Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As we go into the debate on amendments on the national planning statement, it is important that we first understand what the national planning statement is. We were speaking earlier about the NPF. That is an appropriate thing. It is the idea of having a planning framework under which we figure out how planning will work across the country. It has a vision and different checks and balances it has to be set against. It tries to take various crucial areas, such as climate and others, and is tasked with integrating them into an overall framework and vision.

The national planning statement we will be speaking about for the next little while is an extraordinary and weird power grab, effectively, by the Government that sits separately. We are building this architecture on planning and we are all talking about it. There are local development plans and there are lots of problems with the architecture. However, to be clear, the national planning statement is simply statements or opinions the Minister comes up with. It is almost like the previous situation we had, where the Minister was able to issue ministerial guidelines that have effectively shifted, trumped and changed the direction of planning.

Section 25 states:

The Minister may, at any time, with the approval of the Government, issue a statement ... which shall comprise two parts as follows:

(a) national policies and measures on planning matters to support proper planning and sustainable development

[I note again that we do not have a definition of "sustainable development". A choice was made not to attach the sustainable development goals to sustainable development. Is it just about sustaining development, so that development keeps happening or is it sustainable development? We do not have a definition in a meaningful way.]

(b) guidance as to the implementation of the policies and measures

We have the national planning framework, which everyone engages with in different ways, and then we have what the Minister says. The two are being placed alongside one another and the OPR is being asked to give them equal weighting, if not more weighting to the Minister, as it is the Minister who often asks the OPR to issue directions. That is important.

We will go into the discussion of the kinds of areas that need to be covered in statements and the kinds of areas we need policies in. However, I have to make the overall point that this should all be in the NPF. I certainly concur with the amendment proposed by Senator Gavan and us that at a minimum, these ministerial policies and this wide range of areas should be subject to the approval of the Oireachtas.

Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 seek to change the criteria for the Minister around the release and amendment of a national planning statement. The delivery and amendment of a national planning statement represents a significant shift in public policy. It is a policy shift that will have far-reaching consequences felt by stakeholders and citizens. It is therefore important that the national planning statement, which will set many policies and set out how they have to be implemented, would be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate, as outlined by Senator Gavan. While a Government with the parliamentary majority may have the democratic mandate to put forward its proposals and ideas, it is not an absolute power. It is a power that needs to be subject to others. It is the idea of the Executive and the Legislature or the Government and the Parliament, because those who are elected to the Parliament, whether or not they are Government members, also have a mandate to scrutinise and seek to influence policy decisions to create the best possible outcomes.

The mechanisms around the national planning statement as currently set out unfairly preclude debate in and scrutiny by the Parliament. Effectively, the Minister, with the approval of the Government, sets policy on an extraordinary wide range of areas, without having to test those policies against the often useful perspectives that might be offered by others. We are being asked in this legislation to cede a huge area that would normally be the subject of more direct law or the national planning framework and to pass it instead solely to the remit of the Minister.

Amendment No. 89 seeks to delete subsection (5), and introduce a new subsection that would require that the Minister: "shall, within 10 days of publication ... lay a copy of a National Planning Statement, ... before each House of the Oireachtas and, if a resolution annulling the National Planning Statement, amendment or revocation is passed ... the National Planning Statement ... shall be annulled accordingly but, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder." There are periods set out in the amendment.

Currently it is only required for the Minister to lay the national planning statement and any amendments or revocations - the Minister can, not only, have a national planning statement, but can amend it as he or she wishes - before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is more standard in legislation when it comes to ministerial regulations - this is almost like a mega omnibus of ministerial regulations - that they are not only laid before the Houses, but that there are opportunities for the Houses, for example, to annul them.

This legislation is filled with examples of ministerial overreach and the erosion of local democracy and public participation. The national planning statements, which effectively give any future Minister a carte blanche on the direction of travel in our planning system, are especially concerning. A properly functioning planning system is a fundamental pillar of a functioning democracy, one that should operate regardless of who is in government. These provisions chip away at that and push us back to a place where communities, locally elected representatives, regional assemblies, the general public and nationally elected parliamentarians are less empowered to have input into decisions about how we live together.

I am not happy abdicating my responsibility on those decisions about how we live together and I do not think others should be willing to accept it either.

Amendment No. 91 seeks the deletion of section 25(7) that currently provides that if the Minister fails to lay a copy of the national planning statement before the Houses of the Oireachtas or to give one to the planning authorities, regional assemblies and so forth within the correct time period, that would not invalid it. This means there is now a section stating a copy must just be laid before these bodies. They do not get to annul or challenge it; they just get maybe to see it. Even if the Minister does not let those bodies see a copy of the national planning statement, though, it still stands. This will be the case if the Minister has effectively failed to provide a copy within the relevant time.

Surely if the bodies largely responsible for our planning system, including an coimisiún pleanála, effectively An Bord Pleanála, the EPA and the Office of the Planning Regulator itself, do not have access to the statements becoming law, we cannot have a situation where these new laws and directions are meant to be enforced and have effect without even having been seen by those meant to give effect to them.

Amendment No. 92 seeks to insert a new section 25(8) to state that: "A National Planning Statement shall be consistent with the matters specified in section 21(2)". This is really important. I really believe this is an aspect the Minister of State should reconsider. What we mean by this proposed amendment is that the national planning statement should be consistent with the national planning framework. We just discussed that national planning framework and went into the detail of what should be there. There were differences of opinion about what is most important and how it is worded. Crucially, however, section 21(2) states that the national planning framework must have regard to all these issues, including climate, whether the text is worded strongly enough or not, the question of having regard to the UNCRPD, and I think it is regrettable that the Government has said it does not have to focus on it, conservation, etc. These are all the things a national planning framework should have to think about.

There is not, though, an equivalent list here in respect of the Minister's and Government's national planning statement, which is also law but does not have any of the tests or considerations attached that are listed in section 21(3), where it is stated the national planning framework will make provision for the matters specified. Our proposed amendment, then, is really important. It would, effectively, mean the national planning statement would be required to be consistent with all those matters specified in section 21(2). This section refers to national and regional development strategies, supporting proper planning and sustainable development in urban areas, the national climate objective, as we discussed, and the marine planning framework. I think it is reasonable that the Minister's national planning statement would also have to be consistent with all those pretty big-ticket items.

Amendment No. 93 seeks to insert a new section 25(8) to provide that: "Any guidelines under section 52 of the Act of 2000 in force before the repeal of that section by section 6, shall continue in force until the full application of Part 10 or where a National Planning Statement is issued which provides an equal or greater level of protection.” The rationale for this amendment is to ensure an equal level of protection is given to what was contained in section 52 of the 2000 Act. This included guidelines on an area I know the Minister of State cares about, namely, guidelines on protected structures.

The amendment would mean that those protections would continue until Part 10 of this legislation is fully commenced or until an equal level of protection is given under the national planning statement. Going back to the national planning statement, there are all these policies. Rather than there being policies in the context of lots of individual regulations, with the checks and balances we have around Ministerial regulations, though, they are almost all now set within this grand statement. There is a danger, however, that if the grand statement happens to not properly regulate one of the areas where the regulations we have now are going to expire, we could have a lacuna. We know regulations concerning protected structures are especially important because we know the dangers here. We see it happening on weekends when there is a wait for a protection order to be issued on a Monday, and the structure gets demolished on Saturday. We know that gaps get used in terms of protected structures, so they are particularly vulnerable to such a lacuna.

It is also our view that this section represents further encroachment from the central government on the work of local authorities. Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 try to address this issue. Local development plans are some of the most important and impactful aspects in this context. We are going to have further discussion of them. Local development plans are crucial. They are not just work that councillors undertake, but work that members of the public co-create with their local councils and representatives. Their democratic mandate means their development plans have a particular, stand-alone legitimacy in our public realm.

This section appears, then, to infringe on the autonomy of those elected councillors. The recent Council of Europe report on Irish local democracy found Irish local government to be weak and underfunded by European standards and that successive Irish Governments have demonstrated a suspicious attitude to local government and sought to limit its autonomy. I have a list of the ways that has occurred, but given our time constraints, I am not going to go through them all. It is, though, a long list of impacts that have been taking effect bit by bit, from powers to services to resources to input on designs. Again and again, the voice, power and impact of the elected members of local authorities have been chipped away.

I should acknowledge that good work has been done by the Seanad Public Consultation Committee in examining this topic. When its report is published, I do hope the Government will heed the words of academic experts, councillors, representative bodies, former Ministers, party representatives and many others who appeared as witnesses. The Minister of State himself spoke at that committee, as did I, about the importance of independent and empowered local government. This view, however, does not seem to be reflected in the legislation before us. Sadly, we will see more of this when we come to the area of local development plans. I am saying that the tide in this regard needs to turn and this should be the point where it does begin to turn in the other direction. I again urge the Minister of State to accept these amendments. To be clear, amendment No. 97 seeks to delete "development plans" as one of the areas the Minister's national planning statement can override.

Amendment No. 98 seeks to insert a new paragraph into section 26(1) that would provide in setting out the national planning statement the Minister would have regard to the promotion of sustainable development to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, supporting adaptation to and mitigation of climate change and achieving the national climate objective, as well as supporting the circular economy strategy. This amendment mirrors concern regarding section 25, which is that climate action seems to be very narrowly constrained and applied in an area. I have spoken about that matter. If we are genuine about tackling climate change, then these are the real tools. It is very concerning that they do not seem to be attached even in the weak way they are reflected in the national planning framework. They are even less present in the national planning statement.

I am going to skip speaking about amendment No. 99 because my colleague, Senator Flynn, will speak on it. Turning to amendment No. 101, we believe this change should be obvious and uncontroversial. We need industrial and commercial development to support a growing and prosperous population and provide employment, but this development needs to be sustainable.

While this amendment represents a small change in the language, it is a really important clarification. The issue I was discussing earlier kind of arises here in that the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the adaption and mitigation of climate change, the achievement of the climate objective and all of that, as well as the circular economy, are corralled yet again into one tiny area of policy, which is sustainable settlement patterns. We know that is effectively saying super high density in the city centres, although I question some of the logic around that from an environmental perspective, as well as the transportation strategies in this regard. Those are the really narrow areas in which this hard language on climate and environment is being used.

However, in section 26(1)(l), it states, "creation of conditions conducive to commercial and industrial development and the creation of employment". Why is it not commercial and industrial development that is sustainable? It is a very simple change. If we are clear about sustainable development, it is not just sustainable development in terms of where people's houses are. It is not just about putting it back on individuals as to where their houses or apartments are and what kind of transport they are using. It is sustainable development that has to carry through. Why is all that climate language not attached in the area in which we talk about commercial and industrial development and how it needs to be promoted? That brings us back to some of the choices relating to things like data centres and certain commercial activities. When we think about the circular economy in particular, the circular economy strategy is attached to the issue on sustainable settlement patterns and transportation strategies, but it is not linked with the issue of how we do our commercial and industrial development. There is a disjoint there in how these are set out.

Amendment No. 102 seeks to amend section 26(1)(m) by expanding the areas to which the Minister may have regard when setting out a national planning statement from just "transportation strategies" to "development and transportation strategies".

Amendment No. 108 is a relatively simple amendment which seeks to amend section 26(2) by changing the provision that:

Before issuing a National Planning Statement, the Minister may consult— (a) such other Ministers of the Government as the Minister considers appropriate,

(b) such public bodies as the Minister considers appropriate,

(c) any stakeholders or other persons the Minister considers appropriate, and

(d) members of the public.

to the Minister "shall" consult with these bodies and, crucially, with members of the public. Currently, it is only a provision that the Minister may consult with members of the public on this incredibly influential national planning statement document which the Office of the Planning Regulator is going to be asked to enforce. When we talk about enforcement, we should bear in mind there are direction and enforcement measures coming later in the Bill for those who do not do what the national planning statement says. It seems this is a crucial area in which public consultation should be definite. It should state "shall" consult with members of the public rather than "may" consult.

Amendment No. 109 would delete section 26(4) and have the effect of requiring the Minister to conduct a strategic environmental assessment with the strategic environmental assessment regulations and to consult with members of the public before issuing the national planning statement. Environmental assessment is crucial. The Minister of State questioned whether some of that language is necessary. I refer to the idea of suggesting we might have a national planning framework for all of the planning in Ireland and that we will see if it happens to need an environmental impact assessment. It is the whole country. Of course it needs an environmental impact assessment and an SEA, as does this. You cannot have plans which cover every single part of the country and everything that happens there and then say we will see whether there are environmental implications. Of course there are environmental implications. It is the whole country.

Amendment No. 111 is a technical amendment to bring consistency with amendment No. 109.

Amendment No. 113, which is my final amendment in this grouping, seeks to amend section 27(1)(b) to ensure that guidelines issued under section 28 of the 2000 Act, which concerns guidelines to planning authorities, that are deemed replaced by a national planning statement would only be deemed to be replaced where such a statement “addresses the matters contained in such guidelines”. Again, this is a question in respect of the lacuna. If we have guidelines on issues such as heritage, protection, safety provisions and so forth, and the national planning statement happens to neglect an area or fail to provide for an area, the amendment seeks to ensure that we do not end up with a lacuna in terms of an area in which public guidelines are needed. I shall pass to my colleague, Senator Flynn. to deal with our other two amendments in the grouping.