Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I agree with Senators Garvey and O'Reilly. I do not see that there is any confusion in adding that definition. It is pretty clear and comprehensive. In the absence of such a definition, there is a danger that we have the major projects. It is an issue we encountered in the climate committee a few years ago when we did our report on transport. There was not even a cost-benefit analysis of some of the smaller projects because when transport infrastructure was talked about, it was always large-scale developments, roads and so forth. I cannot see why there is any problem in putting in a definition.

With respect, the Minister of State said there was engagement and the Government accepted lots of amendments. No amendments from the Seanad have been accepted. We have not had 120 hours of debate in the Seanad. In fact, we are only getting just over 20 hours when there were 150 hours, I think, in the other House. We are individuals with mandates, including Government Senators with mandates. There needs to be some sense that there is credible engagement on issues, rather than saying that at this stage the Government does not want to include a definition. The Bill is at its halfway point. To suggest it is too late for changes is to make a mockery of the Seanad. It is a simple and sensible recommendation from the Minister of State's own colleagues. Frankly, saying that one hopes that is how it will be interpreted is not good enough. As Senator Flynn said, none of us in the Seanad know if we will be here again. This is one of the largest and most important Bills that will go through. We should endeavour to make it as strong as it can be.

On the idea of the risk in explicitly excluding LNG and data centres, there is greater risk that LNG and data centres could be included as part of strategic infrastructure. These are significant risks. To say that it is a risk and if one names one thing, one should name another - the risk is obvious concerning weapons. If one did not want to say "shall not include", one could simply say that it does not limit or that, without prejudice to other things, it may not include or it shall not include. It is a simple clarification, if one wishes to do so, to say that this list of things that are excluded is not a limited list of things that are excluded. If LNG is not named, let us be clear of the risk. In the case of the risks in fossil fuel infrastructure, commercial data centres and weapons, it is not simply a risk of drafting or that one Senator said it; the risk is greater on the side of these things being included because they have massive lobbies behind them. It is not like it will be floating as an ambiguity for civil servants to interpret. It will be floating as an ambiguity for civil servants to interpret with huge pressure on them to allow LNG and massive pressure for data centres from the tech companies and from the arms industry. Those will be genuine pressures on civil servants. When there is an ambiguity in interpretation, let us be clear where the pressure on that ambiguity will come. That is why we need to err on the side of naming and excluding those matters.

To take the Minister of State's argument - that when one names one thing, that could imply that other things were excluded - that is exactly what applies in relation to climate. Section 21(1)(f) states, "The integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective and National Biodiversity Action Plan into plan-led development in the State." It is extremely woolly wording but section 21(3)(c) technically fulfils that. It states we have integrated the climate objective into planning because we think about it when we do transportation strategies and settlement patterns - now it is integrated, so that is achieved.

Regarding the argument concerning naming one thing, the fact that there is explicit naming in this regard in relation to transportation strategies and settlement patterns implies, in the context of the argument made, that we do not need to think about these aspects in energy, communications, marine planning or any of these other areas because they are explicitly named in that in one area. The suggestion is that this meets the standard of integrating them and they are in the planning. There is no test that they should be in all plan-led development in the State or a suggestion that they should apply to everything.

I am referring, in particular, to having the hard and strong language that means something and not just the national climate objective with the number at the end and lots of woolly talk about whether we will get to it or not. Instead, there should be language that refers to explicitly adapting to and mitigating climate change and stopping emissions. A test for the hardcore thing that actually matters, namely, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is not being applied to everything in the national planning framework.

With respect, therefore, I believe there is still a major weakness in respect to climate in this national planning framework and I believe it does need to be reviewed. The Minister of State is obviously not going to accept my amendments at this point, but I genuinely say there is a need to go back and look at this aspect. I say this because as it stands, it is not strong. We can say that if, for example, liquified natural gas, fracked gas, which acts as an accelerant in devastating biodiversity internationally, were to come along, we can see when we look at the emissions of methane versus carbon dioxide, for example, that it would be literally pouring petrol on the fire we are already experiencing. In that context, I do not see the block in the Bill here whereby LNG will hit up against something that says the national planning framework stipulates we cannot have LNG because it is increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and we must address it. There is, therefore, still a major weakness there in this regard.

In terms of my colleague's recommendation about the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission being a body that would be consulted, and this relates to the SDGs too, if it is not thought that the national planning framework is relevant from a gender equality perspective, we definitely need IHREC to be one of the bodies consulted. Regarding saying there are things that do not really relate to this context, like gender equality, for example, in reality, this is an extremely relevant issue when planning is undertaken. It is a massively relevant issue. It is exactly the kind of situation where we need gender-proofing. When we look to the UN safer cities for women and girls programme, for example, that is a relevant aspect and these are relevant issues. Actually, then, things like gender equality are things that the Government should be thinking about in the context of this legislation.

There is a little bit of saying "We will parcel this here and parcel that there", but this is a national planning framework. It is the framework that will, effectively, decide how every square foot of land is used. Whole areas of our shared human life together, therefore, are being parcelled away as not being relevant to the national framework. I will come back to this in my last point. In terms of night life and culture, we all know what is happening with night life. There are no physical places for night life to happen because they are all vanishing. This is why it is all about festivals and being able to use a hall for a week. Merrion Square has basically become an events venue because there are no spaces in the city. The spaces where things were happening are gone.

I say this with respect because I think the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, has been doing a really good job in trying to encourage alternative spaces, etc. This is again, however, about picking around the edges of the issue of culture and arts, rather than about having a plan in this regard. We need a plan that takes account of the fact that everywhere we have 2,000 people in one place, they are going to want to do something cultural or social together. This aspect needs to be in the plan properly. I know there is a reference to cultural and recreational amenities, but this is not quite the same as the space we have talked about in terms of night life and those hours of the day outside working hours. Again, with respect, an area that could be reflected on over the summer is to try to get excited about the national planning framework and make it do more and do it better.

Instead of saying we will leave this Department to deal with this and the other Department to deal with the other, let us try to ensure we have a plan that has all that is needed in it, rather than a plan that is, effectively, centred on neoliberal economics. In the neoliberal economic approach, loads of things are cut out. The result is streamlined economics, but all the actual things that happen in society and life are kind of edited out. We need to look at this matter too and have a plan that prepares for the dangers as well as one that plans for the nice possibilities just a little bit more than it does now.

In this context, I encourage a review of the legislation. Frankly, as Senators, we cannot say that the Government has done great, that it has engaged with everyone and that it was brilliant TDs were talked to for hours and hours. The ideas here, not just coming from me but also from the Minister of State's own colleagues and others right across the House, are good ones. I ask the Minister of State to please take them away and reflect on them over the summer.