Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to our amendments in this section. Amendment No. 57 seeks to place Ireland's obligation as a UN member state committed to the progressive realisation of the UN sustainable development goals within the national planning framework. It is particularly important given that Ireland played such a key role in the negotiation of the sustainable development goals and indeed in the review last year in terms of the need for a reconfirmed ambition for their delivery.

The sustainable development goals do not exist as a kind of Instagram or Pinterest motivation on the side with nice colours. They actually are development plans; they are about development. We need to have development frameworks and planning frameworks that fit with and match the provisions in the sustainable development goals. They are not to be treated as an accessory and rather they require a fundamental rethink of development. The NPF will be one of the core documents in respect of planning in the State, shaping the kind of future development we have and, therefore, the SDGs should be very firmly and clearly there. Given the social and environmental significance of this legislation and the central role of the planning framework, it will be obvious that they should be referred to explicitly.

Amendment No. 58 seeks to assert appropriate regard for marine protected areas into the NPF. We have a legally binding target of 30% of designation by 2030 and we are way behind. We now have additional legal obligations under the recently agreed Nature Restoration Law, which will require restoration measures on at least 30% of the areas that are not in good condition by 2030, increasing to at least 60% by 2040 and 90% by 2050 in six of the key ecological groups. Member states also have just two years to draft their national restoration plans and within this they must qualify what percentage of soft sediments above 1,000 m are not in good condition.

We have had an endless parade of legislation on marine planning coming through these Houses in recent years. However, the fundamental one, the horse that should be before the cart, is the marine protection legislation, which would set out the areas where we do not want to be having certain kinds of planning and development. That is the one that has always been left lagging. We are potentially coming to the end of this Oireachtas term having failed to publish and pass marine protected area legislation. Meanwhile DMAPs providing for special areas for development within our marine environment are going ahead. So we are going ahead with all of the development, all of the planning and the whole new elaborate planning infrastructure. I was told at one point that 20 officials were working on the DMAPs. I have to wonder who has been working on the marine planning area because it seems to be absolutely last in the considerations of what we do with the marine.

That is particularly important in the context of the issue I mentioned earlier of some of the kinds of developments we may see happening. On Committee Stage, the Minister tabled explicit amendments to specify that the gas infrastructure that might be inserted as priority strategic development gets fast-tracked planning permission. As I have outlined, that includes liquefied natural gas and all the processes around it, including the liquefying the de-liquefying and everything else that goes into that, such as the importation and the storage. An explicit amendment was tabled on Committee Stage to provide that this gas infrastructure may be onshore or offshore.

Will this mean we will have LNG terminals effectively offshore in areas where instead we should be seeing marine planning? This is a serious concern. The thing about putting the development ahead of the protection is that once the marine environment is damaged or destroyed, there is no longer a problem because we can point to the fact that it has been destroyed and is no longer relevant. This is why we need to start with the protection. That is the precautionary principle, which is also meant to underpin legislation in the EU.

Amendment No. 59 importantly clarifies that data centres are not included and would not be included in national infrastructure priorities as they relate to strategic development of communications networks. Along with LNG, one of the other areas identified as an area for strategic development priority is communications networks. It is really important to clarify that data centres, which are on track to consume one third of all electricity in the State and are already consuming more electricity than an entire city, are not to be considered as national infrastructure priorities. A number of years ago when CRU had its initial review, the choice should have been made to exercise the moratorium at that time. At this point, we now have huge hostages to fortune in the wildly excessive data centres.

Ireland is an outlier in that we have had a 200% increase in electricity usage when other countries have experienced a decrease. We have had a 9% increase in electricity usage, but we have had a 280% increase in electricity usage by large energy users, including data centres.We are absolute outliers in this area and we know that many of those data centres are now looking for back-up connections, gas processing plants of their own, back-up gas generators or connection to the gas grid. Gas Networks Ireland has made clear it cannot refuse such connections as the legislation does not allow it. The opportunity to ban it here has not been taken.

This is all part of bad planning. Bad planning means developing hostages to fortune that will use up our energy. When we have green energy they may also use that up. We could use that green energy for more important areas. There are questions of ethics. There are questions to be answered as artificial intelligence intensifies data usage. We must ask ourselves if, on this shared planet, this is the appropriate use of the limited energy we have to share? The challenges we are facing are linked. One of the key drivers for the demand we are told we need to meet, the kind of demand that is used to justify liquefied natural gas, is data centres and other large energy users. One of the key functions of planning is to take the elephants out of the room rather than prioritising them. We have an opportunity to do that by removing LNG and data centres and ensuring they are explicitly excluded from prioritisation.

Amendment No. 60 seeks to ensure that national infrastructural priorities related to education, healthcare, retail, culture and recreational facilities are approached with an intergenerational lens. One of the phases that have fallen out of use, one that is very important, is ensuring that these spaces are for children and older people. The intergenerational piece is an important and useful lens to apply to planning. Different decisions are taken when we are thinking about spaces that are going to work for everyone. If there are spaces that work for children and older people, they are also more likely to work for people with disabilities. We have a more inclusive vision of society when an intergenerational lens is applied. That is much easier to do than addressing exclusions that arise from a lack of intergenerational thought after the fact. An example of this is kissing gates and the campaigns people organise about their blocking access for children and people with wheelchairs to public amenities.

Amendment No. 61 suggests the inclusion of provision for infrastructure for night-life among the national infrastructural priorities. Night-time cultural and social spaces have been remarkably eroded in the past couple of decades. We discussed this at great length on Committee Stage, so I will not go into detail on it again. People continue to exist at night. We discuss loneliness and disconnection. For many people, night-time is the time they have to socialise and connect with others.

Having a variety of cultural and social spaces where people can connect is very important for social cohesion, the mental health of individuals, the nurturing of creativity and the right to cultural participation for our population. That should be considered when we plan. We should be planning for all hours of the day rather than for commercial activity on an assumed nine-to-five basis.

Amendment No. 62 highlights the promotion of accessibility and inclusion as priorities in the strategic development of national infrastructure. Ireland's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was a huge step forward. Our ratification of this convention means we have an obligation to ensure that in all elements of our society people with disabilities are fully empowered and supported to participate. This is a significant task which requires a rethink. There are areas where there has been progress and areas where there has not. It is important that we raise this issue with respect to every Bill that comes through the House. When signing up to something that highlights a deeply neglected cohort of the population who have only experienced exclusion rather than active inclusion and are not specified in planning and development decisions, as they should be, those decisions require a rethink. We need to name and recognise that, rather than addressing it after the fact and putting a burden on individuals to specify that they cannot access this or participate in that or that particular steps are exclusionary. It is one thing to have to do that for Georgian or Victorian buildings, which is a circumstance I am sure the Minister of State is familiar with as the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage, but with new planning, we should be getting this right from the beginning. That is why this issue needs to be named and delivered on.

I commend the advocacy groups that have worked on the issues of accessibility and inclusion for decades and continue to do so. This is aimed at them not having to do that work all the time. It is important that the work those groups do is recognised. They have been very clear that this is the bare minimum that should be put in place. They would like to see stronger legislation and for recognition for people with disabilities to be throughout the Bill. They note the Bill only mentions disabilities four times. Between 14% and 18% of the population have disabilities. For a large cohort of the population to be mentioned four times in 750 pages is minimal. The advocacy groups are concerned that the needs of disabled people have been forgotten in the drafting of the legislation. The DPO Network has written a letter in support of these amendments. Nonetheless, these amendments are the bare minimum.

Proper planning legislation would reflect how disability had been thought about at every level. It is a basic point that the national planning framework should think about and address issues of disability and inclusion and the full participation of all in society.

Amendment No. 62 explicitly mentions the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which should be explicitly referenced. This is a keynote document. However, we are sometimes told we should not mention conventions in Bills. I disagree with that position.

Amendment No. 63 is an alternative amendment which has the same effect as amendment No. 62 in that it recognises disability and inclusion as core issues, but does not rely on the hook of mentioning the convention. We have addressed this in two ways in order to be constructive. It is very important that people with disabilities across Ireland see some signal that the Government is listening and taking on amendments in respect of this issue.

Amendment No. 64 includes the provision of suitable Traveller accommodation and community facilities among the national infrastructure projects. Despite ring-fenced funding for Traveller accommodation, local authorities have consistently failed to make use of those funds and deliver for the Travelling community. It is an incredibly sad situation. My colleague, Senator Flynn, will speak about the UNCRPD and Traveller accommodation. We have to plan for appropriate accommodation. It must be part of how we think about planning for our communities and society on a national basis. What we do not want to see is this being treated as a tag-on after the fact. Now that we have our big plans - the national development plan and national planning framework - we cannot decide as an afterthought to look for leftover sites and have a battle about whether we allow them to become Traveller accommodation. That is not proper planning. That is not an adequate response. We know that the impacts of negative conditions are immense, especially for young Travellers in respect of their ability to complete school work and access the basics of life such as health. There are serious negative impacts to failure to properly deliver in this area. All the local authorities have failed to deliver adequate amenities. The national planning framework should not also fail to deliver.

Amendment No. 65 includes the promotion of emissions reduction strategies alongside the promotion of sustainable settlement patterns in transportation strategies, in urban and rural areas.

Amendment No. 66 includes development strategies on this list.As I have mentioned, I am worried that there is something of a narrowing down. It states earlier on that we have to think about contributing towards the achievement of climate goals but then, later on, sustainable settlement patterns and transportation strategies are almost pulled out as the two areas where we will think about emissions. However, we need to think about emissions in every area, including commercial development and industrial development. It is not a matter that one can cherry-pick two small aspects of planning and say those are the ones on which we will do the climate stuff. We need to be much more robust. I acknowledge it says that it has to contribute to the national objective but I am concerned that this narrow point that is there could be seen as how we are contributing, versus an actual test. That is why I say emission reduction strategies and development strategies in the general sense should be reflecting emission reduction.

Amendment No. 67 seeks to insert the need to protect and enhance biodiversity. Amendment No. 68 removes the non-committal language around "the need to adapt to and mitigate climate change". It is to have stronger language.

I have made this point - it is a hard point to make - that it is frustrating we are being told that this Bill will somehow help us on the journey to addressing climate change and taking climate action. That is disingenuous. It is not true. I am looking particularly to the bit, which we will come to, about the decision to explicitly remove reference to the climate Act from the factors that planning authorities or the commission will consider when they are making individual decisions. Basically, we have the slightly diluted language that is ambiguous in the planning framework - these planning authorities will presumably consider the planning framework but it is at quite a distance - rather than having the climate lens applied when they are making the individual decisions about the individual things that actually get permission. It is an extraordinarily questionable decision to remove that as one of the factors that must be considered when making planning decisions. That fits alongside that questionable decision to propose liquified natural gas as a priority infrastructure. The Minister's new amendment in that regard also includes a wide range of other fossil-fuel measures including coal storage, liquified natural gas, the storage of natural gas and the storage of combustible gases, oil and coal. These are all now priority infrastructure. Not necessarily, it is important to say, State infrastructure as in these cases, these can be private sector infrastructure.

Amendment No. 68 strengthens the language in relation to adapting to and mitigating climate change. The amendment is particularly important, as I said, when the framework will be the only thing getting referenced because the actual obligation to consider the climate Act has been removed.

Amendment No. 69 seeks to include the marine environment, alongside landscape, ecology, biodiversity and archaeological, architectural and natural heritage as something that the planning framework must make provisions for the conservation of. It is strange that the marine environment is absent from the list of natural amenities within the Bill.

Amendment No. 71 seeks to include the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission among the list of organisations that the Minister should make arrangements to consult when reviewing the national planning framework. The national planning framework will have an extremely relevant impact on many of the issues that are at the core of IHREC's responsibilities. The economic, cultural, environmental, education and healthcare infrastructure have to be adequate and have to be addressed if we are to address issues of inequality, issues that damage social cohesion and socioeconomic ethnic regional disparities. Tackling racial socioeconomic inequality is a core function of IHREC. It has the expertise. This is the work it has done and it can bring that expertise and experience to the review of the national planning framework and help us to plan better for everyone in society and for a more equal and inclusive society, as well as, in some cases, for a healthier one. Amendment No. 72 seeks to include the Heritage Council among the organisations the Minister should consult. It is clear and should be obvious that the Heritage Council can offer perspectives that are relevant when it comes to planning for the future to ensure that we have appropriate understanding of the heritage context in which that planning for the future takes place. The inclusion of these two bodies as bodies that should be consulted with is, to my mind, obvious. I would hope that it would be accepted.

Lastly, amendment No. 74, the final one of mine in this grouping, seeks to amend section 23(3) to ensure that the national planning framework would be subject to environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment. The Bill states that we have to screen the national planning framework to see if it needs an EIA or an appropriate assessment. It covers the whole country, including all the special areas of conservation. Of course, it will need an appropriate assessment. Because it is national, it includes our entire environment and all of our Natura sites. It is redundant to say that it would be screened to see if it needs these. It clearly will need them.

All of these are amendments to try to strengthen and improve the national planning framework. This section could be stronger. I support the idea of a national planning framework but it is regrettable that whatever is in the national planning framework may be undermined by what comes in in the national planning statement, which does not have the same oversight, which does not have the same processes of consultation, and which effectively allows a Minister to create a pile of laws and regulations that get given the same weighting as the national planning framework and may at times be at odds with it. I would point out that it will be important that it be addressed. Whether it clashes with the national planning framework and what gets called national planning and policy but is effectively the ministerial planning statement, the national planning framework should be given priority because at least it has some level of check and balance in relation to it. There are important factors, in section 22(2), that the national planning framework must consider that are not applied in the same way to the national planning statement and I am worried that we may end up with a lovely national planning framework which effectively is bypassed and overridden by short-term thinking, not on the part of the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, but on the part of any Minister who may have the role at the time.