I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. We are going to start where we finished, which was on amendment No. 204. It is grouped with amendments Nos. 306, 331 and 769 and they have already been discussed. Deputy O'Callaghan wanted to come back in on those. We will then move to amendment No. 331, which is on a separate matter.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
SECTION 24
Debate resumed on amendment No. 204:
In page 66, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(o) promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate the Travelling community;”.
-(Deputy Cian O'Callaghan)
I thank the Chair and welcome the Minister of State. I was not satisfied with the response I received previously from the other Minister of State on this. All of us know there are huge issues with Traveller accommodation. I read out some direct quotes from children living in very poor conditions in Traveller-specific accommodation. Those were taken from a report done by the Ombudsman for Children. The status quo is not in any way acceptable and this amendment is needed. I was not convinced by the other Minister of State's response and his saying this is not needed. We have seen some deplorable conditions and the effects of those. I was talking about the impact on homelessness, that is, how Travellers are more exposed and have a higher risk of homelessness than the general population. I urge the Minister of State to accept my amendments on Traveller accommodation.
We have had part of this discussion before. The Minister of State will know that, in 2019, the expert group on Traveller accommodation was published. This was a hugely significant report. The Housing Agency and Professor Michelle Norris had undertaken a very detailed study of the Traveller accommodation programmes which had been published by the Department and the Housing Agency some years previous. Damien English, as the Minister of State with responsibility for Traveller accommodation, put together this expert group. It did a very significant body of work, including engaging with this committee, and made recommendations. In the report there are ten recommendations specifically dealing with planning and five of those require legislative change. I wish to put on record what they were and ask why they are not in this Bill. It would seem that if this was the once-in-a-generation reform of planning and an independent expert group on Traveller accommodation put together by Government published a report in 2019 that recommended legislative changes with the planning system to address the inadequacies of our Traveller accommodation programmes and the Dickensian conditions in which Travellers live, it would make sense that those changes would be in the Bill. The report's second planning recommendation was to:
Put in place the legislative provisions to suspend the reserved function of elected members for approval of Part 8 proposals for Traveller accommodation, and also to suspend the reserved function relating to the agreement to dispose of land for the purposes of developing Traveller accommodation and provide these as executive functions. This suspension should be reviewed after a period of five years.
The report's third planning recommendation was to:
Put in place the legislative provisions to provide an alternative and direct route for Traveller-specific accommodation to An Bord Pleanála [which would obviously be an coimisiún pleanála in this Bill] in line with the processes established for Strategic Housing Development. This provision should be reviewed after a period of five years.
There were three longer term planning recommendations. Recommendation 7 seeks to:
Update the Traveller accommodation and planning legislation to improve general alignment of the different mechanisms for planning for the provision of Traveller accommodation. Most importantly, the timeframe for the production, adoption and implementation of Traveller Accommodation Programmes should align with each local authority’s Development Plan timing and cycles.
That is not in this Bill as far as I can see.
Planning recommendation 9 seeks to:
Provide the Regional Assemblies with a formal role in the advising on, coordinating and monitoring of the local level delivery of Traveller accommodation at regional level, and, in the shorter term pending this new role, designate local authorities in each Region as leads in the areas of review, policy, delivery, etc.
Planning recommendation 10 seeks to:
Ensure that any new national level agency/authority would incorporate a role in monitoring statutory plans and referrals, as necessary, to the Office of the Planning Regulator.
I have two questions. First, have any of these recommendations been accepted by the Government? Is it the position of the Government that the absence of these recommendations from this Bill means that it does not accept those recommendations and does not intend to progress them? If the answer to that question is "No" and in fact the Government is supportive of the recommendations - a number of years have passed since 2019 - why are they not in the Bill in some shape or other? This report set out actions that the Government needed to take on foot of very significant empirical evidence of the failure of the status quo, as Deputy O'Callaghan outlined, in that detailed housing agency departmental report. It seems remarkable that these recommendations are not in the Bill. I would be interested in the Minister of State's response.
As the Deputy has rightly outlined, this piece of work from the expert group was put together due to serious shortfalls in delivery of Traveller accommodation throughout the country. Having sat on our own local Traveller accommodation consultative committee, LTACC, for a number of years, it was frustrating for me to see the low level of delivery. That was probably reflected throughout the country and certainly with Traveller-specific accommodation and meeting the changing needs of Traveller families. That is why this piece of work was and is important and is being given due consideration by the Government.
As I understand it, the expert review report recommended four categories of delivery. Category A, on delivery reflecting need, aimed to address deficiencies in how information is gathered and used. Category B, on planning, which was referenced and I will go into that in a moment, aimed at removing any potential delays and obstacles in the planning system in terms of delivery. Category C, on capacity and resources, aimed at increasing resources in delivery capacity. Category D, on governance, aimed at strengthening governance arrangements. The programme board selected 27 out of the 32 recommendations for inclusion in the ongoing works programme. To date, ten of those 27 recommendations have been completed. Of those ten recommendations relating to category B, planning, four are entirely completed while the remaining are continuing to progress.
I will start with recommendations B2 and B3, which were mentioned specifically by the Deputy. He referenced a number of others as well, including a recommendation to "suspend the reserved function of elected members for approval of Part 8 proposals for Traveller accommodation". That is part of an ongoing work programme. A temporary exemption has been provided for local authorities from the Part 8 approval process to construct housing developments on designated zoned local authority-owned and State-owned lands, including lands zoned for residential use, subject to compliance with the requirements of the recently inserted section 179A of the Planning and Development Act.
Recommendation B3 refers to putting in place "legislative provisions to provide an alternative and direct route ... for Traveller-specific accommodation to An Bord Pleanála". That is also part of an ongoing work programme and is going to be reviewed in light of the discontinuation of the strategic housing development process. What other recommendations did the Deputy mention?
I mentioned recommendations 7, 9 and 10.
Recommendation 7 refers to updating "the Traveller accommodation and planning legislation to improve general alignment of the different mechanisms". Our Department has communicated further with local authorities on undertaking and completing the Traveller accommodation programme, TAP, review, having regard to local authority plans for integrating TAPs within the development plan cycles.
Recommendation 8 refers to providing "planning guidelines for Regional Assemblies". That is part of a future work programme to be reviewed and revisited to establish an agreed interpretation of the recommendation.
Recommendation B.9, to "Provide the Regional Assemblies with a formal role in the advising on, coordinating and monitoring of the local ... delivery of Traveller accommodation at regional level", is also part of a future work programme. That has been paused until a governance recommendation is progressed.
Finally, recommendation B.10, to "Ensure that any ... national level agency/authority would [work to] incorporate a role in monitoring statutory plans and referrals", also is to be addressed alongside a governance recommendation.
Deputy Ó Broin and Deputy O'Callaghan, do you want to come back in briefly on this? The Minister of State has said he will not accept these amendments. I want to stick to the amendments, if we could, rather than discussing the expert review on the Traveller issue.
But the amendments are directly related to that review.
Okay, but we have discussed these amendments backwards and forwards and I understand the Minister of State is not accepting them. Deputy Ó Broin and then Deputy O'Callaghan, please.
First of all, in fairness to the Minister of State, he has given us much more detailed responses than we got the last day.
Yes. I was going to suggest we get that written response issued to you because-----
I would like to respond specifically to the points the Minister of State raised. I will not take too much time on this but it is important.
It is almost five years since these recommendations were made. It was July 2019. It seems to me that that is plenty of time to consider whether to progress any of them.
With respect to recommendation B.2, the Minister of State talked about the Part 8 derogation that was introduced a year ago. Not once when the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, spoke to that legislative change did he mention Travellers. It was about accelerating the delivery of social housing, particularly with respect to land aggregation scheme lands and new building technologies. Local authorities can choose to use that if they so wish. My local authority has one scheme and is using that, but that is not what was presented when that legislation was there. It is important we do not confuse the two things.
Recommendations B.3, B.7, B.9 and B.10 are all the responsibility of the Government, which is the reason they were not included in the 27 recommendations the programme board selected. My last question on this, then, is why these recommendations were not considered and included in this Bill. Does this Government have any intention to bring forward the legislative changes that would be required for recommendations B.2, B.3, B.7, B.9 and B.10 within the lifetime of this Government?
Deputy O'Callaghan, you have a question to ask the Minister of State on this too.
I want to ask about the Part 8 exemption for social housing to which the Minister of State referred in his response. Deputy Ó Broin is correct that the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, made no mention of Traveller-specific housing when he was putting forward a rationale for the exemption. Can the Minister of State let us know how many Traveller-specific homes have been delivered under the exemption that the Government has introduced and how many are in the pipeline? Also, that is a temporary exemption, is it not? Surely then, given its temporary nature, and as regards the permanent changes I am putting forward here in my amendments, what we need in the legislation is permanent changes. My amendment No. 306 seeks simply to ensure that, in page 98, paragraph (8)(b) would read "ensure that the development plan is materially consistent with ... each local authority's Traveller accommodation programme". The Minister of State may ask why it is necessary to have such a wording, and he may say it should of course be materially consistent with that. Given, however, the condition of Traveller-specific housing at the moment, given the deficits there and the impacts on human health and well-being, including, significantly, the impact on children, and given that the status quo has not worked, I think there is a strong case for strengthening the legislation here.
Specifically, Deputy O'Callaghan is correct about recommendation B.2; it is a temporary exemption. I was not here the last time for the opening conversation on this, so forgive me if I am repeating or not picking up on points that were raised then. Section 44, on the "Obligation to prepare housing development strategy", includes objectives regarding the provision of accommodation for members of the Traveller community and the use of particular areas for that purpose. That has already been discussed in terms of the Traveller accommodation programme in quite an amount of detail in the previous grouping but I can certainly furnish this to the members in terms of the additional implementation of those ten recommendations on the planning side.
I do not have the specific numbers to hand. I know from experience in my local authority that the needs of Traveller families are changing quite significantly. This is critical in terms of delivery reflecting need in category A, which is aimed at addressing deficiencies in data gathering. Many families are not necessarily opting for Traveller-specific accommodation. It is important that we reflect these needs as younger families look to find housing in their own local areas.
As I have said, this matter has been well discussed and well aired. It is well reflected in the Bill in terms of provision. It is then down to development plans specifically to deliver Traveller accommodation and to the progressiveness of the local Traveller accommodation committees in terms of their delivery at local authority level in meeting the requirements. The legislation is here for it, as in the funding, and it is critical that local authorities and local authority members are progressive in the delivery of housing in their local communities for Traveller families.
Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to provide the information to Deputy O'Callaghan on how much Traveller-specific accommodation we are providing under section 179A. Is that what the question was?
I was asking how many Traveller-specific homes-----
Under section 179A.
Is that the Part 8 exemption?
Yes.
We will revert to Deputy O'Callaghan.
I ask Deputy O'Callaghan to speak on amendment No. 331.
I do not accept the responses of the Minister of State to the previous amendments and I will certainly press some of them. I do not think the legislation is strong enough and it is not okay just to say it is down to the progressiveness or otherwise of the local Traveller accommodation consultative committees. The very reason we have the expert report is that the process is failing. Even based on what was said previously by the Minister, while the capital budget is being spent it is not being spent on providing much-needed new homes. Clearly there is a deficit here.
To speak on amendment No. 331, this is on the content of development plans. It would allow for the written statement in subsection (2) to allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing as defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021. This is to allow for specific zoning for affordable housing. We have discussed this in considerable depth. There was an attempt by Dublin City Council members in the council's development plan to introduce affordable housing zoning. They were given advice by the management that they could not do so because the legislation does not allow for specific affordable housing zoning. The amendment proposes to ensure it is in legislation so that if councillors want to have specific affordable housing zoning, they are able to provide for it and there would be a statutory basis for doing so.
I will give an example as to why we might want to have affordable housing zoning, what it would achieve and where such zoning is in use. For example, if lands were being rezoned from industrial use to residential use, we could decide that rather than having them available for housing at full market prices, there would be a price cap per square metre, either in terms of the homes being rented or being sold, to reduce and limit the costs of new housing provided on newly zoned lands. This would have the effect of making sure that land value would not increase to the same degree as at present, and there would not be the same sort of windfall for someone who bought the land and gets a rezoning as there is at present, when simple full market price residential zoning goes on the land. This could be an effective tool to ensure much more land becomes available for affordable housing. In other countries where they have these types of zonings the maximum price that can be charged per square metre for rent or sale of a house on the land increases over time. Perhaps this could be done in line with the consumer price index so the price is not frozen in time forever but the affordability element of it is there forever because it is tied in specifically with the zoning and what housing is allowed to be provided on the land.
There would still be the normal Part V social housing provisions on those lands. Those would not be affected.
When the committee discussed the directly elected mayor Bill, the Minister or one of the Ministers of State said that the Government could not go with an Opposition amendment because it was not in the programme for Government. The Minister of State will be happy to hear that the programme for Government backs my amendment, as it speaks about supporting the Vienna model of housing. In Vienna, which is one of the most affordable places to live in Europe, certainly in terms of housing, a key component of affordable housing delivery is affordable housing zoning. When agricultural or industrial lands are zoned at the edge of Vienna for new housing and affordable housing zoning is applied to them, it limits the prices that can be charged.
The amendment is very much in line with what is in the programme for Government and what is good practice in other countries. It would stop windfall profits going to people through rezonings and make more land available for housing, specifically affordable housing. Given that it is in line with the programme for Government, I ask that the Minister of State support it. I cannot see a downside to it. I hope he will support it.
Amendment No. 331 relates to section 41 and the written statement of a development plan and seeks to require that such a statement allow for the zoning of land for the particular use of providing affordable housing, as defined in Parts 2 and 3 of the Affordable Housing Act 2021. The purpose of land use zoning is to indicate the development management objectives of the planning authority’s administrative area. Generally, these objectives are residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, open spaces, otherwise or a mixture of those uses. While land is zoned for residential use, it is not appropriate to designate the housing type or tenure to be attached to such zonings.
Sections 44 and 45 require that the preparation of a housing development strategy as part of the development plan must include both objectives to secure the implementation of the housing strategy prepared under section 219 and be materially consistent with that strategy. This includes any of the matters referred to in section 219(5), such as the need to ensure that housing is available for persons with different levels of income.
Rents have almost doubled in the past decade, house prices are so high that we have collapsing rates of home ownership and unprecedented numbers of people in their 20s and 30s are still living with their parents or in box rooms. We can all agree that we have an affordability crisis.
This amendment’s measure works in other countries and helps make housing more affordable. How on earth could it not be appropriate? Affordable housing zoning does not prevent unaffordable or full market price housing being built in other areas. Rather, instead of a large windfall being privately pocketed by the landowner or speculator – the person who assembles the land – in particular areas where land is rezoned, we would effectively get the benefit of that windfall in reduced house prices and reduced prices for land that is made available for housing at affordable levels.
The programme for Government speaks about the Vienna model of housing. Affordable housing zonings happen in Vienna. Given our affordability crisis and the extreme shortfall of affordable housing, why on earth would the Government be opposed to allowing councillors, if they wish, to adopt affordable housing zoning for parts of their development plans, for example, in respect of agricultural or industrial land? I cannot see any rationale for such opposition. This measure does not mean that local councillors must rezone land for affordable housing. It just gives them a statutory instrument to be able to do so. By failing to support my amendment, the Government is tying the hands of local councillors who want to be able to do this.
As I said, councillors from Dublin City Council wanted to do this with some of the council's industrial land, but they were basically told they could not because there was nothing in the legislation to allow them to do so. Why tie the hands of the local authorities and local elected representatives when they want to provide more affordable housing? It makes no sense. Simply saying that it is "not appropriate" is not a rationale. It is absolutely appropriate for people to have access to housing that they can afford.
This is a sensible amendment for two reasons. If, for example, a local authority is doing a development plan, co-ordinated area plan or priority urban area plan, and if the local authority is of the view that there is a need for affordable housing, one of the ways of ensuring that can be delivered is through making such a zoning available. Let us keep in mind that zoning can be for things for consideration or it can be much more specific than that. In fact, if it was more specific than that, it could be very helpful in terms of land values. I refer, for example, to when land is designated for affordable housing by the LDA and the land value calculation is different from the open market value because it is bolted into the necessary legislation. The Poolbeg strategic development zone is a really good example of why something like this would have been a powerful tool for Dublin City Council. I say this because, as the Minister of State knows, councillors unanimously inserted a provision to that SDZ to have an additional 19% affordability on top of the 10% social rate. If they had been able to zone the land in accordance with that, when the Ronan Group bought that site it would have paid a lower value for the land, which would then have been zoned for the delivery of affordable homes.
One of the reasons the Department and Dublin City Council are currently not able to progress the delivery of affordable homes on that site, despite an “in principle” agreement having been reached last year between the Department, Dublin City Council, Lioncourt and the Ronan Group, is that the Ronan Group paid such a high value for the land. It was reported in the newspapers at the time to have been 25% above the guide price. It is simply impossible under any Government scheme, with any combination of Government subsidies, to deliver any genuine affordability to rent or buy for that. In fact, if the councillors on Dublin City Council had this tool when they were setting the Poolbeg west SDZ, it would have almost guaranteed the delivery of affordable homes. It would have been much better, of course, if Dublin City Council had been given the money by the Department to buy the land, but that is a separate issue. That is a real-life, practical example of how allowing for such provision would be enormously beneficial, not only because it would help deliver the homes, but also because it would constrain land values. That in itself would be a good thing as well.
Clearly, the Government has chosen not to do this, but not because it is not appropriate. It is because the Government does not want to do so. At the same time, the Government is struggling to deliver genuinely affordable homes with either of the affordable housing funds that are available through the necessary legislation. Prices for buying and renting continue to rise regularly.
This is a very sensible amendment. If it does not accept this wording, the Government should give a commitment to look at the matter again and come back to it on Report Stage. If we do not use tools like this, it will become increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to deliver genuinely affordable homes to working people for prices they can actually afford, both to rent and buy, particularly in the big urban centres where the land values are so high.
I strongly support this amendment for many of the reasons that have been set out. I will give a very good current example of why we should have this zoning, namely, the Jurys Hotel site. It is an outrage that this site has been lying idle in the teeth of an enormous housing crisis where hundreds of desperate asylum seekers living in tents on Mount Street are being treated despicably. Huge numbers of homeless people are often given rotten accommodation, yet there are two massive buildings on the Jurys site, where hundreds of rooms have been sitting there for 15 years.
What is that site going to be? It is going to be a new United States embassy, when that country already has a perfectly good building across the road. That is an absolute outrage. If I was not so busy running other protests, I would be having a protest about this situation. I am serious. That site should not be another US embassy, nor-----
I ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment.
I am speaking to the amendment. I thank the Chair.
Okay.
That site should have been zoned exclusively for affordable and-or social housing. It should not be allowed to be another US embassy that we do not need or, for that matter, to be used for unaffordable housing, which it could have been at one stage when Seán Dunne had some outrageous plan for it. The site should have been seen as strategically important and should have been specifically zoned to assist in dealing with the housing crisis. Having a form of zoning available where a local authority could say this was the case would be an important tool in the armoury of local authorities in seeking to address the existing housing crisis in their own areas. Local authorities should be given the ability to guarantee and ensure that certain strategically important sites, of which I am giving one example, would contribute to helping solve the housing crisis and would not be used for anything else. That is another rationale for doing this.
We could name many other sites as well. I recall arguing this point when the Cherrywood SDZ was being done up. Of course, I got the same answer then, when I was told we could not have this approach. I had suggested that a higher proportion than 10% should have been allocated for social and affordable housing. This is the biggest residential development in the country now. When we were doing the SDZ for that site, I suggested that we should have zoned a bigger proportion of it exclusively for social and affordable housing, but I was told it was not possible to do that. This was a site that could have contributed enormously to the resolution of the housing crisis and even have helped to prevent it from getting as bad as it has, particularly when the public had put so much money into the infrastructure there. If we look at the prices of the very modest housing going up there now, the lowest price people will pay for a house in Cherrywood is €600,000. It is more likely that people will pay €700,000. For a four-bedroom house, meanwhile, people will pay €800,000. When we see those prices, we think, "For God's sake, we paid for the flipping infrastructure of this site". We also gave it special zoning, put in the Luas line and put in the parks, and now the company is charging €600,000, €700,000 and €800,000 for these houses. It is flipping outrageous.
Local authorities, therefore, should have had, and even now should have, the option available to them to allow them to designate a site as strategically important in the context of the housing crisis and state that the land in question will be used for one purpose and one purpose only, namely, to provide affordable and-or social housing. This is a very sensible suggestion and the Government should accept it.
I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett. After that rationale put forward by the members, is the Minister of State going to accept the proposed amendment? If he wishes to respond now, I can then move on.
I am not going to accept the amendment.
Okay.
To respond to the Deputy's question, and obviously I will not speak about the specific sites referred to, under Housing for All, housing of all tenure types is being delivered at scale by this Government. The record speaks for itself in this regard. It is starting to have an impact on the ground right across the country and in Dublin as well. I refer members to Part 7 in the context of housing strategy and supply. First, I do not agree with Deputy O'Callaghan that the hands of councillors are tied and, in my view, the text backs this up. It states:
Prior to making a development plan under Part 3, a planning authority shall prepare a strategy (in this Act referred to as a “housing strategy”) for the purpose of ensuring that the housing development strategy makes adequate provision for the housing of the existing and future population of the area of the development plan in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Before I go into subsection (6), under the Affordable Housing Act, affordable housing is undefined. A housing strategy shall include an estimate of the amount of housing for the purpose of the provision of social housing and support within the meaning of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2009, housing for eligible applicants within the meaning of Part 2 of the Affordable Housing Act, and cost-rental dwellings, which is the Vienna model that appeared in the programme for Government, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Affordable Housing Act. They are there for councillors as they develop their housing strategy to make provisions for those tenure types within the housing strategy that will form part of a development plan. That is the appropriate place and that is where the powers lie for councillors to be ambitious in terms of what they want to put into their housing strategies.
The Minister of State is not accepting the amendment but I will give Deputy O'Callaghan a brief opportunity to try to change his mind
This is the point that I am trying to make. What the councillors will do in their housing strategies is they will say they need enough land for, let us say, 10,000 affordable homes in their area over the next ten years, some of which will be affordable rental or cost-rental and affordable purchase, but then what happens? It is fine to have a housing strategy and say this is their assessment of housing need but then what happens? How do they make sure that the land is available at affordable prices for affordable housing? They have no tool, under the legislation, to do it without this amendment. If this amendment was accepted, or if the Minister of State provided his own form of words for it, councillors could introduce an affordable housing zoning and they would be able to take a practical step to ensure enough land was available at low affordable prices for affordable housing. That is the issue.
Having the housing strategy and being able to say this is what our needs are and this is what our ambition is but not having the tools to actually implement that in their development plan is a problem and that is what this amendment seeks to support. It is done in Vienna and I will give one example of where this would have been very useful. Councillors on Dublin City Council a few years ago were approached by the landowner of the Chivers site in Coolock. The landowner said: "If the land is rezoned to allow residential housing, I will put forward lots of affordable housing in it." The councillors rezoned the land to residential but the landowner then said he or she could no longer provide affordable housing and sold on the site to a third party and flipped it with a substantial uplift in value having got the land rezoned, and now there is no commitment or obligation whatsoever to provide anything over and above in terms of affordable housing. If the councillors had been able to say, "Great, you want to provide affordable housing here and it is an industrial zone but we will put an affordable housing zoning on it," we would not have this problem and the land would not have been flipped on at the full market price. It would have instead been sold on at a reduced rate because the housing that was going to be provided would have been available at a reduced rate. It makes absolute sense to capture that uplift in land value. Such an initiative works very well in other countries. With respect, this Government's Housing for All policy is not meeting its affordable housing targets and has been way off them every year. Clearly when the Opposition put forward constructive proposals on this to give the Government the tools to put more affordable housing in place, it should take them.
Deputy O'Callaghan has made a very good point about the Chivers site because, from memory, the developer doubled the price of the site from €5 million to €10 million. If the councillors had been able to apply an affordable housing zoning condition to the land, that could not have happened and that site could be used in a more useful way. However, it also misses the point of the amendment. There are housing plans, strategies, policies and funding streams but zoning is about land use. It is about saying, as a local authority or State, we are deciding this it what we want this portion of land to be used for. In exactly the same way as we make distinctions between different types of economic activity such as retail, light commercial, heavy commercial, industrial, etc., so too we should be able to empower local authorities to make a distinction between types of housing in terms of affordability. I appreciate that we are not going to convince the Minister of State but it is important to put on record the merit of the amendments because we will come back to this at some stage as it becomes increasingly difficult for Government to deliver affordable homes within its own schemes and targets.
We will come back to this at some stage. As it becomes increasingly difficult for Government to deliver affordable homes within its own schemes and targets, alternative ways of ensuring those homes are delivered will have to be looked at. When we come back to this in one, two, or three years, some of us might be here pointing out that if only these amendments had been accepted, we would not have had to waste all that time. I wish to put that on the record.
Somebody could be the Minister and could actually do it themselves.
Even better.
The arguments have largely been made but on the flipping of land, it is worth mentioning the Cherrywood development. The main investor bought it for a song. Let us remind ourselves - the biggest residential development site in the country was bought by a wealth asset management company which sat on it for quite a long period and then started to flip the sites. That is what caused the situation we are now dealing with, where the site is being built out and it is €600,000, €700,000 or €800,000 for very modest houses. A reason is Hines, the main developer, was flipping the sites as it watched prices go up to the point at which I would say it probably made a profit before it built anything, which is outrageous. The net result is people having to pay those prices and vast numbers are completely priced out of ever being able to afford them. When a local authority says a site is strategically important, it should have the power to say it wants to make sure it is affordable and is not going to just make it an opportunity for investors to make a fortune. It should be able to make sure it meets a social objective, namely be used for social and affordable housing and to help to bring down property values generally. God almighty, in Dublin 4, could we not do with bringing down property values by citing somewhere like the Jurys site for affordable housing only? That would be of benefit not just in what would be done on that site but also to help bring down the astronomical property values in places like Dublin 4. Those are a couple of examples to back up the logic behind this amendment.
I thank the Deputy. I will move on because I think the Minister of State responded to all of those comments. I do not think there are any questions.
I would like to come back in finally.
The Minister of State can come back in finally but then I will move on.
I appreciate the points the Deputies made. The 20% social and affordable target is already in the LDA Act. There is also this committee's report on the land value sharing and urban development zones Bill. We are giving consideration to the pre-legislative report on that. Specifically, the development plan sets out the overall use from a planning point of view. There is no distinction from a planning point of view, in particular regarding zoning affordable and social housing. As I said, we are giving consideration to the pre-legislative report by the committee on the land value sharing and urban development zones Bill. That might address some of the points raised by Deputies.
I thank the Minister of State. I will go back-----
It does not address it at all.
That is fine. We can deal with that when we deal with the land value sharing and urban development zones Bill.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 205:
In page 66, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(p) provision of a sufficient amount of affordable housing available to buy and rent.”
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 206:
In page 66, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(p) recognition, protection and promotion of cultural spaces.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 207, 318, 321, 323, 324, 327 to 329, inclusive, 344, 346, 349, 361, 362, 377, 378, 382 to 384, inclusive, 392 and 624 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. I call on Deputy Ó Broin to move amendment No. 207. He may then speak to his amendments in whatever order he sees as logical.
I move amendment No. 207:
In page 66, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(p) recognition, protection and regulation of night venues.”.
To help with time, I will speak to all of the amendments as a single group. I may come back on individual elements of the Minister of State's response, if necessary. If the Cathaoirleach will bear with me for a second, I just want to check one of the amendments. The background to this is a growing concern at the loss of cultural and nighttime spaces and the nighttime and cultural economy, whether for profit or not for profit, particularly in our large urban centres. This range of amendments tries to insert requirements for the adequate consideration of cultural spaces in the sections of the Bill that relate to development plans, economic development strategies and housing strategies. These include section 46, which relates to plan-making in respect of sustainable places, and section 47, which includes responsibilities in respect of climate change. In various sections of the Bill, there are references to amenities and facilities. This cluster of amendments is about the need to specifically include reference to cultural spaces.
I will speak to a couple of the amendments in a little more detail. Amendment No. 318 seeks to insert into section 41, which relates to development plans, a requirement to provide "a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan incorporates objectives to facilitate and support culture and recreation, including artistic creativity and performance, and to secure access for all to participate in, learn, enjoy, and engage with the arts in their community, including through the provision, protection and promotion of cultural spaces within the functional area to which the development plan relates". The wording of the amendment is pretty straightforward. It is not trying to be prescriptive or impose anything on the planning authority. It simply requires those issues to be given due consideration by way of the production of a statement within the context of the development plan.
Similarly, amendment No. 344 proposes to insert into section 42 the following subsection:
(e) the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of accessible cultural infrastructure within communities, including arts spaces for creating, performing, learning and enjoying a diverse range of art forms, Irish language facilities and night venues;
Obviously, "accessible" is used here in the broadest possible sense of the word.
Amendment No. 392 relates to section 47 and the obligations around climate change. Again, I am seeking to insert an obligation to prepare a cultural development strategy with the following requirement:
A planning authority shall in consultation with An Chomhairle Ealaíon, the National Cultural Institutions, Fís Éireann, locally-based cultural institutions as well as local artists, arts workers, arts businesses and communities, prepare a cultural development strategy for their functional area.
Some local authorities already do this or portions of this in their development plans, local area plans, etc. However, as we discussed with reference to the national planning framework, if something is not explicitly referenced, whether in the formulation I have outlined in this amendment or some other formulation, the planning authority is not required to do it. The importance of culture is reflected in the very successful St. Patrick's Day events that took place all over the country at the weekend. The city and county development plans are key locations for strategy statements and plans to promote the use of culture and the provision of cultural spaces. On that basis, I urge the Minister of State to consider the amendments either as they are worded or at least in spirit.
Amendment No. 207 relates to section 24 of the Bill and the considerations the Minister of the day may have regard to in advance of issuing or amending a national planning statement. The amendment seeks to broaden the scope of national planning statements by incorporating an additional matter concerning the recognition, protection and regulation of night venues. The matters currently set out in the Bill are appropriate for the scope and level of consideration required for national planning statements. The current list is both balanced and broad. The proposed amendment would overextend the scope of a national planning statement by merging the statement with other policy matters that are not traditionally considered to fall within the ambit of planning and that are, in many cases, already provided for elsewhere. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 318 seeks to insert a new paragraph into subsection (13) of section 41 providing that the written statement of the development plan shall include a statement demonstrating how the plan incorporates objectives facilitating culture, recreation and artistic creativity, among other things. Amendments Nos. 321, 323, 324 and 327 to 329, inclusive, are consequential on amendment No. 318. Similarly, amendment No. 344 seeks to amend section 42 of the Bill relating to the strategy for sustainable development and regeneration to provide that the strategy shall set out objectives relating to the provision of accessible cultural infrastructure, art spaces and night venues.
Amendments Nos. 346, 349, 361 and 362 amend section 43, relating to the economic development strategy, and section 44, relating to the housing development strategy, to include references to cultural spaces and nightlife.
Amendments Nos. 377, 378 and 382 to 384, inclusive, amend section 45, relating to the housing development strategy of a city, and section 46, relating to the strategy for the creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities, to include references to cultural spaces and nightlife.
Amendment No. 392 proposes to insert a new section containing an obligation to prepare a cultural development strategy. As drafted, the Bill makes provision for the improvement, extension and preservation of amenities, facilities and services to meet, among other things, cultural requirements of the functional area to which a development plan relates. This is a requirement of the plan-making process. The matters to which the Deputies refer are already sufficiently and effectively catered for in the Bill. Furthermore, their provision is balanced with other necessary and appropriate objectives that are necessary to develop a rounded framework for the development of an administrative area.
With respect to night venues, my Department participated actively in the night-time economy task force set up by my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin. I participated in one of the workshops under that task force.
The support for and future development of the night-time economy is a matter for planning policy rather than being specifically referred to in legislation. This is due to the varying considerations that apply to the night-time economy depending on where one resides in the State. Reference is made to the need for a cultural strategy. I am of the view that this is not appropriate to a planning Bill, in view of the many non-planning and wider societal inputs needed for such a strategy to be effective.
Amendment No. 624 seeks to amend section 84, which sets out the planning conditions a planning authority or the commission may attach to planning permissions. This amendment seeks to include a new condition requiring space within the development for culture, including artistic creation, performance, learning or enjoyment, accessible to the public, including persons with a disability. As part of the formulation of a development plan under section 46, the planning authority is required to include objectives "for the provision, or the facilitation of the provision, improvement, extension and preservation of amenities, facilities and services to meet the social, community requirements of the functional area, including the needs of children, the elderly and persons with disabilities." This forms an objective of the plan, which is the basis upon which any application made is assessed.
Under section 84(3)(b), there is the capacity to apply conditions requiring the carrying out of works, including the provision of facilities. This section would allow for conditions to be attached that are grounded in the operation of the development plan objective that is required under section 46. In short, I see no need to extend the wording of section 84 as currently drafted and I cannot accept the amendment.
I will again speak to the generality of the amendments rather than going through responses to each one. The problem is that cultural spaces and culture are not explicitly referenced in the Bill. That is part of the reasoning but in drafting these amendments, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who is primarily responsible for them, and I were of the view that it would be appropriate to put them in the Bill. According to one report, in Dublin alone we have had an 85% reduction in the number of night-time cultural spaces available. In many cases, it is the small- to medium-size cultural venues and spaces that have been lost. They are the ones that act as incubators, if one likes, for different forms of cultural and artistic expression. In the absence of those, we often hear some of our most talented emerging artists and cultural practitioners say they feel that, alongside the lack of affordable accommodation, they have to leave the cities in which they want to perform and practise. They are going to places that have better infrastructure in their networks.
If I understood the Minister of State correctly, he said - I was a little bit surprised by this - that he did not think it would be appropriate to have a cultural strategy, yet we have an economic development strategy and a housing strategy in the context of development plans. It just seems to me, given the enormous benefits that a vibrant cultural life has for residents and visitors and for well-being and economic opportunity, among other things, that some consideration should be given to the matter. I appeal to the Minister of State's cultural interests and ask him to reconsider. I know he does not support the individual amendments, but I ask him to at least reconsider the spirit of the amendments and to see if there is some way that they can be worked in.
Likewise, with respect to amendment No. 624, one could argue that planning authorities can already attach conditions to a grant of permission, but there is nothing like being explicit and giving them the tools to consider very specific forms of conditions. We already do that with retail, crèches and other kinds of infrastructure. I do not think catch-all terms such as "amenity" or "facilities" do what is required here. I appeal to the Minister of State's cultural nature to see if there is some way he will consider these amendments in one form or another on Report Stage.
I think the Minister of State indicated in his response to the amendment that the promotion of culture, cultural space and infrastructure was a matter of policy rather than planning.
I strongly disagree with him on that. I will give a concrete example I came upon when I was given a fantastic tour in the last week of the emerging Cherrywood development in our area. The town centre is critical to the whole development being sustainable as it was originally envisaged. The intention was that it would not repeat the mistakes of the past, where loads of residential properties were built without proper infrastructure and services. This town centre element is now in peril. The developers have decided that this part of the development is not viable for them. The heart of what would make it a sustainable development could be in peril. I met some residents a week or two ago who have very much bought in to the place precisely because they saw it as a sustainable community plan as that was the vision for it. Now that there is a review taking place, they are worried that the amenities, facilities and cultural spaces they imagined would be provided might now be in peril.
Even from an environmental point of view this is an issue because one of the features of the development is that people would not have to travel to do things. People would not have to go elsewhere for entertainment and cultural activities because it would all be there. Now, the residents are seriously worried that it may not be there and they will have to get in their cars again in order to go to the theatre or to a concert. To my mind, this is a big problem because it defeats one of the central purposes of what was imagined for this development. We have to do everything - go over and above, so to speak - to ensure the imperative that in any development, cultural spaces are an absolute requirement, not an optional extra. They have to be there because otherwise we are not talking about sustainable communities.
I want to make one other brief point. For a country whose reputation is built on arts and culture, it is extraordinary that at almost every level arts and culture are the poor relation in terms of political priorities. We punch so far above our weight in terms of the creative pool of talent we have in this country for poetry, music, acting and theatre. Our reputation on a global scale is very centrally associated with these activities but our infrastructure and support for them rank among the worst in Europe. For example, in Germany, every little town has a theatre with full-time staff employed. Here we have pop-up arts and culture that is often dependent on whether the artist can find a pub to perform in, which may then be knocked down by a developer, as was threatened in the case of The Cobblestone. The idea that we would hardwire in the requirement and imperative of having cultural spaces as part of developments seems to me to be absolutely necessary, rather than just reasonable, at so many levels. I strongly ask the Minister of State to consider this amendment bearing those points in mind.
I support these amendments. Similarly in my constituency, there are areas where thousands of new homes have been built without cultural spaces.
That comes at a huge cost for those communities because if there are no cultural spaces or proper amenities it has an impact on people's well-being, mental health and physical health. Then costs are picked up by our health service and ultimately, even in terms of productivity, workplace engagement and participation. There are societal costs. If communities with thousands of homes are created but do not have the cultural spaces and positive spaces for people to be able to meet, engage, enjoy themselves and so on, it has knock-on effects in terms of anti-social behaviour, crime and so forth. All that cost is picked up in the need to put additional resources into the Garda and so on, simply because we are not planning the area.
Make no mistake, the planning system is not picking this up. Cultural spaces are closing. They are getting pushed out because landowners and developers can get a higher return by closing a cultural space and putting in apartments. That is a planning issue. It is all well and good to have good national policy in this area, including policies and development plans for this area, but if the planning system does not protect cultural spaces and ensure enough of them are provided, they simply get pushed out by projects with higher returns. This is more of an issue for Ireland now than it was several decades ago because our economy is stronger. There are stronger potential returns to be made from different commercial activities, certainly stronger returns to be made from some residential activities than there was 30 or 40 years ago. We did not have the same need for the planning system to cope with this then because enough cultural spaces - buildings and function rooms - existed in areas where they were not going to get pushed out by market forces and higher returns. There is a real need for the planning system to be strong in this area. If it is not, we will continue to have the loss we are having currently. Artists and others who operate in cultural spaces will tell you that they are getting pushed out of the cities and many have been pushed out of the cities. They no longer live or perform in our cities. That is great if they live in a regional town and have benefited from that but we obviously need to have cultural spaces in our cities for people. The planning system has to be able to deal with this. I would like to hear from the Minister of State what in this Bill addresses this, if he does not feel it needs these amendments.
Those were important contributions. It is an important debate. Deputy Ó Broin is correct that I have a huge interest in this area. We have both stood on stage in the past. I am director of a theatre company for young audiences and it is always a struggle to find appropriate spaces to put on performances. It was a hugely important part of what we discussed when we put the programme for Government together around the town centre first policy and especially what the future uses of our urban centres will be.
The doughnut effect is happening where we have ribbon development and retail development on the edge of towns where everything is car-centred and it has hollowed out many important regional towns. However, it is catered for and can be catered for in other areas, especially through arts and cultural strategies of local authorities and the development plan process. I participated in one of the workshops at the Chocolate Factory on the nighttime economy. From listening to the round-table discussions, I can see that important work is ongoing that the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, has led on, not only from the policy side and trying to facilitate it, but also in ensuring that arts bodies and organisations are funded to do the important work they do. There are other elements around young people and spaces for young people in our urban centres. There are issues around public participation and a lot of good collaborative work is ongoing, including in Callan in my county, Kilkenny. Local economic community plans, led by the local community development committees, LCDCs, are important to this, as are works around the town centre first policy. Town teams have been established in quite a few towns. Sligo and Dundalk come to mind. A huge amount of work is ongoing. When the Deputies talk about buildings and spaces being available, many are in private ownership.
We have seen the exit of banks from many towns. There are also post offices, courthouses and other buildings that could be repurposed and reused. The Government announced the town centre first heritage revival scheme, the THRIVE fund, a number of weeks ago. The urban renewal and development fund, URDF, is also available. There is funding in place for towns that are creative and imaginative in the repurposing of buildings that could be put back into use if custodianship issues were resolved.
For the development plan process and designing public spaces, it is critical that local authorities have town architects. Good urban planning makes a considerable difference to the reuse and creative use of public spaces, which can be multiuse spaces, in our urban centres. I have seen many good examples of some of the work that is ongoing across the country. It is better framed in that way. I absolutely appreciate the drive behind these amendments and these are important issues as we try to reimagine our urban centres. There are guidelines for planning authorities in respect of sustainable residential developments and the mix and distribution of uses. Those guidelines state that in city and town centres, planning authorities should plan for a diverse range of uses, including retail, cultural and residential uses, and for the adaption and reuse of existing building stock. It is about the creativity of local authorities and local authority members and the participation of the wider community.
The Bill includes an obligation to prepare a strategy for the "creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities". Section 46(2) states:
The strategy shall include objectives for:
(a) the provision, or the facilitation of the provision, improvement, extension and preservation of amenities, facilities and services to meet the social, community, recreational and cultural requirements...
That obligation is in the Bill. As I have stated, it is important to be mindful of the other elements of work that are already ongoing and the competencies of the local authorities.
From what did the Minister of State quote?
I quoted section 46 of the Bill and the reference to the "Obligation to prepare strategy relating to the creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places and communities." I went on to quote from section 46(2)(a). That is referenced in the Bill. It is an area in which I have a huge interest and it is critically important for urban centres as we try to reimagine and repurpose our town centres as they change. The power lies within the development plan process, local town teams, the nighttime economy task force and the works that are ongoing in that regard, and with the arts and cultural strategies that local authorities prepare themselves.
In some senses, the reply from the Minister of State has highlighted the problem. There is a planning element to this because unless you have the physical space and infrastructure, it is difficult to have these activities. Most of the examples the Minister of State gave were rightly about the reuse of existing buildings and I accept there is some good work. If we consider Adamstown, which is being developed at the moment, one of the big complaints from cultural organisations, from dancing groups to theatre groups - notwithstanding the opening of the community centre a number of years ago, which is now full - is that they have no physical space within a rapidly growing area because there is no provision for such space. There was a more general provision for a community centre, which was provided after great effort and much delay. In the same way as there have been many battles about the provision of sporting facilities, the same issues arise for cultural spaces. To point to one use of the word "cultural" in these sections of the Bill is the problem because it does not give enough weight to these issues. That is why I think a requirement to have statements to flesh that out in a more specific manner in a strategy and to be able to apply specific conditions to permission would be better. I know the Minister of State is not accepting the amendments but I do not think he can honestly say that section 46(2)(a) is the same as what we are proposing in these amendments or that it is sufficient. I again ask him to reconsider.
I will point to section 43(2)(e) of the Bill. The section relates to an obligation to prepare strategy relating to economic development and subsection (2)(e) requires the strategy to include objectives relating to "identifying the attributes of particular places within the functional area that are essential to enhancing economic performance, including the quality of the environment, cities, towns and rural areas, the physical infrastructure, and the social, community and cultural facilities".
It is referenced there. I appreciate what the Deputy is trying to achieve with this set of amendments but it is provided here. I am not discounting the importance of local structures, particularly the town teams that are being established across the country under the town centre first policy. That is where the activation happens and where a collaborative process of trying to identify certain spaces is involved. I agree wholeheartedly that it is very difficult for organisations but there are probably lots of facilities that could be shared by institutions such as sporting and cultural organisations. We have put on theatrical performances in very unusual spaces in Kilkenny. It is about lateral thinking in collaboration at a local level. What the Deputy is trying to achieve is provided for in this Bill but I see the importance of what he is trying to achieve with the amendments.
We have plans that allow for a diverse range of uses, the policies at national level and development plans and as quoted, section 46(2)(a), which states that the strategy shall include objectives for cultural spaces. This is all fine but we are not actually getting the cultural spaces, particularly in areas with a lot of new development. While it is allowed for under the planning system and there are objectives for it, what we are getting are thousands of homes with a little bit of commercial space and a dearth of everything else. If we compare new areas with between 5,000 and 10,000 homes with areas built decades ago that may have multiple community, sporting and cultural spaces if they are doing well, we can see that those newer areas may have nothing or be doing well to have one space so there is a real gap. The planning system allows for all of this but it does not make it happen. It involves how that interacts with market forces, which simply look for the owner of the land to get the best return and the best return does not involve cultural spaces. That is the problem. The planning system is not strong or prescriptive enough and does not ensure we get the cultural spaces that we need. That deficit must be addressed but the high-level policies or objectives just do not do it. They do not go far enough.
To put it very simply, a strategy for culture and a requirement to provide cultural spaces in the development of an area are two related but different things. You can have a fantastic aspirational strategy and commitment to doing things but then not actually have the places and spaces to do them and it is not a requirement in the development of an area that those things be provided for and space be made available for cultural pursuits. That is the difference and I suggest that in many cases, there is literally nowhere to do these things. Even if there is a general commitment in a strategy that they should be done, it is not hard-wired into the development of the area. That is the logic of putting these forward and the Minister of State should seriously consider them because when we think about Ireland of all places, it is a terrible pity that we do not put in the infrastructure to support something that at every level, we should excel in, where we have an extraordinary pool of talent and where it has all those positive impacts on our society when it is done right. In the absence of it, there are often pretty awful consequences.
Cultural strategy is the responsibility of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.
There are provisions in the Bill that would support such a strategy. As I outlined, section 43(2)(e) refers specifically to "cultural facilities". It is well catered for.
I absolutely appreciate the points the Deputies are making in relation to this. I go back to the points I raised previously about other arts and cultural plans and strategies, the funding the Government has put in to the repurposing of buildings in town centres under the THRIVE fund, the development plan process and the hugely important outputs from the work of the night-time economy task force. Particularly in smaller towns, we have quite a lot of cultural facilities that are under-utilised and perhaps should be looked at in terms of multiple uses. That is something.
In the section of the sustainable residential development and compact settlement guidelines for planning authorities about the "mix and distribution of uses", it is set out that "planning authorities should plan for a diverse range of uses including retail, cultural and residential uses". It comes back down to the development plan process. That is critically important. The arts and cultural strategies and the work of local community development committees through the delivery of local economic community plans unlock the potential in local communities for the development of cultural facilities.
It is critically important in a changed world to reimagine our town centres. I refer particularly to how public spaces are used, particularly by young people, as we take cars out and try to repurpose them. A broad stakeholder process of public participation and engagement is needed to try and achieve that.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 208:
In page 66, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(p) prevention, reduction, amelioration and mitigation of risks of socio-linguistic damage in Gaeltacht areas.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
We will move on to amendment No. 209, which has already been discussed with amendment No. 60.
I move amendment No. 209:
In page 66, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(p) the objective of restoring the Irish language to use as a spoken language nationwide and as the community language of the Gaeltacht.”.
I have been in contact with a member of the committee this morning who has informed me they are unable to attend for the moment and are unable to provide a substitute. On that basis, with the new motion that was passed, I am going to proceed to take the vote straight away because we have full attendance.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 210:
In page 66, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(p) the promotion, protection, improvement and delivery of strategic utilities and infrastructure.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 211 has already been discussed with amendment No. 181.
I move amendment No. 211:
In page 66, line 10, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 212 to 220, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 221:
In page 67, to delete lines 24 to 29 and substitue the following:
“(10) For the purposes of subsection (9), a modification shall be deemed to be minor where it does not substantively or materially alter the draft National Planning Statement.
(11) Notwithstanding subsection (10), where a modification is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, or is likely to have a significant effect on any European site either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, the modification shall not be deemed to be minor.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Question put: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 25
I move amendment No. 222:
In page 68, lines 2 to 4, to delete from and including “(1)” in line 2 down to and including line 4 and substitute the following:
“(1) Notwithstanding the repeal of section 28 of the Act of 2000 effected by section 6, any guidelines issued under this section that were in force immediately before such repeal shall continue in force on or after such repeal, other than guidelines issues under section 28 IC of the Act of 2000, which shall be deemed to be non mandatory guidelines under section 28 until—”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 223:
In page 68, to delete lines 4 to 16 and substitute the following:
“shall not continue in force after such repeal, and where the Minister wishes to continue with such guidelines, he or she must replace them with a National Planning Statement issued in accordance with this Chapter.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 224:
In page 68, line 4, to delete “continue in force on and after such repeal until” and substitute “either be”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 225:
In page 68, to delete lines 7 and 8.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 226:
In page 68, to delete lines 7 and 8 and substitute the following:
“(2) Any guidelines in force under subsection (1), pursuant to section 28 IC of the Act of 2000, shall be deemed to be National Planning Policy Guidance.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 227 not moved.
Question put: “That section 25 stand part of the Bill”
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 26
Amendment No. 228 is grouped with another large grouping of amendments. We will take that grouping.
These are all related to Gaeltacht and Irish language planning issues.
And the regional spatial and economic strategies. I will talk to them all as a group, if that is okay.
Absolutely, fire away.
I move amendment No. 228:
In page 68, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(c) the viability of any Gaeltacht communities within its region and the strengthening the use of Irish therein.”.
This cluster of amendments, while somewhat lengthy in the text, relates to strengthening the recognition of and attention to the Irish language, the Gaeltacht and Irish language service towns and networks within the regional spatial and economic strategies. We have had detailed discussion of related topics in relation to the national planning framework and other areas but there is a compelling reason for the Bill to be more vocal on these key areas.
Amendment No. 228 aims to ensure regional spatial and economic strategies support the viability of Gaeltacht communities and the use of the Irish language within them. Amendment No. 231 attempts to ensure those strategies should be materially consistent with the language plans for Gaeltacht service towns and líonraí Gaeilge agreed under the Gaeltacht Act. Amendment No. 242 relates to language plans coming onto a statutory basis from the Gaeltacht Act 2012. It aims to ensure there is adequate integration of the regional spatial strategies with those.
The remainder of the amendments are pretty self-explanatory. I will listen to the Minister of State's answers and may respond to individual amendments as we go.
I will speak to my amendments. Amendments Nos. 235, 237, 247 and 255 are about the regional spatial and economic strategies. Amendment No. 258 refers to consultation about new or revised regional spatial and economic strategies. Amendments Nos. 261 and 263 are about the preparation and revision of such strategies. Amendment No. 274 is about the publication and assessment of such strategies by the Office of the Planning Regulator. Amendments Nos. 280, 283, 286, 288 and 292 are about the issuance of direction by the Office of the Planning Regulator.
To give a concrete example about how planning and housing matters in a Gaeltacht area affect people, a study was done by the co-op on Cape Clear island of the housing situation. It analysed the - in its words -"catastrophic" population decline that has resulted in the school on the island being on the brink of closure and in an inability to recruit a qualified teacher due to the acute housing situation. There is also a problem with workers in other essential services nearing retirement; if there is not housing available for replacement essential workers, it could lead to a deterioration or collapse of an essential service.
According to the analysis of the island's housing stock, in January of this year there were 101 residential homes on the island, of which 52 were occupied by full-time residents and 49 were used as second and holiday homes. This has a particular impact on the full-time population and on the ability to keep services open. Compare this to the number of habitable houses in 1970. That number was 99, and in 1970 there was not such a high proportion of those used as holiday homes. While the housing stock in use by full-time residents in most communities has increased substantially since 1970, the number in use by full-time residents on the island has gone backwards. They are not arguing for a proliferation of housing all over the island but, because of planning failures, the limited housing stock they have is not available for full-time workers.
Out of that, they have done an analysis of the second homes and holiday homes and found that 23 are in low use in the summer only, whereas 26 are in use at various times throughout the year. They found recently that, as a result of the housing situation, three families have had to leave the island due to accommodation not being available.
I am just using Cape Clear island as one example of a Gaeltacht area where planning and the lack of regulation around it, as well as the lack of strong provisions such as I am proposing in these amendments, are potentially leading to essential services on the island collapsing. If the school closes, that pushes out other families because, clearly, they are not going to be able to get their children back and forth to school on the mainland by boat every day as it is not practical. It will push out more families if those essential services collapse. We have to bear in mind that those essential services have been in place for all of my lifetime and longer but now, due to planning failures, they may well collapse.
I urge the Minister of State to accept these amendments to strengthen the provisions to protect our linguistic and cultural heritage and Gaeltacht communities, particularly in regard to the regional spatial and economic strategies.
At the outset, I point out there has already been significant discussion in regard to the Irish language and Gaeltacht areas. More than 160 amendments have been discussed to date in regard to the Irish language and Gaeltacht matters as they relate to national planning statements, national planning policy statements, development plans and planning applications. This group deals with a further 35 amendments on the same themes in regard to regional assemblies and regional spatial and economic strategies.
Commitments have already been given on Committee Stage to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to provide that local authorities will be able to prepare priority area plans for both Gaeltacht areas and islands to address some of the concerns raised by Deputy O'Callaghan. We will bring forward amendments on Report Stage to ensure there is appropriate consultation at all levels of plan-making with Údarás na Gaeltachta and other bodies such as Foras na Gaeilge and An Coimisinéir Teanga, where appropriate. The importance of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht is fully acknowledged by all but on the basis of the commitments already given and the previous significant debates on these matters, I do not think it necessary to debate all of these amendments in detail. If the Deputies wish, I will speak specifically to the amendments but I will not be accepting any of them.
The Minister of State may proceed.
I will address amendments Nos. 228 and 231, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, and amendment No. 235, tabled by Deputies O’Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh, which relate to regional spatial and economic strategies.
Amendments No. 228 and 231 seek to amend section 26 to include an objective in a strategy supporting the viability of any Gaeltacht communities within its region, to strengthen the use of Irish language within that region, and to provide that the strategy may also be in accordance with language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012. Amendment No. 235 seeks to provide that, for specified areas covered by a regional spatial and economic strategy, the strategy must be materially consistent with any relevant language plan agreed, pursuant to Gaeltacht Act 2012, for those specified areas.
Section 26 requires that the objectives of regional spatial and economic strategy must support the implementation of, and be materially consistent with, the national planning framework. In this context, the language planning process established under the Gaeltacht Act 2012 is supported by the current national planning framework of 2018, especially national policy objective 29, which aims to, “Support the implementation of language plans in Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns and Irish Language Networks.” The strategy recognises the strong connection to Gaeltacht areas as places to live, work and visit.
The NPF states that Irish as a community language is an important cornerstone in the building of a bilingual society in Ireland, and areas where the Irish language is a community language provide an environment where the language can evolve naturally in a modern setting. The NPF sets out a high-level strategy for the planning and development of Ireland up to 2040.
Regional strategies and development plans adopted by planning authorities are required to be consistent with the NPF, where appropriate. Since 2018, the three regional assemblies have adopted regional spatial and economic strategies, and the majority of city and county development plans have been reviewed and are adjudged to be consistent with the NPF. A revision of the current national planning framework is being progressed. This will include public consultation and will allow for submissions to be made regarding the need for new or additional matters relating to Gaeltacht areas. For these reasons, I am unable to accept these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 237, 242, 246 to 248, inclusive, 252 and 254 seek to amend section 27 of the Bill which sets out the content of a regional spatial and economic strategy. Importantly, under the current draft of the Bill, provision must be made for the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht.
Amendment No. 237 seeks to require that a regional spatial and economic strategy, where the region includes a specified Gaeltacht area, must make provision for a strategy relating to the promotion and use of the Irish language of the community, consistent with any relevant language plan agreed pursuant to the Gaeltacht Act 2012.
Amendment No. 242 seeks to extend section 27 to also include that provision be made for the use of Irish within specified Gaeltacht areas and their economic, social and infrastructural development in co-ordination with Údarás na Gaeltachta or Foras na Gaeilge, as appropriate, and support for the implementation of language plans in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012.
I consider the existing text, requiring that provision must be made for the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht in a regional spatial and economic strategy, is sufficiently and purposely broad to enable regional assemblies to consider the matters the proposed amendments intend to provide for. This must be done by having regard to the national policy objective 29 in the national planning framework.
Amendment No. 246 seeks to provide that the strategy relating to economic matters that must be provided for in a regional spatial and economic strategy must also set out proposals for supporting the work of Údarás na Gaeltachta to augment the economic performance of Gaeltacht communities and ensure employment opportunities for Irish speakers within the Gaeltacht.
Amendments Nos. 247 and 248 seek to provide that a regional spatial and economic strategy must include a statement confirming that the strategy is materially consistent with any relevant language plans relevant to the area. Amendment No. 252 seeks to provide that where a part of the metropolitan area of a city or a key town falls within a Gaeltacht language planning area or is designated as a Gaeltacht service town, the relevant regional spatial and economic strategy shall respect the need to protect the use of Irish therein and the viability of the relevant Gaeltacht community.
The existing provisions of the Bill require that a strategy relating to economic matters identifies regional strengths and opportunities having regard to economic and employment trends. The strategy must also identify the regional attributes that are essential to enhancing regional economic performance, including the quality of the environment, cities, towns and rural areas, the physical infrastructure, and the social, community and cultural facilities. The strategy will set out proposals to maintain or augment these attributes in such a manner as will be implemented under the strategy through public bodies, private sector investment and the community, and identify the means of maintaining and augmenting overall regional economic performance in accordance with national economic policy.
I consider that the existing provisions do not preclude the identification of the matters that the proposed amendments seek to provide for in the economic strategy, especially having regard to the national policy objective 29. As I have mentioned, the revision of the national planning framework is currently under way, with public consultations and opportunities to submit observations and recommendations on the need for new or additional matters relating to Gaeltacht areas will be available. For these reasons, I am unable to accept these amendments.
Amendment No. 254 seeks to amend section 27 of the Bill that states a regional spatial and economic strategy, and a metropolitan area strategic plan within such a strategy, must include measures for the effective implementation and monitoring of the strategy and the plan, including an indication of priorities for infrastructure of scale relating to transportation, water services, waste management, energy and communications networks and the provision of educational, healthcare, retail, cultural and recreational facilities. Amendment No. 254 seeks to amend the current provision to include Irish language facilities also.
I will ask my officials to consider this matter further and to consult with the Parliamentary Counsel to determine if this is a workable approach. If appropriate, I may then bring forward amendments on Report Stage.
I will address amendments Nos. 256, 257, 259, 262 and 273, as tabled jointly by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, and amendments Nos. 255, 258, 261, 263, 264 and 274, as jointly tabled by Deputies O’Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh.
The amendments concern sections 28 to 32, inclusive, setting out procedures for carrying out a review of regional spatial and economic strategy, the carrying out of consultation in respect of a new or revised strategy, the process for the preparation or revision of a strategy, the process for the material alteration of a draft strategy and the process for publication of a strategy. Amendment No. 255 seeks to provide that, where the region includes a specified Gaeltacht area, the review must ensure the strategy is materially consistent with any relevant language plan.
Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 intend to provide that the regional assembly carrying out a review must ensure the strategy for its region is materially consistent with, and takes account of, any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for any specified Gaeltacht area.
As I have already outlined, section 28 provides that the regional spatial and economic strategy must be consistent with the national planning framework. The language planning process established under the Gaeltacht Act 2012 is also supported by the current national planning framework, particularly the national planning objective 29, and the review of the NPF will include consideration of the new or additional matters relating to Gaeltacht areas where they apply to strategic spatial planning policy beyond those already referenced in the current NPF. For these reasons I am unable to accept these amendments.
Amendment No. 258 relates to the procedures for undertaking consultation on the preparation of a new or revised regional spatial and economic strategy under section 29. It provides that where a strategy includes a specified Gaeltacht area, the Department for the Gaeltacht, Údarás na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge must be consulted.
Amendment No. 259 requires a regional assembly, before making or revising a strategy, to consult board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga and the language planning officer within the regions.
Amendments Nos. 261, 262 and 264 will require that, when preparing a draft regional spatial and economic strategy or a draft revision of an existing strategy, the regional assembly must ensure the draft is materially consistent with any language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 relevant to a specified Gaeltacht area within the region. The draft must also take account of the use of Irish within such areas and their social, economic and infrastructural development in co-ordination with Údarás na Gaeltachta or Foras Na Gaeilge, as appropriate. The drafts must support implementation of language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012.
Amendment No. 263 seeks to provide that where a strategy affects specified Gaeltacht areas, the regional assembly must take into account the need to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Irish language in Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically for supporting the implementation of language plans.
Section 30 provides that a draft regional spatial and economic strategy must be consistent with the national planning framework. As I mentioned, the language planning process established under the Gaeltacht Act 2012 is supported by the national planning framework, especially the national policy objective 29. Any review of the national planning framework will include consideration of new or additional matters relating to Gaeltacht areas where they apply to strategic spatial planning policy beyond those already referenced in the current NPF. For these reasons, I am unable to accept these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 273 and 274 will require that a notice, or the making of a revision of a strategy, must be sent by the regional assembly to board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga and any language planning officers within the region.
Section 29 provides that a regional assembly can consult other Ministers or the Government, other regional assemblies and other public bodies and such other persons as may be prescribed. Such consultees must subsequently receive the notice of making or revision of the strategy. I am satisfied the current provisions are adequate and that the listing of additional State bodies is not required. For this reason, I am unable to accept these amendments.
I now address amendments Nos. 281, 284, 287, 289 and 293, as tabled jointly by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, and amendments Nos. 280, 283, 286, 288 and 292, as jointly tabled by Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Cathasaigh. Section 36 requires the Office of the Planning Regulator to assess whether a new, revised or amended regional spatial and economic strategy is consistent with the national planning framework, the national marine planning framework, and national planning policy and measures.
It provides that the Minister of the day or a regional assembly may notify the Office of the Planning Regulator of any provision in the strategy believed to be materially inconsistent with the specified matters.
Amendments Nos. 280 and 281 seek to provide that the Minister or regional assembly can notify the Office of the Planning Regulator where such a strategy is inconsistent with any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a specified Gaeltacht area.
Amendments Nos. 284 and 287 seek to provide that the Office of the Planning Regulator, while forming its opinion regarding any inconsistency, must consider the relevant language plan.
Amendments Nos. 283 and 286 seek to provide that the Office of the Planning Regulator, for the purpose of forming its opinion where the region includes a specified Gaeltacht area, can consider any inconsistency with a language plan and can form a preliminary view on the basis of an inconsistency with the language plan.
Amendments Nos. 288 and 289 seek to provide for the forming of that opinion with regard to an inconsistency with language plans for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Minister regarding a draft direction. It is important to note that section 36 provides that the assessment of a regional spatial and economic strategy must be consistent with the national planning framework and that the language planning process established under the Gaeltacht Act 2012 is also supported by the current national planning framework, particularly national planning policy objective 29. For this reason I am unable to accept these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 292 and 293 relate to section 37, which provides that on receipt of a direction from the Minister of the day, the Office of the Planning Regulator shall issue a draft direction requiring a regional spatial and economic strategy to implement the amendment and publish the strategy as amended. Amendment No. 292 seeks to provide that where the region includes a specified Gaeltacht area, such notice must be sent to the Department of the Gaeltacht, Údarás na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge. Amendment No. 293 seeks to provide that the Office of the Planning Regulator must send a copy of a notice concerning the issuing of a draft direction along with the draft direction to board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga and any language planning officers within a given region. I will ask my officials to consider this matter further and, if appropriate, having consulted with the Parliamentary Counsel, I may bring forward amendments on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister of State for those responses. Is amendment No. 228 being pressed?
May I just ask for one point of clarification?
Sure. Go ahead.
In addition to the Minister of State's concluding lines with respect to possible amendments on Report Stage, he indicated about halfway through his list that it may be appropriate for him to bring amendments back on Report Stage in respect of another group of amendments.
I did.
Will he just confirm to me which amendments those were?
Amendment No. 254.
Just that one?
Just amendment No. 254, yes.
Was the last one the Minister of State referred to amendment No. 293 or amendment No. 292?
Amendments Nos. 292 and 293.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 4.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 229:
In page 68, line 28, to delete “and".
I will withdraw this amendment, as I would like to table it again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 230:
In page 68, line 29, after “Government” to insert the following:
“, and
(c) Ireland’s climate targets as set under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”.
Before we put the question, I wish to note that, although we had agreed to meet between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. tomorrow, the schedule did not show that. The website has now been updated to reflect that the meeting is scheduled.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Kenny, Martin.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
As it is now nearly 1.05 p.m., I will suspend the meeting. We will resume on amendment No. 231 in the name of Deputy Ó Broin.
I thank the Chair.
I thank the Minister of State for his attendance.
Sitting suspended at 1.04 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
I welcome everyone back.
I move amendment No. 231:
In page 68, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“(c) the language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for
Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns, and Irish
Language Networks.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 232 not moved.
I move amendment No. 233:
In page 68, line 35, after “measures” to insert the following:
“, and
(d) Ireland’s climate targets as per the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.”
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 234 not moved.
I move amendment No. 235:
In page 68, after line 35, to insert the following:
“(d) (i) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(ii) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question put: "That section 26 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 2.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 27
Amendment No. 236 not moved.
I move amendment No. 237:
In page 69, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(e) (i) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, a strategy relating to the promotion and use of Irish as a language of the community consistent with any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(ii) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, a strategy relating to the promotion and use of Irish as a language of the community consistent with any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012;”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 238 not moved.
Amendment No. 239 is grouped with a number of other amendments. These are amendments Nos. 240 and 241, 243, 245, 249, 250, 266, 267, 271 and 275 to 279, inclusive. Will Deputy Ó Broin or Deputy O'Calllaghan move amendment No. 239 and speak to the amendments in that group? I will let them apply whatever logical order they want themselves.
I move amendment No. 239:
In page 70, to delete lines 5 and 6 and substitue the following:
“(k) the preservation, protection and restoration of the environment and its amenities and elements, including the archaeological, historical, architectural and natural heritage of the region;”.
Most of these amendments are stand-alone rather than grouped. I will speak to amendment No. 239 first. We will see how we get on. Section 27 deals with the content of the regional, spatial and economic strategies. Section 27(1)(a) to (p) lists the various areas the strategy should take into account. The amendment is very straightforward. It seeks to insert a new section 27(1)(k) for "the preservation, protection and restoration of the environment and its amenities and elements, including the archaeological, historical, architectural and natural heritage of the region". It is just to provide for another very important area to be included. The list in this section is much more prescriptive. In some of other lists on which we have had similar discussions, there are catch-up provisions near the end where additional criteria can be added. While this section seems to be longer than those, it only allows what is stipulated. I could be wrong but that is my reading of it. It is all the more reason this new inserted subsection (k) is required.
I will speak to amendment No. 239. My read of the section is that it is a prescriptive and closed list. Section 27(1) states, "A regional spatial and economic strategy shall make provision for the following matters". It does not state "including the following matters". It is a prescriptive list. It appears to be a closed list that does not allow for other areas. I am particularly concerned about the current wording in section 27(1)(k). It references "the preservation and protection of the environment and its amenities" but does not reference restoration of the environment, which we have discussed. It is a single word but it is very important that we have restoration of the environment and habitats. We should not simply seek to preserve and protect the existing environment but also seek to have restoration. This has been talked about quite considerably in recent times in the context of the EU nature restoration law, but in terms of the planning Bill and regional, spatial and economic strategies, we should not simply seek to preserve and protect; we should also seek to restore. Restoration is absolutely key in that regard, including from the point of view of biodiversity. It is not just about protecting what we currently have. It is also about restoration. That needs to be at the heart of our planning system. Will the Minister of State explain why he feels restoration should not be included in the section? Maybe he will accept our amendment.
I am a signatory to this series of amendments. The points have largely been made and we have somewhat discussed the matter previously. The natural restoration of biodiversity is key, as I am sure the Minister of State knows.
To take forestry as an example, many of the attempts to increase afforestation turned out to be failures or even damaging because they were based on things such as plantation models, unsuitable species, monocultures - you name it. The Minister of State will be familiar with all of this stuff. As the late Andrew St. Ledger explained to me in great detail, the best way to afforest Ireland is to allow for the natural regeneration of native woodlands and native species.
There is a very important point in stressing the restoration of our natural heritage by means of a sustainable form of environmental protection rather than protections that are not sustainable or appropriate. It is right to underline that in the Bill because there is a political argument to be won in the minds of society and planners about deepening our understanding of how we are going to solve the biodiversity crisis, which will be done through restoration and natural regeneration. It is also important to say this to prevent the sort of cultural vandalism of our heritage of which we have seen all too much. Magnificent buildings that should be restored and are part of our heritage and history are seen by certain people in the narrowest terms as opportunities for development, usually linked to people making money from them, rather than understanding that it is an absolute imperative to restore our built heritage - our architectural heritage and history - and prevent it from falling victim to cultural vandalism, which is all too prevalent. These are reasonable things to add in. I do not see what the downside is. Adding them in is just an obvious addition to the logic of what is already in the Bill.
Amendment No. 239 jointly tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith, Kenny and O’Callaghan seeks to amend a matter in respect of which regional spatial economic strategy must include provision for the preservation and protection of the environment and its amenities, including the archeological, architectural and natural heritage of the region, to expand the scope to include restoration of the environment as well as preservation and protection. I do not consider this amendment to be required as the wording of section 27(1)(k) as drafted is appropriate and does not warrant further revision. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.
The inclusion of the word "historical" is not required as it is already covered by references to archaeological and natural heritage. However, I take on board the points made by Deputies regarding restoration, particularly as it pertains to nature. We already gave a commitment to look at the biodiversity elements of the Bill in terms of strengthening it. In light of the nature restoration law and the State's commitment to embark on a nature restoration plan regardless of the outcome of the meeting of COREPER this week, it is important to give consideration to this. I ask the Deputies to allow us to consider how we might incorporate that and come back to them.
I agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett regarding natural regeneration, which still requires management. Restoration requires a significant level of management and as we are heading into a decade of restoration, it is important to try to give effect to that. If they are agreeable, we will come back to the Deputies on the matter at a later stage.
I welcome that the Minister of State will come back to us on that. He indicated that he would look at the biodiversity parts of the Bill. Will he specifically look at the regional spatial and economic strategies and the wording used around restoration?
In that context we will. It is important that we do.
I am less enthusiastic than Deputy O'Callaghan might be. Section 27(1)(k) refers to "the preservation and protection of the environment and its amenities, including ... archaeological, architectural and natural heritage". Restoration does not only apply to natural heritage, although I fully support Deputies O'Callaghan and Boyd Barrett in what they said. It also applies to archaeological and architectural heritage. You could have situations where archaeological or architectural heritage is being protected or preserved but is not being restored. It is not being brought back into an improved state. In looking at this, therefore, I think the Minister of State should look again at the substance of our proposition, even though he is not going to accept it today. Restoration, preservation and protection are not the same. He probably knows that better than most of us in this room. I therefore think there is scope to have a commitment to restoration, either here or elsewhere, but in particular with respect to the regional, spatial and economic strategies and archaeological, architectural and natural heritage. The archaeological and architectural sides are important, as well as the natural heritage side. That may nudge the Minister of State a little further in his consideration of the matter before Report Stage.
We use the term restoration primarily with regard to nature. Over the course of the past couple of years in particular, we have seen how it has become an essential component of biodiversity policy. Restoration of historic and heritage buildings is already embodied in the national architecture policy and other policies and strategies from our Department and others. We separately have the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023, which primarily supports the conservation of archaeological features and heritage. If it is okay, we could come back in respect of that. I do not say that to detract from it but it paints a broader picture of what the Deputy is saying about the built and archeological environment, as we discussed earlier pertaining to nature, biodiversity and nature restoration. It creates a question about that. However, there are already good policies in place relating to the reuse, repurposing and restoration of historic buildings and archaeological heritage. We might come back on that, if that is okay.
This is in some way similar to the national planning framework where there were six provisions. Five of those were progressive and expansive in the context of the economy and the urban construct. I agree with that and support that we expand and move forward. However, the environmental side in this legislation is again about preserving and protecting, which means to stand still. If everything else is moving forward, the environment is probably going to suffer. If we are moving with everything else, I believe enhancement should also be there. In the previous amendment - which I think was amendment No. 149 - pertaining to the national planning framework, the Minister stated that he would consider using the word "enhancement". This is in a similar space, except it is regional. Can we consider putting that word in?
Amendment No. 240, tabled by Deputy Duffy, seeks a similar amendment to expand the scope to include enhancement of the environment, as well as preservation and protection.
While I cannot accept the amendment, I give a commitment to look at the other wording as per previous amendments. We will give consideration to it. It is not necessarily further expansion but it is different from restoration, for example. However, I appreciate the points the Deputy is trying to make with this amendment.
We need to be mindful that the Government is moving forward with everything else in the Bill and the environment is standing still. By preserving it as opposed to some element of enhancement, it is effectively regressive.
Regarding amendments Nos. 241 and 243, I do not know how these are logically grouped.
The problem is that they are all separate issues. I sill speak to them briefly. Amendment No. 241 is pretty straightforward. It refers to the same subsection (k) and seeks to insert to insert “, cultural, linguistic” after “architectural”. It was tabled by my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh. As we have had similar discussions at earlier stages, I will not delay. We felt it was appropriate for this to be captured in this particular subsection to give due weight to cultural and linguistic as well as archaeological and architectural heritage.
Amendment No. 241 tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh seeks to amend section 27 of the Bill which concerns the content of regional spatial and economic strategies, RSESs. The Bill provides that an RSES shall make provision for a number of specified matters, which include the preservation and protection of the environment and its amenities, including the archaeological, architectural and natural heritage of the region. This amendment seeks to include "cultural" and "linguistic" here.
I cannot accept this amendment as I consider that the provision as drafted is appropriate and there is no need to make specific reference to "cultural" and "linguistic" in these provisions. These matters are not directly related to planning and I do not consider that they are appropriate to be included. The purpose of the RSES is to support implementation of the national planning framework and the economic policies and objectives of the Government in accordance with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development. RSESs are vital for identifying strategic assets, opportunities and challenges as well as setting out policies in response to meeting people's needs. Cultural and Gaeltacht policy matters are the responsibility of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.
I might move on to the next amendment. This amendment was also drafted by my colleague Deputy Ó Snodaigh. The 2009 expert group report contained a recommendation that historic landscapes should be covered by the Historic Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. As the Minister of State will know, it was not included in that Act. Deputy Ó Snodaigh and others tried to insert it in that legislation by way of amendment and failed. We are now coming back and asking the Minister of State to reconsider the exclusion of historic landscapes and to consider its insertion again here in subsection (m).
In a similar vein, amendment No. 243 tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh seeks to include a reference to historic landscapes in section 27(1)(m). The subsection as drafted provides that an RSES shall make provision for a strategy relating to landscape and landscape character that co-ordinates the categorisation of landscapes in terms of their capacity to absorb particular types of development across the region to ensure a consistent approach to the protection of the landscape.
This amendment proposes to include a reference to "historic landscapes" here. I do not consider that including a reference to "historic landscapes" is necessary or appropriate. The subsection as drafted already refers to landscapes and landscape character and I do not consider a reference to "historic landscape" is needed. Even though I am not accepting the amendment, I point out that it would be very difficult to find what is meant by historic landscape in terms of what it is and what historic period it covers.
I know this was discussed widely during the debate on the 2023 Act, but for the purposes of this Bill I will not be accepting the amendment.
On a small supplementary point, I assume the expert group, being a group of experts, had some sense of how to address the issues of definitions and types, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility. I will not labour the point but will press the amendment.
I will speak to amendment No. 245. On page 70, it would insert, after "policy", "but which recognises the importance of balancing such economic requirements with factors improving the health and well-being of the regional population." This is important in ensuring RSESs will not just look at economic development but also at how development impacts the health and well-being of the population in the region.
This is consistently raised to me by constituents, who say they are all for development in their area but want it done in a way that improves and enhances well-being and health, is well designed and planned, and is not exclusively driven by economic forces. There is a deep sense with regard to the many challenges people face around the country that there is an imbalance in that economic development seems to be driving all of the planning and thinking, and it is not being balanced by human health and well-being.
We discussed earlier the many newer developments with thousands of much-needed homes but an absence of the cultural spaces and amenities needed to make successful and thriving communities that people want to live in and grow older in. It is not trying to take away from the economic development side but to say it needs to be balanced with considerations around health and well-being. In these RSESs and in planning in general, that is the way we need to go. It needs to be in the legislation. I do not think we can pretend that balance is there at the moment. It is not. People's daily experience, especially in newer developments and communities, suggests it is not happening in a balanced way.
If we got this right, we would have a smoother planning process because there would be more buy-in for new development from communities if they knew it was done well and balanced with well-being. There is nothing like it when it is done well and balanced and there are facilities for human health and well-being, in terms of the knock-on effects. We all deal as public representatives with communities where it is not done. We could be dealing with the fall-out from that for years.
I will provide a practical example to support the amendment. This is always about the tension that exists between the need for economic development, growth and physical development and, on the other hand, meeting the health and well-being needs of a community. For example, there was an interesting paper circulated last week by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service mapping new residential construction by local authority over the last while. An indicator it used which I had not seen before was the number of new dwellings per 1,000 population. In Dublin and the commuter belt, there is in Fingal and in South Dublin County Council - where I am - about ten dwellings per 1,000. In Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, it is 15 per 1,000.
There are similar figures in the commuter belt but in Dublin city, it is only five new dwellings per thousand of population. The difficulty is that while, on a narrow definition of economic growth, we are seeing residential growth and employment growth in Dublin, it is happening in a way that is unbalanced, particularly in terms of transport-orientated development to reduce the necessity to use cars, avoid suburban sprawl and so on.
This amendment, therefore, is trying to find a language or a way of balancing things. We could have very significant levels of economic growth and development, but they might be happening in a spatial pattern or spatial sequence that is detrimental to public health and well-being. That is what we are trying to capture with this amendment. One could make a similar point about the increasing incidence of people who cannot afford a new home in the suburbs and who are now buying second-hand homes in the western reaches of the greater Dublin area counties, for example, and, again, taking on very significant commutes. We would always try to make the case that economic development should not be seen in and of itself but should be integrated with, in this instance, the public health and well-being aspects of such development.
Amendment No. 245, tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith, Kenny and O’Callaghan, seeks to amend section 27(1)(n)(iv). This section, as drafted, provides that a strategy relating to economic matters would include, among other things, identification of the means of maintaining and augmenting overall regional economic performance in accordance with national economic policy. The amendment seeks to change this requirement to provide that the means identified also recognise the importance of balancing such economic requirements with factors improving the health and well-being of the regional population.
I ask the Deputies to withdraw the amendment. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has already given a commitment to look at amendment No. 151 with a view to including references to health and well-being in section 19 of the national planning framework. It is also important to note that the Government is adopting a well-being model or framework and overarching sustainable development goals in all policies of Government. I agree with Deputy Ó Broin that we need to look beyond economic growth at the overall health and well-being of the population. If the Deputies are happy to withdraw the amendment, the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has given a commitment through amendment No. 151 to include references to health and well-being.
I would not be minded to withdraw on that basis because they are two separate, although interrelated, propositions. If something is not explicit in the plan-making process of the regional spatial and economic strategy, then the very high-level, overarching objectives of the NPF might not necessarily be translated and applied at that regional level in the most appropriate manner. I suspect that if we looked at the list of things for consideration, from the NPF to the regional plans to the development plans, and so on, there would be areas where there is a certain overlap. Therefore, just because something is in the list of items for consideration for the NPF, and that is if the Minister brings back a Report Stage amendment, that should not automatically preclude it from being considered elsewhere in the plan-making consideration. On that basis, I would not be minded to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
What we are trying to amend is the current wording, which states:
(n) a strategy relating to economic matters that-
[...]
(iv) identifies the means of maintaining and augmenting overall regional economic performance in accordance with national economic policy.
I do not have a problem with that if our proposed wording is agreed because it would add some context and balance in terms of the health and well-being of the regional population. Without the wording we are suggesting, and although the Minister is looking at a previous amendment we put forward, if there is no commitment or no change to this, it means there will be no balance at all in terms of human health and well-being. It is 2024 and we should be able to look at things not just in terms of economic drivers but also in terms of human health and well-being.
It should not be beyond us in terms of the legislation we are looking at for the next 25 years. It is fine to have national strategies, national policy and all the rest, but if we do not put this into our regional, spatial and economic strategies, it will not happen. People will just read that and they will follow and be guided by that, which is a narrow way of looking at things.
I have two points in response. I did say that the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, would look at amendments Nos. 151 and 154. The wording of amendment No. 154 is the "promotion of sustainable development consistent with a focus on improving human health and well-being and the establishment of metrics and criteria for evaluating these considerations and monitoring them within the life of the plan". The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, has given a commitment to look at that within section 19 of the national planning framework.
Second, the regional, economic and spatial strategies are materially consistent with the national planning framework but I also give a commitment to the members to see whether the wording needs to be included in section 27.
It does need to be included here.
We will give consideration to it, yes.
Economic performance needs to be included here. I have no issue with that but there has been no discussion around that. That needs to be included here and human health and well-being also needs to be included. Things that are only located elsewhere implicitly just do not get the same consideration so I am strongly making the case that it is needed here.
I agree. We have given that commitment both on amendment No. 154, by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, and to see if wording could be included in section 27 as well.
I thank the Minister of State. Does Deputy Boyd Barrett wish to come in?
As a signatory to this, the point has been well aired but do we have planning and development that is mechanical or do we have planning and development that is holistic? That is really what is at stake here. If planning and development is mechanical and economically deterministic, it treats people like units and robots and the result is probably best summed up in Edvard Munch's famous painting The Scream where people are deeply alienated from their surroundings. That is a real phenomenon. In fact, if anything it seems to be more evident these days or maybe we are more aware of it, I do not know. When you talk to young people, that sense of alienation impacting on their mental health and sense of well-being is very widespread. A mindset change is necessary for us and everybody at all levels of society to move away from the narrowly deterministic and mechanical to the holistic. If the Minister has already acknowledged that this needs to be included in the national planning framework, surely it is logical that this wording and awareness would then work its way through the planning and development process entire at all levels. I think it is logical that if we put it in one place, it should follow through to all parts of the planning and development process, from the macro to the micro.
Again, I agree wholeheartedly, and it is not too dissimilar to the conversation we had earlier about cultural space. All of this is important. Good planning should lead to good outcomes and well-being for people. It should not be about the development of units. It has to be about place-making and creative and safe spaces for people of all ages. That includes how we design our public spaces in terms of people's well-being. In that regard we have given a commitment that we will look at how we might best reflect that. I agree with the members' points on this.
We will discuss "cultural spaces" again under amendment No. 249. Is Deputy Ó Broin satisfied with the Minister of State's previous answer?
I will not labour the point but I am interested in hearing his formal response to this amendment to at least have it on the record.
Amendment No. 249 seeks to prescribe an additional matter in respect of which a regional spatial and economic strategy must provide for, being a strategy relating to cultural matters. As I already stated in response to amendment No. 241, I do not consider this amendment to be required or necessary and, as such, I will not be accepting it.
Amendment is No. 250 is in my name, so I will skip it for the moment. Amendment No. 266 is in the names of Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Ó Broin and Boyd Barrett. It relates to the water framework directive.
Deputy Emer Higgins took the Chair.
My amendment reads, "In page 77 ... to insert ... The preparation, making and revision of a regional spatial and economic strategy shall be subject to an assessment in respect of its effect on water quality of water bodies in the region, in respect of requirements under Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive." The Minister of State might think there is no need for a provision like this but there is a need for such a provision because there was a ruling in the European Court of Justice in Case C-461/13 in July 2015 in which Ireland failed to comply with the terms of the need to assess the impacts of the deterioration of the quality of water bodies. The Court of Justice clarified that assessment is needed and required and that there is an obligation to be met under Article 4 that an assessment would be required. The amendment proposes that the making or revision of a regional spatial and economic strategy shall be subject to an assessment in respect of its effect on water bodies. We have discussed already under this Bill the importance of water bodies in terms of the natural environment and biodiversity. There are impacts on nature and human health as well. Water bodies have been neglected for far too long and this amendment is needed to ensure compliance with Article 4.
This is a no-brainer, to be honest, in that, in particular when looking at a regional spatial strategy, we have to look at the state of water quality in a region. As Deputy O'Callaghan has already indicated, we are not performing well in this area. The poor state of water quality is pretty tragic given what the natural state of this country should be and how it is perceived by many people as being a kind of haven of nature. For example, there is blue-green algae in the Blessington reservoir.
These are very serious issues and ones for which we are being hauled over the coals. They also tie in with afforestation policy, the need for more diversity and a move away from a monocultural forestry model, which contributes to this sort of degradation of water quality. It is an urgent imperative for us to restore water quality from all sorts of points of view. It would make sense that it would be part of the considerations at a regional planning level.
Amendment No. 266 seeks to amend section 30 concerning the process for the preparation or revision of regional spatial and economic strategies to include a requirement that such preparation, making or revision must be subject to an assessment in respect of its effect on water quality of water bodies in the region, in respect of requirements under Article 4 of the water framework directive. The water framework directive is dealt with as part of the development plan process in section 47(2)(b) and this is considered an effective and appropriate arrangement.
However, I will consider whether wording is required to clearly meet the requirements of the water framework directive. If it is needed, I will come back on Report Stage with an amendment.
Amendment No. 250 relates to section 27(5), the content of a regional spatial and economic strategy, on page 71. This amendment seeks to try to clarify a reference in subsection (5) to something called a "commuting zone". I do not know the definition of a "commuting zone" but we have certainly seen over the years in the context of planning that a commuting zone has become more and more sprawled, creating much longer commutes for people. I understand what the Bill tries to achieve in the regional spatial strategy in terms of identifying the "metropolitan area" and "approximating to the extent of its commuting zone", but unless we define "commuting zone", it is very hard to designate the metropolitan area. To describe what the commuting zone is, my suggestion is that "public transport" should be inserted after the word "its" in subsection (5) to indicate that a public transport network defines the commuting zone.
Amendment No. 250 seeks to amend section 27 concerning the content of regional spatial and economic strategies and specifically in relation to the inclusion of integrated land use and transportation strategy in respect of city and metropolitan areas, where relevant. For this purpose, metropolitan area of a city is defined as the area consisting of the city and its surrounding area approximating to the extent of its commuting zone. This amendment seeks to stipulate that the commuting zone relates to public transport modes only. I cannot accept the amendment as to do so may have unintended consequences. While the importance of using and promoting public transport is fully accepted by all, to accept this amendment could impact the definition of the metropolitan area of cities where public transport is not as well developed as it is in other cities.
Deputy Steven Matthews I thank the Minister of State. I was kind of expecting that. I accept that there could be an unintended consequence of limiting it to public transport networks because there may not be public transport infrastructure in place. That may not be the fault of the planning system - it may be the fault of another transport provider - but to include the words "commuting zone" without any definition could be problematic when regional assemblies try to define their metropolitan area. My suggestion is to look at how to define the commuting zone. Some people commute from areas that are quite unsustainable, through no fault of their own.
This is a very important amendment. As Deputy Matthews says, if "commuting zone" is not defined and there is not a link to public transport, it is very wide in terms of how big or how long a commuting zone is. This is something that needs to be looked at. The definition of public transport could also be addressed. Without being too prescriptive on it, there would want to be some options because I do not think a public transport connection is sufficient. There would need to be some level of consistency, frequency or capacity in terms of public transport provision as well. A service a day, for example, would not cut it in terms of justifying significant levels of development. I urge the Minister of State to ensure this area is looked at.
I accept the points. It is something we could look at in the context of the current regional spatial and economic strategy.
It is something we can have a look at. We will give consideration to it.
Thanks. It is just to bring clarity to the process.
We will move to amendment No. 267.
Amendment No. 267 refers to section 30(11), which deals with the preparation or revision of regional spatial and economic strategy and the process involved. Section 30(11) provides that a regional assembly shall have regard to any observations and recommendations received during the process. Similar to what I had suggested in respect of the national planning framework and the Minister, it is important that a regional assembly would not only have regard to but would also respond to observations and recommendations. What I mean by respond to is that it would publish a written response of some sort which the people who have made submissions, observations or recommendations can access. In that way, they would see the response and know that their observations had not just been ignored or not given due consideration.
Amendment No. 267 seeks to amend section 30 concerning the process for the preparation or revision of regional spatial and economic strategies. In the context of making or revising a regional spatial and economic strategy, a regional assembly must have regard to any observations and recommendations received on foot of consultations carried out and to the report of the committees established under section 29. This amendment seeks to expand this requirement to include that a regional assembly must also respond to such observations and recommendations and to the report. We have discussed some similar amendments relating to the national planning framework, and I undertook to determine if an appropriate wording could be included with regard to consultations. Again, I give a commitment to look at the wording in section 30 in that context and ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
I am happy to withdraw it on that basis. When I use the term "respond to", I do not mean to respond to each submission. As with the chief executive's report, I mean the submissions received can be collated, grouped and so on. The aim is just to have some sort of overall response.
We move to amendments Nos. 271 and 275, which are in the same group.
Amendment No. 271 refers to section 31. It seeks to delete the existing wording, which provides four weeks for a regional authority to publish the regional spatial and economic strategy. The amendment provides that where a regional assembly agrees to make a regional spatial and economic strategy or a revision to an existing strategy, it shall:
... within 1 week of agreeing to make the strategy or revision, as the case may be—
(a) publish notice of the agreement to make the strategy or the revision on a website.
This is to provide time for the general public to look at the RSES and to ensure compliance with our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. There seems to be a disparity here in that the Bill is allowing four weeks for an assembly to publish the RSES but is only providing a limited window to respond to it or to anything omitted from it. Why are four of the eight potential weeks for the public to look at the strategy being taken out the equation by allowing the assembly to sit on the RSES for that number of weeks? Why is it not just one week? Why not provide that the assembly will go ahead and publish it straight away? What is the reason for the four-week timeframe?
Amendment No. 271, tabled jointly by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Bríd Smith, Gino Kenny, and Cian O’Callaghan, relates to section 32 and the publication procedure for a regional spatial and economic strategy. Section 32(1)(a) requires a regional assembly, within four weeks of making or revising a regional spatial and economic strategy, to publish a notice of the making or revising of the strategy on its website and in newspapers circulating in the relevant local authority areas. This amendment proposes to change the trigger for publication to the act of agreeing to make or revise the strategy, rather than the making of or revision, and shortens the timeframe within which such publication should commence to within one week of that agreement. I will also speak to amendment No. 275, which is related-----
The Minister of State did not explain why he does not like amendment No. 271. He just told us what it would do. He did not explain the problem with it.
Will the Minister of State explain why the Bill provides for four weeks?
It is for circumstances where a assembly has agreed a RSES and has to prepare the document for publication.
Would the document not be ready for publication once it is made? What needs to be done between making the RSES and having it ready for publication?
The process for consulting when making or revising a strategy is set out in section 29. Before making or revising a regional spatial and economic strategy, in accordance with section 30, a regional assembly "shall make such arrangements as may be necessary" for the making or revision of the strategy. The Bill then goes into the consultation process and the list of bodies that need to be consulted. It provides for the publishing of the notice of intention to make a revised strategy on the website. Under section 29(3)(a), a regional assembly "shall send a copy of the noticed published under paragraph (c) of subsection (1)" to any person to be consulted under the schedule and to the Commission.
The issue is preparation. The assembly has to prepare the document for publication.
Under section 31(1), where a regional assembly makes a regional spatial and economic strategy or revises same, it shall publish the relevant document within four weeks . The assembly has made the strategy or the revision. The work is done and everything that the Minister of State referenced in the context of consultation under section 29 has happened. That has all been done. That is all finished and complete and the strategy is made. Surely at the point where it is made, it should be ready - or almost ready - for publication, so why is there a four-week delay? What still needs to be done that requires a period of four weeks?
It is quite an amount of work to bring all of that together.
Yes, but is that not all done before the strategy or revision is made?
Is all of the work relating to preparing the regional spatial and economic strategy not already done? The strategy is then made, but an assembly is given a four-week window for publication. Will the Minister of State explain that?
Before the Minister of State responds, we will hear from Deputy Boyd Barrett.
I also ask the Minister of State to clarify the position. The point of our amendment is to provide the maximum possible amount of time for the public to have an input into a strategy or a revision to a strategy. I take the point that if one makes something, one still has to put it into a document that is consumable by the public. I understand that rationale to some extent.
Our amendment is designed to give the public the maximum possible opportunity in this regard.
One issue in terms of amending our amendment is that we refer to advertising things in the newspaper. The Bill also does this. I would be interested in hearing the Minister of State's views on that matter. It strikes me that this is a bit of a hand-me-down from previous formulations in the context of people getting their information about what is happening from newspapers. For better or for worse, many people do not read newspapers these days. In light of the new forms of media that exist, should we think about using these to notify the public? I am not just talking about this strategy; I am referring to every instance where public notification is referred to. I brought this up during the debate on the Maritime Area Planning Bill. We should really think about that as well. It is kind of a side issue of this amendment. It is mentioned in the amendment and in the relevant section. Is it not a bit archaic to just refer to newspapers? Radio is certainly a big medium via which people pick up on notifications. We hear announcements on the radio informing people that the Government is doing this, that or the other. We should probably formalise that to deal with circumstances we have to notify the public. In the context of the dreaded social media, as well as appearing in newspapers, these notifications should go out via various other modes of communication.
If I understand it correctly, the real issue here is that a regional assembly will have four weeks to publish its strategy. I presume that four weeks is to allow the assembly to edit the document, ensure it is composited, etc. The difficulty is that if people want to challenge a spatial strategy - let us hope they do not, but let us imagine that there is some very compelling legal reason why they would want to - they will have an eight-week window for judicial review. If the strategy is not going to published for four weeks, that will eat into the eight-week window.
The question is whether this complies with our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. Have the Minister or the officials sought specific advice from the Attorney General to ensure that it is? What we do not want is a challenge on foot of people not being able to have that adequate amount of time to assess the strategy document. Again, none of this is about encouraging judicial reviews. It is to make sure that the process is legally robust. These are not like local area plans. They are not short documents; they are quite long and complex. If it is eating into half of the window available to launch a judicial review and if people feel they could very well have very strong environmental or public health grounds for seeking to mount a challenge, then surely they should be given the full eight weeks and not what essentially could be four weeks as a result of the fact that it will take four weeks to publish the final plan. That is the nub of the issue. Obviously, we all accept that on the night a county development plan is agreed, a great deal of work will have to be done in terms of making sure that the published version is correct and proper. The impact of a four-week publication schedule on the timeline or window for judicial review is the potential here in the context of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention.
All the processes outlined in the Bill are compliant with the Aarhus Convention. That is a key principle of the review of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Deputy Ó Broin is correct in terms of the four-week consultation period; it provides time to put it all together.
In terms of publication, section 32(4) states that "A regional spatial and economic strategy, or a revision of an existing strategy, shall take effect 6 weeks after the date on which it is made by the regional assembly". The point was made by Deputy Boyd Barrett regarding newspapers. We are looking at that. That should be the case for all notification requirements. It should be online and we should be looking at other means. Newspapers are a very limited means of notification and that is recognised.
Could the Minister of State clarify the point he made before he mentioned newspapers about the timeframe of six weeks from the date?
It is section 32, which modifies the procedure under section 24 of the Act.
What page is that?
It is page 82. It states that "A regional spatial and economic strategy, or a revision ... shall take effect 6 weeks after the date on which it is made by the regional assembly under section 30 or 31." Does that mean if it takes four weeks to publish it, the public then only have two weeks to spot any very serious issues if they want to legally challenge it? Does that reduce the potential window for the public to an impossible two weeks?
It is eight weeks for a judicial review.
Is it eight weeks from-----
It is from publication.
-----the end of that six week period or from publication?
It is from publication.
It is from publication.
Yes, from publication of the notice.
Therefore, the publication that takes place after four weeks is when the eight-week window starts.
And that is potentially two weeks before the strategy-----
Is given effect.
-----is given effect.
Yes. Is that okay?
Okay. That clears that up.
That is great. Are we happy to move to amendment No. 276 in the name of Deputy Matthews? We are discussing amendments Nos. 276, 277, 278 and 279.
Amendments Nos. 276, 277 and 278 are all very closely related so I will take them all together. This relates to the monitoring of the regional spatial and economic strategy. The Bill proposes that "A local authority ... shall, within 3 years of the first occasion on which a regional spatial and economic strategy is made or revised ... and every 4 years thereafter, prepare and submit a report to the regional assembly...".
I also suggest reintroducing something that was in the previous Bill with amendment No. 277, which states that "Each Government Department and their agencies shall, within 3 years of the first ...", which is the same wording that is required for a local authority. That seems to be missing from this Bill whereas I believe it was included in the original planning Act.
Amendment No. 278 seeks to reduce four years to two years. The reason I am doing that is, and we are seeing it at the moment during the revision of the national planning framework, that regional planning is of the utmost importance. In fact, much of the duplication that is done at local authority level could actually be done at regional level. It is time we started looking at how we do our regional planning and the ongoing monitoring of any plan. The Bill sets out there that there should be a monitoring report, but it is important that we do not let the gap between reports get to the stage where we cannot take corrective action. I feel that a two-year overview rather than a four-year overview is the better outcome in terms of everything we are trying to do on a national, regional and local level. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's thoughts on why it has been extended to four years. I know he is going to say it is because development plans have gone to ten years and the regional spatial and economic strategies are 12 years and that number fits quite nicely with that, but I think the two-year timeframe does as well.
On amendment No. 277, was it the case that there was a requirement for Government Departments and agencies to feed into it? I am not sure I see that in this iteration of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 276, 277 and 278, tabled by Deputy Matthews, seek to amend section 33 of the Bill concerning implementation and monitoring of regional spatial and economic strategies, which provide that a regional assembly prepare a monitoring report in respect of the implementation of the regional spatial and economic strategy every four years. Amendment No. 276 seeks to reduce this frequency to every two years. I cannot accept this amendment as it is appropriate that such a monitoring report is prepared every four years. An RSES shall be in effect for a period of more than ten years and not more than 20 years.
Under section 33, a regional assembly is required to keep the implementation of the RSES under review and prepare a monitoring report within four years of the RSES being made unmodified and every four years after that. It is appropriate that such a report is prepared every four years as it allows for a sufficient period of time for the RSES to be implemented and for progress on it to be monitored. I do not consider a period of two years to be appropriate because there would not be sufficient time between reports to allow the regional assembly to focus on implementation. It would mean that more of the assembly's time would be spent on cycles of monitoring reports, rather than on implementing the strategy.
Amendment No. 277 seeks to include a new requirement that every Government Department and its agencies within three years of the first making or revision of RSES and two years thereafter must submit a report to the regional assemblies on the progress made in supporting its objectives. I would like to consider this matter further. I am positively disposed to including an amendment along these lines, and I am inclined to include an amendment on Report Stage. Again, I ask Deputy Matthews to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment No. 278 seeks to reduce the frequency of reporting by local authorities to regional assemblies on the implementation of relevant objectives from four to two years. Again, I have explained in relation to amendment No. 276 why I cannot accept amendment No. 278.
I welcome the Minister of State's response on amendment No. 277 and I look forward to returning to that on Report Stage. In relation to amendments Nos. 276 and 278, this Bill proposes a four-year period, but it is my understanding that the Planning and Development Act 2000 had a two-year period.
Was this for development plans?
No, it was-----
Was it for regional strategies?
It was for the local authorities to feed progress reports into the regional assemblies. Was that not done every two years originally? Currently, it is done every two years.
It is, so I am just wondering why we would double that period now. The regional assemblies were represented at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage. I am open to correction on this, but at the time I did not hear them say that this two-year reporting process was overly onerous. Regarding something as important as planning, when we set these targets, especially those that go from national, to regional to county, I would rather have too much monitoring than have such a large space of time to monitor. I wonder about the rationale for going from two to four years.
This is on a related matter. In January of this year, the committee received a submission from the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly. It and other assemblies were formally involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. It made the case for the full reinstatement of what is currently section 25A of the Planning and Development Act, which in part relates to the Chair's amendment. In fact, not only did it make a very strong case for a two-year period, it also spoke of a requirement for the local authorities and the Government Departments to be involved in setting out the progress, both for the spatial and economic strategy and Project Ireland 2040.
Given that the very people who develop these strategies were making a case for the existing provisions of the legislation to be fully reinserted into the Act, I would like to press a little further. Will the Minister of State not only answer the question about the logic of it moving to four years but also address why the original section 25A was not retained in totality? Obviously, there has been a strong argument from at least one of the regional assemblies to do so.
I will bring in Deputy Cian O'Callaghan before I bring the Minister of State back in.
Could the Minister of State explain, given that one of the regional assemblies was looking for the full reinstatement of section 25A of the Act, why the Government has not taken on board its request? As the Minister of State will know, the regional assemblies are cross-party. By their nature, regional assemblies are not known to collectively take very wild stances on anything. They have taken a position like that, so why has the Government not gone with their request for that full reinstatement? In their justification of this, they clearly make the case that the two-year monitoring report is very important to find a number of key implementation milestones and good practices.
Why, therefore, is the Government moving away from the good practice of having a two-year period to having a four-year period?
The main reason is that the development plan process is going out to a ten-year period. The RSES will be in effect for a period of more than ten years but not more than 20. There are longer time periods for plans. The time required to compile those review cycles is important. It gives a longer timespan to monitor and evaluate progress on the implementation of the strategies. That is not to say there are not also annual reporting procedures in place in the regional assemblies and with the development plans in the local authorities.
The two-year period was based on a shorter cycle. That is the basic premise of why it was pushed out to four years. It allows for sufficient and more time for the RSES monitoring process to carry out its work and to show progress on the various actions within the strategies.
On the previous three amendments, I find it hard to accept that it is just because a development plan will go from six-year period to a ten-year period. It will incorporate more objectives and it will have a greater reach and actions within it. That does not mean that you should monitor it less, just because it is over a longer period. The reasoning is, therefore, to go from a two-year period to a four-year period, just because the length of the development plan is extended and not because of the number of actions or inactions that may happen within a development plan in that process.
Given the fact that we are going to a ten-year plan, it is more important than ever to have monitoring. I know there is an interim review. Yet, that is an even longer period than the process we have at the moment, because that review will be started after the fourth year. Looking back at the planning system over the last 20, 30 or 40 years, if we had had better monitoring in place, I do not think we would be in many of the positions we are in at the moment. I, therefore, find it hard to accept that, but I welcome the Minister of State's response on amendment No. 277.
I will speak to amendment No. 279 now.
Before you do that, I might just bring in Deputy O'Callaghan.
Section 25A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 required that every two years, Government Departments and local authorities set out the progress that was made to support the objectives of the regional, spatial and economic strategies.
Deputy Matthews is correct that just because there is a ten-year development plan, it does not mean that monitoring should be slowed down. Significantly, under this Bill, there is now no requirement for public bodies, Government Departments and their agencies to prepare and submit the report. There is only the monitoring report, which is prepared by the regional assembly. That is it, and it only takes place every four years. Throughout the discussions on this Bill, we keep talking about how in some places there are national policies or strategies, or regional policies or strategies, and these might mention some of the areas we are concerned about. Yet, there is a gap between the strategy and the objectives and the implementation. Monitoring is, therefore, key. If anything, we should be doing more monitoring, but this reduces the timeframe and reduces the obligations to monitor.
The rationale the Minister of State has given us is that it is a ten-year development plan, but that does not explain why there should be less monitoring. It does not make any strong case for less monitoring. What would make a strong case for less monitoring is if the Minister of State said that the high-level policies and regional and spatial economic strategies are implemented in full, the monitoring is going so well that we think we should do a bit less of it, and there is no need for this level of monitoring because the implementation is 100%. However, the Minister of State is not making that case. Nobody is making the case that the implementation is where it needs to be. Therefore, why should there be less monitoring?
Amendment No. 279 refers to section 35(3), which states that:
In carrying out any screening assessment under subsection (2), the director of the regional assembly shall, with a view to avoiding duplication of assessments, take account of the fact and content of any assessment that the Minister has conducted in respect of the relevant National Planning Statement.
I am all for avoiding the duplication of planning because a massive amount of duplication goes on.
Does subsection (3) mean that the director of the regional assembly, if he does not consider the screening to be accurate or adequate, cannot carry out a screening assessment? What I had suggested would be introduced was to consider the adequacy when taking account of the fact. Does this mean the director cannot carry out his or her own screening if the Minister has already done it?
Amendment No. 279, tabled by Deputy Steven Matthews, seeks to amend section 35(3), which requires the director of a regional assembly, in carrying out any screening for strategic environmental assessment or appropriate assessment of an amendment of a regional spatial and economic strategy with a view to avoiding duplication of assessments, to take account of the fact and content of any assessment the Minister has conducted in respect of the relevant national planning statement. I understand the merits of the amendment and I would like to give it further consideration. If it is appropriate, I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage to try to address this issue. This amendment appears to propose that the director shall also consider its adequacy when taking account of the Minister’s assessment.
Is that sufficient?
I will accept that. I thank the Minister of State.
Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.
That brings us to the end of the grouping. I will put the question on amendment No. 239.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 240:
In page 70, line 5, to delete “and protection” and substitute “, protection and enhancement”.
I will withdraw the amendment with a view to bringing it back on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 241:
In page 70, line 6, after “architectural” to insert “, cultural, linguistic”.
In accordance with the motion carried by Dáil Éireann on 27 February 2024, it is permissible to proceed before the eight minutes provided for in Dáil Standing Order 108(2) as I have had indication from the Deputy that he will not be present and is unable to appoint a substitute at this point. Because we are all available in attendance, I can now proceed to take the roll call on amendment No. 241.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 242:
In page 70, line 7, after “Gaeltacht” to insert “, the use of Irish within Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns and Irish Language Networks, their economic, social, and infrastructural development in coordination with Údarás na Gaeltachta or Foras na Gaeilge as appropriate, and support for the implementation of language plans in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 243:
In page 70, line 9, after “landscapes,” to insert “including historic landscapes,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 244 not moved.
I move amendment No. 245:
In page 70, line 24, after “policy” to insert the following:
“but which recognises the importance of balancing such economic requirements with factors improving the health and well-being of the regional population”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 246:
In page 70, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(v) sets out proposals for supporting the work of Údarás na Gaeltachta to augment the economic performance of Gaeltacht communities and ensure employment opportunities for Irish speakers within the Gaeltacht;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 247:
In page 71, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“(iv) (I) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 248:
In page 71, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
“(iv) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network relevant to the area of the regional spatial and economic strategy;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 249:
In page 71, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“(s) a strategy relating to cultural matters, including consideration of requirements for cultural spaces.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 250 and 251 not moved.
I move amendment No. 252:
In page 72, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:
“(12) (a) Where a part of the metropolitan area of any city or a key town falls within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, or is designated as a Gaeltacht Service Town, the regional spatial and economic strategy concerned shall respect the need to protect the use of Irish therein and the viability of the relevant Gaeltacht community.
(b) Where a part of the metropolitan area of any city or a key town is designated as an Irish Language Network, the regional spatial and economic strategy concerned shall respect the need to support efforts to promote the Irish language and sustain the Irish-speaking community within the area, city or town.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 253 not moved.
I move amendment No. 254:
In page 73, line 15, after “cultural” to insert “, Irish language”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 27, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I have questions on this section, and the Minister of State may need the officials for them. My questions refer specifically to sections 27(10) and (12). These subsections relate to the role of the regional assembly in a co-ordinated area plan. In its submission to the committee on 30 January 2024, the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly raised a number of important questions. It might be helpful if the Minister of State was in a position to clarify the position at this time. The regional assembly expressed some concern that section 27(10) does not provide guidance regarding the principal regional assembly or the process for the designation of a principal regional assembly. In this regard, there are instances where a designated settlement overlaps the functional areas of two regional assemblies. For example, the boundary of Athlone town is within the boundaries of the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly and the Northern and Western Regional Assembly as well as the functional areas of Westmeath and Roscommon county councils.
The regional assembly requested that section 27(10) include reference to the potential principal regional assembly in the preparation of a co-ordinated area plan, including guidance regarding the designation of principal regional assemblies. It also expressed some concern regarding the roles regional assemblies are being given under section 27(10)(b), (c), (d) and (e). Regional assemblies are not clear at this stage how their role will function and what guidance and criteria will be provided.
There has been a history of - I will choose my words very diplomatically - intercounty contests over who gets to decide what. When the last iteration of this mechanism under Deputy John Paul Phelan was brought forward, it caused quite a considerable amount of consternation, in particular among those in the CCMA. Therefore, I hope the Minister of State is in a position to provide us with as much clarity as possible in how it is expected the regional assemblies will fulfil their functions under section 27(10) and (12). Is the Minister of State or his officials considering the provision by way of a Report Stage amendment for a principal regional assembly in a location where the area being covered by the co-ordinated area plan involves two regional assemblies?
Deputy Ó Broin provided a good example in respect of Athlone. It is the case that that can be dealt with on an administrative basis. What the Deputy has outlined would only apply in very rare cases.
There would be a designation of a principal local authority set out as a principal regional assembly. We do not see a need to provide for it. The regional assembly in which the principal local authority is set would be the lead. Does that make sense?
Let me be a little bit clearer. With respect to section 27(10), the regional assembly has been given the role of designating, in accordance with subsection (12), a planning authority to be the principal planning authority. Against what guidance or criteria will that be done? It has the role of designating any other planning authority whose functional area covers the settlement or part of the area as an associate planning authority, which is more straightforward. It can specify the number of members from each planning authority referred to in paragraphs (c) and (d) to be appointed under section 70(3).
Interestingly, that subsection specifies the numbers of elected members in those committees but they are all odd numbers. In an area where there has been an historic tension, such as between Waterford and Kilkenny, who gets the extra member? Is it decided based on geography or other criteria? Likewise, the subsection refers to specifying directions in relation to the appointment of a co-ordinated area plan committee. How is that decided? That is my first cluster of questions with respect to subsection (10).
With respect to subsection (12), on an administrative basis is the Minister of State saying that the Minister will decide which regional assembly is included? For example, there are two regional assemblies covering Athlone. Will the Minister step in and administratively appoint the regional assembly overseeing it? If that is the case, on what criteria is that decision based?
They are generally dealt with by agreement of the regional assembly. It can be done on a case-by-case basis. It would require a resolution to be passed at regional assembly level.
Both regional assemblies.
What happens if there is a disagreement? Will that be dealt with by the provisions of section 70?
I am not sure if there have been cases where there has been disagreement. I do not think there have.
This is quite important. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the provisions of the section. As I understand it, the co-ordinated area plans propose to do what Deputy John Paul Phelan's White Paper was unable to do. I cannot remember the name of the mechanism he proposed, but it caused untold disagreement among city and county managers and some disquiet among councillors, in particular in those areas where there had been a history of conflict and, shall we say, bad blood over the lack of co-ordinated plans.
I am not saying there will be problems, rather I thought it would be better to anticipate them. In the case of, for example, Waterford and Kilkenny, if we want a co-ordinated area plan that incorporates Ferrybank and the automatic assumption is that Waterford is the lead authority, relating to my question on subsection (10) that could cause difficulties in Kilkenny. Likewise, in respect of regional assemblies, if it is the view of Government that one or other regional assembly is to take a lead role and there is an agreement between them, how will that be resolved?
I will press the Minister of State on my questions on sections 27(10)(b), (c), (d) and (e) because I want to know against what criteria those decisions will be made. I am particularly concerned about the appointment of and the number of members on the committee. When there are two or three local authorities, an uneven number of committee members will give a numerical advantage to one or the other.
We will get into co-ordinated area plans when we get to section 70. Ultimately, the plan has to be approved by both local authorities, and I fully respect that. However, the composition of the committee will be key in determining a decision because it has to agree what goes forward to the relevant local authorities. Therefore, the composition of the committee is quite important.
The Deputy gave the example of Ferrybank in Waterford. I was a member of the local authority when those debates, discussions and disagreements were ongoing. The local area plan for Ferrybank was drawn up in partnership between two local authorities and it worked very well. The collaboration at area office level between Waterford City and County Council and Kilkenny County Council is good. The dispute in that instance was over a boundary issue and a potential extension of the Waterford city boundary, with which elected members of Kilkenny County Council took issue. It was one of those cases. We are talking about dealing with issues on a case-by-case basis. Generally, they would be agreed at regional assembly level by resolution passed at both assemblies and possibly also involving the local authority or authorities.
On the point the Deputy is raising in respect of subsection 10(e) and the numbers from each planning authority, my understanding is there would be no voting at such committees. Is he suggesting there would be a weighting of one of the authorities on the basis that it has a higher number of elected members versus the other authority with fewer elected members? Is that correct?
My understanding from section 70 is that the committee has to agree the plan, which then goes to the two or three local authorities. There must be some mechanism for decision-making. However, I am happy to stand corrected on that. I do not want us to stray into a discussion of section 70 before we get to it.
It is okay. This is worth teasing out. Under Chapter 4, which deals with regional and spatial economic strategies, subsection 27(7) states:
Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6), regulations made under that subsection may direct two or more regional assemblies—
(a) to prepare and make a regional spatial and economic strategy jointly in respect
of—
(i) the combined regions of those regional assemblies, or
(ii) such part of the combined regions of those regional assemblies as may be specified in the regulations,
and
(b) to cooperate in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed.
Paragraph (b) is critical.
Does that mean, for example, that in such a case, the requirements under subsection 27(10) would be jointly carried out by the two regional assemblies as appointed?
Yes, and the Minister can make regulations to deal with co-ordinated plans.
On the question I asked about deciding which planning authority is to be the principal planning authority, will guidance be given and regulations provided? How will one or two regional assemblies, as the case may be, determine that?
Yes, it would be covered by regulation. As I said, it will be decided by agreement between the two authorities.
It is important that there be some level of guidance in this regard in advance. This is quite a new process. It would be really useful to have the maximum amount of clarity provided at this stage. I want to stick with these provisions rather than looking ahead to section 70, which we will deal with presently. Is it the case that before any of the functions set out under subsection 27(10) are acted upon, there will be some level of negotiation between the Minister, Department officials and the regional assembly or regional assemblies as to how to proceed?
Yes, there will be guidance and regulations, if required.
Is the Minister of State in a position at this stage to give us any flavour of what that guidance might be? For instance, is the thinking in the Department that the local authority with the larger land mass in the co-ordinated area will automatically be the lead or will it be a question of which authority has the necessary competence, skills and staffing?
The Minister of State and I have spoken previously on the sidelines of a meeting about the City Edge project, which could incorporate a co-ordinated area plan. Again, in that case, two local authorities were involved, including Dublin City Council. Has the thinking on this issue been settled at this point or has it even started?
As I said, these matters would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Under section 24, which deals with considerations for the issuance of a national planning statement, subsection (1)(a) refers to "preparation of regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans, coordinated area plans and development schemes". These matters would be covered by way of guidance and regulations, if required. The instances the Deputy mentioned, that is, Athlone and Ferrybank, are unique cases that are specific to those regions. Particularly in areas under urban influence, there is potential not so much for conflict but certainly a lack of certainty. Such issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis but, if required, guidance and regulations could be issued by the Minister.
I have a question on the decision-making functions of the committee, as set out.
Is the Deputy referring to the co-ordinated area plan committee?
Yes. Will the Minister of State confirm whether he is saying it has no decision-making functions?
My understanding is that decisions would be arrived at through consensus. I do not know whether there will be a voting process.
However, even where there is consensus, numbers matter.
I do not have the terms of reference of the co-ordinated area plan committees.
Is Deputy Ó Broin referring to section 70?
I am not. A concern has been expressed by the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly that it is being given a number of functions under section 27(10) but it is not clear on the criteria against which it will exercise those functions. I really do not want to stray into discussing section 70, which we will get to separately.
I appreciate that. In developing the terms of reference for the co-ordinated area plan committees, clarity could be given to the issue of equality of representation and how decisions are arrived at through those committees.
I have a question on the second point raised by the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly, which concerns co-ordinated area plans in an area that overlaps two regional assemblies. Is the Minister of State saying that in all such cases, the process would be jointly administered by the two regional assemblies? Is Athlone unique in being in that situation or are there other locations to which the same applies? In the other cases I know of, there is one regional assembly.
It is a unique situation? Is the thinking that the two assemblies would jointly oversee the process?
Might it be done by way of agreement, with one assembly taking the lead?
It could be done by way of agreement. Again, it could be done by way of section 24 and the considerations in the issuance of a national planning statement. It is covered there under the preparation of regional spatial and economic strategies.
There could be a national planning policy statement that governs such an instance.
That means there are three different options
The main point is that guidance could be issued. If needs be, the Minister of the day could issue regulations in this regard.
That all sounds very vague. The only reason I am raising this issue is that the experience of Deputy Phelan, when he was Minister of State and was trying to develop a White Paper to find a mechanism to cover this process, was that there was a great deal of subterranean disagreement and conflict. This ultimately led to that particular proposition being withdrawn by the Government, even though it had some merits.
The co-ordinated area plans are one of the good innovations in this Bill. Some conversations must be had with the regional assemblies before the Bill is finalised.
If one of the regional assemblies is raising genuine concerns in, it would really have to be the case that these would be dealt with by the time the Bill concludes its passage through the Oireachtas. I urge that the officials engage with the relevant assemblies to make sure that the concerns they raised with us as recently as January are dealt with in order that they are not worried about this aspect upon the commencement of the legislation.
That is a good suggestion. We can certainly ask the officials to talk to the regional assemblies about how best to deal with those concerns.
Section 70 was mentioned. Section 70(4) states that a co-ordinated area plan committee shall comprise 11, 13 or 15 members. Is that the total or is it from each?
It is the total.
I do not want to get on to that now, but maybe somebody could note it and we could have an answer ready when we reach the section.
Yes, okay.
I take this opportunity to indicate that I will leave myself the option of submitting a further amendment for Report Stage. In the context of planning statements, I mentioned that the requirement to assess housing needs as part of the regional spatial and economic strategy should be more specific and should include an assessment of specifically social and affordable housing needs and not just of the general housing need. This is for fairly obvious reasons. We can prescribe that we need a certain number of houses in general, but we have often seen how we can get the housing but it not necessarily affordable or how a sufficient percentage of it is not social housing. We still end up with long waiting lists or people being priced out of the market. That needs to be looked at in the context of these strategies. The likely need for social, affordable and cost-rental housing needs to be assessed as part of our strategy.
It might be said that the issue of sports facilities is covered by the reference to recreational facilities in section 27(13)(a), but we should probably also mention sports facilities specifically. We all know that the lack of pitches and other sports facilities is becoming a serious issue.
Having raised this matter in the context of the section, the Deputy is within his rights to submit an amendment for Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 28
I move amendment No. 255:
In page 74, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“(iv) (I) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 256:
In page 74, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“(iv) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network relevant to the area of the regional spatial and economic strategy,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 257:
In page 74, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
“(vi) any 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 region,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 28 agreed to.
SECTION 29
I move amendment No. 258:
In page 74, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(vi) (I) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 259:
In page 74, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(vi) board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any Language Planning Officer within the region,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Collins, Michael.
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 260 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
I have three or four technical questions but they might take about ten minutes.
We can adjourn now and recommence at six o'clock. Please note for the Minister of State what the questions are to allow the officials to have answers prepared for when we come back.
I would like some clarification on section 29(1), (5) and (6).
I thank the Minister of State and his officials for their attendance here today.
Sitting suspended at 4.59 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
We are on section 29 and Deputy Ó Broin is seeking clarification on subsections (1), (5) and (6).
I have a couple of questions, just to seek clarity. Subsection (1) reads "Before making or revising a regional spatial and economic strategy in accordance with section 30, a regional assembly shall" and then stipulates the various things a regional assembly shall do and whom it should consult. When discussing the national planning framework, I was struck that the soft word "may" was used in respect of the Minister. I would be interested in having put on the record the reason the Minister gets a lighter set of obligations than the regional assemblies, particularly given that the national planning framework is ultimately the plan that sits above all others.
What is the purpose and scope of subsections (5) and (6)? With regard to a disagreement that could arise between the local authorities and the regional assembly, subsection (7) refers to the Minister stepping in with a resolution related to the provision of money, staff and resources, for which the regional assembly depends on the local authority. There is only a one-way direction, from the Minister to the local authority. I can imagine circumstances in which local authorities themselves could be stretched for staff, given the chronic shortage of staff in our planning authorities. Where does that come into consideration? I am seeking an explanation of subsections (5), (6) and (7) to understand them properly.
This is really about defining the roles in terms of co-operation, giving clarity to the local authorities on co-operation and providing that the Minister can direct local authorities in this regard. To date, it has been the practice of local authorities to set up technical working groups or technical groups to examine certain issues, including urban development and population, to feed into the RSES process. This gives clarity to local authorities on their responsibilities in developing the RSES. It is an opportunity for the regional assembly to work with local authorities to develop the RSES.
That is fine but I would like the Minister of State to address the specific part of my question, which is on where there is no agreement. Section 29(5) sets out that if agreement is not reached between a regional assembly and a local authority under subsection (4), in accordance with the process set out, the Minister may direct the local authority to co-operate with the regional assembly on such terms as are specified in the direction. Subsection (6) states a local authority shall comply with a direction made by the Minister under subsection (5). Subsection (7) states the provision of assistance under subsection (4) shall include the provision of reasonable financial assistance, services of staff, accommodation and any other assistance that may be required. The problem with that setup is that a local authority may have a very good reason for being unable to provide the requested financial assistance or services of staff. For example, if it has difficulty fulfilling obligations regarding recent increased sanctions or is undertaking work of its own, the consequence of its responding to the direction of the Minister could be robbing Peter to pay Paul and slowing down work elsewhere. I am expressing some concern, not that the local authority should not provide what resources are necessary but that there is a problem if the overall pool of resources from central government is not sufficient in the first place.
On section 29(1), why is it that the Minister only "may" do things while bodies under the Minister "shall" do things? Ultimately, the same set of obligations should apply to whoever is undertaking the planning.
The word "shall" is used so the three regional assemblies will have a clear direction on what they have to do.
Is that an admission that, by using "may" rather than "shall", we do not want to give the same clear direction to the Minister in comparable but more important statewide plan-making?
No. Not all national planning statements require or need consultation. The word "may" is technical. The word "shall" is used so that a very clear direction can be given to the three regional assemblies on their responsibilities. On the additional supports needed, subsection (9) reads, "A reasonable request for assistance made by a regional assembly by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) shall not be refused by a local authority, and any dispute as to the reasonableness of such request shall be referred to the Minister for adjudication having regard to subsection (7)." That relates to the point the Deputy raised on additional resources to carry out the planning.
I thank the Minister of State for that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 30
I move amendment No. 261:
In page 77 between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(iv) (I) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 262:
In page 77, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(iv) any 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 region,".
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 263:
In page 77, to delete lines 22 and 23 and substitute the following:
“(iv) (I) where a regional spatial and economic strategy affects a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, the need to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where a regional spatial and economic strategy affects a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, the need to protect the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities, including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
and”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 264:
In page 77, line 23, after “Gaeltacht,” to insert the following:
“the use of Irish within Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns and Irish Language Networks, their economic, social, and infrastructural development in coordination with Údarás na Gaeltachta or Foras na Gaeilge as appropriate, and support for the implementation of language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 265 not moved.
I move amendment No. 266:
In page 77, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
“(5) The preparation, making and revision of a regional spatial and economic strategy shall be subject to an assessment in respect of its effect on water quality of water bodies in the region, in respect of requirements under Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 267 not moved.
I move amendment No. 268:
In page 79, to delete lines 34 to 38 and substitute the following:
“(17) A failure to comply with subsection (1) of section 28, subsections (5) and (11) of section 29, subsections (3) and (4) of section 31 and subsection (10) within the time period specified therein shall not of itself invalidate a regional spatial and economic strategy.”.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 269 and 270 are ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 269 and 270 not moved.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32
I move amendment No. 271:
In page 81, to delete all words from and including “(1)” in line 35 down to and including line 41 and substitute the following:
“(1) Where a regional assembly agrees to make a regional spatial and economic strategy or a revision to an existing strategy, it shall, within 1 week of agreeing to make the strategy or revision, as the case may be—
(a) publish notice of the agreement to make the strategy or the revision on a website maintained by or on behalf of the regional assembly and in at least one newspaper circulating in the functional area of each local authority in the region for which the strategy is prepared,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 272 is ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 272 not moved.
I move amendment No. 273:
In page 82, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(f) board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga, and any Language Planning Officers within the region,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 274:
In page 82, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(h) (i) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Údarás na Gaeltachta,
(ii) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, Roinn na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment no. 275:
In page 82, to delete lines 19 to 21 and substitute the following:
“(4) Notwithstanding anything else provided for under this Act, a Regional Spatial Strategy or a Revision to a Regional Spatial Strategy shall not be deemed to be made until the
strategy has been published under subsection (1), and it shall take effect 6 weeks after the date on which it has been so published.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 32 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 276 to 278, inclusive, not moved.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34
Question proposed: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
We will wait a moment for the officials to come back in. Everybody will be delighted to hear that we will finish the meeting at 8 p.m. Tomorrow our scheduled meeting is from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. and it is proposed to take a break at some point during that meeting for 20 minutes or so. We will meet from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. tomorrow, as agreed.
We are debating section 34 and Deputy Ó Broin wishes to have some clarification on that section.
This is one of a number of what can be described as very significant "innovations" in the Bill, and I use that word not necessarily saying it is a good thing in this instance. It relates to the interaction of the various layers of plan-making with the issuance of new national planning policy statements and the role of the regulator and the Minister. As these are quite new, very significant and potentially problematic, I am keen that the Minister of State talks us through how exactly these will operate in real life.
Section 34 deals with the consequences of new or amended national planning statements for regional, spatial and economic strategies. It sets out provisions for reporting within two months of the issuance of national planning statements from the regional assemblies. Two months seem very short to me and I am keen to know why it is that length of time. There is then a requirement to send a report to the Office of the Planning Regulator. The Office of the Planning Regulator then needs to give opinions as to whether there is any variance with the planning policy statements. Then there are provisions for the Minister, particularly running through from subsections (4) to (8), to issue directions.
I have never come across issues where there was a variance between regional spatial strategies and the section 28 ministerial guidelines in the SPPRs. I invite the Minister of State to give examples of this if he has any. Perhaps there have been many of them and they have just never been part of our policy or political discourse here. Why has this particular provision been deemed necessary? What problem is it trying to fix or is it that it is anticipating problems that do not currently exist but may exist in the future and the Minister of State is putting in a mechanism to deal with that? I am looking for as much as possible of the rationale for this.
What would the Minister of State say to people who describe the provisions in this section - and this is a word I will use a fair bit over the next number of sections - as a "draconian" power resulting in a further centralisation of decision-making, in this instance, in the hands of the Minister? It also gives a significantly increased role to the regulator. We have just been through a round of development plans and the role of the regulator in those development plans has been broadly positive. I do not agree with everything but it has been a positive addition. The regulator has similar functions in other areas of plan-making. Why is there this additional set of roles at different points of plan-making for the regulator? It seems to me over-burdensome, overkill and potentially opening up the possibility of greater levels of conflict and, God forbid, litigation between regional assemblies and the Minister or the Office of the Planning Regulator, depending on the content of some of those directions.
The word "draconian" overstates it. It is to ensure plans are up to date, to keep planning out of the courts, and to ensure there is alignment at all levels. It is important there is consistency across the board. Those are the main reasons in terms of the questions Deputy Ó Broin asked.
Does the Minister of State accept these are significant changes to the way decisions are made? This goes back to a previous discussion. Because the national planning policy statements can deal not only with forward planning, but also development management, and because the scope of those statements is so great, the potential for what are termed material inconsistencies in this section and others is quite large. "Alignment" and "consistency" have a nice and benign sound and, particularly in forward planning, are important. However, if taken too far - and the problem is the mechanism set out in section 34 potentially takes them too far - they become a rigid straitjacket, undermining the democratic accountability of the plans. It is a much bigger issue and I will speak on it in greater detail when we get to the development plans.
This also affects the regional assemblies. It means the Minister issues national planning policy statement X and that has to be within a short period retrospectively worked into all aspects of the regional spatial and economic strategies. If there is any dispute between the assembly and the Minister or the Planning Regulator, the potential for conflict arises. I say this slightly flippantly but it is almost like the mechanism is inviting conflict.
We have seen what happened. Dublin City Council is a good case in point with respect to the docklands SDZ. Where the planning authority takes the view its plan is correct and does not agree with the Minister, regulator or, in the case of the docklands, An Bord Pleanála, that can create conflict and cause difficulties and delays. Has the Minister of State properly thought that through in his desire for alignment and consistency? If he goes too far on the other side, he could create conflict leading to litigation and delay.
The theme of an expanded role for the Office of the Planning Regulator runs through several sections of the Bill. That office is no longer just a regulator, but becomes an enforcer for the Minister. Under the Bill, there is centralisation of power in the Minister and the OPR is the enforcer. For example, the Minister makes or amends national planning statements and then the OPR has the role of ensuring consistency with them.
The issue with the regional assemblies potentially undermines their democratic role; their role would be simply rubber-stamping what has been dictated by the Minister. As this is written, the regional assembly has to follow the instruction and then the OPR has a role in enforcing what comes from the Minister.
That is my read of it; I do not necessarily expect the Minister of State to agree. My question is whether this has been examined in terms of the risks of centralising power and in terms of the expanded role for the OPR. Has analysis been done on the dangers when the roles of regulators are expanded? The question arises as to who is regulating the regulator. The OPR is no longer a regulator of the planning system, but one of the main actors in it, along with the Minister. How is the OPR regulated? What are the risks of the expanded role of the OPR under section 34, which also applies to other sections? Has that been analysed? If so, how? What is the evidence base and the process for analysing these significant changes?
As things stand, gaps in policy and timing are being exploited, resulting in judicial review. There needs to be clear alignment from the national to the regional to the local. National policy should relate only to matters that require national consistency. We all agree on the need for a plan-led system. It has to be commensurate to the plan-making level.
The explanatory memorandum on section 34 states the section provides that the office can make a recommendation to the Minister that a draft direction under section 37 should be issued where it is not satisfied that steps proposed by the regional assembly are sufficient to remove material inconsistency. The regional assembly can give consideration to whether there is material inconsistency and identify how it intends to amend its regional spatial and economic strategy to remove the material inconsistency concerned. All of this is about ensuring consistency of application throughout the process. That is critical.
I cannot remember the second question Deputy O'Callaghan asked.
These are significant enough changes in terms of the expanded role of the OPR. What, if any, analysis has been done of the risks of that expanded role? Safeguards are needed when centralising power with the Minister. What safeguards are being put in place with regard to the expanded role for the OPR under section 34 and elsewhere in the Bill?
That would be part of the ongoing overall review of the legislation as we legislate. We have looked at the role of the OPR and are happy there is an appropriate role for both the Minister and the OPR in issuing draft directions. The OPR recommends to the Minister to issue draft directions. It is around the overall theme of consistency of application throughout the system. Far from centralising power, it is ensuring consistency at regional and development-plan levels. It is critical, too, to ensure proportionate oversight. The OPR is independent in its function and provides checks and balances on policy. It is an important role. We do not see it as centralisation of power; it is ensuring there are checks and balances and proportionate oversight in the system.
The OPR was set up on foot of recommendations from planning tribunal reports. It was about the need for an independent regulator of the planning system. I do not think in those recommendations this type of role, where the OPR is effectively an enforcer of the Minister's powers in the national planning statements, was envisaged. It is a departure from those recommendations. It is, to use a benign word, an "enhanced" role for the OPR. It involves significant additional powers and functions. It is that straying from the original remit of or vision for the OPR that I am concerned about. Has there been any process to evaluate those risks?
Mahon was 2012 and there have been significant changes since that time. The Government is happy it is an appropriate role for the Minister and the OPR, in terms of issuing draft directions and the OPR recommending to the Minister on the issue of draft directions. It is very much an oversight role and in our view a proportionate one.
I want to reply to two points and get a bit of clarity on how section 34 operates at the point when a direction is issued. I will ask the question first. Section 34(8) states that where the Minister decides under subsection (7) that a draft direction should be issued under section 37, he or she shall identify the stated reasons and direct the OPR to issue the draft direction.
I am keen to know whether that direction will need to be complied with or whether the future provenance of that direction will split into section 35, which we might deal with when we get to it.
As to the Minister of State's general response, I do not think, although I may not have explained myself properly, that he gets the specific challenge I am raising here. He talked about gaps being exploited, to use his word, resulting in JRs. Clearly, he seems to be referring to cases where there are gaps between existing plans and central Government policy as per the SPPRs, suggesting people are exploiting those and taking judicial reviews. I am not sure that is necessarily the fairest language because many of those judicial reviews would not necessarily be exploitative but are taken by environmental activists advocating the rights of nature, for example, or community activists advocating the development of their community.
My specific concern is not when third parties end up in this conflict. It is when the conflict is between, as in this instance, the assembly and the Minister, and there have been examples, albeit with different layers of plan-making, where such conflicts have arisen. A spatial plan could have been democratically agreed by its members and there could then be a national planning policy statement with a procedure to, as the Minister of State described it, retrospectively insist on alignment and consistency, and the elected members or the executive may decide that is not acceptable to them. These things have happened in real time. I am wondering whether the Minister of State has adequately thought through the potential for that kind of conflict arising from this. For example, given the length of time that passes between plans, there is also the likelihood of potential changes of the Government. There could be different political complexions of regional assemblies versus those of central Government and we could end up with political rows being fought through these mechanisms. That is seen even in the fact the Minister of State's answer seems to relate more to trying to prevent, limit or reduce third party judicial reviews, whereas for me it is about first and second party ones in this case.
Moreover, this will be ultimately a decision of the Minister, not of the Government or the Cabinet, and there will be no role for the Oireachtas other than that in subsection (11), which states that a “direction issued under paragraph (b) of subsection (9) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas”. Again, there is that potential conflict between an assembly, albeit not directly elected, having some democratic legitimacy, and the Minister. There are potentials for conflict in that regard that I do not think the Government has thought through, and nothing in the Minister of State's answer suggested the Government has thought through those conflicts adequately.
To clarify on the inconsistency question, there are gaps due to conflicting plans or policies and this is just to remove any ambiguity or uncertainty. It is a necessary means to counteract uncertainty that results in what could be court-led or judgment-led, as opposed to plan-led, planning. The objective is to try to get it right from the start in order we get it at the outset at whatever level that may be. It is to obviate uncertainty in planning.
The question I was asking related to how the draft directions, as detailed in this section, will interact with section 35. Are they stand-alone, will they become implemented once the Minister lays them or will they then spill into the expedited amendment procedure in section 35? I do not want to get into section 35 now but I am trying to work out whether, if a draft direction is issued under this section and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, that is it and that will then become part of the regional spatial and economic strategy, or whether that will rest on the functioning of subsequent sections.
Section 34 (3) states:
If the Office of the Planning Regulator, upon consideration of a report submitted to it under subsection (1), is of the opinion that there is a material inconsistency for the purposes of that subsection and—
(a) is satisfied that the steps proposed by the regional assembly shall be sufficient to remove the material inconsistency concerned—
(i) the Office of the Planning Regulator shall, as soon as practicable thereafter, so inform the regional assembly, and
(ii) the director of the regional assembly shall invoke the expedited amendment procedure set out in section 35,
I was clear about that, but my question is what will happen if the director of the regional assembly opts not to do that.
It states "shall", so they will have to do it, according to the legislation.
And that is it.
Okay. I will get into the substance of that when we move on to the next section, rather than spilling over the debate now.
Question put: "That section 34 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 4; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 35
Amendment No. 279 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 35 be deleted."
Deputy Ó Broin is seeking clarification on section 35.
I have some questions. It might take a little longer than the previous section.
That is fine. We will invite the officials back in to seek those clarifications for the Deputy.
The Minister of State explained that, under section 34, a new national planning policy statement will be issued. There will be a procedure within which the regional assembly will have to do a report and the Office of the Planning Regulator will have to determine whether there is a material inconsistency. If there is, "the director of the regional assembly shall invoke the expedited amendment procedure" outlined in section 35. What I am trying to get my head around, and this is also an invitation to the Minister of State to set some of this out in plain English on the public record, is what happens when the director of the regional assembly invokes the section 35 procedure. Section 35(6) sets out the possibility that members of the regional assembly could reject the amendment. Section 35(9) and (10) set out what procedures follow from that. I invite the Minister of State to talk us through that. Obviously, if members of the assembly accept the proposed amendment, then it is agreed and life goes on. However, in an instance where elected members opt to reject the proposed amendment, will the Minister of State clarify exactly the role of the regulator and that of the Minister, and how this expedited procedure essentially enforces the recommendation of the regulator, as accepted by the Minister under section 35, into a plan over the heads of the elected members? That is the bit I am trying to understand.
Part of the reason for asking this is these are very significant changes. We are now getting into the overriding of democratically expressed wishes, even if, in this case, they are those of councillors who are directly appointed to the assembly. It is very important that the public record is very clear on what that procedure is and the rationale for it.
If it is okay, in order to clarify, I will speak to the note on the proposal by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Snodaigh to delete this section in its entirety.
That would be perfect.
This section provides for a new procedure enabling the timely amendment of the regional, spatial and economic strategy so as to make it materially consistent with new or revised national planning policies and measures. The section applies where an amendment to the RSES is necessitated by an issuance of a new or amended national planning statement and is being made to ensure that the RSES is materially consistent with it and the OPR has informed the regional assembly that it is satisfied with the proposed steps. The director of the regional assembly undertakes screening for strategic environment assessment and appropriate assessment in respect of the draft amendment. Where either of the assessments are required, the amendment must proceed with the revision of the regional spatial and economic strategy under section 30. Where the director of the regional assembly determines that neither of the assessments is required, the director proposes the draft amendment to the members for adoption by resolution. The proposed amendment shall be deemed to have been made at the expiration of a period of six weeks from the proposal, unless the members of the regional assembly, within that period, by resolution reject the proposed amendment. Where the members reject the proposed amendment, the director of the regional assembly shall advise the OPR of the fact that the OPR shall consider whether to recommend to the Minister that a draft direction shall be issued. The Minister may then direct the OPR to issue the draft direction.
The rational for such a process is clear. The key aim of the Bill is to introduce consistency, clarity and certainty throughout the planning system. We discussed this regarding section 34. Central to this is the alignment of the various tiers of planning from national, regional to local levels. Once the process for agreement of a national planning policy statement is complete, which includes the necessary stakeholder engagement, environmental assessment and agreement of Government, it is important that regional spatial and economic strategies are subsequently reviewed to assess whether they are still aligned to agreed national policy on a given issue. If they are aligned, then no course of action is needed. If, however, a change or an update is required on foot of a newly-issued national planning policy statement, then this section outlines the process for this.
This section is being opposed without producing an alternative approach. It is clear there must be some process to review and monitor alignment through the planning system. Otherwise, national policy becomes disconnected and at odds with regional and local implementation - this is about the national, to the regional to the local - leading to delays, legal ambiguity, arguments and increased costs for everyone. This section as drafted lays out such a process in a manner which is transparent, fair and proportionate. As this section is absolutely necessary to a functioning planning system, I must oppose the opposition to it.
I am looking for a few further clarifications. It is clear from the Minister of State's very helpful summary that there is, first of all, no public consultation with respect to the proposed amendment that is being insisted upon by the Minister. I am unclear as to why there is the provision for the six weeks, whereby if there is not a resolution, the amendment will be deemed to be made. I am interested to know if that is a standard provision used elsewhere or if it is something specific to here. Is it to give the members the option that they do not have to have a meeting for a positive resolution but if they do not have a meeting with a negative resolution that the amendment proceeds after the six weeks? Where the members of the assembly reject the proposal and the OPR issues the draft direction, in a case where the Minister opts to proceed with the direction, is it then a legal requirement of the director of the regional assembly to give effect to that? Is it the case that the direction is to the director of the assembly rather than to the elected members so it simply just overrides their view and the director proceeds in accordance with direction from the Minister?
Deputy Callaghan wished to ask a question on that as well.
Regarding these provisions under section 35, they are quite significant in cases where the OPR and the Minister can effectively overrule the democratic resolution by the elected members. Is there other legislation where the Minister and the OPR can do that or is this a new provision altogether?
On the second point, the Minister of State is saying this is all necessary to avoid legal ambiguity and the potential for conflict, litigation, delay, additional costs and all that, but does this not create a whole new area that could be open to interpretation? There could be different views as to what is materially consistent and what is not. Regional assembly members could take different views to the OPR and so forth. Does that not open up a whole area of potential conflict, ambiguity, delays, litigation and everything else?
On the first question from Deputy Ó Broin, the expiration of the six-week period is again just to ensure the meeting is carried out and that it is done. It is to give time. Specifically, regarding-----
On that, so that I am clear, the idea of the six weeks is essentially to say to the regional assembly that if it does not get its act together and hold a meeting with the six weeks, the amendment will proceed anyway. It is to force the assembly to have the meeting within that period if it is not happy with the direction so that it cannot vexatiously delay the decision-making process for a period of time. Is that the purpose of it?
Yes. It is just to ensure that it is carried out.
On that - and the Minister of State will excuse me as I am one of the people in this room who has far less knowledge of the regional assemblies than others - is that six weeks, six working weeks? Does it take into account periods where the assembly might not be working, for example, holidays at certain times of the year, or is it just six calendar weeks?
It is six calendar weeks.
Ordinarily, would regional assemblies meet every four weeks, similar to councils?
Is there a period where they do not meet in a four-week cycle? Some councils do not meet in August, for example.
There could be a special meeting. There are provisions there for special meetings.
However, regional assemblies would never normally meet in August.
No, not ordinarily.
Even the way those calendars are done, they might have a meeting in early July and then the next one would be in September. Normally, they just would not be meeting over those six weeks.
Due to that six-week period, they would have to set up a meeting during that time.
Regarding the second point raised by Deputy Ó Broin on the powers in section 38 for the Minister to issue a direction, if members look at subsection (14) of that section, it states:
Where the Minister issues a direction under subsection (1), the regional assembly shall, within 3 working days of receipt of the direction, comply with that direction and the director of the regional assembly or the members of the regional assembly shall not exercise any function conferred on them by or under this Act in a manner that contravenes the direction.
What is the Minister of State reading from?
I am reading from page 95, section 38(14).
On the first question I asked, will the Minister of State confirm there is no provision for public participation when the amendment has been made?
Obviously, it has to go through a screening process for both environmental and appropriate assessment. There would be a public consultation if it were deemed that those were necessary.
However, not if they are not necessary.
Is that not a requirement under the Aarhus Convention for public consultation beyond just screening and appropriate assessment if there are environmental issues?
We are satisfied that, as drafted, this is Aarhus compliant. If an amendment to the strategy has been screened for EIA and appropriate assessment, and one is not required, it would mean it is not a material matter and, therefore, does not require public consultation. If it goes through the process and it is deemed that the amendment requires environmental assessment and appropriate assessment, then there will be a public consultation, which is required under the Aarhus Convention. However, if no EIA or appropriate assessment is required after the screening, it would mean the change is not a material matter requiring public consultation.
Question put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 2.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 36
I move amendment No. 280:
In page 87, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(iv) (I) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(II) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 281:
In page 87, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
“(iv) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the region.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 282 not moved.
I move amendment No. 283:
In page 88, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“(f) (i) where the region includes a Limistéar Pleanála Teanga Gaeltachta or a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(ii) where the region includes a Baile Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside the Gaeltacht or a Líonra Gaeilge, any relevant Language Plan agreed pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Gould, Thomas.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 284:
In page 88, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“(f) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network within the region,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
As it is now just after 8 p.m., I will adjourn the select the committee until 1 p.m. tomorrow, when we will commence with amendment No. 285 in the name of the Minister and the grouping of the Minister's amendments. I thank everybody for their co-operation and I thank the Minister of State for his attendance.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 8.01 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 March 2024.