Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 6 is specifying where a member of the public is making a submission in writing. I have withdrawn amendment No. 5. I have accepted the valid point of the Minister in relation to that. Sometimes when we have online submissions, we have constrained spaces in which people are asked to contribute. I want to ensure that people are not limited.

We talk about this at a strategic level. Members of the public have strategic ideas and strategic input. It is important that they would be able to provide input at the strategic level in that early stage in the development process because if issues are not raised in the earlier parts of the process, it becomes difficult to insert them at a later stage. A person may have views on particular playgrounds but may also have a view that he or she wants intergenerational spaces as a strategic point. For example, a person may want issues of environmental sustainability, biodiversity or wildlife corridors to be reflected and they may relate not to a particular tract of land but to a strategic vision. In fact, on many of those strategic issues, members of the public have been frequently ahead of where the political plans have been. We have seen that on biodiversity, for example, and on wildlife.

This is specifically to ensure that where somebody is choosing to make a submission online, he or she is not constrained. I will point out, however, it is a constraint that is being inserted right now. We heard that in the guidelines previously there could be online consultation but that it should not replace the public meetings that might take place. We heard definitions of "shall" but we do not need a definition of "shall". That was in all of the amendments we have already discussed. What we need a definition of is "or". Right now, the Bill states, "shall consult with members of the public in such manner (which shall include the holding of a public meeting or an online public meeting) as it considers appropriate".This is a problem. The Minister of State is building a binary into this Bill with the use of the word “or”. When he read it back, the Minister of State said “or both”, probably because he heard how it sounded. The words “or both” are not here in the text. I would like the Minister of State to replace the word “or” with “and” so we can be guaranteed both public online and in-person meetings. I hope the Minister of State will do that. If he is not willing to put in “and” instead of “or”, he needs to put in “or both” and specify it because, otherwise, he is going against the spirit of the existing guidelines, which state that online consultation should not replace in-person consultation. He is going against those guidelines and he is creating a dynamic where, for example, Limerick City and County Council or Galway City Council could choose either an online meeting or an in-person public meeting.

I do not think that is what anybody intends. I am not attributing bad intent to anybody and it is probably inadvertent but we need to make sure we try to get it right. Again, my amendment relates specifically to this question. I was reassured by the Minister of State's answer in regard to amendment No. 5, which is why I withdrew the amendment. Perhaps the Minister of State might be able to reassure me that amendment No. 6 is not necessary and that there will not be a constraint, for example, of 200 characters or 600 words on those who engage and submit by writing online.