Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

That is a very helpful way to do it. One of the struggles we have had in the past two days is that we were working from the official groupings when the Minister had these logical groupings. Having sight of this is helpful. If, as the Minister has done, he outlines his groupings and his rationale, we can then respond to that and deal with those in the best way we can.

Notwithstanding that I more than welcome the inclusion of the islands and Gaeltachtaí in priority area plans, it is not the same as the range of suggested amendments to, for example, the development plan process in terms of the review of the development plan, the development plan proper and the subsections of the development plan, whether on housing, sustainable communities or otherwise. The reason I say this is that, as the Minister knows and as he has done elsewhere in the Bill, where the Government really wants something to happen, it is named explicitly in explicit locations of the Bill for the purposes of ensuring those matters are addressed. It is also a problem because, in a number of the amendments, it is not just Gaeltachtaí that are included but, for example, Irish language networks. Those networks have a very important role, although they are not of the same status. Therefore, the way in which they would fit into a county development plan is quite different.

In my constituency of Dublin Mid-West and South Dublin County Council, Clondalkin village is an Irish language network area. Placing a stronger obligation on the local authority in consideration of the review of the development plan and the plan itself, but also aspects of the housing sections within the development plan, would mean the local authority takes this issue much more seriously. Essentially, it would be strongly encouraged – that is probably a better way to put it than “compelled” - to deal with this in a way the Minister’s more limited proposal around the priority area plans does not do. That is not to take away from what the Minister is proposing, which I genuinely welcome. However, it is regrettable there is not even some consideration of having a more explicit naming of Gaeltacht language planning areas, Irish language networks and so on in those various stages.

The Minister knows as well as I do that there are very long lists of things that local authorities can or cannot include in their development plans and development plan reviews and, even within that, how they apply the different sections of the development plan covers a very wide level of discretion. For example, if there are good managers and good councillors and if there are active civil society or active language-based organisations, that can provoke and promote very good practice. However, in the absence of that, it can mean very important things get neglected.

I hear the logic of the Minister's argument and I am taking his argument in good faith, so that is not my point. I just do not think it is a very strong argument in the sense there are compelling reasons to suggest that many amendments in this large group which the Minister is rejecting actually have significant merit in substance, if not in the language framing as we have presented them.