Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I accept the point about the national biodiversity action plan or the all-Ireland pollinator plan because, God almighty, our legislation is complex. Things are amended and plans changed. I appreciate Deputy Eolin Ó Broin being supportive on the likes of the Water Framework Directive and the floods directive. While it is possibly covered by the current wording, we all know that one of the disadvantages of regulatory systems is that they are very bureaucratic. As bureaucrats do not have a mandate, what they look for is legislative support on what to prioritise. Therefore, citing the directives is not unimportant. What Deputy Eoin Ó Broin said about the likes of the river basin is true. That thinking about the State in terms of physical infrastructure, river basin catchment management and land use management from the mountaintop down to the sea in a special integrated land use plan represents the way we need to go. When we stitch in the Water Framework Directive and the floods directive, it shows the intent that we plan land use in a really effective way. There is a case for including the directives, with the environmental impact assessment directive, because they are equally important when it comes to planning. We have seen the cost to individuals when the State ignores flooding and water planning. I welcome the Minister's willingness to consider how to word the amendment. We will certainly come back to his officials in looking at the wording of amendment No. 16 and how we could stitch in the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. That would be the right approach. If the existing Act is amended at any stage, it would easily be automatically updated.

It is very important that the particular amendment go in right at the top. Not only do officials look to see which functions are mentioned, but by placing the directives centre stage, the whole planning system would focus on the massive leap we needed to make towards a low carbon system. That is something we are not doing. One of the reasons this is important is we are moving completely in the opposite direction to the reality of what is happening on the ground. In another committee of which I am a member IBEC is making the most insane proposals on roads, as if the climate is not a problem. Its view is let us have motorways everywhere. That is what the big money wants. We, therefore, need someone to say no, that we should do it differently when it comes to the environment and move towards a low carbon system. By putting it front and centre as the first key policy at which we need to look, the legislation would send that signal. I, therefore, welcome the Minister's willingness to consider the wording of the amendment in that regard and will quite happily look at how we might do it. I will withdraw amendments Nos. 17 and 18 on the pollinator plan, as much as I love it, and the biodiversity action plan because I recognise that plans can change. However, I would like to hold on to the possibility of stitching in the Water Framework Directive, the air quality directive and the floods directive because they are elemental to how we plan.