Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am not going to a debate on a motion of no confidence but I am going up to the Seanad at 4 o'clock. I will touch on a few issues. I do not really have any questions. I acknowledge and thank Ms Graham and her team here for leading off on the discussion papers and documents with the Planning Advisory Forum. I note that we have dealt with the plans and guidance, the consents issue, enforcement and the planning bodies, and now we are on to the environmental issue. It is a big issue which was traditionally very controversial. I have been involved in a number of these challenges in my own planning authority and in bigger national issues, so I am quite aware of the issues.

The things I am hearing here again today are clarity and alignment, and I think we all agree on them. Then there is the transposition of the EU directives - or their overtransposition, as Ms Graham rightly says. Then there is our environmental law. The Aarhus Convention is readily quoted in the Dáil in debates on anything to do with planning or the environment, and rightly so, and in Seanad Éireann we have similar debates. Then there is the concern about people who participate in and are advocates for the environment. Traditionally, they were seen as troublemakers opposed to development. I do not agree with that. I agree that people have a right to defend their environment. We in Ireland have been assisted by the European Union over many years. If you poll Irish citizens on European affairs, the first thing you will always find is that they have high engagement with the European Union and greatly respect its institutions, laws, policies and advocacy, particularly in the area of the environment. There is a very strong connection. We almost seek the EU to vindicate our environmental rights.

Then we look at the case law. I know that the Attorney General is looking at a whole review of the planning Act. That is good. The Act needs to be consolidated. It is a huge document and has been added to over time. It is like the hotel with the hundred extensions on it that Francis Brennan was talking about last night. The Act is all over the place. We need to consolidate all that. I therefore see the logic in the work the Department is doing and I thank Ms Graham for that work.

Before I go any further, I will endorse what the Chairman said about whether it is possible to include at this stage the Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance. It has engaged with us. It is a really good organisation. It is constructive, helpful and knowledgeable and has been involved with a number of planning challenges. It is at the coalface of this and knows the issues as well as many of the people Ms Graham has on her forum.

We have talked about renewables. Yes, the Government has targets, and rightly so, and objectives and ambitions. Coming back to alignment, we want renewables. The renewable energy space is where we are. If we are not there, we are going there and should be there. We have offshore challenges and onshore challenges. It goes back to what Ms Graham said about the alignment of all those issues. We need the tools to interpret that.

In preparation for today's meeting, I looked at some papers that have been done on various international planning organisations. They refer to international SEA guidance and regulations, models and methodologies. They also refer to the alignment of national, EU and rural policy and to international best practice. They make it clear that in drawing on the practice of SEA, the aim is to provide a unique analysis of SEAs which have been undertaken, drawing in turn on a variety of methods and circumstances to illustrate how best practice can be achieved. There is a lot of work out there on this and many people are thinking the same thing. We have all come into this space slowly. It all needs to be consolidated.

There are the SEAs, EIAs and AAs, as well as the Natura 2000 sites, of which there are many. It is not that the Government or certain aspects of the Government may want to be seen to be pro-development. Of course we have to be pro-development, in the best sense of the term, but we also have to respect our environment.

We also have a lot of issues with built heritage and the built environment that are really challenging. I spoke to a number of senior counsel in the past few days about this. There is a significant body of case law. There have been a lot of successful challenges. People have put their homes on the line to take litigation against the State and to take it to Europe and they have been vindicated, so people are passionate about this. I therefore ask that we look at case law. We will see where the mistakes were made. No one is tripping anyone up, but there have been clearly stated and successful legal challenges in these areas, and we have to look there too. I have no doubt but that the Attorney General will do that. This is his area of expertise.

I wish Ms Graham and her team well. This is important. My sense of it, I think, is partly to do with the tripartite nature of the coalition Government. I acknowledge that there are different aspects, challenges and priorities. We definitely would not have had this conversation three years ago, when I was sitting as a member of this committee. We discussed the EIAs, the AAs and issues like Natura 2000 sites and so on and did not get quite the same response. We are all on a journey, including the Department and its officials. The different dynamics at play in the Government have made this a real priority. The brakes were put on. I think that negotiations in the Government and the different strands in the Government have helped this. I acknowledge that. I think we are going more slowly, more methodically, more carefully and more strategically, and that is right. The engagement with the forum and the listening to those stakeholders, who represent a broad group of people, is also very positive. I get a sense and a good feeling that we are going in the right direction, and I thank Ms Graham for that.