Welcome back to the Select Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where we continue with Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and his officials.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 2
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 34, line 16, to delete “ “Planning Commissioners” ” and substitute “ “Coimisinéirí Pleanála” ”.
I with withdraw it but reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 34, line 17, to delete “ “Planning Regulator” ” and substitute “ “Rialálaí Pleanála” ”.
As with No. 22, I reserve the right to reintroduce amendment No. 23.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 35, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“ “reserved function” has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 2001;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 35, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“ “retention permission” means permission for retention of development that, immediately before the grant of such permission, was unauthorised development;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 35, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“ “retrospective consent” means retention permission for development in respect of which an appropriate assessment or an environmental impact assessment is required;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 35, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“ “share” means share in the share capital of a company, and includes stock;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Deputy Flaherty is not present to move amendment No. 28 but as I recall from the discussion, he was happy with the description given.
Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 35, line 32, after “water” to insert “and wastewater services”.
My amendment is similar to Deputy Flaherty's. I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
A very large number of amendments are grouped. Amendments Nos. 30, 307 to 312, inclusive, 316, 317, 319, 322, 325, 326, 332, 341, 343, 347, 351, 352, 355 to 357, inclusive, 360, 368, 369, 371, 373, 380, 385 to 388, inclusive, 390, 391, 421, 423, 425, 428, 430, 431, 433, 434, 440, 441, 449, 451, 452, 468 to 470, inclusive, 472, 478, 479, 482, 483, 485, 486, 495 to 497, inclusive, 502, 503, 505, 506, 508, 509, 511, 512, 515, 516, 532, 533, 536, 537, 540, 541, 544, 545, 548 to 551, inclusive, 554 to 557, inclusive, 559, 560, 562, 563, 565, 566, 568, 569, 894, 899, to 901, inclusive, 1129, 1130 and 1131 are grouped.
I ask the Minister if there is a logical grouping to go with this. We might proceed along that basis. If Deputy O'Callaghan wishes to speak to amendment No. 30, then we can go to that grouping.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 36, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“ “traditional Gaeltacht settlement patterns” means clusters of individual houses on the same road;”.
As the person moving the amendment, am I not allowed to speak to it?
The Deputy is allowed, of course. I just want to get some structure for how we will deal with such a large grouping.
Sure. I will come back in on my other amendments in this grouping.
We can go through every one of these amendments.
I have grouped my amendments into about six similar subgroups. That would make it much more manageable. Amendment No. 30 is for the purposes of definition. It relates to the issue of the threat the language is under in Gaeltacht areas due to planning failures, with Irish-language speakers not being able to find somewhere to live in their Gaeltacht communities, which is very serious. Yesterday, I went through the example of a physiotherapist who speaks the language in a Gaeltacht area and got a job in the local medical centre in the Gaeltacht area with a much-needed skill in that area. I am using the example of Adhna Ní Bhraonáin in An Spidéal. She ended up living out of a van, not being able to prepare food or to take showers. It was incredibly frustrating for her. This is absolutely a planning issue. She stated:
I looked online to see if there was anything available to rent. There was nothing. There were hundreds of Airbnbs but no one willing to provide a place for long-term rental.
She went on to say it was really galling to see houses advertised for sale in that area but clearly being pitched as holiday homes. She stated:
That was infuriating. People with heaps of money who just want holiday homes should not be able to just come in and buy them.
That was while someone with skills in the area was not able to buy them.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to work that was done showing the prevalence of holiday homes, many of which are empty for much of the year in some of these Gaeltacht areas. In Galway, in Binn an Choire, 39% of houses are holiday homes. It is a planning failure to have empty homes for much of the year and not have housing available for Irish-language speakers in Gaeltacht areas. In Cloch na Rón, 48% of homes are holiday homes. In Dooega, County Mayo, 43% of homes are holiday homes, many of which are empty for most of the year. In Gaoth Dobhair, County Donegal, 57% of homes are holiday homes while in Ros Goill, 58% are holiday homes. In Kerry, in Baile an Sceilg, an area I know well, 55% of the homes are holiday homes. In Cathair Dónall, 58% are holiday homes while in Doire Fhíonáin, 65% are holiday homes. As I said before, some of those holiday homes would have Irish-language speakers in them, but many are English-language speakers. I do not advocate for a second to say one cannot have English-language speakers in Gaeltacht communities, or holiday homes or short-term lets, but this is an issue.
Planning failures have meant that people with the language in the Gaeltacht area are not able to get housing. This is undermining both the local community, since it is not able to get people with skills such as physiotherapists and so on to live in the community and the viability of these Gaeltacht areas. The Gaeltacht Act 2012 put forward much policy in this area. When we discussed previous amendments on this, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, put forward the case about the issuance of guidelines and how this would potentially resolve many of the issues that we are raising about Gaeltacht areas. I ask the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to tell us about this. We were promised more than two years ago that these guidelines would be out. We were told by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, that when they come out, they will be draft guidelines and will need to go through consultation. That is all fine but can the Minister tell us when these guidelines will be out?
Guidelines were issued by the Department in 2022 that make reference to mandatory objectives for Gaeltacht areas. Much of what is in this is quite strong but has not been followed strongly enough. We have a housing crisis and planning crisis in these communities, which is undermining their viability with regard to the language and our cultural and linguistic heritage. That is why there is a strong case for putting forward legislative provisions. Not only have the draft guidelines that have been promised for years not yet been issued, the guidelines that have been in place to date, even though they have some strength of language to them, have been insufficient. There is a strong case for having strong legislative provisions in this planning Bill to bring us into line with Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012.
As I said, I will return to my other amendments, but amendment No. 30 is for the purposes of definition.
I thank the Deputy. Does the Minister wish to respond?
An bhfuil éinne eile anois?
Is there a logical grouping? How do we want to try to progress this?
There is a broad subject here and there are specifics. I will do my level best to cover them all together. I can come in now. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta O’Callaghan as ucht an leasaithe. Ní féidir liom glacadh leis. Tá brón orm faoin sin. Níl ceist na tithíochta sa Ghaeltacht éasca ar chor ar bith. Tá na treoirlínte beagnach críochnaithe. Táim sásta go mbeidh siad os comhair an phobail mar thaispeántas roimh an Cháisc. Bhí mé ag caint leis an Teachta Ó Snodaigh faoi sin. Nílim sásta nach bhfuil sé déanta anois ach táim cinnte go mbeidh mé ábalta na treoirlínte a chur os comhair an phobail thart ar an Cháisc.
I cannot accept the amendment as it is. We have worked hard on the treoirlínte, the regulations, and I intend to put them out in draft form for public consultation. It is really important we consult our Gaeltacht communities too. I fully respect the thrust of the case the Deputy has put forward. Anyone who knows me knows I have, as we all do here, a particular interest in the Gaeltacht and making sure we can grow Gaeltacht communities, grow the language and protect the language. Not all of that is required in primary legislation. To make a general point, from talking to Gaeltacht communities, which I do regularly, like bhuail mé le Conradh na Gaeilge cheana agus beidh cruinniú agam Dé Luain seo chugainn le Bánú i gContae na Gaillimhe. I am meeting Bánú on Monday to discuss some matters with its members.
Primary legislation, in being very prescriptive as to what is needed, can in many instances have unintended consequences. Regulations are the way forward, because importantly, we will have to see how those regulations actually work. That is why I want to go out to the communities for public consultation on the regulations. I have given the Deputy a timeframe there. I expect it around Easter. Not all the work is concluded. Deputy Ó Snodaigh will know this too. There have been some complications with other Departments. I believe that is nearing completion now.
Let us take any of our Gaeltacht areas. If you take this instance, and any of our Gaeltacht areas where you have Irish speakers, ba mhaith liom an teanga a spreagadh sa Ghaeltacht freisin agus go mbeadh na daoine ábalta cónaí lena dteaghlaigh sa Ghaeltacht freisin. I want to see their families and those people able to live there. I am certain regulations are the better way. If we look at, say, the language test, which Deputy Ó Snodaigh will be aware of too, within Gaeltacht areas if we are very restrictive - I think it is covered already under the 2012 Act - that there will be families who are living in Gaeltacht regions who speak as Béarla and do not have any Gaeilge at all. Tying some elements within this into primary legislation might restrict them and their rights as well. I am confident the guidelines I am going to bring forward in draft form will help with this issue as well.
For the interest of the committee, on Report Stage I am looking to expand the priority area plans to include plans for our islands. I met Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann coicís ó shin, or a fortnight ago. I said I would do that and I will and I referred to that in a response to a Dáil question from an Teachta Ó Cuív. Within that, I intend to extend them to Gaeltacht areas in section 69. That would effectively mean we would have priority plans. Let us take doing a development plan for Galway for argument's sake. We have the islands with greatest population of any of our islands are the Aran Islands of Inis Meáin, Inis Mór and Inis Oírr. No separate plan is done for them within the County Galway development plan, so I will bring forward amendments on Report Stage to ensure there will be a specific plan for na hoileáin. We will do that by way of the priority area plans. I spoke to Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann about that. Not all those islands are Gaeltacht islands and it would affect all of them. The federation welcomed that very much. It is the way to go. I will then look to extend the priority area plans to include our Gaeltacht areas. Something I have found in the work I have done as a TD, a citizen, but also as Minister is one of the issues is there has not been enough consistency across the Gaeltacht areas about planning. Some local authorities deal with it differently than others. Discretion must be allowed because areas are different but this even relates to accessing services and those types of things. I am determined to effect positive change in this. We will do this through the guidelines, which as I said, will be done around Easter. They will go out on public display.
Another area I am looking at is - there is so much in this grouping and I will conclude on this - is the tithíocht ar phraghas réasúnta sa Ghaeltacht. Bhí mé ag caint leis an Teachta Ó Cathasaigh faoi sin. I want to be able to bring forward affordable housing schemes. There were discussions yesterday and I heard Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Broin talking about the creation of AHBs. There are AHBs in Gaeltacht areas. I have opened one in iar-oifig an phoist in Indreabhán. An AHB converted an old post office into four apartments there. There are others in Indreabhán that are active, but there will be nothing to stop Údarás na Gaeltachta or some body like that from becoming an AHB and I would welcome that. We are working on a piece of ground in An Rinn at the moment. I do not want to be too specific and I will conclude on this, but it is just by way of an example. Through the local authority and Údarás na Gaeltachta we will be able to provide the first affordable housing scheme in our Gaeltacht areas. Tá brón orm nach mbeidh mé ábalta glacadh leis an leasú seo but tuigim an fhadhb agus ba mhaith liom í sin a réiteach agus dul chun cinn a dhéanamh ar son ár ndaoine agus na cónaitheoirí sa Ghaeltacht freisin.
There is quite a lot in this section. It is a pity the Minister was not here yesterday when we were dealing with some-----
Bhí mé ag éisteacht.
No, it is just an pointe atá á dhéanamh agam ná go bhfuil an tAire tar éis rudaí a rá anois agus dá mba rud é go raibh sé anseo inné bheadh sé in ann iad a rá agus bheadh sé tar éis cuidiú leis an díospóireacht maidir le-----
Tuigim.
-----cad gur chóir a bheith sna pleananna forbartha. Tá sé tar éis a lua ansin – rud atá go maith – go bhfuil sé ag féachaint ar chinnte a dhéanamh de go mbeidh ceantair na n-oileáin, nó na hoileáin-----
Na hoileáin agus-----
-----cé nach oileáin iad a thuilleadh toisc go bhfuil siad ceangailte le droichid – mar réimse ar leith i bplean forbartha. Tá loighic leis. Tacaím leis seo ach is é sin an sórt ruda a bhí muid ag caint faoi inné, sé sin, gur chóir go mbeadh na ceantair Ghaeltachta ainmnithe nó aitheanta mar cheantair ar leith sna pleananna forbartha. Mar sin, anois tá an tAire ag rá go mbeidh siad ann mar cheantair tosaíochta.
I welcome the Minister hinting we are moving towards that recognition of the islands as specific areas that require priority plans. That is in line with what we were arguing but we were arguing yesterday a bit further than that, namely, that Gaeltacht areas within city and council areas would have that recognition and have specific plans. We will come back to that because we will be going through some of the amendments that still have to be reached. Some of them are tied into that issue. The Minister mentioned different councils have different approaches.
That is one of the frustrations for people in Gaeltacht areas. They want some recognition in plans and, in some cases, in the approach of councils to recognise the Gaeltacht even exists. Extra resources need to be dedicated to trying to help and protect Gaeltacht areas. The CEOs of councils came before Coiste na Gaeilge, na Gaeltachta agus Phobal Labhartha na Gaeilge. I yesterday gave the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, a copy of a letter given to us by the CEOs, of which the Minister is aware. It expressed their frustration at the lack of guidelines. The guidelines we are talking about are long awaited, which was a source of frustration for many. At least we now have a date and a commitment that before Easter, the guidelines will be there and we will begin public consultation. The committee that I chair will help in any way it can. The committee has had a number of hearings on the matter and issued a report, which is there. The Minister will find during consultation that whatever guidelines the Department gives, those views will be reflected.
It is bizarre that amendment No. 30 is not tied to my amendment No. 147, which deals with exactly the same matter. The latter amendment is not in this grouping so I will not speak to it until we get to it. We are trying to give recognition or protection to what are called traditional Gaeltacht settlement patterns. There are two settlement patterns involved, in the main. One is what people call a ribbon development, which runs along a road, but there are others. Mr. Breanndán Ó Beaglaoich was very specific about how it works where you have a cluster of houses. He gave an example on television or at a debate that he would be happy to share with the Minister.
Chonaic mé an clár.
There were families in a cluster of houses in Mr. Ó Beaglaoich's area. Some 120 people lived in the area and there are something like 30 living there now. They cannot get planning permission to demolish the old fothracha, the old ruins of buildings where families lived in the past, and replace them with houses. That is bizarre in this day and age in places where people are willing to live where there are some types of services. Traditional family grouping, or extended family grouping, was what sustained the Irish language for many years. There are different traditional settlements and there needs to be a recognition that they need to continue for the Irish language to survive. Not all the housing has to be put into a town or large village because that is not necessarily always best for the Irish language in those areas. If you build a housing estate with 100 houses and 30% or 60% is left to one side for Irish-language speakers, or whatever the guidelines will say, there is always a danger that the vernacular, the day-to-day language in the area, will be changed by virtue of a larger family grouping or groupings coming into that proportion of the housing.
A lot of work has been done on this. As the Minister said, he met representatives of Conradh na Gaeilge, who have done a lot of work. He is also going to meet representatives of Bánú, which means "clearance". That is the frustration. Anybody who visits the Gaeltacht in late September or October, or in any of the months until Easter, will see when they go down the road at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. that all the houses that are occupied by locals are the ones with the lights on. Deputy O'Callaghan read out some of the stuff in the report on Tuairisc.ie about the amount of holiday homes in those areas. Nobody wants to take all those holiday homes away from the people who own them at this stage, but there has to be some approach to ensure that those who want to live in an area can do so and are not squeezed out. All of these amendments are intended to try to help them and to give recognition to other policies of the Government that are aimed at enhancing and protecting the language. That is why we have service towns, language networks, Gaeltacht planning and language planning. Until now, there has been recognition of these matters in the Irish-language legislation, Acht na Gaeltachta and Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla. This is an opportunity to make sure they have a status and that there is recognition of the effect of those plans in our planning legislation so that they are given full effect and are not an afterthought. That is often the frustration for Irish-language speakers and Gaeltacht residents. They are often an afterthought and resources are spent in the big city or town in an area and are not spent in an area that hosts them as residents and is also supposed to host the half of the country who want to live there in the summer months. The services are put in place to welcome and serve the visitors but not to serve the needs of the local community.
I will leave it at that. Perhaps we could get an idea of how the groupings work. As Deputy Cian O'Callaghan said, there are approximately six different underlying themes here and I do not want to be jumping back and forth if I can avoid it.
Am I correct in saying that amendment No. 391 is included in this group?
It is.
It is.
Amendment No. 391 is in the name of Deputy Ó Cathasaigh.
Very good. I welcome some of the things the Minister has said. Fáiltím go bhfoilseofar na dréacht-treoirlínte go luath. Tá muintir na Gaeltachta agus muintir na Gaeilge ag fanacht ar na treoirlínte sin le fada an lá. Mar sin, fáiltím roimh an méid sin.
I also welcome what the Minister has said about affordable housing in the Gaeltacht. There is exciting work happening in An Rinn with Comhlucht Forbartha na nDéise. "Tithíocht inachmhainne pobalbhunaithe" is quite a mouthful when you try to get it out on Raidió na Gaeltachta.
"Tithíocht ar phraghas réasúnta", tá sé sin níos éasca.
"Tithíocht ar phraghas réasúnta" might be a better way of going about it. This is really exciting. I know this is a difficult issue to tease through but we need coinníollacha teanga so that if we are making affordable housing available within Gaeltacht communities, it benefits the Gaeltacht as an area as opposed to undermining it.
I am little nonplussed as to why amendment No. 147 was not included with amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 147 is a little more nuanced. Many of the amendments in my name are also in the name of Deputy Cian O'Callaghan because he joined me in the amendments but I could not go along with this amendment and I will tell the committee why. Along the coast from Dungarvan and Ardmore are three parishes, namely, An Rinn, An Sean Phobal and Ardmore. I would not like to stand on the Ardmore side of the border and try to explain to people there why their housing needs or housing settlement patterns are different from those of the people who live 500 m in the other direction. I understand there are all sorts of historical reasons. One of the historical reasons that the Gaeltacht areas persist where they are is social and economic deprivation. Surely to God we would not like social and economic deprivation to persist in order to preserve the Gaeltacht. The same can be applied to settlement patterns that are inconsistent with future sustainable development and are difficult to provide services into. Are we looking to preserve ribbon development, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, which is not great planning? Are we looking to preserve bad planning for the future of the Gaeltacht? I do not know if it serves the future of the Gaeltacht, which is the reason I did not join in proposing that particular amendment.
Many of the amendments in this group, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, speak to making sure due regard is given within the planning process to things such as the language plans that are supposed to be set down under Acht na Gaeltachta. We must ensure that the language plans are coherent from that point of view and, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, that people in Gaeltacht communities do not feel their cultural and linguistic heritage is just an afterthought.
I will speak briefly to amendment No. 391, which is in my name. It goes to what the Minister said about having separate plans for the islands.
It talks about an "Obligation to prepare Gaeltacht housing and population development strategy where planning authority’s functional area includes one or more than one Limistéar Pleanála Teanga or Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta in the Gaeltacht". The amendment is about making specific plans for that, as well as making specific plans that are going to address things like infrastructural deficits, be that around the provision of water or sustainable transport modes. Again, if we came back to An Rinn and the work that is being done there, that is a really good example. Water, and wastewater in particular, down there is under pressure. If one is trying to build a community then one must look at how we provide water and wastewater infrastructure. Thankfully, we have a very good and improving Local Link service that provides public transport into the area. It is a question of how active travel modes will be provided. All of these things should be taken into account. If the Minister is looking at the islands, we know there is a huge overlap between the islands and the Gaeltacht communities. That is not to say that every island is a Gaeltacht because it is not but there is an overlap. If the Minister is already looking at that as having priority area plans for the islands, then perhaps he might be happy to look at the spirit of amendment No. 391 at least and have priority planning for Gaeltacht areas as well.
We spent quite a bit of time yesterday and the day before trying to work out what is the best way to proceed with these cumbersome groups. What probably worked best for us was our approach to our discussion of the amendments tabled by the Chair, Deputy Matthews. The Ministers of State outlined in clusters their specific responses to specific groups of amendments. We were then able to have a back and forth on those and then moved on. Certainly, it would be my hope that we do something similar today.
Like others, I welcome the Minister's proposed Report Stage amendments to section 69, which would be very welcome. There is an obligation on the Minister,however, in addition to giving a general overview that I will come to in a second on each of the clusters of our amendments, to specifically state why he is not minded to support those at this Stage and to allow us at least an opportunity to convince him of the merits of some of them in order that he might then reconsider as Report Stage amendments of his own. Contrary to his opening remark, the vast majority of the amendments are not prescriptive in the sense that they are not insisting what the content of plans should be, whether that be development plans, development plan strategies or housing plans. They simply place a clear requirement on local authorities, when developing these different types of plans, to deal with these specific issues and that is really crucial. We will get to that when we go through the groups of amendments. As a case in point, I did not hear the Minister make any argument against amendment No. 30, which we are speaking to. He should not worry; he will get a chance to respond. Maybe I have misunderstood but, again, where specific amendments are not being supported it is valuable for us to understand the specific logic why in order that we get a chance to respond to those.
We are discussing amendment No. 30 and I will come to our first cluster of amendments in a moment, namely, amendments Nos. 308 and 310 to 312, inclusive, on development plan reviews and development plans. I wish to make one point about Deputy Ó Cathasaigh's response to the amendment tabled by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, and again we will come to that amendment. Protecting existing ribbon developments does not necessarily mean promoting more. Also, in the same way as with our conversations on suburban development and making suburban developments more sustainable, one can actually protect and expand ribbon developments and make them more sustainable at the same time in terms of greater uses of densification. Like I say, we can deal with the matter when we get to the amendments. Some of the solutions that the Irish-language planning officers have raised with us, particularly within the rural Gaeltachtaí, could be quite usefully addressed by taking certain forms of what one could describe as traditionally unsustainable ribbon settlements. I am thinking of creative and innovative ways to make them more sustainable, precisely on the grounds that the Minister has outlined, that allows population growth and greater use of the language. Again, that is something we will come to.
I am specifically interested to hear why the Minister does not think amendment No. 30 is useful and then we can discuss the other amendments after we know.
Go raibh maith agat, a Theachtaí faoi sin. Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom a rá arís go dtiocfaidh mé ar ais os comhair an choiste seo le leasú ar Chéim na Tuarascála chun athrú a dhéanamh ar phlean forbartha gach contae ach, go háirithe, na contaetha a bhfuil Gaeltachtaí ann agus do na hoileáin freisin. Cuirfidh mé síos leasuithe ar alt 69 ar Chéim na Tuarascála.
Maidir le leasú Uimh. 30, just to be very clear, dúirt mé cheana nach bhfuil mé ag glacadh aon leasú le bheith curtha síos sa mhír seo. Faoi leasú Uimh. 30, I just believe on that one that the definition simply is not clear enough. It would apply to areas outside Gaeltacht areas, as well, and that is no disrespect. Traditional Gaeltacht settlement patterns means clusters of individual houses on the same road. I genuinely believe that when we are insisting that local authorities must have a separate plan for the islands and for the Gaeltachts in their development plans, taking into account the very specific and different natures of those areas, one size does not fit all. Anyone who visits our Gaeltacht areas or, indeed, our islands will know that they are all different. One of the issues that I have come across concerns development plans and see what a settlement is, if one takes the islands for argument sake, even Inis Mór with Cill Rónáin would not be deemed a settlement in the county development plan. That is the type of thing I am certain we can address. The initiative has been welcomed by Comhdháil na nOileán. Beidh mé ag bualadh le Banú freisin Dé Luain seo chugainn agus le Conradh na Gaeilge freisin faoin sin. I understand everyone's interest in this here to make sure about cúrsaí teanga sa Ghaeltacht agus ba mhaith liom an teanga a spreagadh agus na daoine, mar a dúirt mé cheana, atá ina gcónaí sa Ghaeltacht i gcónaí a bheith in ann teach nua a fháil sa Ghaeltacht freisin but it is complicated. Some good changes were made in the 2012 Act and I think we can strengthen that here.
I could talk to every amendment. As I said at the start - I do not mean this to be difficult - but I can literally go through what I see and I refer to some of these amendments here. As best as possible, one can say they are specific groupings. I am quite happy to do that now to assist. I reiterate, regarding the amendments tabled, I am quite happy. We have discussed in general terms the thrust of the matter in respect of what is a settlement. Some very specific amendments have been tabled on night life and culture that Deputies are proposing to put in primary legislation as opposed to looking at guidelines and what then will be drawn from there. I think of what would happen in the future, were items like that, which are extremely prescriptive, to be put in the planning Bill. Were any changes needed in the future - because even with the very best of intentions as they are put forward, they might not work or they may have unintended consequences - then what you would be doing is coming into a future Dáil, Seanad and committee and being obliged to bring forward amendments.
As I said in my opening remarks, I would without question have liked the guidelines to have been done sooner. Bhí mé os comhair coiste na Gaeilge cheana agus tá eolas ag an Teachta Ó Snodaigh faoi sin. Táim i ndáiríre faoin bhfáth go gcaithfimid na treoirlínte nua a chur os comhair an phobail chun dul chun cinn a dhéanamh ar son ár ndaoine sa Ghaeltacht agus ar na hoileáin freisin. If the Chair wants, and it will take about five minutes, I can go through the first grouping,
To be helpful, we have pretty much discussed amendment No. 30. If we could hear the note on amendment No. 30 and then we can move on from there.
Fine, yes.
Amendment No. 30 is quite different from the other subgroupings.
Fine, yes.
The next subgroup includes ten or so of my amendments. I am trying to be efficient in coming in now on amendment No. 30. I thank the Minister for his response to it. The amendment seeks, in reference to the definition, to recognise traditional Gaeltacht patterns. In terms of sustainable development, including sustainable housing development, I am a big supporter of reducing car dependency and having much more sustainable forms of development. Within that, there is a hierarchy. A lot of sustainable development will happen in compact urban cities. There will also be development outside of that in towns and villages, as well as development of rural clusters.
It is worth thinking about all of this with reference to housing in Gaeltacht areas. There were clusters of housing below village or town level in those areas before there were even cars or anything like that. We need to recognise that as a reality. Some Gaeltacht areas do not have within them what would be considered in terms of settlement patterns to be a town and so forth. This is just a reality. I am not advocating for more ribbon development or one-off housing. I am recognising the reality of what exists in Gaeltacht communities through this definition. We have to think about sustainability in environmental terms but, in Gaeltacht areas, we also have to think of it in terms of the language and the linguistic and cultural heritage. If we do not recognise the reality of clusters in those areas, which have existed for hundreds of years, it could undermine those areas altogether.
I am happy to move on now from discussion of amendment No. 30 unless others wish to speak on it.
Deputies Ó Broin and Ó Snodaigh have indicated they wish to comment on amendment No. 30. After that we will go back to the Minister to go through the logical groupings of amendments as best we can.
I have two points to make. First, from listening to what the Minister's ministerial colleagues and officials have been saying, there is going to be quite a lot of subsequent amending legislation to this Bill, both in the near future and in the long term. This will not be the only area where that might happen. The second point is that I do not understand the logic of the Minister's argument. Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment is trying to add an additional category to the definition of a Gaeltacht. It is not confusing. It adds a third distinct grouping to the two categories that are already there. It is not the Deputy's argument that all references to Gaeltacht language planning areas, líonraí or others would also apply to this category. It is just to give it recognition under the Act. It is the opposite of being prescriptive; it is about being inclusive. There may be very good reasons for doing this in order that various categories of plans should have to take it into account. It is a very inclusive amendment and one that deserves support.
I support, at the very least, some type of recognition in the definition that there is a specific need for Gaeltacht settlement patterns to be recognised. By "recognised", I do not mean that they should be given any additional funding or recognition over and above anything else, unless the document is subsequently amended. It is saying that when we are addressing this issue in other amendments in the future, this is what we mean. That is the reason we are taking it here by itself. Then, in the document, we can tease out whether the description is the best form. There should be some type of recognition at an early stage because this issue is distinct in many ways. It is not distinct because there are no other parts of the country that do not have these clusters. It is a distinct issue because there is a different approach in Gaeltacht areas in terms of many other issues, not just in terms of protecting the environment but also protecting the language environment. That is why there should be some recognition in the definitions. We can come back to this later but it is important at this stage that we support Deputy O'Callaghan's proposal.
Ní féidir liom an leasú seo a ghlacadh mar if we look at the definition, and I say this respectfully, we must consider where we would want to put a reference to the traditional Gaeltacht settlements in the Bill. Furthermore, if the definition is a cluster of individual homes on the same road, that excludes villages and towns like An Spidéal or any of the larger Gaeltacht areas. I am looking at where the Deputies want to put this in the Bill. There is no clear definition. I would be happy to look at and work on this but I am not supporting this amendment. I have said all I need to say on it other than to note that what would apply to areas or what settlements would be in Gaeltacht areas is something that would need to be defined. If we simply put it in here that a traditional Gaeltacht settlement pattern means clusters of individual houses on the same road, that does not apply to every Gaeltacht area at all. It would confuse matters. I do not support that and I cannot accept the amendment.
We must discuss the rest of the amendments in the group before making a decision on amendment No. 30.
I need to respond to that. The Gaeltacht Act 2012 described the different areas and formally recognised the limistéir pleanála teanga Gaeltachta and also the bailte seirbhíse Gaeltachta and líonraí Gaeilge. They are all recognised and this amendment is not seeking to undo that in any way. It is referring to traditional settlement patterns in Gaeltacht areas. It does not in any way negate or exclude anything else. The amendment does not do what the Minister says it does. It does not at all exclude other areas. It is inserting a new definition in the definitions and does not take away from anything else.
Níl aon rud fágtha le rá faoin leasú seo.
Would the Minister now like to address the other amendments in this group, as he suggested?
Shall we dispense with this one first? There is no problem, however, with going through the rest.
If we dispense with this one, we have to dispense with the lot. We cannot do that.
I will go through the groupings I have as best as I can. I am sure I am leaving myself wide open to criticism but I will go through them as best as I can to be helpful to the committee. Amendments Nos. 308, 310 to 312, inclusive, 317, 431, 434, 479, 483, 503, 506, 509, 512, 533, 537, 541, 545, 549, 560, 563, 566 and 1130 were tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. Amendments Nos. 307, 309, 316, 430, 433, 478, 482, 502, 505, 508, 511, 532, 536, 540, 544, 548, 559, 562, 565 and 1131 were tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh. Amendment No. 1129 was tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Cathasaigh, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh.
This set of amendments are grouped together because they concern statutory requirements for the development and assessment of plans, whether development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans or co-ordinated area plans. The amendments propose to merge language plans, established under the Gaeltacht Act 2012, with existing requirements currently set out in the Bill. The discussion we have just had around what I plan to do with regard to separate plans for the Gaeltacht and the islands in respect of the priority area plans is precisely relevant to these amendments. I have been very clear on what I want to do and very clear also on when we will bring forward the treoirlínte. I intend to come back to this on Report Stage. We have listened to and considered what Deputies have said. Some might say we are bringing this back but it is genuinely an area in which we are all extremely interested and where we want to make improvements.
On that basis, I do not propose to accept any of these amendments. I am not asking Deputies to take it on good faith but I will come back to them on this matter. We need to work on the definition of "Gaeltacht settlement patterns" as well. There is no question about that.
I firmly believe it is better that in the counties that have Gaeltachtaí within them, we allow and insist upon special area plans and priority plans for them. That is what I intend to do. For those reasons, for the group of amendments that are effectively proposing to merge the language plans established under the Gaeltacht Act 2012 with existing requirements set out in the Bill, I will not accept any of those amendments, and we have discussed this at some length. I have other groupings that are as logical as we can make them and we can discuss that as part of this grouping as well.
That is a very helpful way to do it. One of the struggles we have had in the past two days is that we were working from the official groupings when the Minister had these logical groupings. Having sight of this is helpful. If, as the Minister has done, he outlines his groupings and his rationale, we can then respond to that and deal with those in the best way we can.
Notwithstanding that I more than welcome the inclusion of the islands and Gaeltachtaí in priority area plans, it is not the same as the range of suggested amendments to, for example, the development plan process in terms of the review of the development plan, the development plan proper and the subsections of the development plan, whether on housing, sustainable communities or otherwise. The reason I say this is that, as the Minister knows and as he has done elsewhere in the Bill, where the Government really wants something to happen, it is named explicitly in explicit locations of the Bill for the purposes of ensuring those matters are addressed. It is also a problem because, in a number of the amendments, it is not just Gaeltachtaí that are included but, for example, Irish language networks. Those networks have a very important role, although they are not of the same status. Therefore, the way in which they would fit into a county development plan is quite different.
In my constituency of Dublin Mid-West and South Dublin County Council, Clondalkin village is an Irish language network area. Placing a stronger obligation on the local authority in consideration of the review of the development plan and the plan itself, but also aspects of the housing sections within the development plan, would mean the local authority takes this issue much more seriously. Essentially, it would be strongly encouraged – that is probably a better way to put it than “compelled” - to deal with this in a way the Minister’s more limited proposal around the priority area plans does not do. That is not to take away from what the Minister is proposing, which I genuinely welcome. However, it is regrettable there is not even some consideration of having a more explicit naming of Gaeltacht language planning areas, Irish language networks and so on in those various stages.
The Minister knows as well as I do that there are very long lists of things that local authorities can or cannot include in their development plans and development plan reviews and, even within that, how they apply the different sections of the development plan covers a very wide level of discretion. For example, if there are good managers and good councillors and if there are active civil society or active language-based organisations, that can provoke and promote very good practice. However, in the absence of that, it can mean very important things get neglected.
I hear the logic of the Minister's argument and I am taking his argument in good faith, so that is not my point. I just do not think it is a very strong argument in the sense there are compelling reasons to suggest that many amendments in this large group which the Minister is rejecting actually have significant merit in substance, if not in the language framing as we have presented them.
I call Deputy O'Callaghan.
I will wait a moment as the Minister is in conversation with his officials.
I did not mean to be disrespectful. The Deputy should proceed.
The Minister needs to consult his officials and I fully respect that. I want to speak on amendments Nos. 307, 316, 433, 502, 505, 508, 536, 540, 544, 548, 559 and 562. The Minister said he feels many of these amendments are far too prescriptive. The amendments are not prescriptive at all. All these amendments seek to do is to ensure the development plans are consistent with the relevant language plans arising from Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012. That is all these amendments are trying to do, which is not prescriptive.
The Minister used language around merging. This is not about trying to merge those provisions. It is trying to make sure in the planning Bill that when planners and local authorities make a development plan and they consult the planning Bill and ask what they have to do in preparing the development plan, it is very clear they must be consistent with the language plans in areas where there are Gaeltacht service towns and líonraí. That is the requirement of these amendments. There is a risk if it is not written into the legislation. The legislation gives quite a lot of direction in terms of making the development plan. It will be consulted and the local authorities are going to follow it because there are several obligations on them, so if it is not in the legislation, there is every chance it will fall down the list of priorities and will not get the prioritisation it should.
What is the point in having language plans and everything that is set out very well in Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012 if we end up having development plans that are not consistent with it? The Minister might respond to that point about what is wrong with having the preparation of development plans consistent with the language plans where we have language plans for the relevant area. Why not have it in the legislation? That is not very prescriptive. In fact, it is all the amendments in the grouping I have read out effectively require. It is just about consistency, and only in the areas where there are service towns, language planning areas, Gaeltachtaí and so forth. It is only in those areas. I ask that this point be addressed.
In response to Deputy O'Callaghan, and not to take this in isolation from the overall Bill but just to be helpful, the guidelines we will bring forward when this Bill is passed, it is hoped with everyone's support, will become national planning statements in the new Act, and they are much stronger than guidance. Other Deputies have proposed amendments to national planning statements and we will discuss those at the appropriate time. That is a much stronger mechanism to ensure those guidelines are followed. Genuinely, I want to be helpful, but when I look through the series of amendments in this grouping, they are very prescriptive.
We have talked about a real issue, which is that all of us want to see our language continue in urban areas, where we are seeing it grow. However, specifically, the real issue is actually within the fíor-Ghaeltachtaí themselves. An fhadhb is mó atá ann i mo thuairim ná na seirbhísí uisce agus séarachais. Ní pleanáil é. Má labhraíonn an Teachta le daoine sna Gaeltachtaí, bíonn siad ag labhairt faoin fhadhb sin freisin. It is not just about planning and it is about other services too, which I know has been discussed. What I am saying to the Deputy is that when guidelines are issued and when we move ahead and get the Bill passed, the national planning statements will underpin exactly what the Deputy wants. Then, it is up to everyone what they decide on the national planning statements front.
In the current development plan guidelines, we have the mandatory objective in regard to Gaeltacht areas. I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh on this. It is great to see what is happening in Clondalkin and other urban areas, such as Swords in my own toghcheantar, and throughout the country. These urban areas have very good groups of Irish speakers, along with Gaelscoileanna, Gaelcholáistí, ciorcail comhrá, all of those things, people doing normal business, and Baile Átha Cliath le Gaeilge freisin.
It is different from fíor-Ghaeltachtaí. We are trying to ensure people and families will be able to stay and live there in a sustainable way. They are both important, but what is urgent is the Gaeltacht regions. We hope in the future to create more. That is what we would all like to see. We have seen Gaeltachtaí die, such as Omeath in Leinster, and all of Tír Eoghain, which is outside of our jurisdiction right now. We saw what happened in Maigh Cuilinn and Baile Chláir, which are still Irish speaking. I am acutely aware of all of that.
I am coming back to the national planning statements on Report Stage. I welcome the positive pronouncements from Deputy Ó Broin and others on that. That is the right place to do it. These are too prescriptive. There are issues with some of the definitions. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way.
I will leave it there on that grouping because I will not change tack on those. It has been a useful discussion. I will come back with specific amendments and additions on Report Stage. We read the amendments before they came in. It is good to see such a focus on Gaeltacht issues.
The Minister said he has issues with definitions in my amendments. I ask him to expand on that. The definitions in this set of amendments, in so far as there are definitions, are straight out of Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012. Does the Minister not support the definitions in that legislation?
Of course I do.
Of course you do, yes.
That is not the point. It is how do you fit in-----
I have the floor, thank you, Minister. These amendments are based on and come straight out of Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012, and they are looking for consistency with the definitions in that Act. I do not understand the Minister saying he has issues with the definitions when he has clarified he does not have issues with the definitions in the Act. If he could explain that more, that would be helpful.
If national planning statements are the answer to this, why do we have the other provisions in the legislation around preparation of development plans and the things they need to be consistent with? Why is that not all going to be taken care of in the national planning statements if that is the correct place?
The Minister says my amendments are too prescriptive, but the only thing they are trying to prescribe is that development plans are consistent with language plans. By saying they are too prescriptive, the Minister implies he is against development plans being consistent with language plans.
These amendments have not come out of nowhere. There has been a significant effort by organisations, many of which the Minister knows, including Conradh na Gaeilge, to ensure a Bill that was in real terms blind to the interaction of the planning system and Irish-language speakers and communities would be addressed. Much of our discussion concerns issues those organisations have rightly asked us to include.
I made the point yesterday that part of the difficulty is the planning system's blindness to how it interacts with and impacts on Irish-language speakers, families and their communities in terms of lived experience and geographic location. The Minister said the real issue was within Gaeltachtaí themselves. The point we are trying to make is one of the reasons Irish-language speakers, whether in fully designated Gaeltachtaí, language planning areas or Irish-language networks, are so keen these types of amendments be included in the various stages of plan-making is because people outside those communities have been ignoring their needs. Therefore, the plans have not reflected planning actions and outcomes that are consistent with the planning Act and with the need for our planning system to support the use and growth of the language as a living language.
We will deal with the substance of the national planning statements when we get to those sections, but there is no inconsistency with having a set of national planning statements, as the Minister has outlined, on a particular set of issues, the objective of which is to ensure consistency of approach across development plans, while at the same time, in the statutory framework underpinning the development plan process, naming things which are important to be included. I would argue the two things are complementary. Saying we do not need any of these amendments in the development plan review process, the development plan process or the housing development strategies in the development plans fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between the development plan process and whatever mechanism we have for setting Government policy. I am surprised. You could then argue for deletion of all of the sections we are looking to amend which set out the areas we want the development plan review and the housing sections of the development plan to have cognisance of and just let the Department and the Minister, through the Cabinet, churn out national planning policy statements and we can dispense with the development plan. I know that is not what the Minister is saying but that is the logical outcome of saying he does not need it in these sections.
I suspect and am happy to make a wager with the Minister that it will be a very long time before national planning policy statements on the matters we are discussing are produced, in part because the Minister will have a significant amount of work dealing with all his transitional arrangements and section 28 guidelines and deciding which ones of those he wants to make national planning policy statements. He has another set of areas of policy statements which one presumes are in gestation. I suspect this is not on that list. Separate to the Gaeltacht planning guidelines and the amendments to include Gaeltachtaí in the priority area plans, if the Government were to run its full course until next year, I would be amazed if there was, subject to the passage of this Bill, a national planning policy statement on that matter. If I am wrong and the Minister is working on it, please let us know and give us the details. There is either a fundamental misunderstanding or a failure to recognise the weight of argument from Irish-language speakers in a host of Irish language speaking settings who are keen these areas of our planning system are, for once, required to have visibility of those communities.
The Irish-language networks are a good case in point. I welcome the Minister's proposal to have Gaeltachtaí included in the priority plans. That is helpful, but it places no requirement on our planning system and development plan process to have active and live regard in a development plan review to further supporting those. We are lucky in south Dublin because there is a good relationship between officials and the people who led the campaign and secured network status in Clondalkin. However, what happens if the official in the planning department just does not think this is important and is not as supportive as the Minister and members of the committee of the development of the Irish language and its speakers? It is precisely because networks do not have the same status that they should be included in various elements of these amendments. I know the Minister will not support the amendments but I urge him to at least consider the argument we are putting forward about placing a set of requirements on our planning authorities to think these things through.
The Minister mentioned amendment No. 1130 in this grouping. It concerns something I do not understand. It relates to a proposal to put in the evaluation section of the portion of the Bill dealing with the Office of the Planning Regulator a requirement to examine these issues.
I note the Minister is looking for the wording there. By way of being helpful, in that section of the legislation dealing with the planning regulator evaluation or review, it is to include "any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a Gaeltacht Language Planning area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the" functional area of the development plan. This is really important because, as he will be aware from his long experience, even if one were minded to support my party's amendment or even if there were priority area plans for Gaeltachtaí, it is one thing having those plans but there is a long distance between having a plan and having it implemented. He will also be aware that the planning regulator produced a very important report into Traveller accommodation plans and the development plan process. We all have a statutory requirement to have Traveller accommodation in our development plans. Many of those, as he will be aware, remain chronically unimplemented. There was an independent review commissioned by one of the Minister's predecessors, an expert group on Traveller accommodation, which showed the extent to which, even when one gets something into the plan such as a Traveller accommodation programme, non-implementation can be significant. The regulator, because he or she is empowered under the current Act, was able to conduct a significant review which has been helpful, at least in exposing those matters.
Amendment No. 130, essentially, would allow something similar with respect to the development plan and planning elements that we are talking about here. If there is nobody to ensure this happens, even, for example, if the Minister has the strongest national planning policy statement and set of guidelines that he could imagine, if there is no independent review function the issue could drift indefinitely. Separately to the Minister's arguments on those, I would like to hear explicitly his unwillingness to give the OPR some role, whether it is in terms of the his own propositions around Gaeltachtaí and priority area plans or the issue more generally because that is one of the key functions of the regulator and it should extend to this area as it does to others.
I will try not to rehash everything that the previous two Deputies mentioned.
The Minister, when he addressed this, failed to grasp the fact that this is not an extra burden. This is to ensure consistency across the board.
Most of it is to ensure that existing functions, whether State or local authority, are given the proper attention when developing, whether it is a development plan, a written statement or a specific appeal as in the case of the last point that was been made where an evaluation is being made of plans. It is to ensure that language plans that are set out under different legislation and that have a standing in law are taken fully into account. That should be a given. The problem is over the years it has not been a given. They have been set aside. Sometimes Irish language communities have had to go to court to ensure that their rights are protected or that due regard has been given to some of the written statements or some of the laws pertaining to the Irish language.
In this case, a set of additional obligations have been set in our bureaucratic system to ensure that they have to draw up development plans, investment plans and environmental plans. This is to ensure, in particular where there are Gaeltacht areas, but also líonra Gaeilge, that due regard is taken of the Irish language-speaking population in that area for the future. It is not overly onerous. It needs to be part of the system. For far too long, Irish has been an afterthought - "Feck, we forgot about that. Stick in a statement there on the development plan to say they supported the Irish language." That is the attitude in some of the local authorities. There has been significant change of late. Some of it is because the Irish language organisations, the committee here, etc., have forced not only the CEOs and the officials in the local authorities, but also those within Departments, to be a bit more respectful and accepting of their duties in terms of the Irish language and recent enactments by these Houses have also set out in considerable detail their duties and responsibilities. The attempt in these amendments is to ensure that nobody can ever turn around and say, "Shit, we forgot about that strategy." That is sometimes what it is - "No, I forgot about that. I am sorry about that. We will catch it the next time we are sitting down looking at a development plan."
If the Minister looks at them - he probably has a duty to look at all of the development plans that have been passed by local authorities in the past year or so - they are quite detailed. In my office, they call it my bible, as it sits there in written format. That is what outlines the future development for every one of us who are TDs and all those who are councillors, and their officials. If there is no mention of the Irish language or their responsibilities in terms of the language community, it makes it a case where it is grand but it is not written down in this bible. The new bible is this 700-page document and when we are finished with it, it will probably be 900 pages or more. That will be the bible for any planning official and anybody looking for guidance in terms of future development. A big plan in Dublin, for example, City Edge, if it ever comes off, is a plan. The planners will look to this legislation for what they have to comply with, the strategies and the written statements so that they will not fall foul of legislation provision. If it is not clearly listed here, there will be a shortfall.
I can go through each of the amendments. In some ways, they are quite simple. For example, they state what the written statements shall include. If the wording is too onerous, I am happy enough to work in a different wording. The other ones state, "take due account of". I will not go through each one, one after another. The reason voluntary organisations, such as Conradh na Gaeilge and Bánú, and others, myself included, have sat down and looked at this is the Irish language has been an afterthought and there is frustration that they are not or will not be listened to. The Minister has a good attitude to the Irish language but we heard a former Minister on the radio only yesterday who obviously did not have a good attitude towards the Irish language. We are trying to make sure that a future government, no matter which shade, colour or whatever, cannot bypass or have its officials in a local authority area bypass their responsibilities to ensure that we have the Gaeltacht language plans and any future plans in terms of the networks taken into account. It means that those who are drawing up those plans must be cognisant of what is in this legislation and those who are drawing up plans, strategies, written statements or development plans, or looking to review or appeal different aspects, also must have due regard to the statute because the Irish language networks are being set up on a statutory basis
It is on a statutory basis and they have a statutory underpinning. In some ways, that is what captures the whole lot.
In some ways, it is sad that we have to go down this road. It should have been a given because Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, 2003 is there. The State has set out its plans for the Irish language. Some of it has been successful and some of it has not. In particular, in Gaeltacht areas, there is a continuous encroachment by English-speaking districts and English speakers into an area. I have no problem with English speakers. They are all around me but the problem is, in an area that is already delicate and has suffered greatly since the founding of the State - since the Famine in particular, and the clearance or bánú because of emigration - they are now suffering because they cannot locate where they wish. The people who are stopping them, in many ways, are those who hold the planning powers or those who have the holiday homes and the like.
This is an attempt by Irish-language organisations and others to ensure that their need to expand and protect Gaeltacht areas is recognised, and to expand, if possible, outside the ones from the experiment that was tried in the 1930s, and which still exist - Ráth Chairn and Baile Ghib. People know about Ráth Chairn. It is there but it is not sustainable by itself unless we allow the community to grow. Baile Ghib is absolutely struggling and there is a need to step in and look after it. The strategy has to comes from central government but it also has to come from the local authority. It is not a priority with the local authority. Baile Ghib is so small in the scale of Meath, which is dealing with every other aspect around Navan, Dunshaughlin, all of Dunboyne and the whole lot, which have major problems because there is huge growth in the area. Here you have two small communities struggling to expand and have their own identities but they are an afterthought, whereas at the very least, if we have these protections, maybe we can make sure they will never be an afterthought again.
I will be very brief. I appreciate the couple of questions. I am not going to mention any more, and I think we have covered this well.
With regard to amendment No. 1130, again, understanding it, there is no issue with definitions as such. They are in other Acts as well. This one would be a Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media function and is in relation to the language plans, so we are giving that to OPR.
There is another thing on transitionary arrangements, which is an important point that was raised. It is around what happens with guidelines that are there when national planning statements come in. Section 25(2), on page 68 of the Bill, states:
Any guidelines continued in force under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be National Planning Policy Guidance issued under this Chapter.
With the passing of that, anything else that is there will come into play.
On the whole issue we have discussed, and discussed well here, I think everyone is pretty much on the same page. People have a desire to ensure we support our language and see it thrive, support the Gaeltacht areas and support the líonraí Gaeilge as well. It just that there are different planning matters in bigger urban areas than there are in fíor-Ghaeltachtaí. That is understood by most. Is tosaíocht domsa é. It is a priority for me.
I am going to come back on Report Stage, mar a dúirt mé roimhe seo. I am not accepting any of the amendments that I have spoken to. I have outlined my reasons for that. I do not have anything further to say on them.
Again, I think the Minister misunderstands the purpose of specific amendments. With respect to the OPR and amendment No. 1130, there is a planning dimension to this, which the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media is not equipped to assess. This is the whole point, and this is why folks like Conradh na Gaeilge have put so much effort into encouraging the submission of so many amendments. Supporting, encouraging and developing Irish language-speaking communities is not just a matter of language policy, and the encouragement of language policy or education. It is also a matter of physical planning, and of what gets developed, where, and for what use. That is the whole point we are trying to make. I do not think the Minister has fully absorbed the significance of the failure of our planning system to ensure that where you have language plans, for example, the planning system has to fully understand its function in allowing those to assist and develop. The point is not to have the OPR evaluate the language element of the language plans; it is the planning element. To what extent is the planning system helping or hindering? To what extent is the development plan process helping or hindering?
To be very brief, by way of one explanation, if the Minister looks at amendment No. 369 and a couple of subsequent amendments, they have to do with that section on development plans where our local authorities have an obligation to prepare housing development strategies. Obviously, if you have an Irish language plan in a particular area or if you have a set of language-based policies for the Gaeltacht, for Irish-language planning areas or for líonraí, there is an important question to be asked in the development plan process about how the housing development strategy or housing policy assists or undermines the use of the spoken language. We had quite a lengthy debate yesterday, and I am not going to back into it, around grants of planning permissions and whether those planning permissions assist or undermine the viability of Irish language-speaking communities. I fully accept the Minister's bona fides that he wants these issues to be addressed. However, unless we ensure that our planning system and authorities are required to have, at all levels, active visibility on whether the decisions or plans they make help or hinder the development of the Irish language in specific geographical areas through planning policy and development, then we are going be in a similar position in several years' time. I know I am not going to convince the Minister but I just want to stress that. I think he fundamentally misunderstands the intention behind amendment No. 1130.
Obviously, we did not need to give the OPR direction on the function with regard to a language plan. I understand the point the Deputy is making but if he looks at where it sits within it, it is giving them an additional function that is currently there with the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.
All we are asking, in that amendment, is to consider language plans. We are not asking to adjudicate on them.
On that very point, I should mention that the OPR already assesses all development plans, including development plans that have Gaeltacht areas in them. It does not set them aside. It does that already.
On a point of clarification, that is true. However, to go back to the example I gave with respect to Traveller accommodation, it does not just assess all development plans. It has also done a really important report on the failure of local authorities to comply with those aspects of the development plan that relate specifically and exclusively to Traveller-specific accommodation. Obviously, this amendment cannot be taken in isolation from all of the other amendments. The Minister has grouped them for a very logical reason. If our development plans were to include the kinds of requirements we have set out here, the OPR would be looking very specifically at the interaction of planning elements of the development plans.
Understood, yes.
It is a completely separate function from that of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. It is around the plans, planning policy and development, something that the Department cannot do, is not equipped to do and should not be doing. That is a point of clarification.
I thank Deputy Ó Broin. Deputy O'Callaghan has indicated.
Yes, just because were on a discussion of amendments relating to the OPR in this grouping. Some of these have been mentioned by the Minister but maybe not all of them. I want to talk to my amendments Nos. 511, 565, 1129 and 1131.
Amendment No. 511 is about the assessment of a development plan variation by the Office of the Planning Regulator. What this amendment seeks to do is ensure that if the development plan is materially inconsistent with any relevant language plan, a recommendation will be made to the Minister that a draft direction under section 62 be issued.
Given the discussion we have had here, a development plan would only be materially inconsistent with any relevant language plan in relation to planning matters. Other issues in the language plan simply would not come into that.
Amendment No. 565 relates to assessments of urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans by the Office of the Planning Regulator. This amendment seeks that where they are materially inconsistent with language plans, a recommendation under section 76 would be made to the Minister that a draft direction would be issued.
The Minister has said that where local authorities have development plans in Gaeltacht areas, they can take all this into consideration, etc. Yet, the issue here is that without these amendments, it seems that this has gone under the radar of the OPR. I can see the Minister signalling otherwise. I would be very interested to hear how, because I cannot see it in the legislation. If the Minister can explain to us how it is covered in the legislation that would be very helpful.
I will address the last two points in my subgrouping regarding the evaluation and assessment of plans and strategies for the Office of the Planning Regulator. The amendment would ensure the plans and strategies are materially consistent with any language plan agreed under the Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012. Amendment No. 1131 is on the evaluation and assessment of plans and strategies by the OPR, similar to the other amendment. It would mean that in carrying out consultation with planning authorities, the OPR would consider language plans agreed under the Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012. If the Minister feels these are not necessary, I would be interested in hearing how they are covered in the legislation elsewhere or how these issues are being dealt with. These amendments are all proposed here in the fear that the elements that should be part of the OPR’s work are not being dealt with or covered under the legislation. If it is, I would like to hear about that.
A Chathaoirligh, I have a procedural point.
Go ahead, Deputy.
It might be helpful for us, given that the Minister said he had a number of subgroupings, to hear the numbers listed in those in order that we can manage our time properly.
I will get back to the Deputy.
Perfect.
Can the Minister respond to Deputy O’Callaghan’s points?
I have pretty much said most of what I am going to say to be very honest with the Deputy. It has been a good discussion and I will be coming back on Report Stage. It is better to channel Gaeltacht planning matters through a development plan. I will bring forward a proposal to have priority area plans as well. Right now, the OPR still has oversight over all development plans and it makes sure that the written statements in the plans themselves are consistent. National planning statements will be very important, and this is something we will discuss later in the Bill. One of the issues all Deputies who are present have discussed is how in some instances, there are inconsistencies between how certain planning matters are dealt with by different planning authorities. National planning statements will give that a much greater weight. Tiocfaidh mé ar ais chuig an gceist sin ar Chéim na Tuarascála. Beidh sé níos soiléire ag an staid sin freisin. Ní bheidh mé ag glacadh leis an leasú seo nó leis na leasuithe eile.
Perhaps there have been some crossed wires here. The Minister is saying that Gaeltacht planning matters need to be channelled through a development plan and I do not disagree at all. Amendment No. 511 proposes that the assessment of development plan variation should be with the OPR. The OPR has this function. When this assessment of a development plan variation is being done by the OPR, my amendment proposes that they need to check that it is materially consistent with any relevant language plan. If not, they could then make a recommendation to the Minister. I am absolutely not saying that Gaeltacht planning matters cannot or should not be channelled through a development plan. I am speaking about the specific function that is given in the legislation to the OPR and about language plans, which have a statutory basis from the 2012 Act. I have not heard the rationale against my amendment or for the other three I mentioned here. I have just heard a general view.
I have nothing further to say. We have dealt with it.
In response to Deputy Ó Broin, there are four or five subgroupings within the overall grouping. They are not as large as this one. With the Deputies' permission, I suggest discussing amendments Nos. 441, 452, 470, 486, 497, 516, 551, 555 to 557, inclusive, and 569, which have been tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. Included in that will be amendments Nos. 440, 451, 469, 485, 496, 515, 550, 554 and 568, which have been tabled by Deputies Cian O’Callaghan and Ó Snodaigh. That will be the next grouping. I can-----
Deputy Ó Broin may go ahead.
As is customary, I suggest we take a five-minute tea break and then go straight into that next grouping.
Aontaím leis sin.
I agree, seeing as we are going to start that new grouping next. We will suspend for five minutes.
Sitting suspended at 3.57 p.m. and resumed at 4.06 p.m.
These amendments propose additional consultation requirements with a wide range of specified bodies that have some role or function relating to our teanga. These proposed consultation requirements fall across several areas of the Bill, including in the preparation of draft development plans, which is obviously open anyway, a variation of existing plans, the preparation of urban area plans, priority area plans and co-ordinated area plans.
The consultation arrangements in the Bill are appropriate. I will give information on what risk is there. The amendment proposes to list every organisation and body and tries to be very prescriptive. We already list anybody as appropriate or any other bodies as so prescribed. That gives us the flexibility we need. For argument's sake, we have been discussing the work that Bánú is doing, but new organisations have come in and others will come in. We may be prescriptive to organisations within a Bill, but we may then want to potentially provide further consultation. We would have to leave it open. Would it be challengeable if we were to say that we have given a definitive list but we have left someone out? We would then have to go back and amend the legislation.
In the draft legislation, we have made it as broad as possible to allow for the consultation that is needed. We fully respect the groups that have given input with their amendments. We have a lot of regard for them. I have interacted with them directly in person. There is a real risk with trying to be prescriptive that we would leave someone out. I will not repeat myself. I do not intend to extend the statutory consultation requirements beyond those that are set out in the Bill. There is the danger that we would weigh too heavily in favour of the views of one set of consultees above numerous others. That may leave it open to challenge by equally valid voices. We do not want to give a weighting to one voice over another. I am sure no one wants to do that. In any event, any Minister in the future will be empowered to consult with bodies as he or she sees fit. The option to prescribe such bodies in regulations also exists for certain provisions.
There is a logic to this group of amendments. As the Minister stated, they basically relate to key bodies that are responsible for promoting the rights of Irish speakers and the language planning process in particular. They do not just relate to Údarás na Gaeltachta, which has a limited role in the Gaeltacht area, but also to Foras na Gaeilge, which is a State body and a North-South body. The language commissioner, the Minister with responsibility for policy in respect of the Gaeltacht and the local language planning officers should be given notice to reviews of development plans and should be sent correspondence regarding effective planning in a language planning area.
I understand what the Minister is saying about such other bodies as may be prescribed but there are also such other bodies as may not be prescribed. Údarás has a duty and function to ensure that in Gaeltacht areas, development is not contrary to the best interests of the Gaeltacht or údarás policies. In the main, údarás has not made any major comment, except in respect of large-scale developments. It is not going to interfere in an extension of somebody's home, for example. It is mainly an overall policy and that is what we are dealing with at this level. It will not interfere in somebody's front porch being built, for example, or an addition to allow a car to park in a village.
I can accept that the amendments should perhaps be more limited, but I cannot accept that the likes of Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister who is responsible for the Gaeltacht or the language commissioner would not be on notice. The relevant language planning officers, in this instance, fall under either údarás or Foras na Gaeilge. Údarás deals with planning, language and protecting the Gaeltacht region, while Foras na Gaeilge deals with those who are planning outside, such as in the likes of the area Deputy Ó Broin lives near to in Clondalkin, that is, the líonraí. That is why there is mention of the relevant language planning officer.
These are State bodies. It is not just bodies that are not already part of the system and are tasked with a multitude of other issues. They are not specifically focused bodies, so there is no mention of Conradh na Gaeilge, Glór na nGael or organisations such as that. They are voluntary organisations that do a great deal of work, and I do not want them to end up with the onerous task of receiving all this documentation. They may want that, but in this case we are trying to set out who will be on notice at various stages of strategies and development plans in this area.
Údarás, as the Deputy said, is already in the regulations. In the case of An Coimisinéir Teanga agus Foras na Gaeilge, that should also be looked at in the context of the regulations, and I will have a look at that.
The language planning officers sit within each of the local authorities, so they should be, and are, part of the development plan. In counties Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Cork, Meath and Waterford and our six Gaeltacht regions, Irish language planning officers throughout the country are part of the local authority itself. In respect of An Coimisinéir Teanga agus Foras na Gaeilge, I will look at them in the context of the regulations and revert to the Deputy before Report Stage.
The Minister responsible is also mentioned in the amendments. Is he or she just taken as a given?
I would have thought so but we can clarify that. I understand the Deputy's logic.
In the context of the scrutiny the Minister is undertaking, will he let me know which amendments in the grouping are mine? I did not catch that.
Amendments Nos. 440, 451, 469, 485, 496, 515, 550, 554 and 568 are in the names of Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh.
I thank the Minister. I will speak to those amendments. Amendment No. 440, for example, is about the notice of intention to review a development plan in preparation of a development plan. Other amendments relate to making a development plan and variation of a development plan and concern the correspondence to be sent and discussed. I am seeking to update the language in the Bill such that it will be consistent with Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012, which sets out the structure for the language planning process and redefine the Gaeltacht as it was until the development of language planning areas. As the Minister will be well aware, under that legislation, 26 Gaeltacht language planning areas, 16 Gaeltacht service towns and five language networks, or líonraí Gaeilge, are recognised on the island of Ireland.
The reference in the Bill to just the Gaeltacht, therefore, is out of date and is using the language of the 2000 Act but we should update the language in the Bill such that it will be consistent with Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012. The amendments are seeking to ensure, given that this is the largest revision of our planning legislation in 25 years and that there may not be another consolidated Bill like this for a number of decades, that it will be up to date with the legislation passed in 2012. The reference is just to the Gaeltacht but there is more detail in the amendment, such as the Minister, the limistéar pleanála teanga Gaeltachta, the baile seirbhíse Gaeltachta and the líonraí. That is what the amendments are largely seeking to do.
On page 30, “Gaeltacht” is defined as “a Gaeltacht area within the meaning of the Gaeltacht Act 2012” or “a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area within such meaning”. If we were to include other areas, such as within Cork city, Galway or Dublin, that would add a further layer. As I said in response to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I will make sure that those who need to be consulted by way of the regulations will be consulted, and I will come back to that on Report Stage. I do not see the benefit of extending the scope. There are 16 Gaeltacht service towns, including Cork city, Galway, Clifden, Athboy, Navan, Ballinrobe, Castlebar, Belmullet, Donegal town, Dunloe, Dungarvan, Macroom, Tralee and Cahersiveen. They are well defined, there will be plans within those areas and they interact within their local authorities. Accordingly, I do not see the need for the amendments.
Should the correspondence not be sent to the Department of the Gaeltacht and other State bodies with responsibility for the protection and promotion of the language with respect to those areas?
These are defined places and there are not hundreds of them but 16, which I have just gone through. One would absolutely expect the Department to have regard to them in any event. It certainly should, and it will. Language development plans and plans for the language, that is, not development plans from a planning perspective, are also in place and they are clearly defined, as are the areas. I do not see, therefore, the benefit of including the amendment. It is another layer and the Deputy is seeking to put that into the Bill.
They are already defined. Gaeltacht is defined as well. Gaeltacht planning areas are defined. They are in the Bill already.
Yes, but the point on this is where the correspondence goes. So that definition-----
But that is something that by way of regulation-----
Does that definition on page 30 fully cover what is proposed in my amendments?
I do want to get clarification for the Deputy. We will look at that by way of the regulations as well because I do want to make sure that those who should be consulted are consulted. The point I am making is that if you are a language planning officer in a local authority in any of those areas, you will know where your líonraí Gaeilge are and you will know what you are responsible for. You are part of the development plan. If we can strengthen that through the regulations I will happily look at that and come back on Report Stage with it. I have said to Deputy Ó Snodaigh that I get the point on Foras na Gaelige and An Coimisinéir Teanga as well. This is something that is more appropriate for the regulations. I can take the point. It could be problematic in the legislation.
Another thing is that there is another area there. If you put that in, do you create other lacuna or grey areas for challenges to it? The regulations would be the best place. I am more than content to report back on that in advance of Report Stage. As I said, with many of the amendments, it is not that they are crazy it is more a question of their appropriateness in primary legislation versus regulations. That is where it is at. It is to allow the flexibility that one would need into the future. The strategy on the Irish language has had to be flexible right the way through. Some initiatives that have looked good on paper have not taken hold and others have. There has had to be flexibility to respond to different challenges. If you tie that into the primary legislation, then any changes in future will require the Act, as it will be, to be amended. I am happy to look at them in regulations and to report back to Deputies in advance of Report Stage but I am not in a position to accept those amendments.
I appreciate the Minister’s response but the legislation is quite prescriptive as it is and this is not covered in regulations. It is quite clear. Planning authority should give a copy of a notice under subsection (12) and then lists who gets it. My amendments are trying to make sure the prescriptive legislation is effectively correct in it prescribes-----
The Deputy can move his amendment and that is absolutely fine. It is fully up to him but I am saying that I will come back to him prior to Report Stage and will report back on those. He can resubmit it on Report Stage if he wishes but I will have a more detailed response on it there. There is some merit in what has been put forward by Deputies and I would like to see if we can meet them in the middle on that.
I appreciate that.
I cannot accept them right now.
I am just saying that given this section of the Bill is not guidelines but is a prescriptive list -----
No, I know that.
----- that the way to address this would be on Report Stage through an amendment. It does not make sense to have a prescriptive list in legislation and then the bits about the Irish language are dealt with elsewhere and not in the guidelines.
No. The regulations themselves that stand up the Bill and its operation will be very important too. They do allow the flexibility to amend them into the future if there is a wish. I will come back to the Deputy prior to Report Stage. I am just saying as it stands today, I am not in a position to accept these as they are now. There are potential risks with their being that prescriptive as to other things that one would leave out. Do we leave areas that are grey areas for potential judicial reviews? This is the overall planning Bill for all of planning and not just for the Gaeltacht. Someone else might ask why have we not prescribed or asked for another definition to be included in the Bill for some other matter. I value to importance of trying to protect and grow our Gaeltacht areas and support Irish language speakers, and I will continue to do that, but as the amendments are written, I am not accepting them today. I will come back to the Deputy in advance of Report Stage and we will look at them by way of the regulations. The Deputy can move them if he wants. That is fine.
But we have a prescriptive list in legislation.
What else? Sorry, Deputy, I do not mean to interrupt, but think outside the Gaeltacht issue. What else could we or should we be prescribing across the board? That is all I am saying.
Yes, but the prescriptive wording in the legislation about where the functional area of the planning authority includes the Gaeltacht area, Údarás na Gaeltachta. My amendments, for instance, include putting in the Department of the Gaeltacht.
I know what the Deputy is saying but, as I have said already, the subsection says “such other bodies (including, where appropriate, a regional assembly of an adjoining region)”. It is very open to that and I think the best place for it is the regulations. That is all I am saying.
I will bring in Deputy Ó Broin. Deputy Ó Snodaigh also indicated.
I have two questions. They are more so that I might understand. To follow the argument about what that then means, let us take a concrete example. Amendment No. 441 relates to section 52 on page 114. Is it that there is something about the list that the Minister has prescribed that is different that makes it less open to the kind of judicial review legal challenge than the types of groups he is proposing? Is it because these are statutory bodies versus non-statutory bodies?
Yes. I need more time to assess what we do. They are statutory bodies. I mentioned other bodies. I was not being flippant. There are other really good groups who we might probably say that we should be consulting with them. I have already mentioned that I am consulting with Bánú but no one is proposing it in the legislation. That is my point.
Sure. Just from our side of the room, it would be really helpful. Essentially, the Minister is saying there is a group of organisations that should be prescribed in the legislation and they are in the legislation. There is a wider group whom there is potential to consult. That is up to the planning authority in line with the regulations. Obviously that means there is some basis for why some get prescribed and some do not. It would be really good for us if we understood the logic of that because that would allow us to-----
I think -----
Apologies for cutting across the Minister. I have a couple of points. That would be the first thing that would be useful.
Second, I fully accept that you cannot list every organisation. That is obviously why the provision on subsection (3)(j) is there but there is a big difference between being in the guidelines and being in the prescribed list in the sense that the prescribed list is guaranteed. There are two things that I am asking the Minister to think of. Where, for example, Údarás na Gaeltacht is listed, I am ask him to think about whether any of the groups we have listed in our amendments could be included alongside that. For example, take the Irish language planning officers, they are situated within the local authorities. The Irish language planning officers are a good case in point. On the one hand, one could make the assumption that because they are situated in the local authorities, they could be consulted. However, as all of us know and particularly those of us with experience in local government, just because you happen to work in the local authority does not mean the director of planning services adequately engages where there is an obligation to do it. We all know that. I am not looking to convince the Minister now. I am just asking him to have a second think about whether any of the groups that are listed in our amendments could usefully fit in as additions in the primary legislation.
Just so I am very clear, am I correct in saying that while the Minister could put these groups in the regulations, there is no requirement on the planning authority to consult them, that it is still discretionary, whereas in the primary legislation, it is prescribed? It is still a secondary status. Yes, the Minister is nudging them and recommending that they consider these groups but ultimately it is a matter for the planning authority. The only reason I say that again is that I go back to the issue that if you have a good planning authority or good officials, they will do this anyway, but in those areas where this is not important to them or where they might actually be hostile to the language, they will not do that. Again, I am not trying to convince the Minister but it is to be clear that there is a substantive difference between being in the prescribed list and being in the regulations. Sure, it is better to be in the regulations than not to be in the regulations but would the Minister at least make a commitment, when he is looking at the issue of the regulations, to see if there is anything else that can be added to the prescribed list, even if he is not going to accept all of them?
Sure. Perhaps I will respond briefly to Deputy Ó Broin. Prescribed bodies are State bodies. Part of the reason for them being prescribed is, as the Deputy said, so that people have to interact with them and seek their experience and expertise in their specific areas, as is right and proper. I said in respect of Foras na Gaeilge and An Coimisinéir Teanga that I will look at that.
We cannot prescribe individuals or non-State groups in legislation. The point the Deputy made about language officers in local authorities is probably a management issue, but I understand the point. In this area, we want to make sure we are not elongating a process, but in defined areas where there are Gaeltachtaí, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh said earlier, I have never wanted Gaeilge to be an afterthought. Everything that has driven us all the way through this is to ensure the language is front and centre. We will look at those elements of prescribing State bodies and I will come back to the committee in advance of Report Stage. I just need to consider this a little more. For clarity's sake, I cannot prescribe individuals or non-State groups.
I will ask one very quick supplementary question about that as what the Minister said is clear. The text on page 114, in section (3)(g), lists "any local community development committee [the LCDCs] within the functional area of the planning authority". The LCDCs - I sat on one - are a function of the local authority. They fit within them, albeit they have other mandates. Clearly, although the LCDC sits within the architecture of the local authority, statutorily and physically, and its secretariat is made up of local authority staff, a decision has been taken to list it here. I fully accept that individuals cannot be prescribed, but the Irish language planning officers sit within a function of the local authority. That could be explored and that is all I ask.
We will have a look at it.
I have a brief query on amendment No. 555. Is there a reason it cannot be accepted? Is it that it is superfluous? It is slightly different from the others. It proposes to insert "Gaeltacht Service Town within a Gaeltacht area" after Gaeltacht in section 73(5)(a)(vii). At the moment the section reads that a notice shall be sent "where the settlement or the part of a settlement to which the proposed plan relates includes a Gaeltacht area, Údarás na Gaeltachta". The amendment proposes that this line read "includes a Gaeltacht area or Gaeltacht Service Town within a Gaeltacht area" to give recognition. Is that taken as a given?
It will be taken as a given due the definition of a Gaeltacht. We will check it for the Deputy, but it would be. We looked at that earlier in the Bill.
Okay.
This is just so I understand. While it is not in the list I am looking at, we prescribe such organisations as An Taisce in planning legislation, but it is not a statutory or State body. It is just so I am clear.
It is State funded.
There is a difference between being State funded and being a statutory body.
As I said, I think everyone agrees that we cannot have a long definitive list. I remind members that any other bodies can be consulted, but specifically within the areas I mentioned, we will look at State bodies with regard to prescribing and the other areas around the regulation.
I am not challenging that; I am welcoming it. So that I understand, the Minister stated that what was unique about the bodies in the lists is that they were statutory bodies. I am saying that An Taisce, which is often a prescribed body in planning legislation, is not a statutory body. It is State funded, but so is Conradh na Gaeilge and the others we listed. It would be helpful to understand what the general rule is. Then it would be easier for us to say "Okay, the Minister is right" or to challenge it. Does the Minister get my point?
I get the point. We will come back to the Deputy.
It is not because they are statutory bodies or is it the case that sometimes it is and sometimes it is not?
Generally, it is. I am trying to think of another one.
What is the exception to the rule that allows An Taisce to be prescribed?
My official tells me it goes back to the 1963 Act. It is an historical issue relating to An Taisce. We can provide a little more detail. I am trying to think of another body.
I am not arguing that An Taisce should not be prescribed. It is good that it is. The only thing I will say is this. It is a small point for the Minister to think about.
We will send the Deputy the regulation.
I understand why they are prescribed, but the Minister's argument was that you have to be careful about these prescriptive lists, that you cannot add additional bodies because you do not want to open the State to judicial review as a result of others not being included. I asked what were the criteria and he said the criterion was that they must be State bodies. It could just be that An Taisce is an anomaly and that is fine, but if you can have one non-statutory body, you can have others.
I get the Deputy's point, but what I am being told is that it is an historical issue that goes back to a 1963 Act. I do not know the genesis of that so I will not pretend I do, but we will get the information and it can be assessed.
Sure.
It is important. We want consultation, particularly in Gaeltacht areas and where there are growing towns, so we must ensure that happens. We are also saying that any other relevant body can be consulted. That is the difference between prescribed and on the regulation front. We will look at it and we will get some clarification around An Taisce.
I am not looking for that.
Does the Deputy want An Taisce out?
Absolutely not. It is a very good organisation. It is just to understand the logic of why some are in and some are out. I understand why An Taisce is in; it is because it is prescribed in legislation.
My understanding is that An Taisce has a unique role as a prescribed body and was given a kind of special status as-----
It is Ireland's National Trust or something.
Yes, so while it is not a State body, it was recognised as having that special role because the State does not have a National Trust kind of State body. An Taisce is fulfilling that role. That is a conversation for another day.
My group of amendments were only looking for the Department and State bodies to be in the prescribed lists, the Minister will be happy to know. When the Minister is looking at my amendments, he could certainly consider them for the legislative list, rather than the regulations. I give the Minister that assurance.
What we are saying to members is that we will look at this and come back to the committee before Report Stage. Regulations have a big role in this too, but we will look at what State bodies are prescribed. I understand the points Deputies have made, but I am not in a position to accept them right now.
I thank the Minister for pointing me to the definition of "Gaeltacht" on page 30. That reinforces the point I made as the definition of a Gaeltacht is "a Gaeltacht area within the meaning of the Gaeltacht Act 2012" which refers to Gaeltacht areas in existence before 2012. Also listed in the definitions is "a Gaeltacht language planning area". My amendments seek to include the bailte seirbhíse Gaeltachta, the Gaeltacht service towns, and the líonraí Gaeilge. In that sense, my amendments are trying to update and reflect the situation. The 2012 Gaeltacht Act is absolutely relevant and pertinent, but that needs to be taken on board. There is a strong case for it. We are only talking about where there are service towns, líonraí Gaeilge and Gaeltacht language planning areas. It makes sense in those situations for the Department and State bodies to be in this prescribed list because the development plans have an impact on the promotion of the language, as has been the subject of all our discussion this afternoon.
The amendments I am putting forward here absolutely do stand. I ask that they are considered.
I will give the Deputy a commitment that I will look at those in detail in advance of Report Stage. We will be able to provide some further assurances on it. I will get clarification on An Taisce but I understand it was the 1963 Act. It was unique being the Irish national trust type of thing so it got special status.
Are there other amendments we need to cover in this grouping or are members satisfied?
There are four clusters.
There are three or four. If members want I can take the next one-----
Please do.
It is a really helpful way of doing it.
I am fine. I was just not keeping track fully here but-----
I can go more slowly.
This is really helpful because each day we have been trying to work our way to what is the most efficient way without asking-----
Which cluster? Is it all on the same road?
Is it a ribbon development?
Next week, it will be a different thing.
Here is the question. We have 63 groupings to get through over whatever period of time. Some of them are quite small groupings but where some of them are larger, if there are clusters, if we knew in advance from the officials to the Cathaoirleach how the Minister was clustering them, we could be a little bit more prepared when we come in. It would be really helpful.
In fairness to the members, I know at the opening of the committee everyone recognised the incredible amount of work the team here has gone through to prepare this so-----
Absolutely.
If -I am saying "if" with a big health warning - it is not too onerous, we have them and can go through them here as we are. If the Deputy leaves that with me, we will see what is possible. I am conscious that-----
Just to be clear-----
Can the Deputy let me finish for a second? When we come out of these committee meetings, obviously a lot of additional work is required in advance of the next day too so I want to see what is actually possible. We will try to be as helpful as we can.
Just to be clear, of the remaining 50 groupings, I can only see four or five that are likely to have subclusters. If it was possible, it would speed up the process, which I know the Minister wants to do.
We are all working off the same lists.
However, I appreciate the officials are overburdened.
I will see what can be done.
We will see what we can do on it. I do not want to start redoing work that the Bills Office does already.
(Interruptions).
Will the Minister address those amendments in the next subgrouping then please?
We have discussed amendment No. 30 already but the next logical cluster contained amendments Nos. 355 to 357, inclusive, 360, 369, 371, 373, 380, 421, 900 and 901 tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. There are three more amendments in the grouping, namely, amendment No. 368, tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan agus Ó Cathasaigh, and then amendments Nos. 894 and 899, which were tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Cathasaigh, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. These amendments concern the introduction of Irish-language matters into housing development strategies and housing strategies. That is pretty much the same issue that we have discussed.
The officials worked very hard to produce those speaking notes for the Minister. He should at least speak to them.
I can. I can go through them all but-----
Even in summary.
Okay, let me go through them. For fear of boring the members to death-----
The Minister would never bore us. He might frustrate, annoy or anger us but never bore us.
I cannot say the feeling is mutual.
These amendments seek to further merge additional matters - as we have discussed some of this, members will have to bear with me - in relation to the Irish language into the context of development plans through strategies for sustainable development and regeneration, strategies relating to economic development, strategies relating to creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities, as well as settlement-specific objectives. We know the term "Gaeltacht" covers Donegal, Mayo, Galway, Kerry as well as areas in the counties of Cork, Meath and Waterford. Six of Ireland’s inhabited islands are also in the Gaeltacht. We have gone through a lot of the provisions of the Gaeltacht Act 2012 and under this process Gaeltacht communities within each of the 26 language planning areas and the three relevant Gaeltacht service towns recognised under the Act, are provided the opportunity - rightly so - with ongoing financial support to develop and implement language plans in overall support of the language community. We have the 20-Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010-2030, which outlines an integrated approach to the language in which nine areas of action are specified. These include education, public services, legislation and the economy. The overall approach is to create a supportive framework containing opportunities in which Irish can be passed on in a natural way within the community and within households.
The planning system in Ireland also recognises the importance of the continued daily use of the Irish language, especially in our Gaeltacht areas. More work is needed there. We spoke about some local authorities having a greater emphasis on that than others but that needs to be an absolute priority within our counties that have Gaeltacht areas. I have engaged myself with chief executives and with planning officers in those counties. There is a whole host of wider societal, educational, cultural and sporting activities and programmes in place to support, promote and treasure the use of the Irish language. I recognise, as we have discussed, the role that planning policy has and how it can be employed to guide and assist planning authorities, including those with Gaeltacht areas within their functional areas, to consistently apply similar planning policies.
Section 46 of this Bill places an obligation on planning authorities to prepare as part of their city or county development plan, a strategy relating to the creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities. This includes, specifically, a provision relating to objectives for "the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage, including the protection of Irish as the community language, of Gaeltacht areas in the functional area to which the development plan relates". This replaces a similar provision at section 10(2) of the current Planning and Development Act 2000.
The 2022 development plans guidelines give further detail on the mandatory objective for Gaeltacht areas based on section 10(2) of the current Act. An integrated language plan prepared under the Gaeltacht Act 2012 can include proposals for, among the other issues I have mentioned, physical planning and development. I am sure all members are fully familiar with the development plan guidelines which I have in front of me. These guidelines state that planning authorities should ensure that development plans have regard to the provisions of the language plan and include objectives to support the promotion of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht, in accordance with mandatory objective 7.6 of the development plan guidelines, which is detailed very clearly. This objective also states that development plans should include a comprehensive dedicated section for An Ghaeltacht that includes mapping and identifying the Gaeltacht area, or areas, and the accompanying policy provisions. In addition, the 2005 sustainable rural housing guidelines recognise that there will continue to be a need for housing in all rural and island communities. What we discussed earlier on, and I did not want to gloss over it, is the importance of moving forward with the priority area plans for the Gaeltacht and the islands. It will be a significant change within this and I had flagged that as something we will bring forward on Report Stage.
On further enhancing policy support for the protection and promotion of the Irish language, we have discussed the role of Údarás na Gaeltachta, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, and a separate working group made of my own Department and the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Údarás na Gaeltachta and other relevant local authorities within Gaeltacht areas.
I will say that, noting the significant planning policy support already in place and work under way to further enhance this, I am genuinely of the view that the Bill as currently drafted strikes that appropriate balance between recognising the need to promote and maintain the use of Gaeilge with other equally legitimate planning considerations. However, given the extent of the issues raised by Deputies on the general matter of the Irish-language system, I will undertake a review, as I have said already, on Report Stage and will consider if any specific additional provisions are required, specifically around section 69, as mentioned, which is the islands and Gaeltacht areas on the special area plans. I will leave it at that for the moment.
I thank the Minister for that. I will also make some general observations. I am sure the Minister is aware of the protest outside the Oireachtas yesterday in relation to some of these debates. Increasingly, when we are engaging with the people who live in or want to live in the Gaeltacht, their representative organisations or the planning officers, the issue of housing is becoming central to those discussions. It would be interesting to hear if there are plans or if work is under way with the national planning policy statement on these related matters. That was one of the Minister's arguments as to why he would not support a previous set of amendments. He might have said it already, but if the Minister could clarify this it would be very interesting. Is it his hope to have one before the end of his term of office?
The Gaeltacht planning guidelines and the rural guidelines are going to have to interact and be consistent with each other, and they are key. There is also a wider set of issues. The Minister said he has been listening to the debates. Other members spoke about the impact of mainstream planning permissions at the edge of or within Gaeltacht areas, along with the issues of short-term letting and the inability of the current system facilitate enforcement in that regard. I would also like the Minister to consider three other specific areas, which I am sure he already has. These are affecting conversations many of us have with the Irish language planning officers. How can we best tailor existing Government funding streams for the delivery of social and affordable housing along with and aligned to Gaeltacht planning guidelines and the rural planning guidelines when they are produced, specifically to assist rural countryside areas to be able to sustain and grow populations but in a manner that is consistent with good sustainable planning?
I have had some very constructive conversations with the Office of the Planning Regulator about this matter. If, for example, clusters are the most sustainable forms of rural countryside settlement patterns and if we want to sustain and grow populations in rural areas that are in decline or in Gaeltacht areas that are stagnating or in decline, we are going to have to think about how we can mobilise the affordable housing fund or cost-rental equity loans in a very different way from that originally intended. These funds could become useful tools for ensuring that we do not have stand-offs, as we had with Breanndán Ó Beaglaíoch in the context of a long running planning dispute, where the State and its institutions end up in conflict with the individuals who want to live in Gaeltacht areas. We could use those funds in really innovative ways.
One area that will require some consideration is land. Consider a rural countryside area, and particularly one that is under pressure from an urban settlement, and the fact the individuals and their families who want to live there have land holdings that are separate. How do we facilitate the construction of settlements? I have often thought that the affordable housing fund or some other such instrument could be used to buy, sell and consolidate land holdings to ensure good sustainable settlement patterns that meet the requirements of the national planning framework, and which do not continue to facilitate new and unregulated ribbon development, allowing those people who want to move and settle in to Gaeltacht areas to do so. It is relevant to these amendments. One of the reasons we tabled these amendments was that if they were accepted, it would force those in local authority housing departments to have particular conversations. In the same way that the planning system is blind to many of these issues, our housing officials are, unfortunately and far too often, operating under extreme pressure to meet general needs and special needs in the context of housing and social and affordable housing.
I will make a final comment and will not come in again on this group. Given that the Minister is not accepting these amendments and in view of what he outlined, when he is working on the rural and Gaeltacht planning guidelines, it would be very valuable if he gave constructive consideration to how we utilise those funding streams alongside the guidelines. It could solve a large number of problems for many people and remove a great deal of conflict from the planning system.
My amendments are Nos. 368, 894 and 899. Amendment No. 894 is about housing strategy. It seeks to ensure that housing strategy in Gaeltacht communities would have regard to the need to protect the cultural and linguistic heritage of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht communities. It is an absolute disaster in terms of planning when we have a physiotherapist living out of a van in a Gaeltacht community where there are hundreds of empty homes that are available only as short-term lets. This really impacts on people's lives. Given the situation in this regard, it is not unreasonable to call for housing strategies in the legislation to have regard for the need to protect the cultural and linguistic heritage of Gaeltacht communities. This comprehensive Bill runs to 750 pages, but these things are missing from the specifics. I would like to hear why this would not strengthen the Bill and why the Minister considers there is not a need for it. For me, there is a compelling need in this regard.
The reason for amendments such as those we are discussing is because of the failure of councils over the years to take into account the linguistic and cultural heritage of Gaeltacht areas. I refer to amendment No. 894. The phrase "have regard to" does not make something compulsory. I put it to the Minister that we are not trying to have regard to anything. There may be a reason why a development, plan or strategy would not comply fully, I do not know, but the amendment says that these things should have regard to, which means those involved have to take something into account when sitting down and deciding a strategy at whatever level is required. Far too often, that has not been the case. This has led to Gaeltacht communities having to go to court to prevent a development they feel would injure the linguistic heritage of their area or where a housing development would undermine the community language in the area by ensuring that a development had no Irish language provision in it to protect that community.
The other amendments are quite simple in many ways. They propose that the housing strategy should always include the distinct housing need of Gaeltacht communities. Gaeltacht communities are distinct in much the same way as other minority communities. These communities are protected in legislation but not necessarily protected in action in the context of planning. If we want the Gaeltacht to survive, we need to ensure that there is proper planning in order that we will not get spate of summer homes being built at some point in the future. Deputy O'Callaghan gave the lists of housing in various Gaeltacht regions where 53% or 54% of all houses are shut up or closed for nine months of the year or more because they are holiday homes. This does not serve the community well. I spoke on this yesterday.
In the past, we did not need to ensure a distinct population and housing growth strategy for Gaeltacht areas because people were emigrating in droves. The just left. We do, however, need a strategy now.
Our economic development and industrial and business policies, especially in Gaeltacht areas, are instructed and managed by Údarás na Gaeltachta. It means those who previously would have left the area are staying. Young families wish to remain in the area. It probably always needed a distinct policy, but we need it now, in particular, because what is happening is that people are forced to move out of the area because their distinct housing need is not being met by the local authorities. I know the Minister will say we will look at it again and, hopefully, we will. I am not against looking at it again. That is what that group of amendments is trying to capture.
Before the Minister responds, we are going to break at 5 p.m.
I will be really quick rather than leave that hanging. I will mention couple of things and I will endeavour to be brief. To deal with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point, we might look again at chapter 1 of Part 7 on page 403. I would contest that it is well covered there in having "regard to the overall housing needs of the population of its functional area".
The national planning statement will be very important. It is up to this committee, obviously, as we go through it to pass that. The national planning statement will include, let us say, for the planning guidelines for the Gaeltacht to become a national planning statement. As I said earlier, we are going to work on that. That in itself will be very important. It does say that, obviously, to quote housing and social integration. That is in there as well.
What I will say to the Deputy on the social housing piece, and I am not going to delay us here, is that there is complexity. I know from visiting south Connemara that people are on a waiting list in a local authority area. It can be more difficult for an English language speaker or someone who just speaks English than someone who is bilingual or who is an Irish speaker. I have seen on the ground in south Connemara how that was managed through an approved housing body, AHB, but it is not without its complexity. Someone could be put ahead of someone else on a social housing list - I am not saying we are saying that - when allocating a home, for argument's sake. That is it in real terms on the ground now.
The Minister can create another category so he is-----
I am just saying we have to be an-chúramach faoi sin because there is an equality aspect to it as well. It is one island and one country. There are differences within it. I have seen it on the ground. I have seen how it is being managed with local authorities that have been interested, but we have got to be careful in that regard as well. We may be putting one person ahead of another. We fully get it that a family can come in and rejuvenate an area, particularly through public housing. We have all seen where schools with properties nearby have nearly been able to hold a competition for a family to come into an area. It is different when it is social housing.
The Minister could introduce a choice based letting scheme, which allows him then-----
I know that; I am just saying that is the complexity.
We know it is not as easy as that, but it could happen.
I will mention a couple of things we are doing. As I said to Deputy Ó Cathasaigh earlier with regard to the affordable housing, we are well advanced in An Rinn. That is working well. I see the affordable housing fund being utilised there. The ratios with regard to Údarás na Gaeltachta and its ability to be able to sell land is something that is being worked through. The purchase of other land can be done. I brought forward the land acquisition fund for local authorities. There is nothing to say they cannot buy land in Gaeltacht regions.
We had discussion on Croí Cónaithe but let us say that whatever vacancy grant someone decides to have or not, that is having a real impact in rural areas. We had 14 applications approved on the islands, which is a lot.
It is huge.
With regard to holiday homes or homes that are not used all year round, I know from friends of mine who are in the Gaeltacht that many of those are family homes of people who have returned to the area. There have been far too many, I get that too, but they are homes. It is not just to say these are people coming from the Gaeltacht or from Germany or France. Many of those homes the Deputy referenced are owned by families who were born in that area and for people who return. That needs to be managed very carefully into the future, however, and lessons need to be learned, especially in one particular county where we are seeing far too many.
I will also mention things like investment in wastewater. Again, we talk to communities and that is something we hear. Representatives from Uisce Éireann appeared before coiste na Gaeilge. I watched those proceedings with interest having a particular focus there, too.
I know we are due to conclude at 5 p.m. I just wanted to mention those things. We are already well covered on the housing strategy with what we have there. There are complexities, whether we like it or not, around the social housing piece, in particular, because it is public housing, around identifying a certain cohort who happen to speak gaeilge and others who do not. We have to be aware, however, and this has been the case in all the other planning we are doing, of being careful about the type of development that happens, particularly within Gaeltacht areas where the language is in a precarious position. That is why I believe the Gaeltacht planning guidelines will be very important. They will become a national planning statement. We are moving on affordable housing within the Gaeltacht. I want to see that happen. It has taken time. There was nothing on the agenda. That is moving. We have seen good social housing delivery in Gaeltacht areas.
I will leave it at that for the moment.
I thank the Minister. I will adjourn the committee now. We will reconvene at 6.06 p.m in this committee room. Go raibh maith agaibh.
Sitting suspended at 5.06 p.m. and resumed at 6.06 p.m.
We will continue from where we were, which was amendment No. 30. The Minister is going to speak to another subgroup.
I will list the amendments for members' information. We are proposing to deal with amendments. Nos. 319, 322, 325, 326, 332, 341, 347, 352, 386, 387, 388, 423, 425 and 428. Those amendments were tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. Amendment No. 343 was tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan, Ó Cathasaigh, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh. The last two in this subgrouping are amendments Nos 351 and 385, which were tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh.
As I mentioned, these amendments seek to further merge additional matters related to the Irish language into the content of development plans through strategies for sustainable development and regeneration, strategies relating to economic development, job creation and employment, preservation of sustainable places and communities and settlement-specific objectives.
I will come in on my amendments Nos. 343, 351 and 385. I will start on amendment No. 385 because it is almost similar to the ones we were discussing.
This is an amendment to delete the wording on Gaeltacht areas and replace it with more up-to-date language reflecting Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012, which sets out the structure for the language planning process and redefines the Gaeltacht as was into language planning areas. As I said, we have the limistéar pleanála teanga Gaeltachta, baile seirbhíse Gaeltachta and líonra Gaeilge.
With the Minister's help, I was able to figure out that the definition in the beginning of the Bill does not cover all of this in terms of Gaeltacht. The definition at the start of the Bill only refers to the limistéar pleanála teanga Gaeltachta and pre-existing Gaeltacht areas. It does not encompass what is set out in my amendment. Given all the work that went into the 2012 Act and given how important it is in terms of language planning policy, it is important this Bill reflects that, is up to date and uses the language from the 2012 Act, especially given that the definition in this Bill does not reflect the changes made from Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012 and is out of date.
The language in this Bill is much closer to that of 2020, which was the last time there was a full review of the planning legislation. Given that this is meant to last for decades, it is important that it reflect the reality since 2012 and that we move on in a manner consistent with the 2012 legislation. Amendment No. 385 is similar to others we have discussed.
Amendment No. 343 is on an obligation to prepare a strategy for sustainable development and regeneration. It is not dissimilar to some of the amendments discussed previously. It would ensure that strategies on sustainable development and regeneration in Gaeltacht areas would protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of those areas. That makes sense.
Amendment No. 351 relates to an obligation to prepare a strategy related to economic development. The economic development of Gaeltacht areas is crucial to the protection of the language, our cultural heritage and Gaeltacht communities. The amendment would ensure strategies for the economic development of Gaeltacht areas would protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of those areas.
As we have said about other amendments in the grouping, these amendments would not have been submitted were there not a necessity to meet the challenges currently faced by Irish-language speakers in Gaeltacht communities and the failure of our planning process to date. We have talked through some of the human stories in this regard and given some data on how grave the failure has been in some areas. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's rationale regarding our amendments.
I want to comment on quite a few of my amendments in the grouping, particularly Nos. 322, 326, 332, 341 and 347. They relate to setting out obligations in the legislation to ensure Irish-language-speaking and Gaeltacht areas are considered and to the fore in making development plans. The amendments require insertions and many of them are self-explanatory. They provide that, where we are talking about developments, we are also talking about ensuring there are Irish-language facilities and that economic development does not negatively affect the viability of a Gaeltacht community. It is about safeguarding the use of Irish and the viability of language planning areas and Gaeltacht service towns and ensuring Irish language networks are accounted for in any strategy for sustainable development and regeneration.
Amendment No. 347 makes a clear distinction whereby a Gaeltacht area, Gaeltacht service town, or líonra should be considered essential to the place's economic performance.
Amendment No. 352 seeks to ensure that matters related to urban, co-ordinated or priority area plans identified in terms of economic development, employment and other opportunities will be considered specifically in terms of how they can protect the heritage of the Irish language areas, the Gaeltacht regions and the communities that live in them, and how they can be used to promote Irish in the community and support the relevant language statutory plans. This was one of the amendments or ideas promoted by Conradh na Gaeilge in its work on this Bill to ensure the heritage of Irish-language areas, along with other matters, would be to the fore in our considerations. It was front and centre heretofore. We are not saying we should not consider the environmental impact, the need for wastewater infrastructure and all of that; we are just saying we also need to reflect upon the needs of a specific community identifiable in law and living within an identifiable region.
Bhíomar ag plé na ceiste ginearálta roimh an sos. We debated the general point here just before the break. Suffice it to say that paragraphs 46(2)(b) and 46(2)(c) well cover what is at stake. We should not be too prescriptive when referring to cultural spaces, facilities and other such things. I genuinely believe we are well covered. All the strategies are integrated as part of the development plan.
In this regard, section 41(9) states as follows:
The planning authority shall ensure that the strategies and statements referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) are coordinated and consistent with one another and with the integrated overall strategy for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and shall ensure that the development plan overall is internally consistent and coherent.
In line with what we have discussed already, I will make only those two points for fear of repeating myself on giving a specific focus in the priority area plans we intend to introduce for Gaeltacht areas under section 69.
Specifically on amendment No. 351, in my name and related to the obligation to prepare a strategy on economic development, the Minister has referred us to the obligation to prepare a strategy related to the creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities. Section 46(2)(b), which refers to the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage, including the protection of Irish as the community language, of Gaeltacht areas in the functional area to which the development plan relates, is prescriptive and entirely appropriate. However, while it is appropriate to have a reference to strategies on the preservation of sustainable places and communities, the economic development of Gaeltacht areas is crucial to their thriving over time. Therefore, strategies on economic development in Gaeltacht areas, where relevant, should be sought. This makes eminent sense. If economic development were somehow peripheral or not relevant, this would not be the case. Section 46(2)(b) just does not cover what is required because it is not related to economic development. It is a good example of how a reference to strategies for economic development should be written. Economic development is the heartbeat of any community. Without it, a community does not thrive. Therefore, if we want flourishing, thriving Gaeltacht communities, economic development is crucial. What the Minister pointed us to is a really good example of how to achieve this, but there is a need to incorporate a reference to strategies related to economic development, not just a reference to the sustainable communities aspect, which is also important.
Are amendments Nos. 390 and 391 included in this group?
Tiocfaimid ar ais chucu. In some ways, it is relevant. Most of these amendments relate to Chapter 5 and the obligations provided for and trying to insert into each things such as preparing a strategy for sustainable development or a housing development strategy relating to the management of areas. They insert the need for the Gaeltacht areas to have a special mention and, therefore, a special consideration. I do not know whether the two amendments I mentioned are in order, out of order or whether the Minister will get to them. That is why I asked. They outline specific obligations and are quite detailed. If they have been taken on board, there would not be a need for many of these amendments because they outline a separate obligation that went through all of the needs. We have rehearsed this in the context of each amendment thus far. However, amendment No. 390 is relevant because it sets out a whole range of issues rather than the piecemeal way that the other amendments do it. I do not have the list of which amendments are out of order but I will try to get it before I come back in again. There is a logic behind us attempting to ensure this.
While the Minister quotes section 69, he is correct. It is great to hear, but it is not in the priority area plans. It does not specify that there will be one in respect of the Gaeltacht areas. We have it as a promise. I am not saying the Minister is going back on his promise but he may introduce a priority area plan and the next Minister may undo it. Whereas if it was set out in the list of priority plans that must be taken based on the obligations that we are seeking to create, I would have more faith that would work.
Táimid ag triail déileáil le ceantair leochaileacha. Toisc go raibh daoine difriúla ag ardú ceisteanna faoi le blianta anuas, tuigimid ar fad an timpeallacht, athrú aeráide agus cé chomh leochaileach atá an timpeallacht. Tá ceantair Ghaeltachta chomh leochaileach céanna ina lán bealaí. Mar a dúirt mé ag na cruinnithe coiste roimhe seo, má fhaigheann ceantar Gaeltachta bás agus má stopann tromlach na ndaoine ag labhairt Gaeilge ann, tá sé beagnach dodhéanta é a atógáil. Is léiriú air seo cé chomh leochaileach is atá Ráth Chairn, Baile Ghib agus ceantair eile atá imeallach nach féidir a bheith cinnte go bhfuil siad sa Ghaeltacht fós i ndáiríre. Bíonn an díospóireacht seo ann idir mé féin, an Teachta Ó Cuív agus daoine eile. An fiú díriú isteach ar an teorainn a atarraingt? Táimse den tuairim nár chóir agus go bhfuil seans fós againn an taoide a chasadh ach, má leanann sé sa treo ina bhfuil sé ag dul, ní bheidh an seans sin againn. Is é sin an fáth go bhfuilimid dáiríre faoi iarracht a dhéanamh dualgais bhreise a chur ann ionas gur féidir linn an taoide a chasadh. Ansin, is féidir díriú isteach ar cheisteanna eile nach mbaineann le Roinn an Aire ach le Ranna eile, mar shampla, an Roinn Coimirce Sóisialaí nó an Roinn comhshaoil, chun cuidiú leis an ualach breise atá á chur ar an státchóras againn toisc seo.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, beidh straitéis eacnamaíochta i bplean forbartha gach contae ar aon nós. An economic strategy will be part of every county’s development plan as it is, which would encompass our Gaeltacht areas as well. I am more than satisfied that is covered as is stated in the Bill. I think it was Deputy Ó Snodaigh who mentioned that priority area plans would be brought forward by the local authorities as part of the development plan process. That is the way I would see it done but it would have a specific focus on Gaeltacht areas. Economic development and the community and cultural aspect are to be done in the full administrative area of all local authorities, and we will bring about a specific focus on the Gaeltacht areas. It would be inappropriate to do it in such a way as being put forward by these amendments. Ní féidir liom glacadh leis na leasuithe.
I appreciate that every area will have an economic development but the point is that for the Gaeltacht areas to thrive, the economic development plan for the whole local authority area will need to take into account the needs of that Gaeltacht community in respect of protection of the language and linguistical cultural heritage. That is not arguing for a piecemeal approach or anything like that but it is arguing to make sure that the economic development plan for the overall area incorporates that specific aim into the plan. Without this amendment being adopted, that partial focus of the economic development plan for the wider area in terms of the language will not be there along with the other focuses in the economic development plan. In those situations, the survival and ability to thrive of the Gaeltacht communities could be overlooked in a wider economic development plan. You could be looking at an economic development plan and if you are not looking at the implications for the language and for Gaeltacht communities, you could be looking different priorities and not considering the needs of a particular area. Without that economic development there, the community could be undermined. That is why this amendment is needed.
Údarás na Gaeltachta is doing work in conjunction with it. Thankfully, we are seeing, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh stated earlier, an increase of investment in jobs in Gaeltacht areas. That is happening because of the work of Údarás na Gaeltachta in conjunction with our local authorities. As I said, the economic strategy is central to any development plan. We will add the particular focus of the Gaeltacht areas, which Údarás has, in relation to economic development anyway.
Nobody else is offering. We have one final subsection. Or two, is it?
There are just two amendments fágtha. They are amendments Nos. 430 and 432, which were tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh and which relate to the publication of notices relating to development plans, which is a matter that may be provided for under section 10 of the Official Languages Act. I get the point, and I have asked my officials to review this matter further. A relevant point has been made and I will return to these proposals on Report Stage.
Amendment No. 430 was tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh.
Sorry, it is amendments Nos. 430 and 431. As I said, for clarification and to correct the record, both amendments relate to the publication of notices relating to development plans. That is provided for under section 10 of the Official Languages Act, but I will see if we can do anything additional on Report Stage. We just need to look into it a little more. That is all.
To clarify, I have not discussed amendment No. 390. Was it included in one of the groups the Ministers put forward? Perhaps I missed it.
That amendment relates to the same issue. These subgroups are informal.
I know. I am indicating to the Chair that after speaking to amendment No. 430, I wish to speak to amendment No. 390.
I have not ticked amendment No. 390 off my list.
We will deal with amendment No. 430 first.
Amendment No. 390 is listed in this overall group. It is something we will look at. It relates to discussions on the priority area plans we had earlier. Amendments Nos. 430 and 431 are slightly different.
Amendment No. 430 concerns consultation with the Office of the Planning Regulator before preparation of a development plan. There are wider issues in that regard we will discuss elsewhere. I have concerns about those provisions in the Bill. However, specifically on amendment No. 430, it simply seeks that development plans be consistent with language plans, as we discussed. We have gone through the reasons. In that regard, and to be consistent with the 2012 Act, the amendment makes sense. We will deal with amendment No. 390 shortly.
I will briefly speak to amendment No. 431, which relates to the consultation with the Office of the Planning Regulator that is to take place before a draft development plan is produced. The amendment seeks only to add in any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act, and to take due account of that. It is not anything major. It is a recognition that such plans have to be taken into account.
I give a commitment that I will look at that in advance of Report Stage.
Amendment No. 390 outlines a specific Gaeltacht housing and population strategy as necessary to tackle the Gaeltacht housing emergency, and that population housing objectives for the Gaeltacht need to be identified to ensure that these communities thrive. It is to insert an obligation to prepare Gaeltacht housing population development strategies, where the planning authority's functional area includes at least one of either a limistéar pleanála teanga Gaeltachta or a baile seirbhíse Gaeltachta in the Gaeltacht. Without repeating and labouring the points, meeting housing needs in Gaeltacht communities has not worked to date. There are some very extreme effects of that failure. Having specific housing and population development strategies, as suggested in the amendment, is necessary so that those needs are properly planned for. The kind of ad hoc approach that has taken to date has been a complete failure. This needs to be well planned out. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
This is probably the most significant amendment in the entire group. That is evident from its length.
I will pick up on where the Minister left off before we took the break around what he argued regarding the challenges, particularly with social and affordable housing eligibility. Our social housing system is very clear. In addition to general needs housing, we have a variety of other categories where quantities of social housing and, one assumes, a larger stock of cost-rental housing, when we get there, can be designated for specific groups of people. That is set out in the scheme of lettings, which makes the rationale for that. Therefore, our social housing system, in some senses, is already set up to allow certain forms of prioritisation. For example, it could be for people with disabilities or mental health needs, etc. I am interested to know whether the Minister or Department has ever sought legal advice as to whether ensuring that in geographical areas, that is, Gaeltachtaí, it is legally permissible to have a percentage of housing specifically for Irish language users who meet a certain level of competency. Is that in fact legally possible? I suspect it would be in the sense that anybody can learn the language and do so to a certain proficiency. If there has been legal advice, and obviously the Minister cannot share it, will he at least talk about it? That would be particularly interesting.
What is most interesting about that, if you look around, very often it is people who come to live in Ireland who take a significant interest in the language, and are more likely to send their children to bunscoileanna and Gaelscoileanna. It would, therefore, be very useful for us to have some initial conversation on the extent to which the Department has explored this issue and to what extent there has been advice from the Attorney General. Could the Department, through an open and democratic process of amending the scheme of lettings, carve out in those geographical areas the State has decided on by designating areas as Gaeltachtaí, where it would be absolutely appropriate for that scheme to state that in those areas, in the first instance, housing could be set aside? In the same way as the scheme of lettings combines medical priority along with the length of time on a list, it could also, for example, combine length of time on a list with language proficiency up to a certain level as designated in law.
I would be very interested to know whether there has been any attempt to look at this issue in other European jurisdictions. Obviously, we are not just operating within Irish law but within EU law, as we know from the Flemish decree and the local-only clauses that are no longer permissible in our development plans.
Yet they still exist.
Exactly, but they are not legally permissible. Let us not go back to the rural planning guidelines. We will fight that one out separately. Has there been any attempt in any other EU jurisdiction to find some similar mechanism, particularly in countries that have minority or national languages they are trying to revive?
This amendment speaks more broadly to that cluster of issues I raised earlier. If it is not possible for Irish language speakers to get housing and accommodation within Gaeltachtaí, they will not survive. I know the Minister will not accept the amendment but this is an opportunity to at least have some exchange on the sentiment, ideas and policy behind it to get a sense of the direction of travel. Even if we have the planning guidelines, and the Gaeltacht planning guidelines are published in the lifetime of the Government, go out for public consultation, come back and are introduced as a national planning policy statement, there will still be a need for housing plans or strategies, particularly for the Gaeltachtaí. I am interested to know, not necessarily the grounds of the Minister's opposition to the text of the amendment, which he outlined to others, but where the Government's thinking and Departmental advice on how, in the context of the Gaeltacht planning guidelines being published and enacted, to meet the housing needs of Irish language speakers in those areas.
A number of issues arise. This is one of the simplest amendments because it does what it says on the tin. It sets out obligations which need to be taken into account. In regard to Gaeltacht housing, we know there is a failure. There are huge waiting lists and organisations are picketing Leinster House. Even though the Government has four Acts available to it to try to address the issue of housing in the Gaeltacht, there is no specific scheme in place at the moment, as far as I know. The Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Act 2001 allows for such a scheme. It allows grants to build houses in the Gaeltacht to be made available to a person who is not an occupier of a dwelling house or who has shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that the Irish language is the language habitually used by him or her. It also allows for the roof to be fixed, but that is a separate issue. This is proof that the State has recognised that there is an issue. The problem is the passage of law has not been followed up by a proper approach. The law in place has not addressed the issues, to such a degree that the State agency, Údarás na Gaeltachta, whose main function in the past was specifically to deliver employment in the Gaeltacht regions, now has a function in language planning. In fairness, it has extended its remit, by virtue of the fact that it was not precluded from doing so, to consider whether the land bank it had was usable for housing estates. It was mentioned that three sites were identified as a pilot project. Údarás na Gaeltachta is being encouraged by virtually everybody to go down that road. That is not its area of expertise, or it has not been, but maybe it will be in the future.
The question we asked yesterday was whether Údarás na Gaeltachta could be an AHB. The Minister said it could be. It is a question of whether it wants to be an AHB, whether some other body is the AHB or whether it could work in partnership with the local authority. The local authority should have been doing this work, approaching Údarás na Gaeltachta because it had a land bank or building up a land bank.
As mentioned, there is a problem with infrastructure in these areas. Uisce Éireann, community representatives and politicians from the area or who visit the area have said there is a dire need. Some private developments and council developments are held up because Uisce Éireann does not have as its priority a sewage or wastewater system for ten houses. Ten houses in a Gaeltacht area could be the difference between keeping the local school open or not. The issue is not just with Gaeltacht areas. It affects other rural areas but the difference with Gaeltacht areas - and the exceptional case that needs to be made in those areas - is that if they do not get the housing, the school closes. If the school closes, other families move out because they cannot drive to the nearest school. In the case of Connemara, people usually move into or towards Galway city. You will find that. I went to school in Dún Chaoin. I was one of those kids who were transported from Dublin to Dún Chaoin to try to ensure the numbers in the school were maintained. I have, therefore, an understanding of just how precarious school numbers are and it is a long time since I was in primary school. Other families did the same in that school. There were three different families. The children of the EU Commissioner, Dick Burke, were in the school at the time, as were the Mac Conghail children, including Fiach. It was kept open by virtue of that but we should not have to rely on that type of activity.
Last year, a notice was placed in a newspaper asking people to please come with their kids to keep a school open and telling them they would be given a house rent-free. There is a strategy. This is outlining what is required in terms of that strategy, the number of houses that are needed and the space that is available. It is not up to Údarás na Gaeltacht to do a full survey of the Gaeltacht area. It is up to the local authorities but they have not done it. That is why, this is the central amendment of all the amendments relating to Gaeltacht areas. If this is done, it will guarantee the lifeblood of these areas and ensure sustainability for the jobs being created. Jobs are now being created in the Gaeltacht areas but they are not for locals, because locals no longer live there. They live in Galway and travel into Connemara. So much for sustainability. I do not think the Green Party will be too happy we are doing that when sites are available.
I say yes to affordable, social and private housing. One of the points addresses an earlier point about family members having holiday homes. This should allow for the targeting of holiday homes for reallocation, but that is not necessarily about taking them away from people. If houses are sitting vacant for 11 months and two weeks of the year - some of them are only occupied for two weeks - somebody needs to be able to approach the owner and say the house is derelict because it is not in use and therefore has no function. I am not referring to houses where somebody is coming home and it is not that they would be taken over.
Dublin City Council competes against the public in buying houses to address its social housing need. That causes tension sometimes. The council should perhaps be instructed to look at using holiday homes that are coming up for sale and getting big money to address housing need. We need to ensure we have that discrimination to make sure that Irish language speakers have a separate list, so that if a social housing unit comes up in a Gaeltacht area, it is allocated to those who are proficient in the Irish language.
I believe there is EU protection for cultural heritage. If that is not provided, we should make sure to create it because an exceptional case can be made in this instance, on the basis of sustainability. It is not just sustainable for a county council to buy a holiday homes in rural Connemara or Corca Dhuibhne to house an English language speaker. That would defeat the whole idea of the council purchasing that home. It is for the benefit of the community, not just to address a housing need. There is a housing need in Gaeltacht areas. There are enough people on the housing list in the Gaeltacht regions to fill the houses the councils are going to buy or build for many years to come. I urge the Minister to see whether we can ensure that this is put in as a full obligation with all of the provisions that have been outlined. That would deal with the issue and we could probably then dispose of many of the other amendments. I would be happy to withdraw all my other amendments if the Minister accepted this one.
There is a tempting offer.
A range of matters has been discussed, many of which were discussed earlier. It is my firm belief that the priority area plans are the way to go. Let us remember that our Gaeltacht areas are within county administrative areas. Deputy Ó Broin made a point about equality of access, particularly to social housing. We know of cases where local authorities, in granting planning permission for private developments in Gaeltacht areas, have set down language conditions.
There are particular examples in the Meath Gaeltacht, in Bearna, in Na Forbacha and in places like that where it has been instituted and has worked relatively well. There are locals living in the Gaeltacht. Insofar as taking holiday homes off people, I am not sure how we would get to that space. In the whole discussion on housing, there is a need for additional land. I mentioned An Rinn earlier. There are other potential pilot schemes through Údarás na Gaeltachta that we can do through local authorities. For all of the valid points made this evening, it is my firm belief that each county in which a Gaeltacht is located is different. The local topography - not just the topography of the sites but the local make-up - is different. For example, An Spidéal is close to Knocknacarra, which is a language planning area as well. Further down, there is Indreabhán, where the language is strong. Even 5 miles down the road, there are distinct differences. That is why you cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach in one section. A better way is to insist upon, through legislation, a specific focus on the Gaeltacht as part of a separate priority plan in the development plan process I already mentioned. This includes the islands, be they Gaeltacht islands or not. The Gaeltacht Act 2012 includes provisions for the Minister for the Gaeltacht to set the proportion of population concerned in section 12 - I am just looking it up. I discussed this with a few local authorities regarding allocation.
I think I heard the Minister start to say Galway.
The Deputy did but I am not going to confirm it. I have discussed this to see how to do it. I know the Deputy was just giving examples but assigning a medical-type priority is problematic. We have to operate within EU law. There is a way of doing this by focusing development where we need it. A clear desire I have is to make sure we have legislative underpinning that will help developments in the area, hence the practical things we are doing like the Croí Cónaithe grant. That grant has been drawn down and applied for in Gaeltacht areas where homes have been vacant for a long time. The committee discussed this at length with Deputy Ó Cuív - I mentioned homes on the islands. We need to see new developments for people there too, but they need to be social and affordable. We can do that. I put it to my colleagues that priority area plans are the way to do that. You tie in a local authority that knows its area and Gaeltacht regions. I just spoke about three different towns in the south Connemara Gaeltacht alone that are distinctly different which are very close to each other. They have different challenges and advantages. Further up, there is An Cheathrú Rua and Ros Muc - they are all in the one county. They all have different characteristics and needs.
I engaged with Uisce Éireann specifically on this issue. One example is a major upgrade in An Spidéal which will ensure further development there - scéim shéarachais with a long-needed wastewater treatment plant. Work is required in An Cheathrú Rua. We could go on. Uisce Éireann has presented before the committee. I will not add any more at this stage.
On Deputy Ó Broin's point about legal advice in that regard, I have engaged with local authorities. Their view is it is problematic. The AHB that operates in south Connemara was able to manage allocations there. It was right-sizing the housing focus on the development. I think in that development, three of the four apartments were Irish-speaking. It was carefully managed. We have to make sure there is equality within the county too so there is no hierarchy of citizen in the sense that a citizen who speaks Irish - even though we all value the language and its importance - does not have a greater priority than a citizen who does not. I think we can all understand that would be difficult and the incorrect thing to do. It is about how we support our Gaeltacht communities in real terms with real politics that can be implemented and impact positively on the ground, like the Croí Cónaithe grant and moving forward with affordable housing in the Gaeltacht.
Under section 69, I will come back on Report Stage with regard to priority area plans. That would be a significant step forward and change. I met Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann about this. Its biggest issue is, if you take Inis Meáin, for example, it is well populated but there are no settlements on it so it cannot adhere to the development plan, even for separation distances for percolation and various different things. That is why there are very unique characteristics in these areas. This genuinely is the way to go. I understand the sentiment behind the discussion and agree with a sizeable portion of it but I do not accept amendment No. 390. I will come back on Report Stage. Sin é.
I invite the Minister to convince me with respect to priority area plans. I disagree with the Minister - I believe there is a strong case to be made that those areas the State has designated as Gaeltachtaí are different. They are areas in which we want to ensure the people who live there are able to live through the medium of Irish in their everyday lives. We have to find a way to say that in those places, a form of priority should be given to people with competency of a certain level. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Gaeltacht, other than you hope that will happen? I am not necessarily saying it should be a priority - I appreciate the Minister said that. When a local authority says something might be a problem, that does not necessarily mean it is not legally possible. It means it could be a political, organisational or administrative problem. I am interested to know, in the context of the work the Minister is thinking of preparing on priority area plans for Gaeltachtaí, if one is not trying to find some way of prioritising, ring-fencing or carefully managing - he gave the example of four apartments, of which three went to Irish speakers - how does one ensure planning policy underpins the continuation of Irish language-speaking residents in a geographical area? I do not see how it can be done other than by prioritisation or ring-fencing. I appreciate other people will say it is not fair but if we are designating these areas as Gaeltachtaí, there has to be some different treatment of Irish-language speakers in that area than in a non-Gaeltacht. I am genuinely interested because if priority area plans are the way to do this, I am open to being convinced. The Minister seems to be saying there would be priority area plans but there would still be no mechanism - I invite the Minister to explain and convince me. He does not seem to suggest there would be a mechanism.
I ask Deputy McAuliffe, if he can hear me, to mute his microphone.
What other mechanism could be used? I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister's thoughts.
Priority area plans are to ensure that the local authority gives priority to the planning of that Gaeltacht area. We are not talking about priority around social housing allocation. I know the Deputy knows that but at this moment in time, a development plan takes place - I do not know if the Deputy met Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann, for argument's sake.
Yes.
He understands the issues it has. If you are on Toraigh or Árainn Mhór, you are treated, effectively, like the rest of County Donegal. That is the issue. The unique nature and characteristics of that area are not taken into account. I want to make sure there are specific plans for those areas for the first time. There is a lot of potential in that because you are working with the local authority and communities around a normal, open process that would effectively create a development plan for a Gaeltacht area and an island, covering assessment of housing need - all of those things - and what needs to be done. We talked about economic development; I will not back over that. I do not believe it is for this debate to determine affording prioritisation for Irish-language speakers in certain areas. I put it to the Deputy that one would have to go back and redefine what the fíor-Ghaeltacht is now. Do we want to contract it further?
Right outside Galway city, Moycullen, Baile Chláir and places like that are working hard to increase the use of the language. There have been questions within the Irish language community as to the validity of some areas that are still designated as Gaeltachtaí, so there is a complexity around that that I think we all understand. I believe it is a matter of having a focus, taking into account the particular characteristics and the priority of these being Gaeltacht areas, on how we can develop this, tied into the development plan process in such a way that it is not just decided to put Carrowroe into the rest of Galway and whatever general objectives of the development plan apply there. That is the basis on which I will move forward and that is what I will come back with on Report Stage. Sin an méid.
I want to move on from this section now and get to amendment No. 30.
I will not go much beyond the second sentence in amendment No. 390: "assess population and housing current and future needs of each Limistéar Pleanála Teanga". It reflects the point the Minister made. There are varieties within this. This amendment recognises that and puts the obligation on those who are putting together a development plan to recognise it. It is not one size fits all, and we understand that. We could be here all day discussing how to develop a system of letting for Gaeltacht areas, but there has to be some system. There cannot be a system which imposes an English speaker who has no desire to learn the language and no desire to raise his or her children as Gaeilge on a community struggling to retain its ethos as a Gaeltacht area. That is why in the areas the Minister mentioned in and around Galway and elsewhere there is a debate as to whether certain areas are in fact still part of the Gaeltacht. They are legally part of the Gaeltacht. There is a discussion there. I am one of those who is opposed to contracting. It is a live debate. It is a consequence of exactly the point that there was not a strategy or a development plan which prevented the encroachment. That is why it is a development plan rather than so many of these priority plans. We are already starting to talk about a priority plan for the islands, most of which are in Gaeltacht areas. Then we might talk about another priority plan around Galway city and another one elsewhere, whereas the development plan would capture each of the limistéir pleanála teanga, so you are taking the Gaeltacht as a whole. There are 26 limistéir pleanála teanga, and that is where you capture it. It is a bigger idea.
To be helpful, and I will conclude on this, these plans will be plans for those areas. They will be part of the development plan, with a specific focus on them. I cannot think of anything better than that, actually, to be able to drive the needed development.
Both would be better.
We have had a good discussion here and, in fairness, I think people can see that there is no easy way to approach some elements of this on the housing side. We had an issue a few years ago in one of the Gaeltachtaí whereby a family moved in and there was a Gaelscoil, a scoil lán-Ghaeilge, and they had no Irish. A case was taken to court to insist that the child spoke English, and various other things came up. That is not for a planning Bill, though. Let us remember what this is. I know we are right in the middle of this element of it, but what I will bring forward, I believe, will be a significant step forward in how we plan the development, housing developments and other developments, within our Gaeltacht regions. I am not one for contracting the Gaeltacht either, by the way, because other communities have been able to effectively fight back, for want of another phase, and to grow the language in those areas with a very specific focus on what is needed in those specific villages, towns and areas. That is what this is about.
All listed in the amendment.
Mine will be better so I am not accepting this one. There are only so many ways in which I can say "Ní féidir liom an leasú seo a ghlacadh".
Tuigim sin.
Before I put the question on amendment No. 30, you want to speak to the amendment, Deputy O'Callaghan. Is that correct?
No. I want to come in just on amendment No. 390.
Sorry. I thought you wanted to come in on amendment No. 30.
Sorry. Yes, I had been looking to come in on amendment No. 30. I have been looking to come in for a while on amendment No. 390 while this is being discussed. I absolutely hear what the Minister says about the priority area plans, but our amendment No. 390 does not advocate a one-size-fits-all approach. It is absolutely appropriate to a planning Bill to put in a provision that there will be an obligation to prepare Gaeltacht housing and population development strategies in these relevant areas. I am listening to what the Minister says. I think this amendment, if it were passed, would very much complement, strengthen and enhance what the Minister is talking about in terms of priority area plans and would give that robust legal framework around priority area plans to ensure, in terms of everything we are talking about here, that they achieve what we want them to achieve in Gaeltacht areas. There is a lot in this amendment that is very good, so even if the Minister does not accept our amendment, I urge him to look closely at what is in this one. If even some of this were adopted and put into the legislation, it would go a really long way towards achieving what needs to be done, and I think that would complement what the Minister is talking about in terms of priority area plans.
I appreciate what Deputy O'Callaghan has said. We will come back to the matter on Report Stage.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Amendment declared lost.
I agreed to withdraw amendment No. 31, in my name, because the Minister agreed to return to the matter at a later point.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 36, to delete lines 26 to 28 and substitute the following:
“ “unauthorised development” means, in relation to land or a maritime site—
(a) unauthorised works (including the construction, erection or assembly of an unauthorised structure), or
(b) an unauthorised use;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 36, to delete lines 29 to 38, and in page 37, to delete lines 1 to 17 and substitute the following:
“ “unauthorised structure” means a structure on, in, over or under land or a maritime site, other than—
(a) exempted development,
(b) development carried out in accordance with—
(i) a permission granted under Part IV of the Act of 1963 or deemed to be so granted under section 92 of that Act,
(ii) a permission granted under section 34, 37G, 37N or 293 of the Act of 2000, or
(iii) a permission granted under Part 4,
(c) Chapter 6 State authority development,
(d) development required by—
(i) a notice under section 307,
(ii) an order under section 309,
(iii) an enforcement notice under section 317, or
(iv) a planning injunction under section 318,
or
(e) development—
(i) carried out in accordance with a licence under section 12, or
(ii) in respect of which a licence under section 12 is required;
“unauthorised use” means, in relation to land or a maritime site, a use that is a material change in use of the land or maritime site, other than—
(a) exempted development, or
(b) development carried out in accordance with—
(i) a permission granted under Part IV of the Act of 1963 or deemed to be so granted under section 92 of that Act,
(ii) a permission granted under section 34, 37G, 37N or 293 of the Act of 2000, or
(iii) a permission granted under Part 4,
(c) Chapter 6 State authority development,
(d) development required by—
(i) a notice under section 307,
(ii) an order under section 309,
(iii) an enforcement notice under section 317, or
(iv) a planning injunction under section 318,
or
(e) development—
(i) carried out in accordance with a licence under section 12, or
(ii) in respect of which a licence under section 12 is required;
“unauthorised works” means any works on, in, over or under land or a maritime site, other than—
(a) exempted development,
(b) development carried out in accordance with—
(i) a permission granted under Part IV of the Act of 1963 or deemed to be so granted under section 92 of that Act,
(ii) a permission granted under section 34, 37G, 37N or 293 of the Act of 2000, or
(iii) a permission granted under Part 4,
(c) Chapter 6 State authority development,
(d) development required by—
(i) a notice under section 307,
(ii) an order under section 309,
(iii) an enforcement notice under section 317, or
(iv) a planning injunction under section 318,
or
(e) development—
(i) carried out in accordance with a licence under section 12, or
(ii) in respect of which a licence under section 12 is required;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 37, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“ “waste water discharge licence” means a licence under the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No. 684 of 2007);”.
Amendment agreed to.
Question put: "That section 2, as amended, be agreed to."
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Question declared carried.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 35:
“Legal acts of European Union and International Conventions given effect to by this Act
3. Effect or further effect, as the case may be, is given by this Act to—
(a) an act specified in Part 1 of the Table to this section, adopted by an institution of the European Union or, where appropriate, to part of such an act, and
(b) an International Convention specified in Part 2 of the Table to this section, ratified by either the European Union and/or the State, or, where appropriate to part of such a Convention.
Table
|
Part 1 |
|
Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States |
|
Birds Directive |
|
Environmental Impact Assessment Directive Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment |
|
Habitats Directive |
|
Major Accidents Directive |
|
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy |
|
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment |
|
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EC |
|
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to Justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC |
|
Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community |
|
Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning |
|
Part 2 |
|
The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters done in the Danish city of Aarhus on 25 June 1998 |
|
Transboundary Convention European Landscape Convention done at Florence on 20 October 2000 |
This is a bit unusual. In the original Planning and Development Act, there was a table not unlike the one in this amendment that listed the legal acts of the EU and international conventions given effect to by the Act. I understood that this came up at some point during the consultative process prior to the publication of the Bill and it was understood that a table such as this albeit updated would have been inserted into the Act. It seems that instead of that approach, there are individual mentions of individual EU legislation and international conventions that are relevant to different sections scattered around but it seems to me that this is the wrong approach and very unhelpful and unclear. It would make eminent sense for this table, which is updated from the original table from the 2000 Act, to be inserted in this location.
I want to ask about that because this is a change. An awful lot of the text in this consolidated Bill is taken from the 2000 Act consolidating and updating it. In respect of a table like this, one would expect it to be updated so obviously a conscious decision has been taken somewhere not to follow the approach.
Will the Minister give us the rationale for why the decision has been taken to effectively take that out or not include it? It is a good idea with any significant legislation like this to have a table like this because it gives the entire European context, which is the landscape, if you like, for the Bill by listing clearly the different directives that inform the Bill and give it a legislative basis. When it is spread around the Bill with different references in different places we do not have that clarity, so a summary table makes eminent sense. There is obviously a view that it does not and there is a rationale for that. I would be delighted to hear what that rationale is.
I thank the Deputies. As they have mentioned, the amendment seeks to reinsert provisions similar to section 1A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 which lists the EU laws and international conventions that are given effect or further effect by the Bill. This Bill already includes the relevant provisions where a provision is to give effect to EU law. For example, section 180 states "The purpose of [Chapter 2 of Part 6] is to give effect to the State’s obligations under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive in relation to plans". Likewise, section 202 states "The purpose of [Chapter 4 of Part 6] is to give effect to the State’s obligations under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive". As such, where a provision or group of provisions will give effect to EU law it will specifically state it. We got very clear and direct advice from the AGO in this regard, which was that it is not appropriate to have a general provision because, first, they are all included within the Bill in the appropriate sections and, second, it may give a false impression that the Bill as a whole is given the directive effect without identifying the relevant provisions. The relevant provisions, of which I have given two examples, are in the Bill so we will not be accepting these amendments.
I have two follow-up questions on that. Why was it appropriate, or was it not appropriate, to have a similar list in the 2000 Act? That is obviously where this amendment originates. Despite there being individual mentions of individual elements of EU law or international conventions in various places in the text, surely it is helpful to have all the relevant provisions stated distinctly. Again, part of the function of this Bill is to provide clarity and certainty and this is a really good way to do that. I see no reason it could not be accepted.
To add to that, we have been given different rationales for the Bill, but one of the overall ones is the provision of a consolidated Bill that has clarity and is user-friendly such that practitioners or people engaged in the planning process can pick it up and find the areas they are looking for through the different sections at the front. To be fair, while it is a long Bill it does that, so it is user-friendly in that sense. Having a table would provide clarity. Trying to go through the Bill to find all these individual references is clearly not accessible, easy, simple or clear for people. Having the clarity of a table would compliment the individual mentions elsewhere in the Bill. It would make absolute sense to do as was done in the 2000 Act, so I cannot see why that approach is being taken.
I would like clarity on something in the amendment from those who moved it and the Minister might answer on it as well. The table is not a bad idea, but I note in the table the Deputies have given that for some of the directives they list the EC number but do not name the directive and in some they name the directive but not the EC number. I am wondering if that adds more conclusion than clarity, while I agree with the idea.
I am interested to hear the Minister's response first of all.
Okay.
The directives were added to the Planning and Development Act 2000 retrospectively. They were only added to that legislation in 2010 because many of the directives came post the passing of the Bill in 1999, moving into 2000. Those directives are now in place and have been incorporated right the way through this legislation. The very clear advice from the Attorney General's Office was that as they were incorporated it would not be appropriate to provide that general provision in a tabular format. As I said, that would give the impression the Bill as a whole was giving the directive effect without identifying where the provisions are. I have given two specific examples of how this will work. All the directives that are relevant are within the Bill. They are part of the legislation itself. We are abiding very strictly by the legal and drafting advice we got. That table in the 2000 Act was added retrospectively to it because the directives were passed post that date.
My understanding is not all 14 of the directives and conventions, or both, listed here are referenced in the Bill despite the fact all of them are relevant. I could be wrong. If the Minister wants to put on record a guarantee they are all listed as appropriate throughout the relevant sections of the Bill that would be interesting, but my understanding is they are not. On that basis I will be pressing the amendment.
I am conscious of the Minister's time as well, because he said he has a hard stop at 8 p.m.
Okay, but in the amendment why are some directives named by their names, such as the birds directive, but not given the EU - or EEC or whatever it was at the time - number. Is there a reason for doing it that way?
No. Some of that comes from the previous version and the standard way in which the relevant pieces of legislation are ordinarily referred to, but it is clear what each one of them is so I do not have an issue with that.
For the advice of members, the relevant directives are referenced within the Bill. Anything that is relevant to the planning Bill-----
Are all 14 of these referenced?
-----is referenced within it.
I hear what the Minister is saying, but it is a different point. My point is-----
I understand the point, but I do not want to tell the Deputy that all 14 are there when I do not have that exact information.
Yes.
I am telling the Deputy any relevant directive is referenced very clearly within the Bill and we can get that clarified. I appreciate it but am not accepting the amendment, so I am not going to say any more.
On my amendment, if the Minister was willing to accept the table and wanted to create greater clarity and wanted to put in the directive numbers where they have not been listed I would be happy with that. It would not be an issue. Looking at it though, the ones where the directive numbers are not listed are the very well-known directives like the habitats directive and the birds directive. More specific directives referenced like, for example, "Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community" are not colloquial. Even at this committee we talk frequently about the habitants directive but not about the directive I have just named, though it is not that it is not just as important. That explains the drafting, but I have no issue with it being made more uniform if the Minister was of a mind to accept this or deal with this on Report Stage.
On what the Minister said about the advice from the Attorney General that it would not be appropriate to do this, what is not appropriate about it?
To explain it basically, the first reason is that the relevant directives are all within the Bill. When someone is reading a section it makes more sense to have it in the relevant section of the Bill. It says "here is the directive" and sets out how it interacts with our legislation. The other point that was made was around listing it in tabular form like a general provision. Let us remember the table in the 2000 Act was done retrospectively. It would give a false impression that the Bill as a whole was giving the directive effect without identifying where those provisions were. That, in summation, is the advice. That is it, basically.
So if the table gave that information as to what parts of the Bill the directive was giving effect to, according to the Attorney General's advice that would be fine.
No. As the Chair has raised, in some areas the table lists and numbers the EU directives and in others it does not.
If someone wants to table an amendment on that on Report Stage, that is fine but we will not accept it. It is better that the directives are referenced within the sections of the Bill where they are relevant. For fear of repeating that over and over again, that is the position. I have to take the advice of the office of the Attorney General. It is clear and impartial advice and that is-----
That is fair enough. It is just that as we have drilled into that, the issues that have been raised by the Attorney General could actually be dealt with. We could have that table and it could have that information about what parts of the Bill-----
I did not say that.
No, that is what I am saying. I am saying that based on what I have heard the Minister say, my understanding, and it is just my understanding so the Minister can contradict it if he wishes, as I am sure he will, is that we could have this table for the purposes of clarity and reference the relevant parts of the Bill in this table to address the concerns of the Attorney General. That would deal with the concerns that have been raised here by the Minister. It would then provide the clarity that we are looking for.
The table in the previous legislation obviously referenced a load of directives that are not included. Which ones are not included in the new Bill? I do not need an answer today. Could the Minister give me the reason they are not included?
To be helpful, all relevant directives are in the Bill.
I understand that but why would one disappear? Why would it no longer be relevant if this is confirmation of-----
We have about 14 that the Deputy listed there. I do not think they are all directives either. All I am saying to the Deputy is that we can provide clarity separately. We have not left anything out. Everything is in the right section. There is no conspiracy here. We are not trying to hide anything. The Bill is better drafted now and relevant to the sections in which the directives would be within this consolidated Planning and Development Bill, which will become an Act. I get the point and members may want to press the amendment. If they come back with an amended amendment on Report Stage that they believe in all good faith provides greater clarity, it will be looked at but I have to go by the advice I get from the drafters in the Office of the Attorney General.
I will be pressing the amendment. This is my last comment on the matter. The tenth directive listed on the table-----
On the Deputy's table?
Yes, in the amendment. That is the only table in front of us. It concerns public participation. That is not referenced in Part 9 of the Bill and that directive is very clearly relevant to Part 9 in terms of public participation and access to justice Council directives. That is just one example where I do not think the advice given to the Minister is fully accurate. I appreciate that it is a long and complex Bill and on that basis alone, I will be pressing the amendment.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
Amendment declared lost.
Question, "That section 3 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 8.14 p.m. until 2.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 20 February 2024.