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

The idea that any amendment to the definitions of biodiversity addresses what is already there is the point of the amendment. Definitions provide clarity in terms of what runs throughout the Bill. This section deals specifically with the national planning framework. It sets out and explicitly names the matters the framework has to take into account. If something is really important and we want to make sure it is taken into account, it must be named. To answer the Minister's question as to how detailed we want to go, we want to go as detailed as what is in our amendments and not beyond that.

I will go through the reasons we have included what we have in these amendments. Hedgerows are integral to biodiversity. They have been the subject of significant controversy both in legislation in the previous Oireachtas and in the wider environment. Therefore, there is a real need to name them, including both traditional historic esker hedgerows and, more generally, hedgerows that are vital to birdlife and others. That is the specific reason we have mentioned hedgerows and not other features such as drumlins. Those other features have not been at the centre of the same level of controversy around biodiversity loss.

Deputy O'Callaghan has made the point very well regarding water resources. It is a very important point. Paragraph (d)(v) in our amendment No. 148 goes beyond the list and refers to "metrics and criteria for evaluating these elements of the environments". That is also very important.

I have three amendments in this grouping that are related to this particular subsection. The amendments work on the assumption that if the Minister will not support amendment No. 148, he might at least consider these other proposals. Section 19(3)(d) refers to "conservation of the environment". My amendment No. 150 seeks to include "and restoration" after "conservation". As we know, it is not just about conserving what we have. It is also about restoring and recapturing biodiversity loss, environmental loss, etc. Conservation and restoration are not the same thing. There really is a need to include it as an explicit requirement that NPFs look at restoration of the environment and its amenities as well as their conservation.

My amendment No. 152 relates to section 19(3)(d)(iv), which references "archaeological, architectural and natural heritage". This provision is completely blind to cultural and linguistic heritage, a reference to which we are proposing to include in the subsection. It absolutely should be included.

Amendment No. 154 proposes to insert the following in section 19(3):

(e) 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.

Far too often, our experience of plans, whether under the existing planning framework or our own experience of development plans and area plans, is that there can be general references to something without actually saying how it will be counted and assessed and how we can ensure, over the lifetime of the plan, that the objectives, whether high-level strategic or more detailed policy requirements, are adequately adhered to. That is the rationale behind amendment No. 154.

The argument for amendment No. 148 is very compelling in providing clarity of definitions. Amendment No. 150 seeks to include a reference to restoration alongside conservation. Amendment No. 152 would insert a reference to cultural and linguistic heritage alongside archaeological, architectural and natural heritage. Amendment No. 154 is a catch-all in terms of linking environment, sustainable development and public health along with metrics to monitor and ensure there is adherence to the objectives during the lifetime of a plan. These are very strong amendments and I urge the Minister to reconsider his position on them.