Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Regarding the periodic critical review, as the OPR was established in 2019, the PCR is now due to be undertaken. Informal meetings have been held between my Department and the OPR regarding the periodic critical review process. Officials in both the Department of Housing and OPR are currently engaging in an information-gathering exercise in advance of the formal PCR commencing. As part of the process, a working group will be established consisting of nominees from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Department of public expenditure and reform and also the Office of the Planning Regulator. A number of meetings will be held and engagement will also be had with other relevant stakeholders, in particular local authorities. It is important that that happens. Any recommendations arising from the process will be given full consideration by all parties.

I will deal with the amendments as tabled in this large grouping. Amendments Nos. 92, 99, 102, 103 and 105 have been tabled by Senators Boyhan and McDowell. Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 114 have been tabled by Senators Higgins, Ruane, Black and Flynn.

Amendments Nos. 92, 99, 102, 103, 105 and 108 all seek to delete the role of the OPR in relation to the regional spatial and economic strategy. As mentioned in response to other amendments seeking to delete references to the OPR, I cannot accept these amendments. The OPR carries out significant functions which assist with the effective operation of the planning system as a whole. I know there has been some discussion. I welcome Senator Boyhan's intervention and other feedback. Some Members have been critical of the operation of the OPR. It is a perception that some would have from time to time. As Minister, I take the opportunity to commend the OPR and the work its staff are doing. We need to realise why the OPR is there. It carries out an incredibly important function and its staff carry out their duties extremely well. I commend the work they are doing. They have been very important partners in this whole process. The OPR is a very important part of our planning system. I know Senator Boyhan and others have welcomed the amendments to the OPR's governance I have made under amendment No. 716, which will further strengthen the operation of the OPR.

Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and 114 relate to assessments by the Office of the Planning Regulator of a regional spatial and economic strategy, RSES, to ensure the regional tier of the planning system remains aligned with the national planning statement. This is to ensure consistency and coherence across the planning system.

Amendment No. 111 seeks to remove the requirement for an RSES to be consistent with a national planning statement. Obviously, I cannot accept that. In order to ensure a proper method of control exists to retain and readjust the alignment between national and regional planning tiers, it makes no sense to remove that requirement.

Amendment No. 112 makes reference to a “protective measure” in a regional spatial and economic strategy but without a corresponding definition of this term or further provision to elaborate or explain the meaning of such a measure. I do not think anyone would expect me to accept that. It was very loosely worded and ill-defined or not defined at all.

Amendment No. 114 would delete a reasonable and precautionary provision ensuring that in the context of a judicial review, where a direction relates to the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (8) of section 38, and only certain criteria are considered to have been met, once one or more of the other criteria listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) have been met, and the court finds that the Minister was entitled to form the opinion the subject of the direction, then the direction will not be quashed by the court. I believe this provision is sound and should be retained and for this reason I am unable to accept this amendment.

We have some Government amendments in this grouping that have not yet been moved. It might be helpful for the House if I discussed them now. They are mainly technical. Amendments Nos. 93 and 94 seek to amend section 31 of the Bill, which sets out the procedure for consultation for the preparation of a new or revised regional spatial and economic strategy. This amendment looks to add “the Minister” to the list of bodies to which the National Transport Authority must submit its report. That is just a language change there.

Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104, 109 and 113 are all minor language amendments.Amendment No. 95 seeks to replace the word “recommendation” in section 32(15) for consistency, where the word “observations” had previously been used in this section. Amendment No. 96 inserts the word “received” for clarity. This does not change the context of the provision. Amendment No. 97 inserts the phrase “by the Minister or the Office of the Planning Regulator” for clarity and does not alter the meaning of the provision. Amendment No. 98 seeks to correct a citation error without altering the meaning of the provision. Amendment No. 100 seeks to replace for consistency the word “recommendation” in section 33(10) with the word “observations”, which had previously been used in this section. Amendment No. 101 seeks to correct a citation error without altering the meaning of the provision.

Section 35 replaces section 25A of the Act of 2000 and requires that a regional assembly keep the implementation of the regional spatial and economic strategy under review. Amendment No. 104 clarifies precisely the timescale allowed for the preparation of a progress report provided for under this section. Amendment No. 109 is a wording amendment that seeks to add certainty to the timescale surrounding the issuance of a notice to a regional assembly and the Minister by the OPR under section 38(4). Amendment No. 113 is a technical amendment and seeks to correct the current wording by deleting the word “draft” from the reference to “Before issuing a draft direction”. Under this and all provisions, the Minister issues the final direction and not a draft direction, which would be delivered by the Office of the Planning Regulator.

Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 110 all relate to directions. Section 36 provides that the Minister shall consider the recommendation, statement of reasons and proposed terms for the draft direction and shall make a decision as to whether to accept the recommendation of the office. Where the Minister decides that a draft direction should be issued under section 39, he shall direct the office to do so. Section 36(9) sets out the arrangements where the Minister decides that a draft direction should not be issued. Amendment No. 106 seeks to insert into this provision “and his or her reasons for deciding that a draft direction should not be issued” in order to provide the OPR with the rationale behind the Minister’s decision not to issue a draft direction. Amendments Nos. 107 and 110 insert similar provisions in sections 37 and 38.

These are a number of minor amendments in this grouping to clarify language. I have also provided for consultation with the Minister on the regional spatial and economic strategies, which is appropriate. I am not in a position to accept the Senator's proposed amendments for the reasons I have outlined.