation of these things? This amendment tries to tie us into establishing very clear metrics and criteria for assessing the state of biodiversity. How do we evaluate what aspects of our landscape, such as hedgerows or landscape features, that need to be conserved? This is rather than simply putting forward a general aspirational but unspecific commitment to those things. That is essentially what it is trying to do, and I think it is a pretty reasonable thing to suggest.
Deputy O'Callaghan also wished to come in on this.
There are two things this amendment is trying to achieve. First, it is to be more specific in the language. It asks not just to refer to landscape, but landscape features, including hedgerows. The word “landscape” alone will not necessarily cover that in the same detail. It also proposes to add “water resources”, which are a key part of the environment and its amenities and need to be specifically named here. There is also the issue of having these listed without having metrics or a way to evaluate them. Article 10 of the strategic environmental assessment, SEA, directive requires for metrics and criteria to be established to facilitate the evaluation of these criteria. It is important in terms of compliance with the SEA directive.
Regarding the word “historic”, the Bill currently states “archaeological, architectural and natural heritage”. It would strengthen the wording to include “historic”, because there can be heritage that is historic but that does not necessarily fit the other definitions. That is important as well.
Amendment No. 151 is the Cathaoirleach's amendment. Will I respond to amendment Nos. 148 and 151?
I was going to suggest that the Minister could respond to them all. I will just listen in, but I will not speak on this.
That is okay. I thank the Deputies for their amendments. I will say to Deputy Boyd Barrett that there is no question when we detail things in legislation, as we have done in the most significant reform of our planning legislation, that anything within this is lip service. It is not. It sets down in law what is required.
The definitions, though, are something we discussed at length last week or the week before, if Deputies recall. We have to balance it between what is appropriate at a national level and what is appropriate at a local, written-statement level within county development plans, etc. I did give a commitment - and we are doing this - that we would look at the references to biodiversity and climate in the Bill regarding where it is deemed that they need to be strengthened. I discussed this with Deputies Matthews, O’Callaghan, Ó Broin and, indeed, other Government Deputies. We are looking at what would be appropriate to strengthen the wording, should it be required. There are elements of it where we can do so.
Regarding the amendments that are before us, hedgerows are very important and we know that in relation to natural environment. This proposes to add “landscape features, including hedgerows”, but what other things? Do we continue to be very prescriptive? What is appropriate to put at a legislative level? However, I have given a commitment and I will reaffirm it here now, that we will look at references in this Bill and section to biodiversity to see if we need to strengthen them. If we do need to strengthen the wording around that definition, we will do so. Yet, Deputies will understand the balance between what is appropriate in primary legislation versus what is appropriate as that moves down the hierarchy of our planning system, right the way down to written statements at a local authority level. We are looking at this piece. As the amendment currently stands, I am not in a position to accept it but I have given the commitment to look at this area in respect of biodiversity and, as Deputies will recall, to references to climate in the Bill. We are working through that now to see if there are areas that we believe need to be further strengthened or redefined or if additions need to be made to the definitions. The officials and I are doing that. We will come back on Report Stage with that.
I am not in a position to so right now but I am happy to listen to the rationale. The Deputies will understand that this is a matter of what level we go to in setting out the various areas in primary legislation. There are broader definitions, such as ecology and water resources. Section 19(3)(d)(iv) refers to archaeological, historic, historic architectural and natural heritage, which covers that very well. Deputy O’Callaghan has a different view. Where do you stop, basically?
Deputy Duffy has just come in. We are discussing amendments Nos. 149 to 151, inclusive, together. They all seek to do the same thing, namely, to expand the wording around environmental protection to include the necessity for enhancement of restoration. The Minister spoke to that.
The Minister read out the wording of our amendment, which was “archaeological, historic, architectural natural heritage”. He stated that it covers it very well, and I agree. That is our amendment and our wording that the Minister read out and said it covers it very well.
No, 19(3)(d)(iv) in the Bill refers to archaeological, architectural and natural heritage. That covers it very well, i mo thuairim, but I did say that we would look it and I stated that already.
I was welcoming that the Minister was agreeing that our wording was very good.
I have not agreed to anything. Well done, if you drafted and worded it yourself, Cian. I think is a fantastic job.
Being serious, I get the point that the Deputies are trying to make here around the biodiversity and aspects of the Bill, which are very important. We want to make sure they are right. I have given the commitment as well to look at that in advance to see where we can strengthen it. I should have referred to the Bill itself. Our definition, which I brought forward, already covers what the Deputies want but I am open to looking at whether it can be strengthened further.
Take, for argument’s sake, the example of hedgerows. I put in the word “landscape”, but the Deputies have proposed “landscape features”. What does that encompass? What is the definition of that, including hedgerows? Are hedgerows an example of a landscape feature? Is it many other things?
Are drumlins and so on included? To what level do we want to go? We will not be able to cover everything. There is no purpose in having a broader definition if we are prescriptive and try to cover every single thing within it. It is understood within the definition in the Bill that all these things are included.
One of the reasons hedgerows are specifically named is that they have huge significance in terms of biodiversity and protecting land and agriculture.
We could name many other things of which the same is true. However, I agree with the Deputy on that point.
They have huge significance for wildlife and habitats. We see the devastation caused in other countries when they removed some of their landscape features, including hedgerows. That has had hugely devastating environmental consequences, as well as economic consequences for people working on the land. The significance of hedgerows in our landscape cannot be overstated. It is highly appropriate to have them listed in the legislation. In addition, water resources, which play a very important role, are not specifically mentioned. That is an omission in the Bill. Water resources should be named. If the Minister is not minded to take the other suggestions on board, I ask him to consider for Report Stage the inclusion of a reference to water resources.
I have an amendment on that. I note Deputy Ó Cathasaigh has just submitted an excellent Private Members' motion on the protection of hedgerows. We might see that debated in the House in whatever time is remaining to us.
The idea that any amendment to the definitions of biodiversity addresses what is already there is the point of the amendment. Definitions provide clarity in terms of what runs throughout the Bill. This section deals specifically with the national planning framework. It sets out and explicitly names the matters the framework has to take into account. If something is really important and we want to make sure it is taken into account, it must be named. To answer the Minister's question as to how detailed we want to go, we want to go as detailed as what is in our amendments and not beyond that.
I will go through the reasons we have included what we have in these amendments. Hedgerows are integral to biodiversity. They have been the subject of significant controversy both in legislation in the previous Oireachtas and in the wider environment. Therefore, there is a real need to name them, including both traditional historic esker hedgerows and, more generally, hedgerows that are vital to birdlife and others. That is the specific reason we have mentioned hedgerows and not other features such as drumlins. Those other features have not been at the centre of the same level of controversy around biodiversity loss.
Deputy O'Callaghan has made the point very well regarding water resources. It is a very important point. Paragraph (d)(v) in our amendment No. 148 goes beyond the list and refers to "metrics and criteria for evaluating these elements of the environments". That is also very important.
I have three amendments in this grouping that are related to this particular subsection. The amendments work on the assumption that if the Minister will not support amendment No. 148, he might at least consider these other proposals. Section 19(3)(d) refers to "conservation of the environment". My amendment No. 150 seeks to include "and restoration" after "conservation". As we know, it is not just about conserving what we have. It is also about restoring and recapturing biodiversity loss, environmental loss, etc. Conservation and restoration are not the same thing. There really is a need to include it as an explicit requirement that NPFs look at restoration of the environment and its amenities as well as their conservation.
My amendment No. 152 relates to section 19(3)(d)(iv), which references "archaeological, architectural and natural heritage". This provision is completely blind to cultural and linguistic heritage, a reference to which we are proposing to include in the subsection. It absolutely should be included.
Amendment No. 154 proposes to insert the following in section 19(3):
(e) promotion of sustainable development consistent with a focus on improving human health and well-being and the establishment of metrics and criteria for evaluating these considerations and monitoring them within the life of the plan.
Far too often, our experience of plans, whether under the existing planning framework or our own experience of development plans and area plans, is that there can be general references to something without actually saying how it will be counted and assessed and how we can ensure, over the lifetime of the plan, that the objectives, whether high-level strategic or more detailed policy requirements, are adequately adhered to. That is the rationale behind amendment No. 154.
The argument for amendment No. 148 is very compelling in providing clarity of definitions. Amendment No. 150 seeks to include a reference to restoration alongside conservation. Amendment No. 152 would insert a reference to cultural and linguistic heritage alongside archaeological, architectural and natural heritage. Amendment No. 154 is a catch-all in terms of linking environment, sustainable development and public health along with metrics to monitor and ensure there is adherence to the objectives during the lifetime of a plan. These are very strong amendments and I urge the Minister to reconsider his position on them.
I would like to comment briefly on amendments Nos. 150 and 154.
Yes, after which I will bring in Deputy Duffy on amendment No. 149. All these amendments are closely aligned.
Deputy Duffy's amendment No. 149 certainly is a good amendment as well. The addition of the two words "and restoration" in our amendment No. 150 is highly significant. Yes, conservation is important but it is of critical importance as well that we restore what we have lost. Including those two words would significantly strengthen the section. In general and not just in this Bill, our thinking around biodiversity, habitats and everything we are doing around planning is not just about conserving things; it is also about doing restoration where we can. That is very important.
The reference in amendment No. 154 to the "promotion of sustainable development consistent with a focus on improving human health and well-being" is a very important way for impacts to be measured, as the amendment sets out, but also for plans to be framed. Aligning sustainable development with its impact on human health and well-being is very important. In my role as a public representative, I am very conscious that in different parts of my constituency, some people have better access than others to spaces and amenities that are good for well-being. These issues have impacts on people's health and well-being. A consideration of that should be absolutely central to everything we do. Good planning is about ensuring there is consideration in how things are planned and designed of the need for sustainable development and the impact on people's health and well-being. That is absolutely critical. Open spaces, amenities, planting landscapes and biodiversity in local neighbourhoods all have an impact and are very important.
Deputy Duffy may come in now on amendment No. 149, after which I will ask the Minister to respond on this grouping. In fact, Deputy Boyd Barrett has indicated as well. He may come in after Deputy Duffy.
My amendment proposes the inclusion of one word, "enhancement", which is something we, as a State, are already doing. We enhance our landscape, ecology and biodiversity through reforestation, wetting of bogs, etc. In the case of any architectural building or heritage, the State affords itself or the owner of the building the capacity to enhance it. That is not conservation, which is a limiting thing that is about stopping changes. It is a regressive move in that it limits the maker of the planning framework. It is just about conserving, with no capacity to enhance. It is about keeping as is rather than what we are already doing, which is enhancing under all of these subheadings, including landscape, ecology, biodiversity and our natural and architectural heritage. We already enhance those things. There is no reason the word "enhancement" cannot be included.
Amendment No. 154 is a good amendment in its reference to "promotion of sustainable development consistent with a focus on improving human health and well-being and the establishment of metrics and criteria for evaluating these considerations".
I will give the Minister one example that is pertinent and becoming very apparent all over the place. Although development is increasing, there is a massive deficit of sports facilities. One of the huge pluses is that we have loads more women involved in sport such as soccer, rugby and all the rest of it. That is a big plus. What it has revealed, however, is an incredible deficit in sports facilities and sports pitches for the huge increase of people who are now participating in sport, particularly the dramatic increase in women participating. The changing facilities were bad enough when they were for men only, but now when women need proper facilities as well, it reveals a huge deficit. That is just one area where these sorts of things have to be considered in a serious and detailed way to make sure we have those kinds of amenities that promote human health and well-being. It is not just about houses, as much as we need them. It has to be about all the other things that need to go with that development.
I thank Deputies for their contributions. I will try to cover them as best I can. I will start at the beginning with regard to the restoration. I have already addressed what we are doing on the biodiversity front. I am not going to repeat that; we will come back to it.
The amendments around the national planning framework, NPF, requirement regarding conservation of the environment and its amenities include the term "restoration" in addition to conservation. It is my view at the moment that the Bill is appropriately worded. To require restoration in the context of conservation objectives as an overriding requirement would from a practical aspect potentially create significant difficulties, for example, to what level restoration would be and from what baseline this would be measured. I recognise absolutely the need for nature restoration. I have been extremely supportive of measures seeking to achieve that aim, as has this Government. Another thing to consider, and it is timely we are discussing this now, is the need for a nature restoration plan that will emerge following the adoption of the nature restoration law at European level. That will have a very significant impact too. Therefore, I think we are all coming at this from the same angle.
Practical implementation of the policy objectives is very important. We have to consider carefully and effectively evaluate a wide range of legitimate considerations, especially in the context of maintaining the capacity of the planning system. One does not necessarily trump another. Deputy Boyd Barrett made the point very well that house building is expanding. That momentum is building to make sure we are on track. I will get to amendment No. 154 in a minute, but it is kind of related in terms of that open space requirement and design. All those things have to be balanced with the natural environment and natural landscape that is already there when a development is taking place. Therefore, we have to be able to balance that.
I will address amendment No. 154, in particular, and get back to amendment No. 152, which was tabled by Deputy Ó Broin and others. Deputies will be aware that we published the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities. I believe that is a significant upgrade as well. Within that, obviously, we have covered private open spaces for houses, public open spaces and all those things as to how we can create better developments with high densities in many areas but ensuring we have those types of facilities that are needed, such as sporting facilities and other things. For argument's sake, I was in Tallaght Stadium last night watching the Irish ladies' team. We can fill a stadium now for Irish ladies' soccer, GAA, rugby and all of that, which is fantastic. We want that inclusivity in sport. I put it to the Deputy that the national facilities have really expanded. There is work to be done on the ground within local authority areas for general sporting facilities but also for passive recreation for those who are not involved in organised sports. Indeed, we do that pretty well as a country. We can always strive to improve that. That has been further updated in the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities that were issued to all planning authorities in January of this year.
I mention that in the context of amendment No. 154 as well, which Deputies Ó Broin, Boyd Barrett, O'Callaghan and others have tabled. That seeks to amend the subset, which the Deputy has outlined, setting out the matters in respect of which revisions must be made in the NPF for adding a matter of "promotion of sustainable development consistent with a focus on improving human health and well-being and the establishment ... [etc.]". It should be noted there are a wide range of measures that relate to well-being and health matters that lie outside the remit of planning. We have discussed some of them, and they do. With respect to measures to improve the built environment and support improved health and well-being in the community, however, I am of the view that such measures can be most practically achieved through guidance. I have just referenced what we have done. The guidelines have been very well received by local authorities, the development sector and the planning sector. There was wide public consultation on that as well. I believe it really strikes that balance we need. There is a core objective to maintain the capacity of the planning system. Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned earlier about capacity within a sector and being aware of that. There is a core objective to maintain the capacity of the planning system to effectively and appropriately evaluate the wide range of legitimate considerations that need to be balanced in pursuance of its function of facilitating proper planning and sustainable development.
As I mentioned to Deputy Boyd Barrett and others, it is about striking that balance at a planning level, be that the plan-led approach under the county development plans and ensuring they are affirmed through planning decisions. As it stands right now, with those amendments as tabled to which I referred, recognising that fact that I am coming back to look at strengthening references on biodiversity and climate, I genuinely do not share the concern that the objective of the built environment should seek to improve public health or at least mitigate negatively affecting it. I will undertake to consider if it is possible to reflect further on Report Stage the overall sentiment of the amendment as I understand it. I cannot accept the amendment as it is currently worded. As I said, I share some of the concerns Deputies have put forward. I will see if there is anything we can do with regard to the wording within it to strengthen it.
One thing I did not respond to earlier was when Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned water resources. That is a valid point. It is something I will look at in the list of those category areas. That is on page 61 under paragraph (d). Separate to the biodiversity piece, which we are going to strengthen anyway, I will look at the water resources piece.
I thank the Minister. Amendment No. 153 is kind of close to that but we have not reached it yet.
I welcome that the Minister will look at water resources and potentially list that on Report Stage. That would be useful.
On amendment No. 154, again, the Minister has indicated that he is going to be looking at this. He said these issues can be achieved through guidance and made reference to the guidance that has been issued. To complement the guidance that has been issued, however, it would be much better to have the wording in the Bill as well. What we are doing now is looking at the Bill and the legislation. We are not looking at the guidance that has been issued. If it were in this Bill as well, it would strengthen that. It has been a gap in our planning legislation that there has not been reference to how good, sustainable development can contribute to human health and well-being. When the previous legislation was done 25 years ago, was well-being even talked about as much? It probably was not talked about or recognised. Given that this Bill is meant to be here for the next 20 or 25 years, well-being certainly should fit into it.
On amendment No. 150, the Minister has made the case that with restoration, there would be challenges in respect of practical implementation and baseline capacity of the planning system, and they are valid points. Our wording is not prescriptive on any of those matters but if restoration does not make it into the Bill, those challenges are not necessarily going to be met, although they might be met further down the line in how the EU nature restoration law is implemented and so forth. Again, this Bill is for the next 20 to 25 years and not to have restoration in it would be a massive omission. There will be work to be done after on implementation, addressing capacity and competing objectives. However, the Minister said that one objective does not necessarily trump another and we need to do all of those. That is why we need to include “restoration” in the Bill and in the wording of this section because if it does not get in, we are not even in the space of looking at baselines and so forth.
I have a final comment on these amendments. The argument the Minister makes against amendment No. 150 and the level of restoration could just as easily be applied to conservation. The legislation does not set out to what level this applies or set out what is to be conserved. It just places an obligation, in this instance on the Minister, the Department and the Government, when producing a national planning framework to take conservation into account, and it lists some objectives. It is completely sensible to put “restoration” there as well. It is a matter for the NPF, as it is then being developed by the Government in consultation with the various bodies that it consults with, to work out what that looks like in terms of implementation and practicality, but if it is not mentioned there, it will not be in the NPF, and that is the real problem.
It is similar, for example, with the capacity to evaluate. We had this with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, the other day. We had an amendment and the Minister of State said that it might be very difficult to actually do that, given the resource limitations on the planning system and, of course, he is right. However, we could make that claim about almost all of the new innovations of the Bill. This Bill, in and of itself, puts very significant additional requirements, including some very good requirements and other very problematic requirements, on our planning authorities. I have acknowledged the fact there has been a limited number of the staffing sanction for local authorities that the Minister had announced, and it is only approximately 100 of the 500 that were said to be needed a year and a half ago, and not the additional number. In arguing that with respect to amendment No. 154, we need to be careful not to overburden the capacity of our planning authorities.
We are doing that with this Bill. The entire Bill is doing that in terms of its new innovations. Unless the Minister is able to tell us there is now a multi-annual workforce plan agreed with Departments of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform and Finance to step-by-step take us through all of the additional requirements that this Bill is going to place on the planning authorities, arguing against an amendment purely on the basis of the capacity challenges could be used against the Bill itself and, in fact, it may be an argument some of us use against sections of the Bill because there is not the capacity to deal with them.
I am not asking the Minister to repeat himself. I just need to hear the counterarguments to both of those amendments.
On conservation, I am surprised the Minister would not accept that and I do not really get the point about where does it end. There has been a step change in the recognition that it is not just about preventing the further destruction of biodiversity and the environment, but that we have to proactively restore nature. Young people get that very strongly. We should be proactive in putting it in the Bill to create that sort of imperative. I am surprised, in a way. On one level, the Minister might say it is just a word, but it is actually about getting it in here, in the same way that climate change has become a thing that people acknowledge. Now, we have to push on and say it is not just about climate change but also about biodiversity, which is every bit as important. It is not just following the logic of that same kind of thinking and not just about conserving and preventing further destruction of the environment, but about restoring and having natural regeneration of our environment. It is a good idea.
As a concrete example, a friend of mine has just passed away tragically. Approximately 15 years ago, he was giving out to me about the cutting of the grass and hedgerows on his estate, which is a council estate in Shankill, saying this was absolutely destroying the birds and the bees. He was a person who looked after birds and all of that kind of thing; he was mad into nature. He said that what we needed were urban meadows. Up until then, I had never heard of them and I recall going to the council and saying that a friend of mine was talking about urban meadows and asking whether there any chance we would try them. It was like I had two heads. They did not know what I was talking about and, frankly, I did not know what I was talking about, but he did.
The thing about it is that urban meadows are now everywhere. They have become mainstream but it has taken 15 years, whereas some people were way ahead of the game in saying this is the way we needed to go. There has been an absolute step change and we need to codify that in the legislation. It would be very reasonable to put it in.
It is a national planning framework and there are six provisions that the framework maker has to make. Five of the six are as follows: the identification of strategic development, which is expansion; indication of national infrastructure, which is expansion; the promotion of sustainable settlements, which is expansion; land-sea co-ordination and development, which is expansion; and the designation of regional growth centres, which is expansion. The only one that is based on the environment is conservation, which means that if the Bill lasts 20 years, we will stand still regarding the environment and not enhance that as well as the other five. Something should, therefore, go in there.
I thank members. On Deputy Duffy's point, I do not think we can speak in isolation on the nature restoration law because a national nature restoration plan will flow from that. That is going to be very exacting, by the way. My Department has interacted on that and I am not sure that people understand the import of it. It is needed. There has been a lot of political debate on it and there have been some political divisions on it, even within parties. This will be a very significant change.
Deputy Boyd Barrett is correct. I recall when the urban meadows came to Fingal, at first, people complained about them, left, right and centre, but they are now the norm. That shows what the local authorities have done, to be fair, notwithstanding the case of his friend, whom I am sorry to hear about. Many people who advocated for them and they have come into the mainstream.
What I am saying, in particular around biodiversity, is that I have given a commitment. I am not sure if Deputy Boyd Barrett was present earlier when I mentioned that. It is about looking to strengthen those definitions within the Bill, and I am going to do that because it is very important. This Bill will be an Act and it will be our guide for at least the next 25 years, I would expect. Will it be open to amendment over that period? Yes, it will. The new nature restoration law and what flows from that, not just the objectives but, effectively, the priorities of our State, as a member of the European Union, in bringing about nature restoration, are going to be very important. I have no doubt the drafting of a nature restoration plan for Ireland will be binding and will be challenging for some communities. That speaks to what I am saying about the practical implementation, which is very important.
As it stands, and I am not going to go over old ground, I am not accepting the amendments as they are drafted today. I have said with regard to water resources that I will look at that and we will strengthen, where appropriate, the biodiversity definition or how that is reflected within the Bill.
On the amendment on well-being and the built environment, I understand the point that is being made and I share some of the Deputies’ concerns about the objective that the built environment should seek to improve public health or, at the very least, mitigate against negative impacts. We are doing that in many of our new developments and it can be seen on the ground; we are absolutely doing that.
One of the challenges has been retrofitting into existing communities that may have been planned badly, to ensure the resources and amenities are also available to them. I will leave it at that.
The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, committed when he was here to examining all those aspects, especially as the national biodiversity action plan is now on a statutory footing. It was not when the legislation was being drafted. Reference was made to the circumstances 20 years ago. The Minister of State is somebody who walked the lonely path for many years when nobody was talking about nature protection. We see the improvements that have come with what has been done. Therefore, I have confidence.
The Minister has spoken in support of nature restoration.
I have always supported nature restoration, and so has the Government.
Absolutely, so it logically follows that the Bill should reflect that and state "conservation and restoration of the environment and its amenities".
Ní féidir liom an leasú seo a ghlacadh. I have said that already. I said that we would have a national plan that would flow from the nature restoration law, which is very important, but I will come back on Report Stage to further strengthen definitions concerning biodiversity. We have discussed this at length and I cannot be clearer. I am not accepting the proposal as it stands but I understand the points made.
I propose that amendment No. 161, in the names of Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh and McAuliffe, and amendment No. 162, in the name of Deputy McAuliffe, be discussed together. We have covered them to some extent.
We have had the substantive debate, so I am going to ask just one question. I am aware that the Minister was present listening to the dialogue. Given that he is the lead Minister and is undertaking the lead review of the NPF, the HNDA and the targets underpinning his own housing plan, I am interested in hearing whether he has anything to add on the timeframe related to the census. Could he hear the logic of the arguments we were making? Particularly since we are likely to have significant economic growth, demographic change and inward migration for a variety of reasons, many of which are extremely positive, or unmet pent-up demand that is not dealt with by the census or HNDA, could the Minister consider moving away from an outer limit of ten to 12 years and a general provision specifying a review can take place at any time to a more specific provision requiring a more timely review after each census, particularly of the population targets underpinning the NPF? For very legitimate reasons, the CSO takes two years or more to publish data on a census. As the Minister knows, there are significant lags concerning the fundamentals of an NPF and the HNDA, affecting the Minister's housing targets, local authority land zoning, and local authority housing targets. Therefore, there is a rationale to having a shorter review period. Does the Minister see the logic in that?
I am not going to go over it. I did-----
Yes, but I am interested in hearing the Minister's view on it.
I did listen with interest to the debate. One of the facts that was not overlooked but that was not accorded the importance it deserved was that a review can be instigated at any time. That is important. We have seen really significant growth since the last census, in 2022. There was a delay in the full publication of the data because of Covid. The Deputy made a point that I actually agreed with when in opposition and that I now agree with in government, namely that what we started with in 2016 was too conservative. That speaks to a discussion we had last week on allowing flexibility regarding headroom for development based on seeing new populations coming in, even within an NPF. We discussed at length last week the view that the ceiling should not be seen as arbitrary, so a planning authority could have the flexibility to make decisions on the grounds of, God forbid, something like another Ukraine war. One very serious event on the Continent has increased our population by between 80,000 and 100,000 people. It depends on the number of people who go home.
With regard to the timeframe, it takes time to prepare the final census data. Tying the timeframe for reviewing the NPF to the occurrence of the census rather than the publication of the census results may result in an inadequate period in which to review the data. I understood the point the Deputy was making. I do not believe we are going back 12 years. At worst, one could argue that at the end of a ten-year NPF plan, one could be looking back 12 years. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, dealt really well with the operation of the development plans. What we will be dealing with in this regard is the extension of the development plan cycle to have much more forward thinking. I am referring to a ten-year development plan with a proper mid-term review. Any government worth its salt that is witnessing the population increase should regard the NPF as very important. It is not produced in isolation. We also have the census data, the ESRI input and the Housing Commission input. It is a matter of looking into how the first NPF, dating from 2016, used the data, even through examining house sizes. House sizes have changed since 2016. The size per number of people has changed. We will now have a much better base to start with. I do not believe we will be using data that could be 12 years old. In this regard, I understood the Deputy's earlier point. I genuinely believe future Governments will revise on the basis of further population growth, as is permitted. A local authority can do that. We are strengthening within the legislation local members' input in respect of how they can initiate changes to their own area development plans. The discussion we had last week or the week before about the HNDAs and, more important, the housing supply targets within each area, in addition to the flexibility allowed within each local authority, is relevant to this discussion. I did listen with interest, so I am going to reflect on the matter further.
Would the Deputies mind if we moved away from this because we did discuss it in detail?
I have two very small points. I am not going to repeat anything and am not looking for the Minister's reply. All I ask is that he do two things when considering the matter. In fairness, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, made it very clear that a review can happen at any time, but I believe that if there is something significant in a census, there should be some provision for less discretion and for triggering something. Second, the Minister should also consider how pent-up demand or unmet demand is dealt with in the context of the NPF review, because it is not captured in the census. That is one of the weaknesses of the current one. I add these points for the Minister's consideration.
Has the Deputy covered enough? Amendment No. 161 concerns the change from two years to one year.
That was discussed earlier.
Great. Amendment No. 166 may now be discussed.
This is on prescribed bodies. In the 2000 Act, the matter is not left to the discretion of the Minister. The Act clearly specifies prescribed bodies as part of the procedure for reviewing the NPF. With regard to consultation, the Bill, in section 21, specifies Members of the Oireachtas, regional assemblies, local authorities, the commission, the Office of the Planning Regulator, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, members of the public, any Department or body in Northern Ireland having responsibility for regional development, and such other persons or public bodies as the Minister considers appropriate. The Minister is given discretion. The legislation does not list prescribed bodies and is not specific. What is the rationale for the change concerning discretion?
The SEA directive is clearly relevant here. It obliges states to designate the authorities to be consulted. Article 6, for example, states, "Member States shall designate the authorities to be consulted which, by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes."
There is no provision for that here; it is just discretionary. Why is it discretionary? Why not include prescribed bodies? What is the rationale for making it discretionary and giving more power and discretion to the Minister?
I will be very brief because Deputy O'Callaghan has set it out very well. I was actually surprised by this and thought it was just an accidental omission or error. Indeed, I presume it is such and am quite hopeful, therefore, that the Minister will accept the amendment. If it is a deliberate change, I am really interested to know the rationale for it for all of the reasons Deputy O'Callaghan has set out.
Amendment No. 166, as Deputy O'Callaghan outlined, seeks to add "prescribed bodies" to the list of those bodies in respect of which the Minister must put in place arrangements for consulting with as part of the public consultation on the review of the NPF. It is my clear view that there is sufficient capacity for effective consultation arrangements in the Bill as drafted. Indeed, it happens already. My Department engages in significant consultation programmes to gather a wide range of views and continues to engage in extensive consultation through such fora as the Planning Advisory Forum, for example. The need for consultation is acknowledged but there needs to be practical flexibility to the type and format of such consultation. Section 21(2)(j), which refers to "such other persons or public bodies as the Minister considers appropriate", is, in itself, more than appropriate. It ensures that consultation takes place and there is flexibility as to the type and format of same. Furthermore, in the context of Deputy O'Callaghan's point regarding environmental considerations, subsection (3) states very clearly: "The National Planning Framework shall be subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (and Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations) and the Habitats Directive." It is for these reasons that I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 166.
That does not make a lot of sense. If that was actually the case, then the Bill would not list any organisations and would just have a general provision. However, a decision was taken to include some organisations and then have a general provision to give the Minister discretion. Clearly, the ones that are listed are more important in the sense that they always have to be included and then if the Minister or his successor wants to add others, he or she can choose to do so. The way in which this section is set out is that it says that specific organisations absolutely have to be consulted. In terms of the wider consultation, I complimented Mr. Niall Cousins and his team and his predecessor, for example, for the NPF because there was extensive consultation. The Minister was not here when we had and re-fought the battle over why there was not a vote at the end of it but we can deal with that when we get to section 20. I will not repeat that argument now. The question is why the Bill would not have "prescribed bodies" in the list of those who have to be consulted. Prescribed bodies are different because they are prescribed and there is a really compelling argument as to why they should be included here. They are of a different nature; that is their legislative positioning in all of this.
Obviously, I do not want the Minister to be restrictive. I want him to consult as widely as possible but there is nothing in what he has said that explains why a deliberate decision was taken, when listing the agencies that have to be consulted, to exclude prescribed bodies. That is why I am really interested to know why they are not in the list. If the Minister's general position is that all of these consultations will be fine on the day and he will look after it, he would not list any body. Clearly, a decision has been taken to list some and there is a really strong argument for prescribed body to be listed.
Unlike a previous discussion in this regard where the only bodies listed were statutory bodies, this list also includes members of the public. Therefore, this is a more expansive list which is all the more reason to specify prescribed bodies in the subsections to section 21(2).
I am a signatory to this amendment as well. I find it both odd and inconsistent that we have those one would expect to be included in a public consultation like members of the Oireachtas, regional assemblies, local authorities, the Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority but then the section also includes members of the public. Why not include "prescribed bodies"? Why not consult with bodies like An Taisce and the Arts Council? I do not have the full list but why not consult with bodies that would have a remit which would add to the expertise necessary to identify the key things the Minister needs in setting out the planning framework? It is an odd omission in the middle. I honestly do not know why the Minister would not want to include them. The Minister might say that he does that anyway, and he might well do, but somebody else might not. He is probably about to say that he does that anyway-----
Yes, I do consult-----
I do not know why he would not put it on a statutory footing.
The Minister answered my point about compliance with the strategic environmental assessment, SEA, directive by saying that section 21(3) states that the national planning framework shall be subject to the directive and the regulations but Article 6 (3) of the SEA directive which deals with consultation specifically says that "Member States shall designate the authorities to be consulted which, by reason of their specific environmental responsibilities, are likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes.". How is that covered under the list in section 21(2)? Would prescribed bodies not assist in that? Why are prescribed bodies omitted from the list? Is it the Minister's view that the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, in section 21(2)(f) is the extent of what is needed to cover Article 6(3) of the SEA directive? That is not sufficient but if that is his view, he might state that clearly.
I spoke earlier about allowing flexibility in the type and format of consultation that any Minister would have. All of the ones that are listed, with the exception of "members of the public" - which is everybody - are State bodies. The list includes members of the Oireachtas, regional assemblies and so on, as well as members of the public and that distinction is made there. The prescribed bodies would be detailed in the regulations and that is the appropriate place for them to be. We had a similar discussion when we were talking about Gaeltacht planning and the fact that new organisations come onto the pitch and are established for various different purposes and they should not be precluded, under primary legislation, from being consulted with. The best place for this is within the regulations themselves. Oireachtas Members are elected by the public. The regional assemblies, local authorities, the commission and so on, are listed, as well as members of the public. The list catches everyone. There is also reference to any Department or body in Northern Ireland with responsibility for regional development and then "such other persons or public bodies as the Minister considers appropriate" and these will be detailed in the regulations. That is the right place for them because the regulations can be added to.
Regarding Deputy O' Callaghan's point on Article 6, that is dealt with under the environmental regulations. I am not accepting this amendment for the reasons I have outlined.
I have a question. I am looking at the list of prescribed bodies. Can the Minister imagine a review of the NPF that would not consult prescribed bodies, given who they are? Can he imagine any set of circumstances where they would not be consulted?
No, I cannot but I would imagine there could be other bodies that would come on. That is what I am saying. To answer the Deputy's question, I am actually----
I have not finished the question.
I thought the Deputy had finished it because it was quite concise.
Deputy, please finish your question and then I will go to Deputy O'Callaghan.
Go ahead.
It would be quicker without the interruptions from the Minister. I am looking at the list here. It is a very short list. They all have very significant interests in an NPF review.
Obviously, you cannot list every organisation and, therefore, you will need that general provision. Given that there will not be an NPF review that will not consult these bodies, why not name them? There is obviously a reason they are not being named.
I answered that.
You did not.
I did. The appropriate place for this is in the regulations. Is there any case or circumstance in which they are not consulted as part of the NPF? They are consulted. If a new body enters that field - and we discussed this same principle when we were discussing Gaeltacht planning - there will be the ability to designate that entity in regulation. I do not think it is the appropriate-----
They are already prescribed. They are different from the-----
I refer to listing them in the regulation. That is what I am saying.
That is not the proposal. The proposal is not to list them here. The amendment does not list them.
I know. It refers to "prescribed bodies".
Yes.
Yes, it does. I have already answered this. I stated that I think we need to allow flexibility as to who is consulted at various times, depending on the type and format of the consultation that takes place. I am not in favour of including "prescribed bodies". I know the Deputy is not asking that the prescribed bodies be listed in the Bill. This is very well covered already in this section. A number of Deputies read out what is detailed in it so I will not do so again. The section is so broad that it catches everything, and rightly so. All the consultation we have done heretofore has borne that out.
I have no more questions but I think that is bizarre.
I call Deputy Boyd Barrett, who will be followed by Deputy Ó Callaghan.
Chair, I am aware of the time.
Yes, I will finish the discussion on amendment No. 166.
Our amendment does not exclude the addition of new bodies. To be clear, the Minister has said he is not accepting this amendment because he does not want to exclude other new bodies. Our amendment does not exclude new bodies from being listed in regulations. The Minister's wording excludes a requirement to consult the prescribed bodies that are listed. I looked at the same list and I noticed the Heritage Council, for example. Why would the Minister not be required, as part of developing a national planning framework, to consult the Heritage Council?
We do.
I know that but he is not required to do so by legislation, so he could choose not to consult it.
The Deputies propose the inclusion of "prescribed bodies" here. If we were to take that amendment and put that term in the list, one could argue that it means the "prescribed bodies", as they stand today or on the day-----
Other provisions allow the Minister to add to that.
No, the regulations are the best place for this.
It makes no sense.
It makes eminent sense.
The term "prescribed bodies" is just a category.
If more prescribed bodies are added in the regulations, they will be included.
Yes, they would be included in the regulations, which is the right place for this.
The Minister would not be required to consult them.
People should look at how this is detailed in the Bill as published. To say that would exclude anyone from a consultation is incorrect.
No, I did not say that.
That is the substance-----
It excludes the Minister----
-----of what the Deputy is saying and that is not the case, as everyone knows.
It makes an exclusion possible, if the Minister chooses not to do this.
Yes, it does.
I know the Deputies are not satisfied and they believe this should be included. We can deal with that when we come to disposing of amendment No. 166. We have completed our discussion of the amendment. I propose that we commence our discussions on amendment No. 168 when we reconvene. We had agreed to finish the meeting at 5 p.m. I will adjourn the select committee until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 29 February, when we will be dealing with the Estimates between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. We will then reconvene again at 12 noon-----
Chair, you are on the wrong day.
I am on the wrong week, am I? Am I in the right building?
We will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. here to continue. You are a week ahead of yourself.
Okay. We will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. to resume our discussion of the Bill.
Yes. We will meet for the entire day.
Great. I look forward to it, as I am sure everyone else does too. I thank the Minister and his officials.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 5.04 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 29 February 2023.