Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It is great to be able to sit down and talk to this because I was dying to get involved in that conversation. Going back to the IPCC report, all of the reporting on climate is that we need an immediate, rapid and concerted effort from all angles to address climate, without a shadow of a doubt. It is the reason I am here - we need to address climate. When I hear things like, "We will do something by 2027 or 2030", I fully understand and take the Minister of State's point completely. If one puts in something that is not easily measurable by applicants or the people who have to judge a planning application and they all do it in a different way, that just creates chaos. I understand that. I spoke to Deputy Duffy about this before; he is an architect and has done huge work in this area. There are tools available to do it. Do you put the onus on the planner to make the judgment about whether the applicant has achieved what is to be done or do you put the onus on the applicant to include, and for them to measure, using a standardised methodology? I do not know how we do it but I do know that we need to do it. We need to do it a lot quicker than 2027 and 2030. I know we are doing a lot of work on climate. To be honest, I do not think any of us are moving fast enough. Many people speak out both sides of their mouths on climate. They know it is the challenge of our time but they do not really want to take the action required. That is not an attack on anyone in particular, I just see that as the discussion out there.

Amendment No. 133 relates to the furtherance of objectives in the national planning framework in Section 19(2)(f) of the Bill. It is on page 60. Currently, subsection (f) refers to one of the objectives as "outlining how". That is language from ten or 15 years ago. A stronger action word is needed like "integrating" the pursuit and achievement. I made this point the other day. A lot of stuff around transport has just been transposed from a 20-year-old document. When people drafted the original legislation, "outlining" was probably okay as it was not the most immediate challenge of our time. It has gone beyond that now. We need stronger action and to challenge people to do things better and faster. Does the Minister of State think "outlining" is too weak a language? Using "Integrating" or "incorporating" in subsection (f) into the national planning framework objectives is important.

Amendment No. 153 proposes to add to section 19(3)(d), "good ecological status of water bodies." I actually wrote it myself - I accept that it is a water framework directive objective. It is nearly taken directly from it. Our water quality is deteriorating at quite a rapid rate. Although we have signed up to the water framework directive - a European directive - have transposed it and will do our best to achieve it, it needs to be stated in the legislation, although it is from an EU directive. Does the Minister of State think water is covered enough in the list in section 19(3)(d)? It is on page 61. There is reference to "landscape; ecology; biodiversity; archaeological, architectural and natural heritage". Water needs to be included there. I would not include water with biodiversity. One could suggest it is included in ecology but that could be argued. We should specify the status of our water quality in there. I ask the Minister of State to consider that.

Amendment No. 196 concerns national planning statements. It proposes to insert a new subsection (k) to include "protection and restoration of nature". I accept that the Minister of State may argue that subsection (i) covers it but "protection of landscapes, and features of natural, archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage of value;" does not quite encompass "nature".

I do not see that nature is specifically included there. Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to the climate crisis the other day, but we often omit the nature crisis we have as well. The nature restoration law being passed in Europe is very positive. Having the biodiversity action plan on a statutory footing is extremely positive. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, agreed that because the biodiversity action plan was not on a statutory footing when this was drafted, he would look to try to incorporate this into this new Bill now.

Amendment No. 313 is to section 41, which is on page 99. This concerns the content of a development plan and it refers to the wording in (h), "a statement demonstrating" and "supports the implementation of", and which then lists out the Acts and plans etc. I really think it needs to be consistent with. The language of "supporting" is gone. The climate Act sets out very specifically in section 15 the mandatory requirement to be consistent with that Act. The word "supports" is weak and it should be "is consistent with" the implementation of (h)(i), (ii) and (iii).

My amendments Nos. 601 and 602 suggest the Minister of State deletes reference to the climate Act. This is in section 83. It might be asked why I would suggest removing or deleting reference to the climate Act? If we read the introduction, and we discussed this the other day, which is on page 195, although section 83 starts on page 193-----