Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to follow up on some of the other amendments in this grouping. Amendment No. 61 seeks to amend section 21(2)(e) by inserting a requirement that as well as providing for land-sea interactions and securing co-ordination with the national marine planning framework, the national planning framework should also provide for appropriate regard for marine protected areas.

We have discussed these issues back and forth and have been waiting for the marine protected area legislation for years. Meanwhile, planning has gone ahead and layers of plans relating to what happens in our marine areas have gone ahead. This is despite it being acknowledged from the beginning by every expert and indeed by many of the actors who seek to engage in areas, for example, offshore wind and others, that the ideal thing would be to have the marine protected areas designated first. It looks like they are going to fall off the edge of this Government and not be there at all. This is yet another layer whereby the national planning framework will look at the marine planning framework but marine protected areas are not referenced at all.

We have a legally binding obligation of 30% designation by 2030. We are already way behind in this regard. We also have additional legal requirements under the recently agreed nature restoration law that will require restoration measures to be in place in at least 30% of the areas that are not in good condition by 2030. This will increase to at least 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050 in six of the key ecological groups. Member states will have two years to draft their national restoration plans and within these they must quantify what percentage of soft sediments above 1,000 m are not in good condition. We need a benchmark of where we are at in order that we can then achieve the actions that we are meant to be taking by 2030, which is five and half years away. We have not even made the benchmark or done the previous basic thing, which is having marine protected areas legislation. If we plough ahead without ever designating our marine protected areas and without getting to that point, but we have done everything else, including all the various accelerations of development that are facilitated by this legislation and other legislation, there is a danger of saying we should not have built it there or we should not have done it that way. This will be when our marine ecosystems are lost and in some cases, they will be lost forever.

The marine protected areas legislation is crucial. This amendment makes sure that we prepare for and get some sign of faith that it is anticipated we will have marine protected areas. We have one already and that is why it can be put in currently. We have Lough Hyne. The marine protected areas, which will hopefully expand if we get our marine protected areas legislation, will be directly considered rather than simply looking at land-sea interactions which are largely concerned with how humans will use the sea for various purposes or indeed the marine planning framework, which largely refers to activities that require planning in marine areas. That core piece of protection needs to be in the mix within the planning framework.

Amendment No. 63 seeks to delete section 21(3)(b)(iv), which currently includes energy and communications networks within the list of national infrastructure priorities linked to strategic development requirements. There are concerns later in the Bill about the worrying inclusion of LNG terminals as potential strategic infrastructure. They should not be included as strategic national infrastructure. There are things that one may or may not wish to be built but when you give them that imprimatur, of being strategic development or strategic infrastructure is given, this gives them the fast track and less scrutiny than what might be given to a house built out in a field somewhere. Even though they are significant and the impacts are huge for everybody, it is effectively saying that these things will be prioritised.

I am going to focus on the communications infrastructure and will go into LNG further a little later. Is it the Minister of State's understanding that in the prioritisation of strategic development and infrastructure, communications infrastructure will include data centres? We are now in a situation where Ireland is not meeting its legally binding emission reduction targets. In 2022 alone, 18% of our electricity was used by data centres. There is a prediction that by 2030, a third of our electricity could be going to data centres. This is a figure that is widely out of step with what is happening anywhere else in Europe and which comes with huge problems. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Ryan, has said that data centres must go green or stay off the grid. That is not good enough. This has come after a long time where those looking at the issue have flagged the problem with data centres but the choice was made not to have a moratorium. This is something that will be even more problematic when this legislation goes through.

South Dublin County Council made a green and environmentally sound choice regarding their area and said it did not want more data centres in South Dublin County Council and would not be including that in its development plan. It was, however, overwritten by the Office of the Planning Regulator and was told it needed to put in data centres. This was at a time when there were problems and the climate committee were having session after session where the issues with data centres were being highlighted. This is where the thing of strategic development and strategic infrastructure is important. Government policy is not simply a matter of failing to regulate or issue a moratorium on data centres but is in fact demanding, insisting and pushing data centres as a priority. This is despite their using up our electricity to an extraordinary degree. They have huge issues. When the Minister says go green or stay off the national grid, they apply for backup generators. Why is it okay that they stay off the national grid and have a gas generator with a gas generation connection that we know they have been planning? I will go through some of this more. I have gone off my notes but to stay focused on time, data centres gorge fossil fuels and have been allowed to develop their own private fossil fuel infrastructure within the State.

A recent example is the very special industrial emissions licence granted to Microsoft by the EPA to run a large-scale gas power plant at the company's data centre in Tallaght, County Dublin. Other companies, including Google, Amazon and Meta, have applied for similar licences for scenarios in which they may have to come off-grid if there is significant pressure on the national grid. To be really clear, when those data centres are off the grid or on the grid, if they are consuming fossil fuels, they are contributing to emissions. Simply moving the mats around will not suffice, we are talking about a planetary reality. Emissions are real. The limited space we have for human survival on the planet is real and limited. The amount of emissions that can be produced is limited. If having Amazon Web Services making extra billions for Mr. Jeff Bezos off the back of a few potential jobs there may or may not be is the big priority over actually reducing emissions, that is a problem. If we decide to name these things as "energy and communications networks", I want clarification and assurances from the Minister of State that when we talk about communications infrastructure, it will not include data centres and then we can continue the battle about the need to actually regulate our data centres and the increase in their demand for electricity.

I apologise if it is not the exact figure, but in the committee, we looked at the fact that Ireland's electricity demand was going up by 9% when the rest of Europe was either levelling off of going down. We heard a lot about trying to get people to spend less time on the electric toothbrush and some people leaving lights on when they leave the room but actually, it is large energy users that are driving up electricity consumption. There has been in excess of a 200% increase in the energy usage by large energy users. It is a hugely dangerous hostage to fortune. If we allow them to hide under the special treatment whereby they are treated as an ultimate public good when the Minister of State talks about "strategic development" and strategic infrastructure, he is saying this is something which is absolutely essential for our State, we are effectively giving a carte blancheand they see it. That is why they are all piling in. We hear people talking about AI and we are very worried and let us all have committees and debates on it. All of that stuff exists in real places. AI does not float in space. It uses up real electricity and real water on the ground in real places, such as Ireland, that do not have the guts to properly regulate it.

Amendment No. 64 is a technical amendment relating to amendment No. 67.

Amendment No. 66 relates to the national planning framework and ensuring it meets communities' needs to have accessible green spaces that people can visit. A commitment to the provision of accessible green spaces should be explicitly outlined in this section. That should be explicitly named in terms of accessible, usable green spaces. We know how important and essential they are for the soul. We all saw that during Covid. Again, in a future pandemic, accessible green places will become crucial as well. It is an essential part, in terms of building healthy sustainable communities that are cohesive and welcoming. Given the scale of the housing crisis and the devastating impact it is having on people who are paying huge rents while struggling to afford a home, the need for the construction of more housing is absolutely clear. However, those homes need to be built in a way that still ensures both new and old communities have access to green space. In addition, we need to ensure that green space is accessible for people with disabilities and people of different ages. For too long, people with disabilities have pointed out the continuous use of ableist exclusionary design choices, such as kissing gates, that impede their access to enjoyment of public spaces. These areas should be a community amenity accessible to everyone. Inclusive and empowering design needs to be embedded into the fabric of all planning decisions. I worry that a unit-based approach to the planning framework will fail to have a liveable-based approach.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 67 seek to strengthen the language and provisions in the NPF, with an aim to ensure that any future development strategy considers cultural and social provision, with specific regard in amendment No. 67 to the night-time economy. As has been highlighted many times in recent years, access to social space has dramatically reduced in the past few decades. We have lost hundreds of music venues, nightclubs and cultural spaces that operate late into the night. Diversity of choice in the landscape of our night-time economy and society is absolutely absent. Something that is holding back the development of cultural and social activity late at night is the lack of co-ordinated planning in this area. If the NPF is the core document that guides our planning strategy, that sets out the vision for how we live together - that core piece that I always go back to again and again regarding the decisions about how want to live together - it has to reflect how we live together at night-time. Is there such a thing as community at night-time? Will that be acknowledged or reflected in the decisions and plans we make? I acknowledge that the Government's own night-time economy task force has approached cultural and social activity at night in a co-ordinated way. It has recognised the need for stakeholders from different Departments and Government agencies to co-operate in terms of developing coherent workable strategies and tackled things such as transport and safe spaces. The amendment also seeks to give regard to how important cultural and social activity is for society. There are very few real space opportunities for young and old adults to form connections with each other in a real place and that necessarily leaves people more vulnerable to only being able to find that sense of community out of hours, online or in that kind of space, which is fine, but it is not a substitute for having that actual sense of community and actual opportunity to engage, have fun, play together and not simply be working units or consuming units.

These real physical spaces of cultural and social activity enrich our lives, particularly people who may be marginalised within their families. It was important in the past for LGBTQ communities. Similarly, for migrants, it can be important to have spaces where they can go, be welcome and feel they are part of the life of a town, city or village. I am going to speak further, if I have an opportunity later, to the importance of these public and cultural spaces in terms of social development and social cohesion, but I urge that at the base level they are recognised properly within the national planning framework because if we do not plan for it, we will have the situation again where cultural and social activities happen at the fringes, pushed into ever smaller spaces, except for when they are in large-scale commercial spaces. It will only be cultural and social activity that fits a particular commercial model rather than allowing humans to be fully human together.

My colleague has spoken to amendment No. 68. It is crucial, as we have ratified the UNCRPD. We need to follow through and show that the UNCRPD is actually being reflected in our planning framework otherwise we are back to the miserable work that people with disabilities have had to do for decades in saying there is a problem here and there, this does not have a ramp, that does not have access and trying to retrofit our cities, villages and communities road by road and corner by corner rather than planning for it properly. That is why is needs to be planned for properly and in the NPF.

Amendment No. 69 inserts a new paragraph, requiring that the national planning framework makes provision for the promotion of measures to "protect and enhance biodiversity". I have a concern that within the framework, climate action and biodiversity are set out in quite narrow terms, only really relating to the areas of sustainable settlement patterns, transport strategies and conservation. Climate action and biodiversity protection or enhancement need to be core to anything within the framework, including our national infrastructure priorities and strategic development requirements.

I will make a further point on this later.

Amendment No. 70 seeks to remove the curiously weak language in section 21(3)(c). It seeks, in page 67, line 25, which concerns adapting to and mitigating climate change, to delete “take account of the need to”. This is really important. I rarely focus on people’s parties, but the Minister of State, as a Green Minister in the Department, should examine section 21(3)(c) over the summer. There is a bit of a trick being done here on those who care about climate change. This is what my two amendments relate to. We will be told that the national planning framework refers to greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to and mitigating climate change but these are mentioned only in a subsection. Surely, the national climate objective, mitigating climate change and reducing emissions should stand on their own in the NPF; however, they are referred to in the Bill in a way that would have them apply only to settlement patterns and transportation strategies. They are limiting the topics within the national planning framework to which the climate targets can apply. It is implied that we need to think about climate when designing roads and bicycle lanes and promoting density in city centres, because that is what we want, but not that we need to think about climate change when planning energy infrastructure, such as that for data centres and the LNG terminals, or anything else we might want to do. The objective is off the table because there is a narrowing down. The major priority of meeting our national climate objective is narrowed down to one of relevance or one worth naming only insofar as it relates to settlement patterns and transportation strategies. Obviously, it needs to have its own section and should apply to every aspect of the NPF. This basic point needs to be addressed on Report Stage. With respect, I suggest the Green Party needs to do so. Otherwise, the Minister of State will be fobbed off in that while he will be told the relevant words appear, they will do so in a way that ties people’s hands behind their backs. I had more detail on this but just wanted to make the direct point, which is that the language is intentionally weak and will create circumstances in which, if we ask about the climate, we will be told it is not an issue of climate but of transportation. The main objective is off the table and that needs to be tackled. I really urge the Minister of State to look into this.

The phrase “take account of the need to adapt to and mitigate” is very weak. Our framework needs to adapt to and mitigate climate change, not have us think about the need to do so. I assure the Minister of State that climate change will have an impact regardless of whether people decide they want to think about it. It will have a direct and devastating impact on some of the more vulnerable communities in our country.

Amendment No. 72 seeks to insert a new subparagraph into section 21(3)(d) that would require the national planning framework to make provision for the conservation of the marine environment. I will not go over all the relevant points again but we have genuine targets, including those under the nature restoration law. A very simple and effective one would ensure that the conservation of the marine environment is recognised as one of the aims of the framework, rather than something that might trot along after we have a planning framework. The planning framework should fit around the conservation obligation, not the other way around. I note that, in the numbered list, there is an error in one of the line numbers. However, if the Minister of the State is happy to accept the principle of my amendment, I will be happy to withdraw it and resubmit a different version on Report Stage, or indeed accept a version of the Minister of State.

Amendment No. 73 seeks to amend section 21(3)(e) by inserting “and regard for special areas of conservation and marine protected areas” into the provision on land-sea interactions. The language in the Bill, “land-sea interactions and the promotion of coordination of development”, refers only to development or human activity, and there is no acknowledgement of the marine area as something to be considered or concerned about in itself.

Amendment No. 75 would insert a new subsection into section 21 that would provide that for the avoidance of doubt, section 21(3)(b)(iv), including in respect of energy and communications networks in national infrastructure priorities,shall not include fossil fuel infrastructure or commercial data centres.

Amendment No. 76 would insert a new subsection into section 21 that would provide that, for the avoidance of doubt, section 21(3)(b)(iv) shall not include LNG infrastructure, other fossil fuel infrastructure or data centres. These are not peripheral issues; these are big-ticket items that would create huge hostages to fortune, not only regarding Ireland achieving its targets but also regarding its playing its part genuinely and globally to reduce its emissions.

On LNG, I strongly warn the House about the consequences if it is allowed to remain. We have had a vague moratorium but the opportunity to outlaw LNG properly has not been taken by the Government to date. There are creeping aspects of this legislation that could allow for it. Sometimes something is pushed for that would, crucially, go against the essence of what a party is. It happens a lot in coalitions. Coalitions can be good sometimes but we need to guard against pitfalls. We all have regrets over the abolition of town councils, and the Labour Party has been very honest that it should not have agreed to it. It sabotaged the party.