Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 117 seeks to strengthen the language around social development in a similar manner to amendment No. 65. It includes the word "social", which performs slightly different work than does "cultural" by itself, even though I am a big fan of cultural and I know others have amendments in this section looking at the very important issue of cultural matters, cultural spaces and cultural planning at a regional level. I insert the word "social" because something slightly different is captured by that, which pertains to ensuring there is planning, spaces and strategy to ensure those opportunities for social engagement that may or may not be cultural but are crucial in terms of social cohesion and lives fully lived, as I have discussed earlier in respect of amendment No. 65. I hope the Minister of State will consider the inclusion of the world "social" in that context.

Amendment No. 120 is technical and relates to amendment No. 121. Amendment No. 121 seeks to insert protections for cultural infrastructure into regional, spatial and economic strategies. As we have seen in cities and towns across the country, cultural spaces are facing an existential crisis and are disappearing at an extraordinary rate. It went from 5,000 to about 85 or something, the figures are shocking. I will not quote those exactly but I know that it is a scale similar to that when we talk about the disappearance of some of the social and cultural spaces such as nightclubs and other nightlife spaces, for example. There are provisions within the subsection that all seem to protect the cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht. We know that cultural infrastructure and facilities are spaces where living culture exists today, where our heritage develops and evolves, where artists and musicians perform, develop their artistry and their expressive reflection of the society in which we live. In the future, our cultural heritage is not going to exist in a box. It is going to exist in a lived capacity and that means we need to plan for it and make spaces which accommodate it.

Amendment No. 125 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 126 seeks the deletion of the line - there is a pattern the Minister of State will see here - that provides that "the Minister or a regional assembly may, at any time, notify the Office of the Planning Regulator of any provision in a regional, spatial or economic strategy" that is "materially inconsistent with ... National Planning Policies and Measures".. There is a weird thing that happens here, where national planning policies and measures sound weighty, serious and thought through. That literally is just shorthand for the national planning statement we were just talking about. That is just the national planning statement. The definition, when you go back to national planning policies and measures, is the national planning statement.

It would probably look a little crass if it said the Minister can tell the Office of the Planning Regulator to go after a regional assembly that is not doing the things he or she said in its national planning statement but that is what that section actually provides. That is what that provision really is. I do not have a problem with the direction where there is an inconsistency with the national planning framework or indeed the national marine planning framework. I do not seek to remove those pieces. I propose to remove the provision that states the Minister, who effectively decided these sets of policies in the national planning statement, can then tell the OPR to go after and potentially sanction a regional plan that does not do exactly what he or she wanted in its framework. It is not the same. I do not believe the planning statement should carry the same weight in that regard as the framework or the marine framework. I also think we should not have a situation where the Minister effectively has excessive power here in both setting out the framework and demanding its enforcement. Again, this is another example of overreach and an almost authoritarian approach, especially given that the statement does not have those same checks and balances that maybe do apply to the planning framework.

Amendment No. 127 is of a similar principle. It is the same issue in relation to carrying out assessments that the Office of the Planning Regulator should not, for the purpose of forming an opinion, be giving the same weighting to the national planning policy frameworks as it may to the national planning framework. Amendment No. 128 is about the same issue again. It proposes to delete the provision that allows the Office of the Planning Regulator to form a view that a regional, spatial or economic strategy should be suspended because it is inconsistent with national planning policy and measures, which is the national planning statement. This is a really heavy-handed power that has been given whereby the Office of the Planning Regulator is able to call for the suspension of a strategy. The Minister is able to request that the Office of the Planning Regulator look at and potentially call for a suspension of a regional strategy that does not do exactly what the Minister might want it to do in his or her national planning statement.

We can see how an individual Minister's individual statement could end up railroading over a large amount of extraordinarily nuanced planning.

Amendment No. 129 is with regard to the power of the Office of the Planning Regulator to recommend to the Minister a draft direction where a regional statement is inconsistent with the national planning statement.

Amendment No. 131 is a very simple amendment. It is a protective measure. If a measure made by the regional assembly is impugned by the Office of the Planning Regulator it writes to the Minister who has eight weeks to reply. We do not want a situation where protective measures do not apply for these eight weeks. If they were environmental or heritage protective measures we would create a potential limbo during which irreversible damage may be done. Protective measures should apply during this period so that if the Minister declines to suspend the measure it does not come too late.

Amendment No. 133 seeks to delete another quite alarming paragraph from the Bill. This is the subsection that allows a ministerial directive to remain in force notwithstanding a successful judicial review finding the Minister came to some of the conclusions necessary to ground the directive in an unlawful manner. This provision is really something and this amendment is very important. This is not me paraphrasing what I think the Bill does; this is what it actually states:

Where, in any application for judicial review of a direction made pursuant to this section [etc.] the Court concludes that the Minister was not entitled to form the opinion that one or more of the criteria in ... subsection (8) of section 38 is met, this shall not warrant the quashing of the direction where— (a) the Minister was also of the opinion that one or more of the other criteria... is met.

Under this provision a Minister can state an intention to quash or overturn something in a regional plan on particular grounds. If the courts find the Minister was wrong in this the directive will go ahead anyway if the Minister can give another reason it should happen. It is a short circuit. It is very strange. It seems like it is almost sanctioning a fishing expedition for Ministers if they wish. It is the type of thing that creates a very unhealthy power dynamic, if we think of discussions with regional and local assemblies. We could almost have a situation where a Minister who does not like what is being done can tie this up forever and block it forever. If the Minister likes some bits of the regional strategy but not other bits they will need to be got rid of to get it through. There is a real danger. This is all a power imbalance in how it is approached.