Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)

I will address what I see as some of the deficiencies in the all-Ireland nature of what should be included, and it is very much part of the national planning framework. From a previous role I am acutely aware of the enormous benefits that can be derived from real, deep and long-lasting all-Ireland co-operation and the effect that co-ordinated economic and social development can have in an area. That makes sense not just for people, communities and businesses on both sides of the Border, but to unlock the potential of the island as a whole. While there are some welcome specific references to cross-Border initiatives and issues, in the round the revised national planning framework is disappointing when it comes to all-Ireland development, particularly given the timeframe involved with it. It is a missed opportunity, and perhaps a whole array of missed opportunities, around planning, managing population growth, balanced regional development, development of all-Ireland transport and energy infrastructure, unlocking the economic potential of the north west and the Dublin-Newry-Belfast economic corridor. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's response as to what level of engagement took place between Ministers and officials from here with ministers and officials who represent the Northern Executive and Assembly across the range of departments. I suspect it was limited and I think, as a consequence, the document is deficient.

It is particularly disappointing that the issue of all-Ireland co-operation is only included in what appears to be summary form in chapter eight, Working with Our Neighbours, rather than integrated into every chapter in the plan. As my colleague referenced, this week the ESRI has launched its latest research report, which is the culmination of 15 previous research reports on a wide range of policy areas providing in-depth analysis on key areas such as health, education and the economy. One of its key findings was that cross-Border co-operation has the potential to improve skills development, employment opportunities, healthcare provision, efficiency of energy supply and help develop approaches to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Reports like that make an invaluable contribution and provide objective evidence to inform policy for systemic collaboration across the island. They have outlined the clear advantage of substantially upscaling North-South collaboration in existing strategic areas such as education, health and environmental policy, and in extending the remit of co-operation to include new strategic areas such as skills provision, foreign direct investment, labour market access and energy security. We have welcomed the Taoiseach's commitment to resourcing the next phase of research and to explore joining the FDI offering across the island as well as combining the capacity of the North with FDI in the South. The global economic turbulence we are now experiencing highlights that that must be a priority.I also welcome that the planning framework contains some of the spirit of the ESRI report, but it is lacking in detail. What ultimately matters in these documents, given the NPF's legal status, is the detail. The policy objectives 56 to 63 set out general statements on economic co-operation such as the Dublin-Belfast rail corridor, the north-west city region, co-operation on health, transport and infrastructure, the canals network and tourism. These are all steps in the right direction, but it is the lack of detail and firm commitments to a detailed plan that is most disappointing, as is the inability to have further consultation input that my party colleague referenced. All of that leaves us in a disappointing position that we do not have a real opportunity to have substantial input and engage with others with regard to the proposition of this document.

I turn to the Labour Party amendment. We will not support it, but we will not vote against it either. However, if we had been given the opportunity, we wanted to insert issues about the proposal on commercial liquified natural gas to ensure any proposition in this area is State led, is for emergency use only, does not increase gas demand, is temporary and functions in a manner consistent with the climate change Acts. While we understand the concerns outlined by previous speakers, we would have other ways to approach the same issue. We will abstain on that amendment. I welcome continued opportunities, and we will take whatever opportunities we can get to continue to make an input to this, but the consultation and opportunity for further input are limited and restricted. It is disappointing in a document with such far-reaching potential.