Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I will reflect on the fact that we want a planning system that makes good decisions in a timely manner with good public participation. We want a planning system that allows the public, and the semi-State and private sectors, to meet the social and economic needs of our country, one that delivers good-quality, affordable homes, renewable energy projects, improved public transport and critical infrastructure. It should be a planning system that ensures the development of all this at scale and pace but, crucially, in a manner that is consistent with climate targets and the need to protect and restore our natural environment as well as our built and natural heritage. I will come to heritage in a moment.

Unfortunately, that is not the planning system we have. For decades, we have under-resourced our planning system at both local authority and An Bord Pleanála level. That has been compounded by, in some cases, disaster planning legislation, which has often been rushed through by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. Here we are again today.We have a planning system that is scarred by bad decisions, increased conflict, increased litigation and ever-greater delay. Therefore, to allow only two and half days to consider this Bill is farcical. During the Order Business this morning, we opposed for good reason the proposal to guillotine the Bill.

Amendment No. 16 reflects the calls of those bodies that protect much of our valued heritage alongside our communities, including Dublin Civic Trust, An Taisce, the Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance, the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, the International Council on Monuments and Sites Ireland and the Irish Georgian Society. Their concerns have been articulated on the public record, but I must state that heritage is fundamental to our well-being, community development and education, creativity, healthcare, welfare and citizenship. As republicans, we should understand that culture and heritage, and their expression through art, are intrinsic to our self-identity as a nation and self-worth. In addition, heritage has considerable economic value. There is also economic value in social capital. We should understand the value of heritage to tourism, foreign direct investment and local economic activity.

One problem with arts, culture and heritage is that the lack of research and data makes it almost impossible to analyse the current state of play. Maybe this speaks to the fact that we do not value them enough to track them regularly. In 2009, the heritage sector had a gross added value of €1.5 billion and created 24,000 full-time equivalent jobs and a total of 40,000 indirect and induced full-time-equivalent jobs.

I acknowledge the 12% increase that the Heritage Council got in funding this year, but I remind the House that the council was, for a period of five years, lingering with an allocation of around €1 million per annum. This led to a situation in which Fáilte Ireland was essentially funding heritage on behalf of the State. It followed that communities had to justify their heritage applications on the basis of tourist numbers and visitor and bed allocations. That is wrong. I am glad to see that heritage is a greater priority for the current Government. The Heritage Council is the State agency for heritage and it was established under the Heritage Act 1995. Community involvement is at the heart of its vision for national heritage and its work with local communities impacts upon jobs, education and heritage tourism, delivering a rich tourism experience and excellent practice in the care of our valuable heritage assets.

I will now come to the open letter from An Taisce, the Dublin Civic Trust, Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance, the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, the International Council on Monuments and Sites Ireland, and the Irish Georgian Society. It states:

- As heritage is generally valued on locality, identity, community and civic engagement, we are concerned that the thrust of much of the Bill towards centralisation of planning powers could pose a threat to that stewardship.

- Due to what we perceive as the emphasis on economic development, we think that the Bill might pose a threat to the built heritage, where it may be seen as an impediment to development, rather than a major economic asset that must be protected.

- This threat is exemplified in the ability for National Planning Policies and Measures to override Regional and Local Development Plans with very few safeguards or provisions for oversight in place, which could easily lead to development that undermines the integrity of heritage.

- Similarly, the provisions in the Bill relating to the use of protected structures for housing could devalue heritage. Bringing protected structures into sensitive reuse for housing is desirable, provided that the heritage and character of the building is maintained.

- We do not think that the Bill improves the Enforcement process, the lack of which has led to many heritage assets being lost or eroded. We do not see that it addresses the lack of resources for local authorities to engage successfully in enforcement action.

I will not go into everything in the letter as it is on the public record. The organisations are extremely important in the protection of our heritage.The amendment provides that the Heritage Council would produce a report within six months outlining how to address concerns about the Bill's impact on heritage, as set out in this public letter. As I said earlier, heritage is absolutely instrumental for our well-being as a country, community development, education, healthcare, welfare and citizenship. This is a really important amendment and I hope the Minister will see the value of it.