John Cummins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 122 to 124, inclusive, which are in my name. The purpose of these amendments is to amend sections 29, 30 and 35.

I will start with amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive, which relate to the monitoring of the regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES. I understand that some amendments we made to the Bill in the Dáil in respect of this matter. The amendments are designed to reduce the time for the making of the regional economic and spatial strategy from four years to three, which was a welcome move. However, there is an inconsistency in or a sequencing issue with section 35(4). I understand what the Bill seeks to achieve in that the document would be drawn up and that there would be a report on it the following year. If it is made within three years of the passing of this Bill and there is then monitoring and reporting in respect of it within four years of the passage of the Bill, that would be fine for the first sequence. If we take it from 2024, that would mean the first RSES would be published in 2027 and that the monitoring report would come out in 2028. However, if you fast forward to the next one, three years on from that is 2030. There is actually a gap of two years when it comes to the monitoring report, which will go to three years, and then, in the next cycle, it will be in the same year. Amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive, seek to put them in the same year. The most important one is probably amendment No. 124, where I suggest that in the event that the commencement of the review of the RSES is due to occur in the same year as the preparation and monitoring report of the economic strategy, the progress report under subsection (3) and the monitoring report under subsection (5) would be prepared and published one year earlier than the timeline set out in order to ensure that the sequencing is correct.

It achieves what we want, which is the correct sequencing, but perhaps the officials have a different way of addressing it. It is a really important point that I have identified in section 35.

Amendment No. 119 relates to the new metropolitan area strategic plans, MASPs. I propose that as part of that, there must be new metropolitan area strategic plans as part of the process. I have highlighted this issue at committee and I have raised it previously. I believe there is a serious issue regarding the MASP boundary lines for Waterford.

I will give the Minister of State, who knows Waterford very well, the example of Tramore, which is 7 km or 8 km out the road from Waterford city. Basically, the population of Tramore works in Waterford city, as do many people in south Kilkenny, but yet they are not contained within the boundary of the MASP for Waterford that was set down by the Department. It artificially lowers the population of Waterford, which feeds into the national planning framework that we are discussing at the moment and means that the population targets are not accurate because it excludes a town of 11,500 people that is a suburb of Waterford city.

To re-emphasise and reinforce that point, Shannon is included in the Limerick MASP. Salthill is included in the Galway MASP. Carrigaline is included in the Cork MASP. All are far further away from their respective cities than is Tramore from Waterford city. I believe the regional assemblies should have a role in creating the boundaries for the MASP and there is reference to commuting zones and I probably should have brought forward an amendment to the definitions set out in section 17 where there should be a definition of what a commuting zone is. I suggest it should refer to the geographic area of the city and surrounding areas characterised by the regular and frequent movement of residents between their homes and primary places of education and employment, typically with a travel time that is considered reasonable and practical for daily commuting. That covers what we are trying to achieve but there is no definition for it.

If you took Dublin, and you just said "commuting zone", you would probably be down in Wexford which is not what you want to achieve in terms of the MASP. However, it would cover Tramore because it absolutely should be included. Perhaps that was my omission in not bringing such an amendment in the definitions, but it is relevant to these sections in the context of the MASP. The other amendment I have, amendment No. 118, follows engagement with the regional assemblies themselves where they are looking for an implementation and delivery board within each of the assemblies for each of the metropolitan area strategic plan areas. There is merit in that and the implementation and delivery boards would implement monitoring and delivery objectives. That is exactly what the amendment is proposing. I think it has merit and it should be considered.