Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 seek to address the fact that the Bill currently allows for the Minister to release or amend a national planning statement in a way that does not have proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate, much like the planning Bill itself. A Government with a parliamentary majority may well have a democratic mandate to make changes to public policy but it is important that there is proper scrutiny and oversight of these changes. The fact that these national planning statements will effectively be given the same status as the national planning framework, but without any of the same constraints that are placed on the national planning framework in terms a proper public consultation, is a concern. That the Minister may amend them without proper parliamentary oversight is also a concern.

Amendment No. 78 proposes to delete subsection (5) and require the Minister, where he or she has an amendment or revocation, to engage with the Oireachtas on it.

Amendment No. 80 proposes to ensure that the Minister lays a copy of the national planning statement before each House of the Oireachtas and gives copies to relevant planning authorities, regional assemblies and other relevant bodies, including the Office of the Planning Regulator, the commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, within ten days of its publication. Surely the bodies that are largely responsible for our planning system should have timely access to this information.

Amendment No. 81 is important. It seeks to ensure that the national planning statement is consistent with what is set out in the Government's national plan on strategic planning, the national planning framework, particularly the factors in section 21(2). Again, it is important to put that on the record. I have been consistent in there being a case for a national planning framework. The national planning framework clearly sets out matters that need to be addressed, including those relating to the national climate objective, national biodiversity action plan, marine planning frameworks, the circular economy and co-ordination of a number of national and regional development strategies. Those matters should also be reflected in the national planning statement. We have a situation where we need to be really clear. The national planning framework has a process and proper constraints on it. The national planning statement, which is effectively ministerial edict, does not have the same constraints. Yet when it comes to making decisions, including crucial decisions on local development plans and engagement at that level, the Planning Regulator is being asked to give the same weighting to the national planning framework as to this national planning statement. These are huge issues in respect of proper accountability. It is a power grab, which is inappropriate.

Amendments Nos. 81 and 83 refer to the mechanism that is used for increasing the quantity and quality of Traveller accommodation by local authorities. This would be set out in the national planning statement. Despite the ring-fenced funding, many local authorities have failed to make plans to utilise these funds. This is despite the very significant needs and rights of Travellers who are resident in their areas. The political will is not there. This is an issue we have already indicated should be addressed by the national planning framework but it should also be addressed in the national planning statement.

Amendment No. 84 seeks to amend section 26(1)(m) by expanding the areas to which the Minister would have regard when setting out the national planning statement, from just "transportation strategies" to "development and transportation strategies". When it comes to the environmental issues and climate, these issues are being narrowed into discussions on settlement patterns and transportation strategies only, rather than all the issues relating to planning and development. These have a very significant impact on emissions, commercial development and industrial planning.

Amendment No. 85 seeks to include the integration of accessible and inclusive urban design as part of the considerations in the planning statement. Again, these amendments are the bare minimum. As I have said before, the disability organisations and disabled persons organisations, in particular, who have advocated on these issues for decades, have noted that disability is only mentioned four times in the Bill. It is an absolute bare minimum that there would be reference to the UNCRPD or to the principles of inclusion, accessibility and participation for all citizens. The current vague language does not go far enough and we should not have a situation where we are trying to fix things after the fact, as has been the case with disability for years.

Amendment No. 86 seeks to include the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective as part of the considerations. Again, the national climate objective is properly named within the national planning framework but it is not given the same space in the national planning statement, which can effectively override the national planning framework. Again, when there is a contradiction later on between the national planning statement and the national planning framework, we will ask which takes precedence. There is no guarantee of consistency within the Bill between those pieces. The fact that climate is not given the same weighting in the national planning statement is another sign, as well as the absolutely inexcusable and still unexplained decision to remove our climate legislation as something planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála, newly named An Coimisiún Pleanála, should have regard to when they are making planning decisions. This, along with the appalling provisions in respect of liquified natural gas, LNG, in this Bill, continually gives the absolute lie to any suggestion that this Bill is going to help us address our climate issues or indeed address our housing issues. It is actually going to make things more confused, more expensive, more contested and less democratic.

Amendment No. 87 seeks to ensure consistency between the national planning statement, the national planning framework and the national marine planning framework. As I have said, this is a really important amendment and I would appreciate clarity on this. The Minister should accept it because it would go a long way towards addressing the issues if we could be assured that there would be consistency between the national planning statement and the frameworks. At least the frameworks have some semblance of proper public consultation and process in relation to them. If the Minister is not accepting this amendment, I ask that he be very clear as to why he does not think the Minister's statement on planning must be consistent with the national planning framework and the national marine planning framework.

Amendment No. 88 seeks to include both Houses of the Oireachtas among bodies that the Minister may consult with when issuing the national planning statement. It is particularly concerning that this legislation is filled with many examples of overreach, the erosion of local democracy, public participation and accountability to the public's representatives and planning statements, which give the Minister a carte blanchein terms of shaping the direction and parameters of our planning system. Engagement with the Oireachtas would provide a sense of proper scrutiny, accountability and engagement. We must bear in mind that decisions will affect everybody's daily lives and shape every square foot of this island. We are being really clear here. We have talked again and again about the disrespect for democracy through the guillotine of this Bill. It is an appalling disrespect for not just the Seanad as a House but for the democratic process, and crucially, the public. This is also true within the Bill and the fact that there is such an erosion of the public's rights, the rights and responsibilities of local authorities and, indeed, erosion of democracy. Making decisions about how we live together in the spaces we share is a fundamental part of democracy and it is being made much more difficult for people. There are also the crucial issues which I will not address again but will come to subsequently. The Bill is not even compliant with the Aarhus Convention, an EU convention that is not like an abstract EU law, and is crucial. This important convention refers to the rights of people to participate in decision-making and to have access to justice on decision-making. Those are core issues that are being trampled by this Bill. Amendment No. 88 would at least ensure that we have Oireachtas oversight.