Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will respond to some of the points raised by the Senators and then speak to the amendments. Senator Higgins spoke about the centralisation of power towards the Minister in the national planning statements. I again ask her to look at the guidance on the preparation of national planning statements, which state that the Minister shall have regard to what is quite an exhaustive list. That guidance ensures the Minister, whoever he or she is, will have to have regard to that clear set of guidelines and to the public consultation element. In regard to the protection of monuments, there is a significant volume of other legislation protecting built and archaeological heritage, such as the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Miscellaneous Provisions Act, elements of which are being enacted now. It is very significant legislation for the protection of monuments.

I agree with Senator Flynn about the recognition of Traveller culture, something I am keen to champion in my own work all the time. Where would we be without the John Dohertys, the Raineys or the Fureys in the context of Traveller music and the rich legacy of music that has been handed on to Ireland? Were it not for the Traveller community, we would lose so much language and music. The recognition of Travellers as an ethnic minority by the Dáil should not be tokenistic. It should be given effect and have meaning and I absolutely agree with that. I have funded the Heritage Council to employ an intercultural heritage officer, which includes working with the Traveller community, and some fantastic work has been done around tinsmithing and other aspects of Traveller culture.

I will address the wider issue of access to cultural space specifically in the context of how the amendments affect the Bill. Much of the general tone of today's debate has related to the removal of power from councils, but the provision of space for cultural facilities is a central role for local authorities and local authority members. The State provides funding through the urban regeneration and development fund, URDF, the rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF, and the THRIVE fund, which was for specific buildings that could be brought back into use. There is no shortage of initiatives of State funding for the readaptation or reuse of buildings in urban centres for cultural spaces, but it does involve the local authorities being very proactive about their arts strategies, their play policies and their cultural policies. Local authority members have a significant role to play there. Some local authorities are better than others, but I again point to the significant role and responsibility for the budgeting and resourcing of their arts strategies and play policies.

Government amendment No. 114 relates to section 29, which sets out the content of an RSES. The amendment clarifies that an RSES shall contain a strategy relating to onshore renewable energy. The word "onshore" has been added to clarify that an RSES shall deal with onshore renewable energy strategies only. Offshore renewable energy strategies will be a matter for the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, under the maritime spatial plans provided for under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021.

Government amendment No. 132 relates to section 39 and the issuance of a draft direction by the Office of the Planning Regulator in respect of an RSES. Section 39 currently provides that the Office of the Planning Regulator has four weeks from the final date on which submissions can be made in respect of a draft direction to consider the submissions and make a recommendation to the Minister as to whether to issue a direction. This amendment will alter this period to give the Office of the Planning Regulator a six-week period to consider such submissions prior to making a recommendation. Under the Act of 2000, a seven-week period was allowed. The proposed four-week period was not considered sufficient to allow the OPR to enough time to consider all submissions received and, therefore, a six-week period is now proposed.

Turning to Opposition amendments, amendment No. 115 was tabled by Senators Moynihan, Hoey, Sherlock and Wall, amendment No. 116 was tabled by Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan, amendments Nos. 117, 120, 121, 125 to 131, inclusive, and 133 were tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn and amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 122 to 124, inclusive, were tabled by Senator Cummins. Amendments Nos. 115 to 118, inclusive, relate to the content of an RSES. As discussed in respect of other parts of the Bill, amendment No. 115 seeks to insert provisions relating to Gaeltacht and Irish language matters. As I mentioned previously, sufficient Government amendments have been made regarding the Gaeltacht. Section 29(1) provides for the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht and, as with other related proposed amendments, this is considered sufficient because it is not appropriate, at the regional level of our planning system, to become excessively granular so as to end up replicating work that should be carried out at the local level of our planning system. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 relate to the addition of cultural matters to the content of an RSES and the inclusion of “social facilities” in the measures relating to the implementation and monitoring of an RSES and a corresponding metropolitan area strategic plan. Cultural facilities are already referenced in section 29(1)(n) in the context of an RSES relating to economic matters, which, I believe, is appropriate content for a spatial and economic strategy. Strategies and policies relating to cultural matters are already provided for in the national cultural policy framework and the Culture Ireland Strategy 2022-2025. Section 29(13)(a) lists different categories of facilities in respect of priorities for infrastructure of scale that can be used for the implementation and monitoring of an RSES and a corresponding metropolitan area strategic plan. As things stand, I do not consider the addition of the words “social facilities” to have relevance here in the context of infrastructure of scale, but I will ask officials to consider the matter further to determine whether such facilities should be referenced here. I ask the Senators to withdraw amendment No. 117 in light of this in order that we can consider the matter further on Report Stage.

In regard to amendment No. 118, I do not see the need for the formation of an implementation and delivery board for each regional assembly or a metropolitan area strategic plan implementation and delivery board, as proposed under the amendment. Section 35 provides for the implementation and monitoring of an RSES, including reporting requirements, statutory timelines and consultation with the Office of the Planning Regulator. I believe this is sufficient and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

I acknowledge the intent behind amendment No. 119 and the addition of a new paragraph under section 30(2) relating to the making of new metropolitan area strategic plans. However, a metropolitan area strategic plan does not sit separate to an RSES, under section 29(4). An RSES may include a metropolitan area strategic plan and, accordingly, any reference to an RSES under section 30(2) also includes a reference to a metropolitan area strategic plan. It is for this reason that I cannot accept the amendment, while noting the points Senator Cummins made about Waterford and Tramore.

I do not consider amendments Nos. 120 and 121 to be workable because it is not possible for an RSES to affect the provision or existence of cultural infrastructure or facilities in the manner suggested. In section 32(2)(b), however, in respect of the preparation or revision of an RSES, due account must be taken of any relevant policies or objectives of the Government or of any Minister of the Government, including any national plans, policies or strategies specified by the Minister to be of relevance to the determination of strategic economic policies.

I am not in a position to accept amendments Nos. 122 to 124, inclusive. Section 35(3) provides that a regional assembly shall prepare regular monitoring reports.

It is appropriate that these reports are every four years because the regional assembly will need to receive and review the reports from local authorities and other bodies, which will be done every three years. It would not be appropriate for regional assemblies to have to prepare their reports every three years because it would mean that they would not have time to review the reports from other bodies and reflect them in their own monitoring reports. I ask Senator Cummins to withdraw these amendments and we will give consideration to the matter on Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 125 to 130, inclusive, relate to assessments by the Office of the Planning Regulator of a RSES to ensure that the regional tier of the planning system remains aligned with the national tier of the planning system. This is to ensure consistency and coherence across the planning system. The proposed amendments would delete all references to national planning policies and measures in relation to this assessment.

Considering that national planning policies and measures form an integral part of national planning statements, which are being introduced to provide national policy and guidance on planning matters in support of proper planning and sustainable development, I believe all references to national planning policies and measures in section 38 need to be retained for the purposes of the assessments carried out under that section. In order to ensure that a proper method of control exists to retain and readjust the alignment between national and regional planning tiers, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 131 makes reference to a "protective measure" in a RSES but, without a corresponding definition of this term or further provision to elaborate or explain the meaning of such a measure, I am unable to understand the purpose of the amendment. Again, I ask the Senators to elaborate further if possible but, as things stand, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 133 would delete a reasonable and precautionary provision ensuring that, in the context of a judicial review, where a direction relates to the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive, of subsection (8) of section 38, and where only certain criteria are considered to have been met, once one or more of the other criteria listed in paragraphs (a) to (d), inclusive, have been met, and once the court finds that the Minister was entitled to form the opinion the subject of the direction, then the direction will not be quashed by the court. I believe this provision is sound and should be retained, and for that reason I cannot accept this amendment.