Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is an issue here, which is that we have been told this is plan-led development. The framework is plan-led development; the Minister's statement I regard as not really as credible as the planning framework. The language, "national planning policies and measures", sounds really weighty and authoritative and so on, but if we track it back to section 25, it is literally just a way of saying the things the Minister put in the planning statement.

That is what that is. There is an assumption that the national planning framework, NPF, and the national planning statement will in themselves be consistent with each other but there is no requirement for the Minister's national planning statement to be consistent with the NPF, and I have amendments on that. A situation could arise with some of these measures where we are asking the Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, to take action where there could be tension. This is why it would be better to have the OPR functioning directly with the NPF.

The Minister of State asked for clarification about amendment No. 131. It was very simple. That section mentions a provision of a regional strategy where the OPR has issued a direction relating to it and that the Minister is considering what the OPR's opinion on that is. In the circumstances, that provision of that regional strategy will stand suspended. My point is that if one of those provisions was a protective measure such as a measure protecting woodlands, there would be a concern that in that period of suspension, ground could be lost, so I am saying that, where it is a protective measure, there is an eight-week period during which the Minister decides what action to take and whether the provision should remain suspended. The very fact of suspending a protective measure could lead to a situation of jeopardy, which could be very significant from an environmental or heritage perspective.

We had a statement here that the NPF has a public consultation. This is not necessarily the case. The Bill does not require a public consultation. It simply says there may be consultation with the public regarding the national planning statement. Again, this is a really quick fix but we need to stop acting as if there is definitely going to be public consultation when the Bill does not require that. Bear in mind that there are revisions of it. The Minister can revoke parts of it and change it. There is no guarantee of public consultation on any of that in this Bill.

Going back to what Senators Flynn and Warfield said, there is a suggestion that, on one level, we are getting this very plan-led joined-up thing, but whenever something tricky emerges and the kind of things people tell you matter to them emerge, that is thrown back to the local level. It is being thrown back to local authority with the proviso that it may be overruled by national level, national frameworks, national statements and regional strategies but, effectively, it is passing the buck. Even the suggestion that the aspect of culture has to sit solely within local authorities and their budgets, they do not have budgets. They do not have the resources. There needs to be a vision that leads in terms of the provision of cultural and social spaces. The NPF has to plan for all of the people all of the time. It has to plan for what happens at night-time and for what happens if you are part of a group recognised in the State as an ethnic minority. That needs to be reflected in the national plan if it involves a national ethnic minority. It has to come through at the national plan level and not simply be dependent on local level.

Regarding the night-time economy activation strategy, the Department organised a specific event looking at best practice guidance for local authorities in provisions for planning effectively. Action 16 of the night-time economy report said the Department should develop best practice guidance to assist local authorities in planning for the night-time economy. These statements, the regional strategies and the framework are where those guidelines sit, yet the amendments relating to those issues have been rejected. If it is one of the clear actions that there needs to be guidance at national level upon which the local authorities can draw, it needs to sit somewhere within the national planning infrastructure and it needs to be more robust than it is currently in the legislation.