Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies that I had to leave the Chamber early yesterday. We thought there was going to be a declaration in the European count in the RDS earlier than it happened.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was there something going on?

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For personal reasons I had to be there. Very briefly, because there was a significant discussion of this yesterday, I just want to make a general comment. We had a significant discussion around biodiversity on Committee Stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan gave commitments to come back with amendments. He has done that. I give a cautious welcome to the amendments. They are okay but they could have been stronger. Our own amendments to amendments Nos. 220, 232 and 234 in this group are really about trying to strengthen those biodiversity elements. The arguments for that were rehearsed very well on Committee Stage so I am not going to labour the point but I will be pressing those amendments to Government amendments Nos. 220, 232 and 234.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just to say to Deputy Ó Broin, I fully understand why he had to leave yesterday. On a personal basis I will pass on my best regards. It is not on a political basis but I know it is a big day for yourself and your partner. I offer my personal congratulations to you. We carried on with the debate in a very constructive way in your absence, actually, so that might be telling in itself.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister started off very well.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Callaghan, Deputy Matthews and I discussed at length the amendments we made in respect of biodiversity and the amendment we brought forward in respect of that. I will first address amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 140, proposed by Deputy Ó Broin. This amendment seeks to include a reference to supporting compliance with the wildlife obligations of public authorities under section 59B of that Act and introduce a new public sector duty on biodiversity. For the reason that we went through yesterday, I do not see a need to replicate it within the provisions of the Bill and cannot accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 140 strengthens section 21(2)(f) which provides that the national planning framework, or NPF, will contain a statement setting out Government objectives in relation to "the national climate objective and National Biodiversity Action Plan". As I have already mentioned when dealing with earlier amendments, there was substantial debate on Committee Stage on matters relating to biodiversity and I committed to looking at the references to it in the Bill and bringing forward amendments on Report Stage. This amendment strengthens references to biodiversity at a national planning framework level and there are further amendments to do so in relation to national planning statement levels, namely, amendment No. 220, emphasising the requirement for integration of the relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to the national biodiversity action plan. By making these amendments at NPF level, these matters are then given the appropriate importance to be reflected consistently through the tiers of planning that flow from it. The Bill provides a plan-led system and structure whereby all tiers of planning, from regional to local, align with the strategic objectives set out in the NPF. Put simply, lower order plans will be required to align with higher order plans, with development plans aligned to regional strategies and in turn to the national planning framework and national planning statements, and with the area-based plans aligned to development plans.

Amendment No. 148 amends section 21(3)(a), which sets out what the NPF must make provision for, and deleting the duplicate reference to “development requirements”. Amendment No. 184 amends section 23 in relation to the procedure for review of the NPF to clarify that it is the new or revised NPF that is subject to the environmental screening requirements.

I turn to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 186, proposed by Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and Cian O’Callaghan. This amendment seeks to provide that the observations arising from NPF consultations must be published.

While I understand the intent of this amendment, I do not think it is necessary. I consider it sufficient to publish a summary of the observations rather than the observations themselves.

Amendment No. 186 expands this section 23 to provide that the publication of the NPF must be on a website and include a summary of observations made on foot of consultations carried out. I committed on Committee Stage, as Members may recall, that I would bring forward this amendment.

Amendment No. 192 amends section 24, which sets out the plans and documents the Government must have regard to when reviewing the NPF and corrects, very simply, a typographical error to reference "plans" instead of "plan".

We already dealt at length with amendment No. 125 yesterday, with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. This related to the change of the name of the national planning framework. I intend to use English language titles for national planning matters and corresponding material, such as the NPF, in the English language version of the Bill. The Irish language titles will in the Irish language version of the Bill. For this reason, unfortunately, I cannot accept this amendment, but I think we had a good debate and discussion yesterday of the importance of our teanga and, in relation to later amendments, in regard to special area priority plans for our Gaeltachtaí tríd an tír.

Amendments Nos. 126 and 185 seek to provide that the preparation and publication of the NPF shall be subject to the approval of the Oireachtas and set out a procedure for this approval. It is appropriate that the NPF is approved by the Government. As Deputies are aware, the NPF is a highly participative, transparent and deliberative process beyond the level of consultation, assessment and scrutiny typically involved in Government policy formulation and implementation. Ultimately, unfortunately, the Government of the day must negotiate and agree an approach, including associated targets, that will play a huge role guiding the delivery of infrastructure delivery across almost every Department, and that is why the Bill provides for Government approval. However, the Bill, in section 23(2), provides for extensive consultation with stakeholders on the development of the NPF, including the Oireachtas and local government as well as the public. As such, I do not think it is necessary for the NPF, as Government policy, to be approved by the Oireachtas. We debated this at length on Committee Stage as well. I cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.

Amendment Nos. 128 and 135 concern section 21(2) and the objectives in the NPF. Amendment No.128 seeks to include that the NPF include policies and proposals for furthering the objective of securing sustainable development, and amendment No. 135 aims to include an objective for supporting the achievement of a just transition. It should be noted that section 21(2) already provides an overarching objective that the NPF should set out the Government’s national plan in relation to the strategic planning and sustainable development of the State. I consider that the concept of supporting a just transition is already captured within the existing objectives as set out, especially when amendment No. 140 is taken into consideration. Unfortunately, due to this, I cannot accept these amendments.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few amendments in this grouping, including amendments Nos. 146, 156 and 166. In developing the national planning framework, I am seeking to include a more forceful imperative to include in that the need to provide for social, affordable and cost-rental housing objectives as set out in the housing strategy.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but which amendment is the Deputy speaking about?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is amendment No. 146. This amendment relates to the need to include specific objectives for providing social, affordable and cost-rental housing as set out in the housing strategy. Amendment No. 156 proposes that it should also include a requirement to make specific provision for sports and community facilities. Amendment No. 166 proposes to insert a new subsection to the effect that when considering building residential property, the development of at least 20% social housing and at least 30% social, affordable and cost-rental housing should be promoted. These proposals cover a few different areas.

The point of these proposals, especially amendment No. 166, is that the Government will often talk about housing construction and supply increasing, but the problem is that a huge amount of it is not affordable. When housing is delivered by the private sector, it is not affordable, and because it is unaffordable, it is being bought up by investment funds or big corporations. They buy it all. It is not available to ordinary people because it is simply too expensive for them. Cherrywood in my area is the prime example of this situation. It is the biggest residential development in the country and we are talking about rents there of, at a minimum, €2,500 or €3,000 or €3,500 a month. People are actually reporting that when this housing is advertised by some of the companies who are renting these properties out and people express an interest in renting one of them, the companies never come back to them because it is all pre-rented. I suspect it is IT companies who are renting these properties for their employees. In other words, these companies have taken the whole block for their employees. Do not get me wrong; they need somewhere to live as well. The point is that the ordinary person looking to rent a property has no chance at all of doing so. In any event, the rents are out of most people's reach. House prices, for those trying to buy something up in Cherrywood, are €600,000 to €750,000. By the way, this is happening on a site that had gone into NAMA and was then sold off to all these investment funds and so on, for a song I would say. Mel Reynolds said to me at one time that he reckoned that Hines had probably made a profit before it had completed one unit in Cherrywood because it was flipping the properties on, which is a scandal.

What we are saying is that if development is going to be undertaken, at least 50% of it should be for social and affordable housing and this should be a requirement of any development. I would go higher, to be honest, because I do not really see the point in building units that no one, except for investment funds and big multinational corporations, can afford or charging rents nobody can afford. It is a matter of fury for people in my area to see this massive development happening in a place where there is the most acute housing crisis. People there have been on the housing list for ten and 15 years. There are people who cannot even get on the housing list because their income level takes them over the limit, but there is no cost-rental housing actually available. These people are then left looking at all this massive development, where huge amounts of public money have gone into the infrastructure, including into the Luas, but they have no chance of being able to live there. There was supposed to have been a bit of affordable housing in Cherrywood, but we still do not know how much we are going to get, how much it is going to cost and whatever. There will, of course, be the 10% of social housing, but it is a negligible amount when compared with the need in the area. We are saying there should be at least 50% of the homes for social and affordable housing, with at least 20% for social housing and then the remaining 30% for a mixture of social and affordable housing. It should be a very specific objective in the national planning framework to provide for the social, affordable and cost-rental housing objectives.

On community facilities, I will again use Cherrywood as an example. The official from the council who is the liaison for Cherrywood brought us on a tour around the development recently. She informed us that all this residential development was starting to happen now but then informed us that the developer is now saying it cannot do the town centre and will not do it. This was in the SDZ. The whole basis of Cherrywood was that there was supposed to be a town centre. It was be a ten-minute town so there would be no need to get in a car because you would have the Luas, you could walk to everything, and all the facilities were there, but now, apparently, they are not building the town centre. It is unbelievable, and they can get away with that. There must be an absolute requirement to deliver those community facilities.

One very important one in this regard, and it is a huge problem in our area - I am sure others can speak to their own areas - particularly with women participating in sport, which is fantastic, and there is a huge increase in sports participation, be it soccer, Gaelic, tennis, you name it, is that there are no facilities.

That is particularly the case with women participating in sport, which is fantastic. There is a huge increase in sports participation - in soccer, Gaelic, tennis, you name it, but there are not facilities. There are not clubhouses, changing rooms, pitches, all-weather pitches and so on. There is a massive deficit of these facilities. We need to hardwire into the entire planning system, starting with the national planning framework, that we need those community facilities. We need sports facilities and pitches. We need at least 50% of all the housing to be either social or affordable. Obviously the State has to build its own social and affordable housing but I believe, given the Minister is relying so much on the private sector, that we have to put an obligation on those developments to be at least 50% social or affordable.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two minutes rather than seven minutes because I spoke earlier on these amendments, but I will take only two minutes anyway.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did Deputy Matthews speak on this amendment before?

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I spoke to this grouping of amendments, because I spoke to my amendment No. 137, and now I am coming back in for my two-minute contribution.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will not do the Deputy out of time. He is not recorded as speaking on this group of amendments.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will take only two minutes anyway.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome amendment No. 140, which seeks to substitute "the integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective and National Biodiversity Action Plan" into the national planning framework. That enshrines it at the very highest level in our planning and plan-led system. That is a real strengthening of the wording in this Bill to protect climate and the environment. I welcome the additional strengthening of the Bill. The national climate objective is defined in the definition section as set out in the Climate Act, so it is a very positive move. I welcome that the Minister has done that. Again, it was a commitment that was given on Committee Stage and I thank him for including it.

Paragraph (b) of amendment No. 186 refers to "a summary of any observations made on foot of the consultations under" the national planning framework. That is a welcome addition also. It is something I raised on Committee Stage. I asked about it on the basis of a county development plan where there is a summary of the submissions made so that people can see what submissions were made and their general thrust. This is a positive move and I welcome the amendment.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yesterday, when I was speaking on this group of amendments I raised a number of points, especially in relation to amendment No. 142 and the need to put as a key objective of the national planning framework the provision of a sufficient amount of affordable housing to be available to buy and rent. The points I raised yesterday were not addressed by the Minister in his response. Will he now respond to the points I am making?

I hope the Minister accepts amendment No. 142. I cannot understand why he would not want the delivery of housing that is affordable to be a key objective of our planning system. Surely that should be a key objective at any time, but now more than ever given the situation we are in and the lack of affordability? The Minister may well say that is covered elsewhere by other policies such as Part 5 and so forth, but that measure is not enough. It is not working sufficiently. The national planning framework lists the key objectives. I have no issue with the ones on the list: they are good, but having affordability at the heart of what we are trying to do in planning should be an absolute on which we should be able to agree. If we do not write it into the objectives then we will not get it flowing out of our national planning framework as much as that needs to be the case. Having those high-level objectives and getting them right is very important if the delivery of affordable housing is going to be achieved through our planning system. That is not something that is happening now. Housing is getting more and more expensive. New builds are getting more expensive. Rent is more expensive, especially in new builds. Affordability is not being delivered on the scale we need. We need it to be a key objective of our planning system, along with the other very worthwhile objectives that are there. I mentioned the other measures that I am seeking to include through amendments Nos. 138 and 141 in terms of an teanga and amendment No. 143 in terms of biodiversity and climate action.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nílim chun dul trí leasú Uimh. 125 arís. Dhein mé é sin cheana. Tá díomá orm nach bhfuil an tAire ag glacadh leis an teideal Gaeilge sa chás seo. Díreoidh mé isteach ar leasuithe Uimh. 145, 149, 154, 158 agus 165. All of these amendments are to strengthen the legislation in regard to the Irish language and ensure that at every single level the Gaeltacht and Irish language is a specific part of the planning system.

I note that the Minister has tabled a later amendment to ensure there are plans for the islands and the Irish language, but it is not at every single level. It is not specifically for a national plan, an urban plan, or a regional plan. While we have protections or at least encouragement in terms of protecting and promoting the environment and other issues that are listed such as the protection of our architectural heritage it is wrong for us not to ensure that the use of the Irish language within the Gaeltacht planning areas is also protected and promoted. We must ensure that our national objective of restoring Irish as a spoken language is protected. Without issues being listed in the way I have outlined in the amendments, we will do a disservice to the Irish language, the Irish language community, and the need for community hubs and the like. I hope the Minister will reflect on the amendments again.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a strong supporter of statutory plans and national planning frameworks. One of the important things about them is that they effectively have the impact of law. We had detailed debates about the statutory nature of the national planning frameworks. It is remarkable that in this legislation the national planning framework is to be approved by the Government and not by the Houses of the Oireachtas, in particular given its statutory weight. We know why that is: the legislation underpinning the existing national planning framework was introduced by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Deputy Alan Kelly was the Minister and it required Oireachtas approval. The Minister will remember the confidence and supply arrangement when a deal was struck to avoid a vote and to allow the introduction of the national planning framework to be approved by the Government. Amendments Nos. 126 and 185 in this grouping on revisions reassert the fundamental role of the Oireachtas. If something has the force of law, if it has a statutory impact and if, for example, as the national policy objectives throughout the NPF are then subject to legal challenge and litigation, it is not adequate or sufficient for it to be approved by the Government. I will be pressing those amendments.

In addition to supporting colleagues on the Opposition, I have a range of amendments here that seek to add other areas to be included in future NPF revisions or future national planning frameworks. I want to mention amendment No. 147, which arises directly out of the Housing Commission's report and its acknowledgement and tabulation of the housing deficit. It requires the NPF – this is particularly with respect to the forthcoming NPF revision – to look at emergency actions with respect to tackling the housing deficit. This is a significant opportunity to do that. If it is not baked into the NPF review - certainly if this Minister and his Government are in charge it will not be adequately addressed because he has known about that deficit since he took office and he did not include it in his existing plan. Therefore, I will also be pressing amendment No. 147.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Broin is acting as the proposer of the amendment so he will be coming in again. I call Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Minister not respond first?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I made an exception for Deputy Boyd Barrett because he was late and I let him start. The Minister should really get a chance to answer the questions and then Deputy Ó Broin will get the last word. Each Deputy will have seven minutes and the best practice is that they are in before the Minister and then he will have seven minutes. All Deputies will get two minutes, as will the Minister and the proposer who will get an extra two minutes.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the Minister had his seven minutes?

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not going into that. I made an exception for the Deputy. I ask him to proceed now if he wants his additional two minutes.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To summarise my point, the imperative to deliver social and affordable housing has to work all the way through the planning system. The Government has failed to deliver social and affordable housing. It is as simple as that. We have a dire crisis. It is not getting any better. In fact, rents and house prices are becoming more unaffordable by the day. Even when the Government trumpets its success with claims that commencements, construction and completions are increasing, and the famous mantra of supply, supply, supply, what is delivered is not affordable. In my area, the prices being asked are absolutely outrageous.

Unless the housing that is built is affordable, it will lead to the social cleansing of whole parts of Dublin. If it is not affordable, only big investors, very rich people and corporations will be able to buy or rent the homes. It is enraging to look at places like Cherrywood and see massive development happening while the people living beside it are blighted by the housing crisis, with two or three generations living in the same home because they cannot afford any housing, and are thinking of leaving the country. The housing is being built but people cannot afford to live there, right beside their family and community networks. It is enraging.

We can do something about this situation simply by saying that at least 50% of any housing built must be social and affordable and sports and community facilities must be delivered alongside it. Developers must not be allowed to wriggle out of their obligation to deliver those requirements, particularly when they benefit from huge amounts of public money to fund the infrastructure that makes their investment very profitable. That is happening in Cherrywood, which is the biggest residential development in the country. If we cannot get it right there, we will not get it right at all.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom cheist a fhreagairt ón Teachta O'Callaghan. I am not accepting these amendments. The national planning framework deals with the national planning system. When we get to Part 7, we will deal with the affordable housing provision. We could have a general discussion on housing but I want to focus on a couple of points. Housing output is very important and it is increasing substantially. I point out to Deputy Boyd Barrett that more than 4,000 affordable houses were delivered last year and over 6,000 will be delivered this year. We delivered more social homes last year than have been delivered since 1975. We will deliver more this year. I encourage the Deputies present, who all have an interest in housing, to read the Euroconstruct report published yesterday. It shows that Irish housing output is at nearly double the EU average. While the situation is not perfect and there are lots of challenges to deal with, it certainly is going in the right direction. Compared with other EU states, we are well ahead.

I have been very clear that the provision of affordable housing is an absolute objective of the State. In the case of two Acts we brought forward, the Affordable Housing Act and the Land Development Agency Act, two of the Deputies who have spoken today opposed both of them. Those Acts brought forward cost-rental provision and put affordable housing and owner-occupier status in law for the first time as housing tenures. We brought forward the owner-occupier guarantee. We have changed the law going forward. We could not act retrospectively in regard to bulk purchases of homes but we have delivered very successfully in ensuring more than 60,000 planning permissions are banned from bulk sales. Those homes are earmarked for individual sale purposes.

I am not in a position to accept the Opposition amendments. I accept the bona fides of Deputy O'Callaghan in his desire to see the delivery of more affordable housing. I share that desire. We are delivering on it right now. This section, with its provisions on the NPF, is not the place to do it.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, the Minister did not have time to address the key issues in the two amendments I focused on in my remarks. One has to ask oneself why the Government is afraid of putting the NPF to a vote in the Houses of the Oireachtas. City and county development plans and local area plans are voted on by elected local government members. The NPF is the overarching plan that sits on top of that hierarchy. It should have the democratic imprimatur of this House, first, because it is the right thing to do and, second, because it would give it a legitimacy and a buy-in from the political parties, Deputies and Senators who vote for it. That was always the intention going back to the original legislation. Not having the Oireachtas voting on the NPF is not only wrong from a democratic accountability point of view; it also makes the NPF legally weaker. As a consequence of that, where there are conflicts between development plans and the NPF and its national policy objectives, which we will discuss under some of the later groupings, there will be some difficulty.

My focus today is on the Bill itself and I do not necessarily want to go beyond it. However, I must point out that it is not factually accurate for the Minister to say 4,000 affordable homes were delivered last year. That is incorrect. Approximately 1,500 affordable homes were delivered by local authorities, approved housing bodies, AHBs, and the Land Development Agency, LDA, many of which, of course, are not actually affordable. Almost half the remainder were approvals for people to draw down shared equity loans they had not drawn down. They are not affordable homes. Even in the case of people who did draw down their shared equity first home loans, those homes were not affordable. It behoves all of us to try to be accurate. We had this exchange previously. When the Government hits 4,000 genuinely affordable homes, I will welcome and acknowledge that. It came nowhere close to it last year, and the Minister knows it.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 126:

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 127:

In page 65, line 13, to delete “broad”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 128:

In page 65, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “(a) securing sustainable development across the State;”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 129:

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 130:

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 131:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 132:

“

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 133:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 134:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 135:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 136:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 138:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 139:

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 140:

In page 65, lines 25 and 26, to delete “outlining how the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective is to be integrated” and substitute “the integration of the pursuit and achievement of the national climate objective and National Biodiversity Action Plan”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 140:

After “Plan” to insert “, and to support compliance with the obligations of all public authorities under section 59B of the Wildlife Act 2023, in respect of the Biodiversity Action Plan”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 141:

In page 65, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(g) (i) supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta and in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012, and

(ii) supporting the implementation of language plans in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside of the Gaeltacht and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 142:

In page 65, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(g) provision of a sufficient amount of affordable housing available to buy and rent.”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 143:

In page 65, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: "(g) supporting Ireland’s climate targets as per the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021;

(h) supporting the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 145:

In page 65, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“(g) protecting and promoting the use of Irish within Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas;

(h) outlining how the pursuit and achievement of the national objective of restoring Irish to use as a spoken language nationwide and as the community language of the Gaeltacht is to be integrated into plan-led development in the State.”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 146:

In page 65, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“(g) providing for social, affordable and cost rental housing objectives as set out in the housing strategy.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I moved amendment No. 147:

In page 65, line 29, after "employment," to insert "unmet existing housing demand,".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 148:

In page 65, lines 30 and 31, to delete “development requirements”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 149 cannot be moved.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 150:

In page 65, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(b) identification of nationally strategic development requirements in respect of reversing negative trends in biodiversity, conserving and restoring rare or protected habitats and species, and habitats for species;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 151:

In page 65, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(b) identification of nationally strategic development requirements to facilitate ambitious decrease of greenhouse gas emissions, and meeting the national climate objective an increasingly ambitious approach to staying below sectoral emission ceilings both arising the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, and consistent with the requirements of section 3(3) of that Act and the progressive ambition required under Article 3 of the Paris Agreement;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 152:

In page 65, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(b) identification of nationally strategic development requirements to facilitate improvement in the health and wellbeing of the State’s population;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 153:

In page 65, line 33 to delete “paragraph (a)” and substitute “paragraphs (a), (b) (b) and (b)".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 154:

In page 66, line 1, after “cultural” to insert “, Irish language community”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 155:

In page 66, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“(vi) the protection and restoration of nature;”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 156:

In page 66, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“(vi) sports and community facilities;”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 157:

In page 66, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“(ii) to reduce the impact of such strategies on the natural environment, and in particular the further fragmentation of habitats, the destruction or compromise of rare or endangered habitats or species, and natural corridors and stepping stones for nature, and the compromise of opportunities to provide for areas for nature restoration,”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 158:

In page 66, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

“(iv) preserve the Gaeltacht settlement patterns in which the Irish language has survived as a community language in the case of Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 159:

In page 66, line 8, after “conservation” to insert “and restoration”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 160:

In page 66, line 12, before “archaeological” to insert “cultural and linguistic,”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 161:

In page 66, line 12, after “archaeological,” to insert “historic,”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 162:

In page 66, line 12, after “architectural” to insert “, cultural, linguistic

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 164:

In page 66, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(g) (i) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta and in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012, and

(ii) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside of the Gaeltacht and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 165:

In page 66, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(g) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta, in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta, and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 166:

In page 66, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(g) when considering building residential property, promote development of at least 20 per cent social housing and at least 30 per cent of social, affordable and cost rental housing.”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 167 to 175, inclusive, amendment 1 to 175, amendment No. 176, amendment 1 to 176, amendments Nos. 177 and 178, amendment 1 to 178, amendments Nos. 179 to 183, inclusive, amendments Nos. 187 to 191, inclusive, and amendments Nos. 193 and 194 are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 188 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 187. Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 189.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 167:

In page 66, line 20, to delete “20 years.” and substitute “20 years from the coming into effect of the framework, which period shall be specified in the National Planning Framework.”

All the amendments in this group relate to improving clarity of language regarding the timeframes involved in reviewing and making the national planning framework. I will go through each of them.

Amendment No. 167 clarifies that the 20-year maximum period in relation to the national planning framework refers to the period from the coming into effect of the framework.

Amendments Nos.168 and 187 delete the reference to 28 May 2024 from the Bill as that time period has elapsed.

Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 revise section 22(3) of the Bill so that it states that each review shall be completed before the expiry of two years from the publication of updated CSO census figures. This accommodates the time period that occurs before the full data set is in hand and is fully utilised to inform policy.

Amendment No. 172 clarifies that the time period begins on publication of the final census results by the CSO.

Amendments Nos. 171 and 173 signpost the subsections referred to more clearly.

Amendment No. 174 replaces “they” with “it” when referring to the “Government” as this is the legally correct way to refer to the Government.

Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and Cian O’Callaghan have proposed amendments to my amendments that I will discuss. They have proposed amendments to amendments Nos. 175, 176 and 178 to the effect that the new or revised national planning framework shall be submitted in draft for approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. As Members will know, this matter was debated extensively on Committee Stage. As I referenced in relation to previous similar amendments, it is correct that a whole-of-Government approach is taken to the development of the national planning framework, for example, which is of key importance to the delivery of objectives across education, the environment and housing, among others.

The Bill, as provided in section 23, provides for extensive consultation on the development of the national planning framework with all stakeholders, including the Oireachtas, key delivery stakeholders such as local government and the Environmental Protection Agency, and the wider general public. The Bill also provides that having such plans be subject to strategic environmental assessment directive, strategic environmental assessment regulations and the habitats directive. It is only after all of that takes place that the whole of Government reconvenes to approve the national planning framework. This is a highly participative, transparent and deliberative process. It is beyond the level of consultation, assessment or scrutiny typically involved in Government policy formulation and implementation.

Ultimately, the Government of the day must negotiate and agree an approach, including its associated targets, which will play a huge role in guiding the delivery of infrastructure right across every Department. That is why the Bill provides for Government approval. The amendments propose to add a further level of Oireachtas approval but are unclear as to how this can be reconciled with the extensive assessments and consultations already provided for within the Bill or with the wider programme of the elected Government. As a result, I cannot accept these amendments to the amendments.

Amendments Nos. 174 to 177, inclusive, and amendment No. 191 rectify syntax in those sentences to improve clarity, such as substituting ‘it’ for ‘they’, and stating that the revision referred to is the revision of the national planning framework.

Amendment No. 178 clarifies section 22(7) to make it clear that the review is complete when the revised or new national planning framework is published in accordance with section 23(5).

Amendment No.179 inserts a new subsection 23(8) clarifying that a revised national planing framework shall remain in effect for the remainder of time that was specified for the original national planning framework which was subject to the review.

The remaining amendments in the group are opposition amendments.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister knows, Article 15 of the Constitution is very explicit on who has the authority to make laws for the State.

It states, "The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State." Earlier, the Minister referred to the national planning framework being a policy. Of course, that is not the case. It has statutory impact. We will have a similar discussion when we move on to subsequent sections. Because it has a statutory impact and has the effect of law in planning matters, it simply is not acceptable that only Government would approve it. Like any law, a government would have to approve it but it should then be put to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am absolutely of the view that this is a political decision because of some of the very controversial issues that are in the current national planning framework and that will more than likely be in future frameworks or the revised national planning framework. The Government prefers not to cause its backbenchers blushes in making them vote for something they regularly argue against. Rural planning and rural housing are one example but there are many others.

The Minister is right that we had very detailed discussions about this on Committee Stage but, in all of our detailed discussions, not once did I hear an explanation as to why he would not allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to approve the national planning framework. It is interesting that Oireachtas approval was included in the original legislation for the existing framework. One assumes that was with the advice of the then Attorney General. I do not want to reopen the debate. I would just invite the Minister to explain, if he can, why this will not be brought before the Oireachtas because that question has never been answered.

Other amendments of mine in this grouping, Nos. 180, 181 and 183, deal with bodies or others to be consulted in the national planning framework review. The Minister has included the Oireachtas, which is good, but I would like it to go further and specify relevant Oireachtas committees. The representative bodies of our city and county councillors asked for a very specific amendment to the Bill naming those bodies as required consultees. Given the highly important interaction between the national planning framework and the city and county development plans, that seems eminently sensible. The Minister is likely to say that such consultation is possible without being explicitly referenced, but I would like it to be mandatory. Amendment No. 183 sets out a range of other criteria as regards bodies to be consulted.

I will address amendments Nos. 168 and 187 in the Minister's name. With amendment No. 168, the date has expired and that is obviously why it is being removed. Was any consideration given to having a new date or does the Minister just think it is not necessary? I do not have a particular issue with the amendment but I am interested in having that clarified. On amendment No. 187, will the Minister clarify the intent and effect of the amendment by providing a little bit more information?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Díreoidh mé ar leasuithe Uimh. 182 agus 194 ach go háirithe. Under this section, headed "Procedure for review of National Planning Framework", the Minister is required to make provision for public consultation. We accept that. A list of those who would be consulted is included in the section. It includes Members of the Oireachtas and regional assemblies. We suggest that the wording "board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht and Language Planning Officers,” also be included. This is a discussion we had when dealing with similar amendments in other spaces. The Minister said that he would look again to see who would be consulted. Given the statutory nature of Údarás na Gaeltachta, the fact that it is now moving towards being an AHB or a facilitator of AHBs in the area of housing provision under the Minister's pilot programme and the fact that it is the organisation that attracts, locates and promotes industries in Gaeltacht areas and as such plays such an important role, it should have a role in any review of the national planning framework.

Amendment No. 194 seeks to ensure that when the Government is having regard to other plans and documents in reviewing the national planning framework, it is not just maritime planning, land-use planning, strategic planning, spatial planning, economic planning and territorial planning that are involved and that another aspect is also recognised. I refer to language planning, which is now key and central not only to the protection of Gaeltacht areas and the Gaeltacht as a whole, but also to the expanded area of líonraí Gaeilge agus bailte seirbhíse Gaeltachta. Tá an dá leasú seo an-tábhachtach chun aitheantas a thabhairt. Níl siad ag cur aon bhac ná ualach breise ar an Stát toisc go mbeidh an comhairliúchán seo maidir leis an gcreat náisiúnta pleanála ag tarlú anyway. Ciallaíonn an leasú go mbeadh ról lárnach ag an bpleanáil teanga ó thús báire agus go dtabharfaí aitheantas cuí dó seachas, mar is gnáth go dtí seo, go smaoineofaí air i ndiaidh an bheartais. Ní rud mór millteach atá ann.

I leasú eile, Uimh. 183, atá thíos inár n-ainmneacha agus in ainm an Teachta Cian O'Callaghan, déanann muid cinnte nach ndéantar comhairliúchán leis na gnátheagrais a bhí gafa le pleanáil náisiúnta nó a raibh a dtuairimí lorgtha roimhe seo amháin. We ensure that the prescribed bodies include other "bodies with a remit to protect the natural environment, the built environment, archaeological and historic heritage, cultural heritage". They are key and should have a role in providing input into the national planning framework at an early stage. Similar to what I have said in respect of the Irish language, it is again vital that the opinions of those bodies are not seen as an afterthought, which leads to those very important views being ignored or to those bodies having to scramble to try to be included or considered. Often, they are just an afterthought and not central to the initial planning.

Our architecture, our environment and our cultural heritage are central not only to ourselves, but to the Irish nation throughout the world who come back to our shores to enjoy our tourism offering and our heritage. It is important that we recognise that and plan to enhance it, protect it and, as a society, benefit from what is there at the moment, which could be undermined if the planning framework was at odds with those protections.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment relating to the national planning framework. Any issues with it or reviews of it should be debated in this House. The Government obviously has to look at it and bring forward proposals but they should be open to scrutiny in this House. That is what we are here for.

Amendment No. 181 adds to the list of bodies to be consulted the national representative organisations of elected county councillors. Some have been freshly elected today. Some are still waiting. The vast majority are not. Those bodies should surely be allowed to have input or share insights because they represent the nearly 1,000 elected local representatives. Are we going to kill off democracy altogether? We wonder why we have such low turnouts. While not every councillor or county should be consulted, surely these two bodies should have some input into or oversight over these issues, representing their constituent members who are dealing with issues on the ground, often involving planning, on a daily or nearly hourly basis.

It is important that those two amendments are supported.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 168 provides for the deletion of the date for the review to be completed, namely 28 May 2024. It makes sense to delete that date because it has passed. I note from the most recent Government statement on the matter that the draft national planning framework will be out for consultation this month and that amendments will be made in August, with a view to publishing in September. I am seeking clarification about whether those dates are still in order. It is sensible that the ESRI has been engaged to carry out further research and recommendations that will feed into that national planning framework. It is probably the most critical planning document in the context of the plan-led system we have. The Government's statement also indicated that the draft will come before the Oireachtas committee for scrutiny and discussion, which is welcome. This is something the committee sought, and I welcome it. Any member of the public will be able to make a submission, whether they are part of any organisation or not. I have no doubt that all those submissions will be reviewed and, obviously, that we will get a summary report on them.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to some of the amendments in this grouping. Like Deputy Mattie McGrath, I am concerned. When changes are made to the national planning framework, they must be discussed in this House. Recognition has to be given to the elected councillors in our local authorities. We have had the scenario where councillors made certain unanimous decisions which were refused by the Planning Regulator and management came back asking them to change their decisions. In other words, this diluted what the people wanted and what the elected members of Kerry County Council.

I am speaking also to amendment No. 193 which requires that we should at least have "current information on current and projected population and demographics, including on net-migration and inward migration, coastal and flood related retreats". What I am getting at is there is a designation insisted upon by the planning regulator known as strict urban generated pressure. Anyone in here might think it is to stop people from urban areas going out to rural ones, but I am talking about towns like Kenmare, Killorglin and Killarney. It is preventing permission for fellas who were brought up in the rural areas. Just because the designation was shoved outside them, it has implications for a fella whose father really wanted him to build on the half-acre of ground beside him. I think the Minister is not listening.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am listening. The half an acre.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The young fella was raised all his life on the same acre. The father has a half-acre now and so has the son. This designation is preventing him getting planning permission. I left out a very important part. This young fella wanted to build a house next door to his father because his father has got bad medical information concerning his future and he wanted the son and his wife to be beside him. That has been refused.

Likewise, there is a lady seven miles east of Killarney. This area is designated as under strict urban-generated pressure despite being seven miles away from the town. This young woman cannot get permission. She could get a site practically next door. It is an affordable site. The fella I mentioned was getting the site for nothing. There is another instance in Kenmare. I have several instances where this is militating against people from a basically rural area getting planning permission because they are deemed to be in an area that is under strict urban-generated pressure. This is having the effect that these people cannot build next door to where they were born and reared. They are not coming not coming out from the town or any urban setting.

It is also having an effect in that many young people aged between 28 and 32 years are sizing up where they are going to live. They cannot afford to buy a house in Killarney town as €600,000 is the going rate. The price of a site is €300,000, if people want to go down that route. It is hard to get them in any case because any ground in the town of Killarney will be got together. They will not sell sites separately, so it is developers who end up purchasing them and selling the houses back for €600,000. That is the price of them at present. The effect this is having is that many young fellas and girls aged between 28 and 32 are leaving our shores for places like Australia, Dubai and Canada. They see they can never come up to the mark whereby they could get a mortgage or build a house. They cannot come up with that amount of money. People are deciding their future at that stage. They have a bit of money, but the problem is they do not have enough. This means many of our local people are leaving rural places because their area is designated as being under urban-generated pressure. I beg the Minister to look at that fact. The Planning Regulator went at this to stop people coming out from towns, but what it is actually doing in Muckross, Headford, Kilcummin and all those areas around Killarney is stopping those young people from getting permission. They are leaving our shores now because they are deciding they can never afford a house. These are people who are asking for nothing but planning permission. They will build the house themselves. It is very unfair and it is undemocratic. Farmers’ sons and daughters are being looked after and I welcome that, but it is very hard for some fella to see his neighbour next door, who he grew up with and went to school with, getting planning permission while he is being refused. He has nothing else to do only leave if he cannot afford to buy a house in Killarney, which is a no-go for many of them now.

I ask the Minister to look at this matter. This very strict rule is being applied since last June and is affecting so many boys and girls. They are leaving for other lands because of it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to amendments Nos. 176 and 178 and the amendments to them that I, along with others, tabled. They suggest the national planning framework must be approved democratically by these Houses.

Simply consulting various people, including committees or relevant stakeholders, is not enough. It is saying, "We will let you give your opinions but we will not actually subject the revised national planning framework to a democratic decision by the elected representatives of the people." I would like to hear from the Minister why he thinks the Houses of the Oireachtas should not have a right to make a decision on these frameworks because these frameworks are very important. They set the planning framework for just about everything that is important: for housing, for all kinds of development, for the economy, for climate, for strategic developments of various infrastructure, for water services, waste management, land and sea interactions - everything. This sets the national framework for it. Of course we should consult but ultimately we need a democratic decision.

To my mind, historically, there are two bad ways of doing planning. One is the Stalinist method, which is top down and centralised and we set the plan regardless of what the people in society need or think. Stalinism did not work out too well. It was big plans set by the Kremlin that bore no relation to the actual needs of Russian society. The other type of planning that does not work is where we do not really have planning, we have the market and just let people with money decide what is or is not developed. The alternative to both of those failed approaches is democratic planning - bottom-up planning - where we hear from everybody and everybody has a real say in the decisions at every level of planning the future development of our society. This is what sustainable actually means. Sustainable is not just about certain environmental imperatives. Sustainable is about everybody really having input. This is what the Aarhus Convention is about, which is the absolute imperative of people from the bottom up having a real say and having the right to make decisions about their environment, the society they live in and the development that will affect them. This is why democracy is terribly important. If we do not have that, we are going to have problems because it means either there will be small numbers of people influenced by corporate lobbyists, developers or certain vested interests and who are always vulnerable to the pressures of those things or it is just a centralised, autocratic and dictatorial way of planning, which always ends in tears, with people at the centre, whether a State bureaucracy or a Minister, who think they know better than everybody. I am not saying that is the Minister, of course, but God knows we could have such a Minister.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could indeed. It is simply about subjecting these to democracy, and not just in the Dáil with the national planning framework. This is a theme that runs through many of our amendments all the way through this Bill and right down. At the level of development plans, we do have that. Everybody can put in submissions, the public is told, everybody gives their opinions, we hear from people, but ultimately the elected representatives in the council actually decide if that is the plan they will go with. Why would it be different at a national level? I find it concerning that this would be the case and I do not really understand the Minister's justification for not requiring that these national planning frameworks would ultimately be decided by the elected representatives of the people.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On this group of amendments, specifically amendments Nos. 175, 176 and 177, the thing about the national planning framework is that massively affects every aspect of our lives in how our entire built environment and our general surroundings are developed and planned. The national planning framework is the key framework. In terms of the planning system, it could not be more important or more significant. There are huge problems because there is not a lot of public buy-in to national planning policy or a lot of understanding of it. This leads to a good deal of conflict, which then leads to delays in the delivery of much-needed infrastructure and housing. We have seen this play out over the years and we have seen the costs involved in that when trying to deliver housing and infrastructure because there is not that understanding of national planning policy at all. If we had more buy-in to that, with more understanding and more involvement, there would be less conflict and we would get better delivery of the housing and infrastructure we need. There is no question about that. If we had scrutiny and votes in the Dáil on the national planning framework, it would help in this regard. It would not solve that in its entirety but it would certainly help. At the moment, most people in Ireland do not know what is in national planning policy, they do not know why the national planning policy encourages certain things and they do not have an understanding around it. When they are confronted with this in their local community, it creates a reaction which then often creates delays and additional costs.

There is international evidence around co-creation and how it works really well, especially for large housing projects and large infrastructure projects. Co-creation involves local communities at an early stage in helping to design and plan large projects that are going to impact on them. It works much better for getting buy-in and reducing conflict and therefore costs. Also, everybody is then living with something over which they feel some ownership.

The second aspect is that by not having democratic oversight and not having a vote on it in the Houses of the Oireachtas we are, and I do not believe this is the intention, actually running down to a degree our democratic processes and institutions. This leads to cynicism about why we have our democratic institutions and processes. This is very dangerous because the more cynical people get about our democratic institutions and processes, the more it undermines general faith in democracy. This can have a corrosive effect on our democratic institutions and processes. I do not believe for a second this is the intention here but it is part of a result of not having proper democratic oversight of this. What are the Houses of the Oireachtas for if not to have votes on absolutely key statutory frameworks like the national planning framework?

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, will comment on amendments Nos. 175 to 177, inclusive, in this group. The national planning framework is hugely important and I agree with voices here on the democratic accountability for how it is dealt with locally. The national planning framework decides development in the broadest possible terms.

Consider the town of Drogheda, with which the Minister is familiar. The problem is that planning decisions on the size of the town and on how it is going to grow are made not by Drogheda Borough Council, because it does not exist anymore, but are made in Dundalk and in Navan. The people of Drogheda, who should be at the core of decision-making determining what the plan should be in our town, do not have a say in it. The majority of voices in that debate in those chambers are not local voices. I am not saying they are hostile but they are not local. Along with the national planning framework and greater regulation in the broadest sense, we must have direct accountability locally. Drogheda needs to have its own city status. From 20 years ago it has grown from a town of 22,000 to more than 45,000. It is the largest town in Ireland, yet it has no council in the town, it has no county manager, and it has no administrative structure where all of these very important issues such as the national planning framework can be debated and where the decisions in the national planning framework can be effected.

When planning permissions are given and then objected to, the average number of weeks it takes An Bord Pleanála to dispose of planning appeals comes into question. Some appeals are spurious, as we know. In this regard, the Minister has a welcome amendment prohibiting the requesting of payment in consideration of not opposing a development. In 2019, the average number of weeks taken to dispose of a planning appeal was 18. At the end of September 2023, it was almost a full year. Major injustices are being done because of spurious appeals of planning decisions, although the majority of appeals are probably reasonable. I welcome what the Minister is doing in this regard, along with the fines and the jail sentence if there is a criminal offence. The proposal does not exclude people who have a right to be compensated for decisions that affect them, their properties or their homes owing to their being overlooked or to the elimination of green spaces. The matter has to be examined.

Consider the role of local authorities under the national planning framework. In the case of Drogheda, for example, the Westgate vision is before An Bord Pleanála for a decision but the board does not have the staff to deal with the application, notwithstanding the changes that have been made. The process should be much more efficient. If the local authority has a vision for the future of the town of Drogheda but cannot get the required decision, it is unacceptable.

Let me refer to the regulation of planning and the breaching of planning laws. Listed buildings like Brady's in Drogheda, a very important house of architectural merit built in 1760, are being demolished owing to their being in a dangerous condition because their owners allow them to become derelict and the councils, over a number of years, do not act. Historic or important buildings in our towns and cities that are designated as of regional importance are being demolished by councils because they have become dangerous. Therefore, the councils need far more grit and determination to deal with what is in our national planning framework, and the designation of listed and important regional buildings must be supported and acted upon. It is ridiculous that in the town of Drogheda, the medieval street called Narrow West Street will be closed to all traffic and pedestrians for the rest of this month because of the lack of action by An Bord Pleanála in making a decision on time, and the lack of action by the council to pressurise the builder to make a property safe. The option is now to demolish, but one should rest assured that we will oppose any future planning application to change the width of the street and its historic relevance. The front of the building in question and its curtilage must be protected in any planning decisions, as happened in the case of Drogheda Grammar School, which case we brought to the High Court.

I welcome the legislation. This is very important but we need to emphasise more the democratic decisions that are made locally and the accountability of people who make spurious appeals for personal gain with no planning argument. This is basically extortion, which is wrong. I hope the legislation will determine this will not happen in the future.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar an gcéad dul síos, freagróidh mé ceisteanna an Teachta Ó Snodaigh faoin gcreat náisiúnta pleanála. Cuirtear gach dréachtchreat náisiúnta pleanála os comhair an phobail chun a chuid tuairimí a fháil. Tá sé sin scríofa ar leathanach 66 den Bhille freisin. On public consultation, we have been very clear that we will engage with stakeholders extensively on every draft plan. It is as broad as could possibly be and everything is listed on page 67 of the Bill.

Let me answer a couple of questions in the short time I have. There is no democratic deficit here whatsoever. The Deputies are elected by the people and the Dáil elects the Government. Deputy Ó Broin knows this. We have advised before that the Minister has delegated responsibility for the higher policy area. In the case of the national planning framework, a Minister would, after public consultation, including on the part of the joint Oireachtas committee, bring the policy to the Government for a decision. No other policy area goes to the Government in this way for approval. It is very important that the national planning framework align with the national development plan and such plans and that it be decided upon by the Government. We had a long discussion on national planning statements. We try to streamline policy delivery. There are some opposite who said they actually want that. When we consider changing guidelines regarding national policy statements, it is also regarded as incorrect. We are doing what we are doing to have a streamlined, effective planning system that is efficient and transparent and gives certainty on the delivery of the infrastructure and homes we need.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a democratic deficit because this is not policy. That is the fundamental point. The national policy objectives have the force of law, and there is nothing in this section that streamlines anything in this regard. The national planning framework process is in place and the Minister is simply putting into law something that was not contained in the original Act.

Deputy Healy-Rae hit the nail on the head. When Fine Gael and Labour designed the original national planning framework process, they had Oireachtas approval because they believed it was necessary. It was only when the current Government parties got their hands on it that the need for approval was removed. They first did so through confidence and supply arrangements and then legislation. Rural planning is one of the reasons, although not the only one. Deputy Healy-Ray outlined his concerns with respect to rural planning regarding developments in proximity to urban areas. Some agree with that view and some disagree with it, but the Deputy set it out.

The problem is that if the national planning framework were debated here and voted upon, Fianna Fáil backbenchers would have to vote for the policies against which Deputy Healy-Ray has set out his case. If they did so, they would not then be able to go to their local radio stations and newspapers and blame the planning regulator, the reason being that the decision would have been a decision of the Government. Very often when the planning regulator is criticised unfairly, he is criticised for decisions that the Government has made. Very often, he is criticised by councillors and Deputies from Government parties, particularly Ministers, because they do not like the policies. They can say they did not vote for them because a vote was denied. That is the core problem, and at no point has the Minister ever addressed or explained it. He has not done so today, so I will be pressing the amendment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Níl a fhios agam ar thuig an tAire cad go díreach a bhí á rá agam mar ní dhéileálann an leasú a bhí mé ag caint faoi le leathanach 66 in aon chor. Is le leathanach 67 a dhéileálann leasú Uimh. 182. Regarding the procedure for the review of the national planning framework, before carrying out a review under section 22 the Minister shall publish a notice of the Government's intention to do so. The Minister shall also make provision for public consultation in the review of the national planning framework, including arrangements for consulting. In this regard, specific bodies are listed: members of the Oireachtas, regional assemblies, local authorities, the commission, the Office of the Planning Regulator, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, and members of the public. The reason I seek the insertion of Údarás na Gaeltachta, in particular, is that, unlike other organisations, it has a specific remit, and that remit has just been extended to include housing. Those concerned are members of the public but this is a specific organisation and it does not fall under the specific regional assemblies or any other body mentioned. That is why we wanted Údarás na Gaeltachta, in particular, to be included. Unlike IDA Ireland or Enterprise Ireland, it has a specific remit concerning Gaeltacht areas and therefore has a role in planning, including industrial planning, environmental planning and language planning. These are the three factors.

That brings me to another amendment. I raised a point that Conradh na Gaeilge also raised with the Minister. Amendment No. 194 asks the Minister to include language planning among the plans, documents and data consulted when reviewing the national plan.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputies Ó Broin and Danny Healy-Rae. The Minister does want to do this. He wants to take away the embarrassment from his own backbenchers and future Government backbenchers by supporting this kind of legislation. I will not be voting for this because it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

With the Ceann Comhairle's permission, I will mention the case of Sean Meehan in Tipperary. He is not affected by the strict urban designated pressure areas. He is out in the country in a log cabin. He is facing jail. The judge asked him to reapply for planning, which he did. Lo and behold, he has been refused again today for the same reasons, including that he does not have the social need even though he has lived in that area all his life. He had a legal separation and everything was above board. He bought a site and put a log cabin on it. This was the second case. It was suggested that the planners might agree to a building that was rendered because it would look better. How cement would look better than timber in the country, I do not know. Mr. Meehan has also been refused permission on the basis that his dwelling is not aesthetically suitable and might deteriorate rapidly. At the same time, emergency legislation means that 62 cabins can be built in Clonmel, five or six miles away. This man will be homeless. He is 66 years of age. If we pass this legislation, there will be many more Sean Meehans in urban designated pressure areas. It is outrageous. The councils have no hope of appealing. My own daughter, Councillor Máirín McGrath, tried to raise the issue at a council meeting but was shot down. We will not be able to discuss issues in the Chamber either. This is as serious an issue as the national planning framework and we cannot debate the ramifications of it. We should be having a review of it, first of all, after a period of bedding in.

In the case of Sean Meehan, it is outrageous that he will have to appeal again to An Bord Pleanála and hope and pray that the board will grant him a house. He has been sentenced to prison. He will have to go on the housing list or sleep under the Main Guard in Clonmel. It is an appalling vista in Ireland today. I have raised the issue a number of times with the Minister. He promised he would change the planning guidelines to look after rural planning but he has not done so. It is a shameful situation that Mr. Meehan is facing.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought I asked a very clear question. I asked if the Minister will do something about the wrong being delivered upon people in rural areas. They are being treated the same as the people the Government wants to stop coming out of towns and cities to rural areas. These people were brought up in these places all of their lives. My time is short; I have only two minutes available. When Kerry County Council was putting in place the county development plan last year, the Planning Regulator insisted that the council agree to put the line far out from the towns of Killarney, Killorglin and Kenmare. That denies people from applying for planning permission and gives the planners no hope. I do not blame the planners. How was the Planning Regulator able to give that direction? Who gave him the authority? It is irresponsible of the regulator. I am being fair about this. People do not know where this came from. We did not debate it in this Chamber. The council members debated it and wanted a narrower radius around the towns but they were overruled. Management told them they would have to agree with what the Planning Regulator dictated. Where that direction come from? Who gave him the authority before the development plan in Kerry was formulated last June? Who gave the Planning Regulator that authority? That was not in the previous plan, going back to 2016 or 2017. That direction was not in that plan. It has now been expanded. This only came into place last June. Hundreds of applicants are going to be affected, which means they will be unable to build a house even if they have a site and could get going easily enough with the help of their neighbours and different things. I thought the Minister might address that issue in his answer. I cannot understand where the regulator got this power. We need a forum to discuss these matters.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has not answered the question as to why the national planning framework should not be subject to the democratic decision of the elected representatives of the people. The Minister has said he will consult. He has said the Government will invite opinions and allow people to say what they think but it will be able to completely ignore that. The Government is not going to subject the final document, which is the policy framework, to the democratic representatives of the people to make a decision. The Minister of the day can decide to ignore whatever he or she has heard or whatever input there has been. I do not see how that is acceptable. As I said earlier, democracy is not an optional extra when it comes to the planning of what we in this country are going to do with a framework that affects everything. It affects housing, water, sanitation, waste management, energy, the economy, housing, biodiversity and climate. It affects absolutely everything. This framework is setting out a plan for the country. We do not just want a cursory exercise whereby we are allowed to give our opinions and the Government can choose to ignore them. The Government needs to put the document to a democratic vote so that there is democratic accountability. Otherwise, we undermine the whole basis and point of planning and we potentially discredit the whole planning and development system, which has discredited itself quite often over recent decades. If we do this, more than running a risk, we run a likelihood of perpetuating a discrediting of the planning and development system.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not repeat what other Deputies have said. I will speak to the national planning framework and the decision not to bring it before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Deputy Ó Broin made the point that backbenchers can go back to their local radio stations and newspapers and say the situation is all wrong and it is the fault of the big, bad people in An Bord Pleanála and the Office of the Planning Regulator. When I was a member of Cork City Council, a number of Fianna Fáil councillors were calling for the abolition of An Bord Pleanála. They were blaming the board for everything it could be blamed for. The thing that always struck me was that Fianna Fáil was in power. Fianna Fáil councillors were giving out about the big, bad boys in Dublin who were representatives of Fianna Fáil.

What this amendment does is create accountability. If there is a vote in the Oireachtas and Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael backbenchers vote for it, let them stand up and do so. To be honest, it has been a brilliant trick of Fianna Fáil's. One must compliment the party because it always plays both sides of the game. On one side, its representatives are in power and making the rules and, on the other side, they are saying the rules are wrong.

Deputy Healy-Rae made a relevant point. I know of a couple from between White's Cross and upper Glanmire in Cork. One of their grandfathers lived there. He is dead now, God rest his soul. Next door was one of his sons and on the other side was another son. His grandchildren wanted to build a house but could not get planning permission. Since the Cork City Council boundary extended, Michael O'Flynn, the developer, has built hundreds of houses. That is great to see, but a family who has lived in this community for generations cannot build a house. Down the road, some 440-odd houses were being built. The family in question was born and reared in the area. People give out that this happens.

All we are saying is that the national planning framework should go to the Houses of the Oireachtas. That would make things transparent.

If a Minister wanted to drive this horse and carriage through, there is nothing stopping them. If we had the wrong Minister and the wrong person wanted to do it, they would have all the power. The problem is that all of the power is being concentrated on one particular Minister. I know the Minister makes the point that this is democracy, and he is part of the Government formed after the election, but some things need accountability. We should look at this again, not for the Minister but for other Ministers who come after him.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was quite a bit of repetition there and I will not go over all of it. Earlier I was asked by Deputy Matthews about the timeframes for the publication of the draft NPF. We are on track for the draft stage to go out in June or July. There will be publication of the draft national planning framework amendment stage in August and final stage in September. We are still on track for this.

With regard to the question raised by Deputy Ó Broin on whether the national planning framework is a policy statement or includes policy, it is very clear in section 21(2) on page 65 of the Bill, which states "The National Planning Framework shall contain a statement setting out the Government's broad national plan in relation to the strategic planning and sustainable development of the State and shall include policies and proposals for the furtherance of the following objectives".

This evening Members have raised specific planning cases on which, obviously, I cannot comment. It is up to each local authority to prepare and develop their own development plan following wide consultation with the public and the councillors who are elected-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are excluding them. When they did formulate their plan they were overridden by the planning regulator.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let the Minister answer, please.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been a whole question about democratic deficits and such things. We listened to Deputy Gould at the end speaking about it. The bottom line is that all of us here are elected in our constituencies. The Dáil then elects the Government. I know there were even some questions previously about whether someone getting elected on the fifth, sixth or seventh count has greater weighting then someone elected on the first count. Deputy Gould has not raised that argument, whereby people previously questioned democratic principles when it suited their party.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is an outrageous comment.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no conspiracy.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Gould knows what I am talking about. Deputy Gould remembers the references made after the last general election to people getting elected on the fifth, sixth or seventh counts. I did not hear him arguing about it-----

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If you are elected, you are elected.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will get back to the point.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ceann Comhairle, I made no such comment.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know what comment you made. Sit down.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every TD in here is equal, whether they are elected on the first count or the tenth count.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is great that the Deputy has said that. Excellent, well done. That clarifies it.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a statement of fact.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I should not have gone down that road. What I am saying is that we have already been very clear and responded to the questions that have been asked. I am not accepting the amendments to this section that have been tabled by the Opposition. I have also been very clear on further changes that we made on consultation. I make the point to Deputy Ó Snodaigh that I was referring to the role of Údarás na Gaeltachta regarding consultation at development plan level and An Coimisinéir Teanga. We have made these changes. This came from the committee. We have made many changes on biodiversity also. We have taken on board many changes that Members have raised.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 168:

In page 66, to delete lines 32 and 33.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 169:

In page 66, line 34, to delete "subsequent".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 170:

In page 66, line 34, to delete "1 year" and substitute "2 years".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 171:

In page 66, line 37, to delete "completion of the previous review under this section." and substitute "completion, in accordance with subsection (7), of the previous review.".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 172:

In page 67, line 3, after "on" to insert "the date of publication, by the Central Statistics Office, of the final results of".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 173:

In page 67, line 4, to delete "completion of the previous review under this section." and substitute "completion, in accordance with subsection (7), of the previous review.".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 174:

In page 67, line 8, to delete "it" and substitute "they".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 175:

In page 67, line 10, to delete "revise the" and substitute "approve a revised".

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 175:

To delete "approve a revised" and substitute "submit a draft revised National Planning Framework for the approval of both Houses of the the Oireachtas, and the revision shall not be made until approved by a resolution of each such House".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 176:

In page 67, line 11, to delete “prepare” and substitute “approve”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 176:

To delete "approve" and substitute "submit a draft National Planning Framework for the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and the new National Planning Framework shall not be made until approved by a resolution of each such House".

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 177:

In page 67, line 12, after “revision” to insert “of the National Planning Framework”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 178:

In page 67, lines 15 and 16, to delete all words from and including “when” in line 15 down to and including line 16 and substitute “on the date that the Government publishes a revised National Planning Framework or new National Planning Framework in accordance with subsection (5) of section 23 or the statement referred to in paragraph (c) of subsection (6), as the case may be.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 178:

To delete “in accordance with subsection (5) of section 23” and substitute “which has been approved by a resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 179:

In page 67, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(8) A revised National Planning Framework shall continue in effect for the remainder of the period for which the National Planning Framework which it revises is specified, under subsection (5) of section 21, to be in effect.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 180:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 181:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 182:

In page 67, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

"(e) board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht and Language Planning Officers,".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 183:

"(h)

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 184:

In page 67, line 36, after "The" to insert "revised or new".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 185:

In page 68, to delete lines 7 to 15 and substitute the following: “(5) Where after the Government has completed a review under section 22, it shall seek the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas for the revised or new National Planning Framework.

(6) Where the Government has completed a review under section 22, the draft of the revised or new National Planning Framework as the case may be, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and the revised or new National Planning Framework shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft laid is passed by each such House, following a debate of no less than 3 hours in each such House.

(7) Prior to any debate under subsection (6), the Minister shall engage with the relevant Joint Oireachtas Committee to examine and discuss the proposed draft of the revised or new National Planning Framework as the case may be, and the Committee shall hear from other witnesses in respect of the proposed draft, and make recommendations in respect of the draft accordingly.

(8) Where after the Government has completed a review under section 22 and a draft of a revised or new National Planning Framework has been approved under subsection (5) of section 22, the Government shall, as soon as practicable, publish the revised or new National Planning Framework, as the case may be.

(9) A revised or new National Planning Framework shall take effect 4 weeks after the date of publication under subsection (8).”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 186:

In page 68, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the following:

“practicable, publish on a website maintained by or on behalf of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage⁠—

(a) the revised or new National Planning Framework, as the case may be, and

(b) a summary of any observations made on foot of the consultations under subsection (2).”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 186:

To insert the following paragraph after paragraph (b):

“(c) the observations made to the consultations under subsection (2).”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 187:

In page 68, line 16, to delete “(2),”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 189:

In page 68, lines 20 and 21, to delete all words from and including “(1)” in line 20, down to and including line 21 and substitute the following: “(1) In carrying out a review under section 22, the Government shall have regard to such plans or documents as it considers appropriate, and to assist the identification and determination of appropriate and current information, the Government shall also consult with the Joint Oireachtas Committees who have remits in the areas including in respect of: Housing, Waste, Water, Environment, Climate Change, Energy, Transport, Natural Heritage, Health, Children, Disability, Youth, Equality, Travellers, Migrant Populations, Refugees Trade, Employment, Defence, the Gaeltacht, Rural Affairs, Agriculture, Marine, Fisheries, Gender, all Island Affairs and the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

(2) The Government shall include a statement within any draft revision or new National Planning Framework of why the information was considered appropriate for the purposes of the review.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 190:

In page 68, line 20, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 191:

In page 68, line 21, to delete “it considers” and substitute “they consider”.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 192:

In page 68, line 24, to delete “plan” and substitute “plans”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 193:

In page 68, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

“(b) Such prescribed documents shall include at least information on the following:

(i) current information on current and projected population and demographics, including on net-migration and inward migration, coastal and flood related retreats, and climate refugees;

(ii) the state of the environment report and indicators on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, status of protected sites, air quality, water quality, soil quality; and

(iii) human health and wellbeing.”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 194:

In page 68, after line 34, to insert the following:

“(g) language planning.”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 195 to 218, inclusive, and 221 to 225, inclusive, are related. Amendment No. 196 is a physical alternative to No. 195. Amendments Nos. 204 and 204 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 202. Amendments Nos. 195 to 218, inclusive, and 221 to 225, inclusive will be discussed together.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 195:

In page 69, line 4, to delete “Government” and substitute “Oireachtas”.

When this legislation began its long and controversial life, we were promised that it would not only consolidate 20 years of complex planning legislation but that in doing so, it would also clarify that legislation, ensuring that it was easier for applicants and planning authorities to use, and as a result it would streamline decision-making and expedite the delivery of, for example, much-needed housing, renewable energy infrastructure and critical infrastructure. A number of sections in this Bill are profoundly problematic from a democratic and planning point of view, but also, crucially, they will make our planning system much more complicated and less clear. This will lead to increased levels of conflict between communities and councillors, local communities and planning authorities and, ultimately, applicants and planning authorities in the courts. That will result in increased third-party observations, appeals to An Bord Pleanála and judicial review. The consequence of all of that will be delay. It is probably the single biggest failing of this legislation, which we were told would make it easier to ensure that the country would get the critical infrastructure it needs, but will actually make it much more difficult.

Some sections are relatively straightforward. Some have minor or modest problems, but this entire element of the Bill, running over a number of sections, is one of the most problematic. It is an area of the Bill that has probably not received as much public attention, in public commentary, as some of the others. We had detailed discussions about it on Committee Stage but, given its importance, it would be useful to spend a small amount of time addressing those issues. I am speaking to amendments Nos. 195, 196, 200 to 218, inclusive, 221 and 225.

I appreciate that the Minister has come into this process near the end. The origin of this problematic proposition dates back to 2016, when legislation was passed by the Oireachtas to give the Minister for the environment the power to unilaterally change planning laws. That is what the mandatory ministerial guidelines and special planning policy requirements essentially did. There was a reason for this, which is that there were planning decisions that people believed were necessary. Some were necessary and represented good policy, but there was a political problem, which is that getting those planning policies through an Oireachtas with the composition it had would have proved difficult, if not impossible, for certain parties. Rather than have a democratic process whereby elected members would discuss, debate, amend and approve planning law, we got the section 28 guidelines and the specific planning policy requirements, SPPRs. The problem is that when they were combined with the strategic housing development planning process, they created significant conflict with our city and county development plans and other areas of Government policy. The matter ended up in the courts, which time and again found that the section 28 mandatory ministerial guidelines, particularly the SPPRs, were not a sound legal basis for making planning decisions.

As a consequence, an entirely new process had to be put in place. Its purpose is straightforward, namely increasingly centralise the business of making planning law not in the Oireachtas but in the hands of the Minister.

While the Minister has to get Government approval, it is with the Minister. Therefore, with all the different issues we debate, whether people have a particular view of high-density housing or low-density housing, rural housing or urban housing, suburban housing or one-off housing, wherever they stand on all those issues, what that section of the Bill does is hand to the Minister the power to essentially make planning law on his or her own simply with the approval of Cabinet.

I have a view that, first of all, that is fundamentally wrong for all the reasons we discussed. However, I also made the case at committee that this is not going to stand up to legal scrutiny either when conflicts emerge, and if this Bill becomes law and these sections are introduced into legislation, there are going to be conflicts. Those conflicts could be with a city or county development plan. They could be with councillors who are trying to oppose retroactive or retrospective changes to their existing development plans. However, it could be, for example, the carbon budgets and the climate action plan. In fact, that is probably one of the areas in which we are going to see those conflicts most acutely. I do not understand that when the Irish Planning Institute, legal professionals from the Bar association and the Law Society of Ireland who are experts in this area, residential developers, renewable energy companies and semi-State utilities, not to mention communities and environmental NGOs, have all raised serious concerns about this section of the Bill, no changes have been made to this, not even symbolic or linguistic changes.

I was against the 2016 legislation. It was passed before I became a Member of this House, but I was against it nonetheless. We continually highlighted throughout 2017, 2018 and 2019 why it was not going to work. We were proved right in 2020, 2021 and 2022 when the court struck down decision after decision by the board. I am strongly of the view that in respect of these sections and when we get to the expedited measures for ramming some of these areas backwards into city and county development plans, regional spatial and economic strategies, etc., this is all going to end up in the courts. It is going to end up creating enormous levels of conflict, further undermining our planning system at a time it needs the very opposite. Crucially, this is one of the sections of the Bill that undermines the Government's promise to clarify and streamline the process. I know we are not going to be able to have a full debate on it, but I really am appealing to the Minister of State because this needs to be rethought. Otherwise, we are going to be back dealing with this a number of years’ time, as we are now, because of its failure to do what the Government said it wants to do. This is the wrong way to solve a problem. There are better ways. We outlined those on Committee Stage and Second Stage, and because the Government is refusing to accept that, we will be pressing the amendments.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was actually so anxious yesterday about this section we are heading into now that I was inclined to leapfrog because I wanted to come to it. It all comes back to what people are going to see from the outside looking in at what exactly is trying to be achieved in this section. It could be private individuals, whether they want to build a house for themselves in an urban or, more troublesome again, perhaps, rural area. It could be a developer who might be classified as a big developer, even though they are getting scarce, or a medium-size developer, who are getting scarce. Gone altogether from us are the small builders, who were respected so much. They were in every town, village and community. Those were the people who might have built one, two or three houses every year. They were terribly important in our communities. They are gone because they have been priced out of the market. There is red tape and bureaucracy in trying to get planning to be able to sell on a house they might build or develop and try to do so at an affordable price. Nothing that is in this will help. All I can see in it is that it is going to make the red tape worse. It is going to make the bureaucracy worse. It is doing nothing to make planning user-friendly.

The message seems to be going out now to our local authorities and planning departments. I have spoken extensively to people not just in County Kerry but in other counties who are involved in implementing the planning rules - the bible. What we are looking at here is the same as holding up holy God's Bible. This will be the planning bible of the future for many years to come. There is no comfort in this for a person who wants to build a home. We still have all the other things. We have the site assessment and the rural settlement policy. There is no relaxation in anything. At the end of the day, we can talk here for an hour or we can talk until 12 o'clock tonight. We can do the same tomorrow night and next Tuesday or Wednesday. At the end of the night when we go home, however, the one thing that will be asked by the person we meet, be it the farmer, small builder or bigger developer, is what we in Dublin are doing for them to make planning permission easier to get in Ireland. The honest answer we will have to give them is absolutely nothing. They will be asking what we are doing about the serial objectors. What is the answer we will be able to give them? Unfortunately, we are doing nothing about that either. We have serial objectors who have seats in Dáil Éireann and who object to thousands of homes being built in their constituencies. I will never get my head around that. I will never be able to understand it. People can give whatever reasons they like but, unfortunately, they are not breaking a law or rule. It is allowed for, but it should not be. We need homes. We need affordable homes. We need them in towns, cities and rural areas.

It is like, for instance, the site assessment, which in my years in politics has got more difficult to achieve. One time, a very straightforward, or what we would now call old-fashioned, septic tank was a perfectly acceptable system. It was not polluting anything. It was not doing any harm to anybody. Now, people have to have a state-of-the-art boiler cycle and they are very lucky if that will pass. Always remember, however, if the green light goes off any day and a red light comes on, it will take a very short length of time for that tank to go septic whereas everybody knows the old septic tank would be there for a long time before it would actually turn septic because of the simple fact it was an easier mechanism to control and it was an easier way of dealing with the wastewater and effluent that came out of a home.

I will again come back to the point that we can go through amendments Nos. 195, 196, 197 and 198 and all of this section, but when we go home or when people who are interested in building a family home ring us tonight when we leave this Chamber and ask what good work we did for them today and how it is going to be easier for them to get planning from Kerry County Council or any other local authority, the answer, unfortunately, we will have to give them is, "No, there is nothing in this for you", or if there is, it is very little and very hard to see. It will actually make getting planning in Ireland more expensive because of all the different changes that are being made and all the different reports that have to come in. The bar is being raised higher and higher. Of course, we have not at all mentioned the fact that the actual building materials are so expensive. If we add that to the cost of getting the piece of paper to grant someone permission, it is going to make it very difficult for any young couple. Is it any wonder then that young couples or young nurses are leaving. Before, we had people like the great O'Flynn from County Cork, who has been building houses for decades now at this stage. His biggest customers at one time were teachers, gardaí and nurses because they had what we would call a reliable income. Now, however, whatever job a person has and whether he or she is a garda, teacher or nurse, the price of buying a house from a developer or building it oneself has actually gone out of control and beyond people's reach. People are questioning themselves then and asking why their lovely young people are leaving here and are not able to stay to work and live here.

How could they given the cost of providing a roof over their heads, which is the most basic requirement that they have? Is it not backwards we are going, because in the 1970s and the 1980s, and maybe even in the early 1990s, those categories of people could afford their own home and now they cannot? They would be on what would be called reliable salaries, but by the time they pay for childcare and everything, it is impossible for them to be able to afford the homes. Is there anything contained in these two booklets that will help those people? Absolutely nothing, and if I am wrong, I would love to see a Government-supporting TD or an Opposition person telling me that I am wrong and that there is good news in it for them, because if there is, I cannot see it.

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak to the section of the Bill relating to the Minister's control over county development plans and having the final say. I have serious concerns about that. Councillors are elected, and I wish every councillor who was elected in the past week the very best going forward. The councillors who are elected should have the final say as to how a county development plan is put together. When I was on the council in 2014, that is the way it was. Councillors had a very big role in how county development plans are put together, but now it looks as if they are overshadowed completely. That leads to the situation we find ourselves in that people are finding it increasingly difficult to get planning, so it will come down to the Minister.

I should not be picking on any one party, but imagine the Green Party was in government. They would make sure nobody was cleared to get planning permission in any county development plan and would make it hugely difficult. We have serious issues with low density and high density in our towns and villages. We desperately need extra housing. For example, in Clonakilty, people who have property inside the development area are now being told they must have a low density build when they could easily have high density and have some beautiful much-needed homes in the Clonakilty area. That is an outrageous situation they find themselves in that they are inside the development boundary but the county development plan being dictated by others other than the local councillors - I do not know what the councillors' role will be going forward - means they now will end up having low-density homes and fewer homes for people who desperately need homes in a place such as Clonakilty and its surrounds.

The situation I see is that it is more often squeezing out the local councillor. I wish well the family members of the Deputies in front of me who were elected to their local authorities: Councillor Máirín McGrath, Councillor Jackie Healy-Rae, Councillor Johnny Healy-Rae, Councillor Maura Healy-Rae, Councillor Daniel Sexton, and Councillors John and Danny Collins. They are finding it extremely difficult now to negotiate on behalf of their constituents. They are looking at county development plans where they are being overpowered as such. They have people looking for planning in their local area and they are being refused. That is a terrible upset to a family.

I met a lady in Bantry recently when I was canvassing. She said she was thinking of not voting and I asked her why. Her son came home. He had lived 25 years in Ballydehob, went abroad and came back home with a partner or wife - I am not sure it they were married - and children. He tried to get planning because he was going to build on the farm at home and he was refused. To make a long story short, every kind of codology was put in front of him to make sure he could not get his planning and his mother said, "Do you know what? I do not think I will vote." To be quite honest, I could not blame her even though I knew damn well it might lead to the loss of a vote to ourselves. It is hard to blame somebody like that. Broken-hearted, they packed their bags and left our country. That is an astonishing disgrace by a planning authority and by a county development plan that would refuse that man permission in the little bit of ground he had so that he could live his life here, work here, bring up his children here and boost the local economy by having people living here permanently.

I genuinely do not know if the Minister of State is listening, because this is a serious crisis. If this section of the Bill erodes the councillors' say and gives the power to the Minister, God almighty, that is a shocking situation. It is happening increasingly in local authorities. I was at so many doors, as we all are as politicians if we are trying to get elected people belonging to us, and although we are trying our best, people were asking what exactly can councillors do in relation to planning. It is becoming increasingly difficult because there is a Government here that is adamant that every opposition will be shown to people. If they want to have a little log cabin at the bottom of their garden in their parents' home to get them off to a start, that is refused and everybody will be chased out of their garden. If they want to build a home, come back here to live or are living here already, every difficulty is put in front of them. I had one person on an island and it cost him €10,000 to apply for planning and he was refused. When I asked the person who came to me about it why he did not contact me sooner, the man said, "When we spent €10,000 and did everything above board, surely be to God that should have got us planning without having to talk to any politician", but sadly it did not. That is the situation we find ourselves in when it comes to planning in this country: the local councillor or local TD has no more say in it. We had little village nuclei and little areas like that where people had some hope of getting a start in their life, and the Government is walking our own people out of our own country because it continuously refuses. I presume it is the same in Mayo, in Galway and in every other rural area as it is in west Cork.

I will oppose this because we have to give the power back to the people who are on the ground talking to those who desperately want to get their lives off to a start. If the Minister of State does not do that, he is doing an injustice to those people. I should not have to talk to that woman from west Cork who had to see her son fly out with this family - pack his bags, load a trailer and get the hell out of our country - because our people, this country and this Government have turned their back on the ordinary good-living people of this country who want to provide and play a part in the local economy. As I said to that woman, it was hard to argue with her when she said she not want to vote after that. God almighty, how could you ask for a vote after that? It is so shameful. That is because of policies that the Government has put in place that are anti-local, anti-rural and, sometimes, anti-Irish.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members need to attend to the subject matter of the amendments on Report Stage, but so be it.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In speaking to this group of amendments, I have concerns, in general, that the Bill will be enacted with major errors and that will have an impact on people who need to be able to access housing that is affordable, on communities that are being developed without the facilities and the amenities they need, and on general well-being.

I have raised repeatedly on Committee Stage and on Report Stage the issue of Aarhus compliance, and every time I have raised it, the response has been a general one that we have checked and we have been told it is Aarhus compliant. I keep on raising specific instances and specific details and I do not get replies on the specific details I have raised. We have a report this week published by the Aarhus compliance committee on compliance by Ireland with its obligations under the convention. I certainly would not have the time to read significant sections of the report into the record here or anything like that. However, there are 105 conclusions and recommendations in the report and one after another highlights serious concerns with regard to this Bill, how it is and its failure to meet compliance. It particularly references Chapter 5 in Part 4 of the Bill as not being Aarhus compliant.

Every time I raise that as an issue, I get a general response but I do not get a detailed response or defence. Maybe the Minister of State will do that. Maybe he will explain why, in the context of the different concerns I raised regarding the Bill and Aarhus compliance, we had a report this week from the Aarhus compliance committee stating that sections of the Bill are not Aarhus compliant. I ask the Minister of State to please not brush that off again with, "We have checked. It is all Aarhus compliant." The Aarhus compliance committee is clearly saying it is not. I ask him to please address that.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was always brought up to mean what I say or say what I mean. There are so many contradictions in these amendments proposed by Members. Some of the amendments are good and some are terrible. Both kinds have been tabled by the same Members. We have been promised for years now, since I was elected in 2016, that the planning framework guidelines would be put in place to help planning and help people achieve planning permission to build homes for themselves. Some Members have tabled amendments supporting that idea, but they then come along with amendments that will directly hurt the notion of building a house. For example, amendment No. 210, proposed by Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh, references:

protection and restoration of nature and biodiversity including the provision of and protection of habitats, corridors for wildlife including but not limited to hedgerows and riparian corridors, and to facilitate alignment with, and delivery of the National Biodiversity Action Plan;

This proposal will hurt people who are looking to build a home for themselves. There is an instance in Killarney where a developer wanted to build 240 or 260 homes. There was no other reason for refusal of planning permission other than those houses would be in the way of bats. I ask those people who refused planning permission why the bats could not go around the housing estate. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Amendment No. 211 references "the achievement of good ecological status in water bodies", while at the same time we have treatment plants all over County Kerry that are substandard. People are being told they cannot build in rural areas because that would interfere with their designation as being under strict urban-generated pressure. The people I mentioned to the Minister, even when they achieved the proper standard of septic tank or method of dealing with waste out of a proposed house, were shot down. They were told they are in an area that is designated as being under strict urban-generated pressure. This is so, even though they never left an urban setting but, rather, want to build next door to where they were brought up and reared and want to be next door to their parents to help them in older life.

At the same time, people are being told they must go into towns and villages in rural areas. In places such as Moyvane, people are told they cannot build one other house because the treatment plant is not able to deal with it as it does not have the capacity. There is no talk about that by many Members. They do not want to hear it. They do not want to talk about the problems that are under the ground. At the same time, treatment plants in those urban settings are damaging and hurting our waters. They cannot have it every way. When people are told they cannot build in a town or village or in the part of the country where they come from, where does the Minister of State expect them to go? Is it under a bush? We are even being told that people must having planning permission for a mobile home or demountable home. They must have planning permission for that or for a modular home.

It is no wonder people are emigrating. I want the Minister of State to listen to me because those very people who are asking for nothing but planning permission are being denied it. They have no options. The only place they can go is somewhere like Killarney. Even Kenmare is under pressure. It is not rectified yet. Killorglin is also under pressure, but at the same time the very same people are being told they cannot build four or five miles from either town. They just cannot get permission. What they are doing, our own people of 28 to 32 years of age, is emigrating. I will say it again. Teachers, nurses and professional people are going to Dubai because they cannot see a way they can build a home for themselves. They are going to Australia and Canada. The Government will say, and is saying, that they will go and come back. What will they come back to? We even have a situation now where nurses want to come home but cannot apply for jobs with the HSE because there is an embargo. We are telling them to come home but where will they get planning permission? Where will they work?

The Government is totally against young people trying to build homes for themselves. Both issues are entwined. There is nothing at all in this Bill - I do not know how many pages are in it - to assist people to build a house for themselves. These are people who would build a house, pay for it, and create employment, yet we cannot or will not give them planning permission. This is all a total mess. It is a shambles. There is nothing in the Bill to help people who are looking for planning permission.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a Bill of 750 or 800 pages we can hardly lift. Indeed, there is also a list of amendments, many of them tabled by the Minister. We are not operating in a silo here. I am speaking to amendments No. 195 and 196 in the group, in addition to other related ones. We are not operating in a silo. We have a housing crisis. We have a crisis with people emigrating. We have a shortage of nurses, teachers, construction workers and everything else. We think we can bring in this new planning Bill, but we have been waiting for rural planning guidelines for 20 years to deal with people who want to build in the countryside. These guidelines were promised by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil before the two previous elections but the Green Party decided we could not have them so people are in limbo. I mentioned the Sean Meehan case. He put up his own demountable log cabin and is going to jail over it. What are we at?

We have had all these debates and votes. I remember when I first joined the county council. I wish all the new councillors the best. I am delighted that my daughter, Máirín, has been re-elected to the county council with a fabulous vote. We want young people to come into politics, as well as every other career, but powers are being taken away from them, their hands are being tied behind their backs and they are blindfolded. We dealt with the county manager, the county development plans, and there was then back and forward with the county manager. We lost some and gained some, but practical work was done. However, we now have the Office of the Planning Regulator and all those layers being put on top again. It is total and absolute control of people. Most of the amendments we voted on were about controlling people.

As I said, when I built my house, thank God, in 1982-83, I got planning permission. We dug two test holes and filled them with water to make sure there was proper percolation for a septic tank.

My wife and eight children lived in the house and now the grandchildren come as well. The septic tank is working perfectly. It has probably been emptied eight times. I have emptied tanks. I was in that business. I emptied septic tanks that were constructed by hand in the sixties. You could not empty them because they were so perfect. They were emptied 40 years later. They worked perfectly. Now you have all kinds of percolation tests. I am all for ensuring that septic tanks work. So are the householders because they are the first people to suffer. Now you have all these kinds of stringent tests and new systems involving propellers and agitators that work off electricity but the power can go out, as it did in my home last night for hours. The bearings can also seize in them and they cost a fortune to run. These modern things are not half as good at helping the environment as what came before. Many of the ghost estates we were left with had big package treatment plants. They are still a problem. There is one in the Glen Hotel in Tipperary. Developers have bought it. The crowd who had it left. There are 20 residents there now, or more, and sewage is flowing down the road for the last month or six weeks. Irish Water will not touch it and neither will the county council. People are living in those kinds of conditions.

All of these regulations we are making make it impossible for the Irish people, na daoine óga, to live on, work on and enjoy the island whose freedom was fought for so dearly back in 1916, the twenties and 1922. What are they doing? They are voting with their feet. They are emigrating. They cannot get work near them and cannot drive because the Government parties, especially the Greens, are penalising them with carbon tax. If they want to build a house, there is not a hope. They cannot buy a house in the village. In my village and in 30 other villages in Tipperary, there are what I will not call plants because they are just big septic tanks four, five or six times the size of an ordinary one that are at full capacity, meaning people cannot build in the village. They are shoved into the towns but cannot get or afford a house there. In my area, they are competing with conglomerates that are buying up houses. We can talk here forever but if you stand back and study the matter, you see that they are just not being allowed so they are going to Dubai, as Deputy Healy-Rae said, to Australia, to Canada and to everywhere else. I met the INTO today. Teachers get great work over in those countries and their work is respected. If they come back here, they will not get those levels of jobs. They will not be able to get a wage sufficient to allow them to live, get a house or get on the ladder. It is a very serious situation and this huge planning Bill is not going to help one bit. It will make it harder to build.

Unlike other people, I say that people should have a right to object, within reason. People need an opportunity to do that but we make it so difficult for people to get planning permission for a house to live in the country. I have mentioned Sean's cabin and the thought of putting this pensioner in jail, demolishing his cabin, sending him the bill and putting him on the housing list. There are already 4,000 on the housing list in Clonmel. That is what he is supposed to do. There is no joined-up thinking whatsoever. It is the same in many areas of environmental law and all other kinds of law. We can make new emergency legislation to deal with the Ukrainians, who are welcome, and extend it for two more years. Just like that, 62 modular homes can be put in with the protection of security forces from outside the State, with assistance from An Garda Síochána, causing great duress, trauma and stress, while another man is evicted. Where is the logic? The fellas with the white coats should come here very soon and bring us all away because we are making the situation much worse for a great many people. Anybody looking in with an objective eye would say that this place has gone loo-lah, as I think it has.

Jennifer Murnane O'Connor (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will talk about the planning guidelines in general and about issues that others have brought up. In the past year, a great number of young people in Carlow have come to me asking about the beautiful new timber cabin homes. As they cannot get mortgages, they are now looking at these lovely new cabins. Some of them have lovely sites and should be able to get planning permission. Some of these are what would have been called backyard developments on planning applications years ago. The parents of some of the people who come to me live on a full 1.5 acres. There would be loads of room to put in a cabin. It is very unfair. A great number of young people come to me who are trying to get a home of their own and who wish to live in one of these cabins for a few years but the planning guidelines are not there to help them. I really feel that this is the way forward. I understand that we cannot have timber cabins everywhere but we need some leniency. Common sense is missing here. I go to planners and tell them that these are young people who are trying to get on their feet and not to pay high rents because they cannot save for a mortgage but the planning guidelines just do not suit.

I will tell the Minister of State about another incident. I just cannot understand this. I spoke to a lovely couple who got a local authority house a few years ago. They have four beautiful children. They looked for an extension or a four-bed house. The county council said they could not provide that, which was fair enough. A family member then gave them a site and they went and got approved for a mortgage but the council will not look at them to build a house. It does not matter what guidelines we bring in; if we are not working with the people who need planning permission, it just will not add up. From working with families, I know they feel let down.

I know there are a lot of good guidelines in the Bill. There is no question about that. However, there has to be common sense within local authorities. It is the same with other guidelines. Families may have farms and three or four children. The guidelines may be such that one child can get planning permission while another cannot. We need proper guidelines under this Bill that give family members looking for planning permission an entitlement to it. I understand that we need proper guidelines and have to do things by the book. That is not the problem. However, this can sometimes be over-regulated and, when it is, it becomes an issue. Is there going to be any leniency on these types of guidelines? It just does not add up.

I will give another example, which is similar but comes near to the point. I know many people who are looking for extensions, which require planning permission. The council and the Department tell me that, unless you get a price of less than €70,000 for a bedroom and a bathroom - the grant is only €30,000 - the Department will not build it for you. People need an extra bedroom and bathroom but, because they cannot get them built for less than €70,000, the guidelines mean they will not get them. The council then tries to buy them a property. I could go on and on about the issues I face every day. We need common sense. We need regulations and have to do things by the book but things are happening that are letting down the younger people and older people who come into my office.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I should have called him before now. I thought I had.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have some comments on this grouping. I have spoken on all of the other groupings as well because I have submitted quite a lot of amendments that deal with the Irish language. These relate to the national planning statement and seek to ensure that, in drawing the statement up, due regard is given to the Irish language and the cultural and linguistic heritage of Gaeltacht areas. I have submitted a number of amendments, which I will speak to. These are Nos. 197, 198, 199, 205, 213 and 218. Some are simple and I have addressed them with the Minister at an earlier stage and know his position on them.

Amendment No. 218 seeks to insert into the considerations for the issuance of the national planning statement additional considerations that need to be taken into account. In that amendment, we are asking for the protection of linguistic and cultural heritage.

Amendment No. 222 is on a separate issue and I wish to concentrate more on it. It relates to the need for night venues to be protected, recognised and regulated.

Members might think that is a strange one to put into a national planning statement. The problem, which we have had in this city in particular, is there is not a recognition or designation and then all of a sudden a night venue, around which a whole cultural activity or cultural quarter has built up, closes down, never to return. That affects a city. The same is true in rural Ireland. I have seen venues dotted throughout the country which were very big in their time but now just sit there. Some of them are empty, unused and derelict. There needs to be some way we can, in our planning into the future, look to ensure there is some type of designation or strategy around the regulation and location of venues. They add to our cultural life, but also to our tourism. We do not want to be without those venues and that cultural draw. The Cobblestone is a venue in this city which was under threat. There are other venues in the same situation. Fortunately, the Cobblestone is still in situthanks to a campaign, but other venues have disappeared despite having huge followings and benefiting the communities around them. There is also the other side. When we are considering venues we must also consider the population around them, and so on. We must come up with some type of strategy and look at that.

The other amendment in this grouping I want to deal with is amendment No. 224. It would insert the restoration of the Irish language as a spoken language as one of the overarching objectives we seek to include in the Minister's determinations in order that due regard will be given to that issue, as well as the other issues outlined in this section, before the national planning statement is issued.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had a pretty wide-ranging discussion on these amendments dealing with the national planning statement. An amendment I have relates to some of the issues that were raised which I think should be included in any of these, whether it is national planning statements or the frameworks. I have consistently tried to table amendments throughout the Bill on the need to promote the provision of social and affordable housing.

Once upon a time, and right up to now, the planning system did not see it as its responsibility to ensure the development that took place in the area of housing would be affordable or social. When we did the development plan for Cherrywood, or the strategic development zone, SDZ, we tried to push a whole series of amendments in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to say there had to be an obligation to deliver a certain proportion of social and affordable housing. We were told at the time that was not a planning issue and we could not do that. I was a young rookie councillor and this was the biggest issue for me. The issue I was hearing about day and day out was that people in our area were waiting decades on the housing list or could not afford the house prices. Then I got elected to the council and one of the first things we were doing was this SDZ for Cherrywood, the biggest residential development happening anywhere in the country, but we were told we could not require an obligation for a higher proportion of this type of housing because it was not a planning issue. Times have moved on and there is a recognition now. We have started to get it. I was also at some of the preliminary meetings when the campaign got under way about Poolbeg. The site there was going to be developed, but the residents were saying that if we were going to develop this, it had to benefit the local community in the form of provision of housing for their sons and daughters.

We have moved on a bit, but in my opinion not enough. It must be hardwired into the planning and development system that it is not good enough just to say we think the population is going to be at a certain level and therefore we need a certain amount of houses which may be built here but not there, and so on. We have to do that, but we must also include in that planning the absolute obligation that what is built is actually going to meet the housing needs of the people in that area based on incomes, affordability and so on. Otherwise, we will end up building loads of stuff nobody can afford. Is that not really what laid the basis for the crash in 2008? We were building loads of stuff, but at a certain point the people who were supposed to live in it could not afford it and the whole thing came tumbling down. That was the absolute opposite of proper planning. We must learn the lessons of that and ensure when we are doing these plans, statements, frameworks and so on, that part of it has to be to deliver social and affordable housing.

In a way, that relates to what Deputy Healy-Rae was saying. I do not know the issues in Kerry half as well as he does, but ultimately it is about the people in the community and whether the planning system serves their legitimate need to be housed in their community. Critical to that is really engaging with the communities, meaning the process must be genuinely democratic. As it happens, we can balance the need to protect nature, biodiversity, water quality and all those things while meeting the needs of people and having a commonsense approach that is also respectful of the environment, which we destroy at our peril. We cannot build stuff and then find we do not have clean water. We have to get things right, but I empathise with the sentiment in that if planning does not really consider the ordinary people and what they need and can afford and so on, then the people who benefit from the plans are often big for-profit developers who just see the plan as an opportunity they can exploit and make money out of. They are not really that bothered about whether it actually meets the needs of the local community. It is just a framework in which they are going to make money.

I am not quite sure why we even need the planning statements. We need a planning system with the various layers, but the specific thing being done here is that the Minister will issue planning statements which potentially will come into conflict with democratically decided development plans or bring other layers of the planning process into conflict with communities and so on. I am not saying there is not a reason for having these things, but it should be democratically decided in this House precisely in order that if there are concerns from Kerry or Dún Laoghaire they can be inputted into the discussion and so the elected representatives of the people have a say over the statement that is made if there needs to be an intervention, if you like, at a national level in the planning system to ensure it delivers the sustainable and necessary development required for our society. We have had the debate, but I do not see why it should be just the Government that ultimately makes this decision. It should be the Houses of the Oireachtas. I repeat that social and affordable housing, the need for it and its delivery should be hardwired into the whole process.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me start by just outlining again the key aim of the Bill, which is to introduce more consistency, clarity and certainty to the planning system. That is core to what we are actually doing here and what we have done over the past six months. The Bill is looking to the future; it is certainly not dealing with the past. Within that, it is really important that we have consistency across all tiers of planning, be it at national, regional or local level. It is important that we have an integrated planning system fit for all, one where the process of agreement on a national planning policy statement is central and includes the necessary stakeholder engagement, environmental assessments and the agreement of the Government. It is important that the local, regional and national issues are addressed.

With regard to the current system, back in 2023 more than 41,995 planning permissions were granted. That included more than 5,000 one-off housing applications. I put it to the Rural Independents and those in opposition to a system they feel is not fit for purpose, that it is working. We have more people living and working in rural Ireland than ever before. We have the roll-out of the national broadband plan that is supporting people in rural areas. We have the Department of Rural and Community Development, which is providing millions of euro around rural regeneration and community development. This is essential to ensure we have vibrancy in rural areas.

Section 46(3) of the Bill deals with the requirement for a development plan to identify population and housing growth targeted for countryside that is outside settlements. We are factoring in issues around rural areas and ensuring that we have development plans that support planning within these development plans. Many Deputies have voiced their concerns about the national planning statements but they will undergo public consultation. As determined by Government we will have brought forward a report which the Minister will review following the consultation. It will be informed by the sectoral policy and by other Ministers with regard to environment and transport where necessary. It is intended to ensure that policy coherence is at the heart of this. It also will provide clarity to inform development plans and ultimately planning decisions. It is very important to underline what national planning statements will involve.

I will address some of the amendments first and then I will speak to the Government amendments in the context of what was discussed. Amendments Nos. 195, 196, 200, 202 and 225, tabled by Deputy Ó Broin, deal with the same substantial issue of whether the policy of the planning system should be agreed by the Government or passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. As previously discussed by the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, we cannot accept these amendments as they represent a deterioration of what is already comprehensively provided for within the Bill. As was said previously on similar amendments relating to the national planning framework, it is appropriate and right that the Government has responsibility for setting and agreeing Government policy required for planning and other matters. The Deputy has outlined that it will present more conflict. That certainly is not the intention nor will it be the case. It is widely acknowledged that planning is a discipline that affects almost every facet of daily life. It is critical to the well-being of our citizens so it is important that our national planning statements are a key mechanism introduced in the Bill to improve consistency with the tier of planning, as I have previously outlined.

The Bill will also provide for other tiers of regional or local planning and a review of these plans will be conducted for alignment with national policy. The proposed amendments seek to add a further level of Oireachtas approval but are unclear as to how they will be reconciled with the extensive assessment and consultation already provided for within the Bill or within the wider programme for Government. Therefore, we oppose these amendments.

On amendments Nos. 197, 198 and 199, while the Government supports the use of the Irish language, procedures and obligations for Irish translation and communication are already provided for within the Official Languages Act. Great strides have been made recently in respect of public advertising in Irish, which is to be commended. Once the Bill is enacted we will ensure it is publicly available in Irish. Due to the already technical nature of the planning language, it would be unfair to non-Irish speakers seeking to navigate the document to publish these titles solely in the Irish language.

With regard to amendments Nos. 203 and 204, section 25(4) already states that the national planning statements shall take effect on the date of such publication unless otherwise stated in specifics. Although it is likely to be rare, on occasion there may be valid and practical reasons such as giving an appropriate lead-in time for the changes contained.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The time is up, I am sorry.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will conclude. We find this section to be sufficient as currently drafted and cannot accept the amendments.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Part of the problem with this section of the Bill and the rationale for this group of amendments is that it is not just the Opposition who are raising very real concerns with the way in which the planning policy statement architecture has been put in place; these concerns are also being raised by professional planners and the people who make planning applications and decide on planning applications. I am not at all against the idea of planning policy statements. I believe it is a very good idea and, if designed properly, would provide for the clarity and consistency the Minister of State says that he seeks. In fact, in the final days on Committee Stage the Irish Planning Institute had its annual conference, at which Gavin Lawlor, its president, gave a speech that was widely covered in the media. His comments on the Bill as it was concluding Committee Stage are directly pertinent to these amendments. He stated:

In its current form this Bill is not fit for purpose. It will have a detrimental impact on citizen engagement in the planning process, and it proposes unrealistic timelines, guidelines and compliance, making aspects of the Bill unworkable.

He went on to say that the IPI hoped to see further amendments on Report Stage. There are no amendments to deal with its concerns on Report Stage. In its submissions prior to Committee Stage, it suggested amendments. We tabled those amendments and we urged the Government to support them. Specifically with respect to the issue in front of us, it wanted to see a clarity provided in the policy statements between forward planning and development management. The Government refused to do that. While of course planners will have different opinions, and there are some very qualified expert planners in the Department providing the Minister and Ministers of State with advice on these matters, the Irish Planning Institute surveyed its members on this Bill and 80% of respondents raised a very real concern. The real difficulty here is not that it is unfortunate the Minister of State is not listening to us but that he is not listening to the people who will have to work this Bill, make decisions and make applications. For the Minister of State to say that he does not believe that this legislation and this section of the Bill will create more conflict rather than less, despite what the vast majority of planners are telling us, is unfortunate. On that basis I will be pressing the amendments.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would anyone else like to come in?

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very concerned about the whole process we are going through here tonight. It clearly does not demonstrate any genuine will to help people to get planning permission in rural areas. Indeed, there is little to suggest there is any help forthcoming for people who want to build in urban areas. With regard to the two points I highlighted previously, there are amendments that propose further restrictions on those looking for planning permission in rural areas. Despite this, the Government is talking about helping people to build houses and obtain planning permission. Therefore, its arguments contradict each other. "Hypocritical" is the word I use for this. The situation will remain. We have been promised for many years that there would be new planning guidelines but there is very little in this Bill to help people in rural areas. In fact, there is nothing to help them to get planning permission and build homes for themselves. I will keep highlighting the designation called strict urban-generated pressure. It was designed to stop people coming out of towns and villages and building out in the country but it actually prevents people from building next door to their parents, where they were born and reared and where they want to continue living. Now they are being forced into towns in which they cannot get planning permission because the treatment plants are not up to scratch. What is really happening is that they are emigrating from our shores.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe the Minister of State could offer some clarity on the point that several Members raised on urban-generated planning demand. How can the son or daughter of a landowner who has always lived in the country and whose family may have been there for generations be accused of creating urban-generated planning demand when they are not urban? Could we have some clarity in that? That seems to be the point the Deputies are making.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One hundred percent.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The arguments Deputy Danny Healy-Rae is presenting are made on an individual basis in his constituency in Kerry.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Several-----

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In many cases, the local area development plans and county development plans are agreed by the local members in accordance with national policy. To say the planners themselves make the determination on an individual basis, based on policy-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let the Minister of State answer.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What we are doing is ensuring we have a Bill that is fit for purpose in the here and now. The existing legislation is 24 years old. By enhancing the policy, the national planning statements and the national planning framework, we are coherently recalibrating and rebalancing what we need to do in our planning system, which is really important. Everyone should have a right to live and work in their locality. They make individual applications to do so and the adjudications are made by the experts, the planners, not by politicians. There is a bit of a disconnect when I hear Deputy Healy-Rae say we are taking the powers away from local government.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government is.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the planners who are actually trained and qualified to ensure they implement policy. I have never seen a politician, be it a councillor or Deputy, make an assessment of a planning application. They are not technically qualified to do so. Today we are addressing the issues within the Bill, not the issues in Kerry County Council. The national planning statements replace section 28 and section 29 guidelines, pertaining to a ministerial policy directive under the Act of 2000. I am satisfied that the procedures for the national planning statements and the matters in respect of the Minister issuing national planning statements are set out in the Bill and are sufficient.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is totally incorrect.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry but-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is blaming the planners in Kerry County Council.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy cannot-----

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The majority in Kerry County Council proposed a smaller radius around the towns.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy cannot come in for a third time.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The regulator that the Government is in charge of directed the county manager to increase the radius. The Minister of State is blaming the planners and doing nothing to regulate this.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ah, come on now, please.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is not being honest. This man is getting away with this because he is not being accurate.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is nobody getting away with anything. Will the Deputy resume his seat? He is out of order. The Minister of State has been asked a question and has answered it.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, he did not answer it properly.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might not like the answers, but he has answered.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is blaming the planners in Kerry County Council. He is wrong about that.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not blame anyone.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He did.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, please, please.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 196:

In page 69, line 4, after "Government" to insert "and the Houses of the Oireachtas".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 197:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 198:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 199:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 200:

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 201:

In page 69, line 12, to delete "revoke or amend" and substitute "amend or revoke".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 202:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 203:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 204:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 205:

In page 69, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: "(g) board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, and Language Planning Officers.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 206:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 207:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 208:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 209:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 210:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 211:

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 212:

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 213:

In page 70, line 17, after “rural” to insert “and Gaeltacht”.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 214:

In page 70, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(g)(i) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta and in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012, and

(ii) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside of the Gaeltacht and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 215:

In page 70, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(g) promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate those experiencing physical or mental disabilities or differences, to address gender considerations and to address challenges of those experiencing financial, learning, or other challenges;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 216:

In page 70, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(g) promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate the travelling community;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 217:

In page 70, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(g) promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate the integration of new communities including those seeking refuge in Ireland;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 218:

In page 70, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(g) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta, in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012;”.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 219:

In page 71, line 4, to delete “Act.” and substitute “Act;”.

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 220:

In page 71, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(p) integration of relevant climate action related policies and measures of the Government, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, into regional spatial and economic strategies,development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans;

(q) integration of relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to biodiversity, including those in respect of the National Biodiversity Action Plan, into regional spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans.”.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 220:

To delete paragraph (p) and substitute the following: “(p) integration and achievement of the national climate objective and relevant climate action related policies and measures of the Government, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, into regional, spatial and economic strategies, development plans, urban area plans, priority area plans and coordinated area plans, without prejudice to the obligations imposed by section 15 of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, not withstanding section 86 of this Act;”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 220:

In paragraph (p), after “prepared” to insert “consistent with national and international climate obligations and”

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 220:

In paragraph (q), after “to” to insert “the protection, conservation and restoration of”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 221:

In page 71, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(p) emergency measures to address the housing deficit and the need to increase the delivery of social and affordable homes as set out in the Report of the Housing Commission 2024.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 222:

In page 71, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: "(p) recognition, protection and regulation of night venues.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 223:

In page 71, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: "(p) prevention, reduction, amelioration and mitigation of risks of socio-linguistic damage in Gaeltacht areas.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 224:

In page 71, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: "(p) the objective of restoring the Irish language to use as a spoken language nationwide and as the community language of the Gaeltacht.".

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 225:

In page 72, line 41, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Oireachtas".

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 226 to 232, inclusive, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 232, amendment No. 235, amendment No. 236, amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 236, and amendments Nos. 237 to 247, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 226:

In page 73, line 15, to delete "makes" and substitute "shall make".

This grouping includes a number of minor technical grammatical changes to the regional spatial and economic strategy provisions via amendments Nos. 226, 230, 236, 240, 242, 244 and 247.

As before, these do not change the legal meaning of the sentences in question but have been identified by my Department and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to improve the syntax and usability of the sentences in question. Amendment No. 226 replaces "makes" with "shall make" in section 28(1) to bring further clarity to the provision. Amendment No. 230 removes the term "the preparation, the making of and the revision of" in section 28(6) and replaces it with "the preparation, making and revision of".

Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and Cian O’Callaghan have proposed an amendment to amendment No. 236 to change "as appropriate" to "in all instances where it is regionally appropriate". I cannot accept this amendment as it is unnecessary; the text as written does the same thing. Amendment No. 236 adds the words "as appropriate" to section 29(1)(l) to acknowledge that Gaeltacht-related matters will not be relevant to every area.

Amendment No. 240 includes a hyphen in "land use" in section 29(1)(p). Amendment No. 242 replaces "was justified" with "is justified" in section 29(1)(r). Amendment No. 244 replaces "must" with "shall" in section 29(7). Finally, amendment No. 247 includes the phrase "without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a)" to section 29(7)(b) to further clarify the provision.

I will now address amendment No. 232. Deputies Boyd Barrett, Ó Broin, Ó Snodaigh, Gould and O’Callaghan have proposed an amendment to amendment No. 232 which seeks to make minor modification to the provision surrounding climate obligations. I cannot accept this proposal as the wording of the amendment as drafted is appropriate. In particular, I do not see that it is necessary to include a reference to "international climate obligations" because the Climate Action and Low Carbon Act 2015, which is referenced in this section, already deals with international obligations. Therefore, there is no necessity to include it in this section. Amendment No. 232 updates the reference to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and strengthens the language from "reflects" to "is consistent with". This reflects the commitments made on Committee Stage to review such references throughout the Bill. As previously explained, similar amendments have been proposed in relation to the national planning framework and national planning statements and later in the Bill in relation to development plans and consenting procedures.

We are bringing forward a number of amendments across the Bill in relation to climate change. References to climate change have been strengthened at national planning framework and national planning statement levels, emphasising the requirement for integration of the relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to the national biodiversity action plan and the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 as well as the national adaptation framework, long-term climate action strategy and any sectoral adaptation plans prepared under that Act.

I will now address amendment No. 227 tabled by Deputy Matthews; amendments Nos. 228, 229, 235, 237 to 239, inclusive, 241, 243, 245 and 246 tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, and Ó Snodaigh; and amendment No. 231, tabled by Deputies Boyd Barrett, Paul Murphy, Gino Kenny and Bríd Smith. Amendment No. 232, which I have just discussed, achieves the same aim as amendment No. 227 tabled by Deputy Matthews, and I would ask the Deputy to withdraw that amendment.

As with other sections of the Bill, Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh seek to insert multiple Gaeltacht-related amendments, namely amendments No. 228, 229, 237, 239, 241, 243, 245 and 246, in relation to regional spatial and economic strategies. As previously noted, Government amendments have already been tabled regarding the notification of the relevant Irish-language bodies throughout each tier of planning in this Bill, as well as, in the case of directions, the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media. Section 29(1)(l) already provides for "(l) the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Gaeltacht" and as with the amendments relating to housing, it is not appropriate at regional level to become so granular as to replicate the work implemented at local level. I therefore cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment No. 231 seeks to insert a reference to "social, affordable and cost rental targets" within the RSES. However, this is not the function of the RSES nor the section in question, section 29(1)(d). Rather, this subsection compels the RSES to set out the location of housing within the region which then informs the development plans of local authorities who go on to specify targets in relation to the types of housing needed having regard to the RSES and utilising their own local knowledge and tools such as the housing needs demand assessment. It would not be appropriate for such targets to be specified at regional rather than local level and therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 235 seeks to amend section 29(1)(k) to introduce the concept of "linguistic heritage". As with the concept of "historical landscapes", linguistic heritage is not a clearly defined term and the muddying of concepts between the Bill’s provision for language, architectural heritage and environment, in an effort to be all things to everyone, may have counterproductive effects by introducing unhelpful ambiguity. I therefore cannot accept amendment No. 235.

Amendment No. 238 seeks to amend section 29(1)(m), content of regional spatial and economic strategy, to expand the term landscape to also include "historical landscapes". Such landscapes may include cemeteries and battlefields for educational and interpretive purposes. However, the Bill does not provide for such sites separately and their identification and characterisation can be complex in nature.

Furthermore, such sites would, arguably, already be provided for in section 29(1)(k) which provides for "the preservation and protection of the environment and its amenities, including the archaeological, architectural and natural heritage of the region". I cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.

I have introduced a number of minor amendments in this group to clarify language in the Bill. I have also introduced an amendment that updates the reference to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015. As mentioned, we are bringing forward a number of amendments across the Bill in relation to climate change. References to climate change have been strengthened at the national planning framework and national planning statement levels, emphasising the requirement for the integration of the relevant policies and measures of the Government relating to the national biodiversity action plan and Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as well as the national adaptation framework, long-term climate action strategy and any sectoral adaptation plans prepared under that Act.

Emer Higgins (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak to amendment No. 232. I thank the Minister of State for tabling this amendment to the Bill. As we are all aware, this Bill is nearly 730 pages long. It is the third largest piece of legislation in the history of the State and is the culmination of a 15-month review of the planning system. Anyone who spent hours and weeks on end in committee rooms during the months of February, March and April will know that more than 1,200 amendments have already been debated during those sessions, which often ran to 20 hours a week or more. This is democracy in action and it is really good to see this level of debate and scrutiny, because, after all, this is a once-in-generation opportunity to reform our planning system.

Amendment No. 232 from the Government is an example of how this discussion, debate and feedback on Committee Stage has shaped where we are today. In response to the issues on Committee Stage, references to biodiversity and climate change have now been strengthened. I commend all TDs on the housing committee for their part in this endeavour, but, in particular, our Cathaoirleach, Deputy Matthews, whose commitment to biodiversity and improving this Bill has been second to none. These amendments mean that our national planning framework and our national planning strategies will require integration with the national biodiversity action plan, as well as the laws around climate action and low-carbon development. It will also mean full integration with the national adaptation framework and long-term climate action strategies. This is essential as we - government, industry and society - work together to tackle the biodiversity crisis.

All of us in this House, of course, are mindful of the need to resolve the housing crisis too. Our goal is to increase housing supply to help people of all ages and backgrounds secure their first mortgages and offer certainty in a system where stability is key. We know that homes are being built up and down the country. Work starts every day on 350 new homes. In areas like mine, it is not just a statistic but is something we can see happening. In Lucan and Clondalkin, hoardings are up, boots are on the ground and cranes are on the skyline. Every week, 500 first-time buyers are drawing down mortgages for their first homes. Progress is happening. It is not happening quick enough but this Bill will help to progress things further. I am very glad that amendment No. 232 is there to strengthen this legislation from a biodiversity perspective.

I thank the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, for leading on this reformative legislation. I also thank his team of Kevin Dillon and Ciara Shaughnessy. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, for all the long nights he spent on this legislation in the committee rooms, as well as for always putting biodiversity at the heart of this Bill. We can see this with amendment No. 232. I also thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, as well as the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, who brought this Bill towards its conclusion tonight. I would also like to formally recognise the incredible work and the extremely long hours put in by officials in the Department. There are too many to name, but particular thanks are due to Paul Hogan, Mary Johnson and Colin Ryan, who through this entire process have proved themselves not just expert professionals but incredible public servants. I thank everybody involved with this Bill and I am happy to support amendment No. 232.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to the specific amendments we have before us now, and the one thing that jumps out at me from amendment No. 232 are the words "national policies and measures, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015". This proposed amendment is from the Minister and ties in with what we touched on earlier concerning costs.

When we talk about climate action and building houses and adhering to the aims and aspirations of climate action, we must just remember one thing. To build a house, it takes concrete, timber, diggers, diesel and cement. The one thing I am worried about is that if we were to take the aims of what the Government is hoping to do, it would be possible to come along and say that we would ensure we would do no damage to the environment by not building because this would be one way we could solve the problem. Very sadly, however, the Government will have to wake up to the fact that to make an omelette, you have to crack an egg and to build a house, you have to use these materials.

The diggers have to go in. It is not possible to dig the foundations of a house by hand anymore. The people who came before us did what were called footings by hand, and they dug them with shovels. You would not get many people to dig the foundations of a house now with a shovel. It is necessary to start the digger in the morning to do so and you must put diesel into it. We have seen all the silly nonsense where we had electric diggers that had to be charged. How were they being charged? It was not possible to charge them off an ordinary outlet, so it was necessary to start a generator to charge the diggers. What went into the generator? It is a thing called diesel. It would have been much easier to put the diesel into the diesel engine and start the digger. This is the type of nonsense coming from the Green Party, and I am not picking on the Minister of State, because, as I have said before about him, he is a very nice man.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is just what he stands for and much of what comes out of his mouth that I do not like. I have nothing in the world against him personally, however. I would describe him as nothing but a gentleman.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nothing I am saying is any reflection on him personally. What I have just described earlier, though, is fact. It is true, and it is what the Minister of State's party propagates and tries to sell to the Irish people and to people around the rest of Europe. What I am saying is that to build a house, it is necessary to have an effect carbon-wise. There is a carbon footprint in a house. The Government, then, must make up its mind whether it wants to build houses. Does the Government wish to house people or does it not? The only reason the Government does not come out and say there should be no building is that it knows that whatever hope it has it must admit that we must house people. When I hear this type of talk, therefore, all it spells out to me is money, money, money, and more expense being put on the person wanting to have a family home.

Last night, I read a report. I was just saying this to my brother a moment ago. It said that in 40 years' time the average price of an ordinary house will be €1.8 million. I do not know whether that is factual or not. Not being too bad at doing sums, though, I actually think it probably is correct and this is what people are facing. By the time young people of today, who might be ten or 15, will be 50 or 60, the average price of a house could possibly and potentially be €1.8 million. In Killarney town now, it is no surprise to see new houses being sold for €500,000, €600,000 and €700,000. This is an astronomical sum of money to pay for a place to call home in which to be able to lie down on a bed. I did not think I would actually get to see that in my lifetime but I am seeing it. It is not, therefore, beyond the realms of possibility that it will be the case that it will cost the amount of money I mentioned to buy a house in the future.

I just wanted to make the point that when I am looking at the aim of achieving consistency with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, as amended, we would have to say to ourselves that if there is a desire to take this to its ultimate conclusion the Green Party would actually be happier if no houses were built because then there would be no impact on the environment.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is rubbish. The Deputy is not even speaking to the amendments. Come on Ceann Comhairle, that is not on. I have listened to the Deputy's rubbish all night.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry now, but if the Deputy wants to pick a fight, he should go away and pick on somebody else because if he picks on me, he will lose it. I will tell the Deputy about more of the stupidity that has gone on in this regard over the years.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Can we focus on the amendments?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to be mannerly to the Ceann Comhairle-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----so I am not going to answer the tripe and rubbish coming out of the Deputy's mouth.

Joe O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Deputy does not want there to be tripe and rubbish, why does he not stop talking tripe and rubbish?

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do not heckle me and do not try to stop me speaking when I have speaking time. If the points I am making are hurting the Deputy personally, well, is that not his trouble? I am making perfect common sense to the people listening to him and to this debate. If there is a desire to adhere to the policies of the Green Party and to follow much of what it goes on with, then houses should not be built. The case being made by the Deputy and his party is that he might have a home and the people in his party might have homes, while the young people who want homes are being told they cannot have them because they might damage the environment.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is rubbish.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the Green Party's answer to them? It is that they have to adhere to what is in the policies going forward, but it costs money to do that and it makes homes an awful lot more expensive. That is the difficulty I have with what is contained in this Bill and that is what I want to highlight and let the people see. I want to let them understand that Government policy is driving up the cost of affordable housing and putting it totally beyond their reach and what they can achieve to afford. That is so disappointing, a Cheann Comhairle. Instead of trying to make things easier, we are just succeeding in making things a lot more difficult and a lot harder for those people. That is my point.

Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Healy-Rae for the lesson on diggers, excavators and plant hire. I assure anyone who has an interest in that type of business that climate action will not affect it. Houses can be built with low-carbon technology. In fact, the housing committee is going to visit some low-carbon technology modular housing in September. I would be delighted to invite Deputy Healy-Rae to the committee when we prepare a report on that. He will see how climate action and the construction and development of much-needed housing does go hand in hand. I disagree with much of what he said.

I will speak to the amendments because that is what we are here for tonight. I am going to speak to amendment No. 227, which was my suggestion for achieving consistency with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. My suggestion was to insert that into section 28, which deals with the RSES. The Minister has taken my suggested amendment and inserted it into section 29, which deals with the content of the RSES. For the record, so that people know what we are speaking on here, it states that the RSES shall make provision for the following matters: the strategy relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation that is consistent with national policies and measures, including those prepared pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, which provides for the co-ordination of public bodies in pursuance of the strategy. I thank the Minister. I think Deputy Higgins covered it quite well, because we did have a considerable amount of discussion on strengthening this Bill in relation to climate action and protecting nature and biodiversity, which is critically important to every aspect of society as it goes forward.

Regardless of what business one is involved in, climate chaos is going to impact massively on us economically, societally and environmentally, so everything we do here in the Bill to strengthen climate action and the protection of nature is for everybody. It is not just the preserve of the Green Party, although we do lead on it and we have led on it for the past 20 or 30 years, and we will continue to lead on it. We have seen that reflected in votes across the country this weekend where people voted for the Green Party on our policies. I thank the Minister for taking this amendment. It shows is a pattern: where we spent a considerable time in the committee discussing such matters, we see these strengthening measures in the Bill for climate action and the protection of nature in the national planning framework and that permeates through the national planning statements and further on down into these lower-level plans - the regional spatial and economic strategies. We spoke yesterday about how we could incorporate that into development plans and the matters on which planning authorities or the commission shall have to be consistent with the climate Act as well. I thank the Minister for that. I thank all the members of the committee, because we did spend a considerable amount of time on this and on other matters. The Minister has taken a lot of that on board. He took a lot of it on board as well from the pre-legislative scrutiny that we did. That is another aspect of what the committee has worked on for many hours. I think we had ten public meetings and about 30 odd hours, and about another ten hours to agree the report, which is substantial. A lot of the recommendations that we made in the report have been taken into this Bill and reflected in it, which shows the fact that people are willing to engage.

There are people in here speaking on this Bill tonight who have members in their group who did not even show up. They did not table one single amendment. They made no contribution whatsoever. I do not think they spoke one word on the Bill on Committee Stage yet they are in here tonight slating this Bill and the work that we are trying to do. That needs to be put on the record.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Labhair mé faoi roinnt de na leasuithe atá curtha síos maidir le - mar a dúirt an tAire - ceist an teanga agus ceist na Gaeltachta ach go háirithe, ach rudaí eile dá leithéid freisin. Táimid ag déileáil leis an straitéis eacnamaíochta agus an straitéis réigiúnach agus ag déanamh iarrachta arís, leis na leasuithe atá agam i gCaibidil 3 den Bhille seo, déileáil leis na rudaí céanna. Táimid ag iarraidh cinnte a dhéanamh de i ngach uile Caibidil go bhfuil meas á tabhairt don seoid atá againn ó thaobh ár dteanga náisiúnta ach chomh maith leis sin, aitheantas a thabhairt agus cosaint a dhéanamh ar an nGaeltacht agus an gá atá ann í a chosaint.

I have tried in my amendments to ensure - in the last section where we were dealing with the national section and in this section where we are dealing with regional, spatial and economic strategies – that those who are drawing up the strategies are mindful of the need to have a linguistic strategy that gives recognition to the status of the Gaeltacht region as a whole. It is a region, which is why it would fit in perfectly here. I acknowledge that there is a protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage mentioned under the content of the regional spatial and economic strategy and what we are trying to do is enhance it. It is not cutting across it, but it is a pity it was not part of the national strategy. The comments we make are fair. It is appropriate because it is already there, so amendment No. 237 is only trying to enhance the protection.

At the moment the Gaeltacht is a series of areas. "An Ghaeltacht" is a singular region in itself, albeit in eight different areas. We have amendments but we might not reach them. There is a problem when people talk about Gaeltachtaí or Gaeltachts. There is only one Gaeltacht. There are Gaeltacht areas or regions but there is only one in the context of later amendments from the Minister.

The Gaeltacht at the moment is static, but in another way that is not the case because we now have language planning areas. We have the bailte seirbhíse agus líonraí Gaeltachta, areas where we are trying to not only preserve and protect the language, heritage and linguistic culture within the Gaeltacht region but it is Government strategy to tie in those serviced towns. There is a recognition, for instance, of Tralee and other areas and the role that they play in servicing the Gaeltacht area that is next to them. Then there are language planning areas that have or should have a status over and above the rest of the area surrounding the Gaeltacht. The reason for that is State institutions have already designated those areas, be it Údarás na Gaeltachta or Foras na Gaeilge, but that is not reflected in this Bill - that there is an extra dimension, if one wants, to the areas that are up against the region in question. That is why it is important that is recognised. It is not adding any extra duties on the State.

It just requires that when plans are drawn up, those drawing them up are cognisant of the language strategy the State has drawn up and the need to give effect to it.

My amendment No. 238 is also in this grouping. It seeks to enhance the definition of landscapes and ensure there is recognition of historic landscapes and their context. We have had the debate about the buildings on Moore Street and other locations. In the past, there was a big debate about the Hill of Tara and other historic landscapes. This amendment is not necessarily about setting a protection. It is about ensuring that when strategies are being drawn up, there is cognisance of this issue and reflection on it. When devising strategies, protection often comes at a later stage through preservation orders, protection orders and otherwise. This amendment provides that when drawing up strategies, at the very minimum, we must ensure those drawing them up have a recognition of these issues.

My leasú Uimh. 235 relates to the content of the regional, spatial and economic strategy. Section 29(1)(k) refers to "the preservation and protection of the environment and its amenities, including the archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage". We are asking that there also be some recognition of the cultural and linguistic landscape or heritage of a region. Section 29 begins with the statement, "A regional, spatial and economic strategy shall make provision for the following matters". Including this additional provision is not as onerous as it might seem. At least if it is in the draft strategy when it is drawn up or when it goes to public consultation, people can add to it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My four amendments in this grouping refer to the regional, spatial and economic strategy. One of them relates to targets for social and affordable housing with reference to the provision in the section regarding the location and provision of housing in any national or regional population growth targets. We propose to include reference to targets around social and affordable housing. This is critical. If we base our planning for housing purely on the number of houses we need and do not take into account the ability of people who live in that region to afford those houses, we will have a problem.

The State has always needed to subsidise the cost of housing for a significant section of our population. However, a school of thought based on neoliberalism took hold in the 1960s and 1970s that imagined we could just let the market rip and roll back on the provision of social and affordable housing that had been standard in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s in this country. Before this change, 30% to 40% of all housing built, and sometimes as much as half, was built by the State; that is, it was social housing. However, the proportion of social housing that was built at the height of the Thatcherite, neoliberal era reduced to single-figure percentages. That has been a total disaster. An awareness of this needs to be written into our regional, spatial and economic strategies.

If we look at average house prices now, approximately 70% of working people cannot afford them. Strategic plans must acknowledge that reality in terms of housing provision over the period of those plans. A plan must include an awareness that 60% to 70% of the people in the region in question will not be able to afford the average house price. If that is not part of the plan, it is not very good planning. The problem at the moment is that the 10% requirement for social and affordable housing is not enough. It is well short of what is needed in terms of subsidising the cost of housing.

I do not really agree with what Deputy Michael Healy-Rae has just said. However, it is true that if we want housing to be better insulated and retrofitted and less guilty of carbon emission and so on, that can increase the cost of the housing. There are ways of mitigating that. We will reduce energy usage, for example, by ensuring a house is well insulated. There are swings and roundabouts. However, such measures can increase the cost of housing. The fact remains that we still have to provide people with homes and it is better if those homes are well insulated in order to reduce energy bills and carbon emissions. As I said, the cost of housing is not affordable, in terms of what the market can provide, for 60% or 70% of people. If taking insulation and retrofitting measures increases the cost of housing, the planners need to acknowledge that. We must have housing for the people and they need to be able to afford it.

It is appropriate to have targets in that regard, whereby we look at the population and note the housing provision necessary to house that population and the proportion of that population who will never be able to afford those houses. Somehow, the State must ensure that the 60% or 70% of people currently being priced out of housing are accommodated. If that means State subsidies, then that is what must be provided. We are giving loads of subsidies to developers. There is corporate welfare for them. I see no problem whatsoever in subsidising ordinary people to put a roof over their heads. That is the logic behind that particular amendment.

We have also included amendments that strengthen the Government's provision in terms of climate and biodiversity obligations by providing that plans should be prepared consistent with our national and international climate obligations and pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Our amendments are trying to be absolutely clear that plans should not just take cognisance of these matters but must be consistent with them in their preparation. Although there should be no conflict, if we do it right, there can, at times, be a conflict between meeting our obligations to protect biodiversity and reach our climate targets and providing the housing people need. We can do both but it requires planning, a real commitment and the resources and so on to get it right. We absolutely have to do it. If we do not protect nature and biodiversity and if we do not address the climate crisis, we will not be able to live on this planet at all. We will not be able to grow food and have the clean air and water we need to exist on this planet. It is possible to do those things but we must plan in order to do them right. We are proposing those amendments to ensure we are consistent with our obligations in a way that does not conflict with meeting our housing needs.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a technical question on this grouping.

With the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence, because it may be the last time I get to speak on the Bill, much to the delight of the Minister and his officials, I am sure, I will make a few general comments. In my time in the Oireachtas, having been here for eight years as a TD and over a decade, when I include my time as a parliamentary assistant, I have never worked on a Bill as long, technical and complex as this one. I want to make a few acknowledgements before I make a couple of remarks about the amendments.

First, I want to say that the committee Chair, Deputy Stephen Matthews, did an exceptionally good job managing the long and detailed discussions that we had. There were often very few of us in the room, going through the detail of the Bill. Deputy Matthews and I had some arguments and rows at the start of it, but in fairness to him, he ensured that those of us who wanted to scrutinise the Bill fully were given every opportunity to do that. I think we did a good job on that. We probably will not agree on the extent to which we were able to influence the final shape of the Bill, but I want to acknowledge the Chair's contribution to that.

The committee secretariat did an enormous amount of work on this. Given the sheer volume of meetings, particularly in a compressed timeframe for the pre-legislative scrutiny, sometimes with three meetings for 20 hours a week, the committee secretariat needs to be acknowledged for the significant contribution that it made. I acknowledge the long-suffering Bills Office. We tabled many amendments. My colleagues and I were responsible for many of those. The Bills Office was able to turn those amendments around at times when it was also processing the Finance Bill, the Social Welfare Bill and other legislation. It is appropriate that we acknowledge the office. To the long-suffering departmental staff, I want to say two things. I do not think we have ever been given as much briefing material, often at short notice, on any legislation. I thank them for assisting us in understanding it. We may have different views on the content of the Bill and its final shape. Thousands of additional words to the Bill and explanatory memorandum were provided. There was considerable time in both official, direct briefings and also informal conversations to help us understand all of that. That work has to be acknowledged. I have said many times that, whatever my criticisms of the Bill, they are not criticisms of the effort of the people who drafted it and have put significant time into it. I want to acknowledge that.

With respect to amendment No. 232, this is a technical question. The text of the subsection as it stands refers to a strategy relating to climate change adaptation and mitigation. That reflects national policy objectives and provides for the co-ordination of public bodies in pursuance of the strategy. The Government amendment seeks to replace that to say it is consistent with national policies and measures, including those pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. Because it uses the word "including", there is a query as to whether the strategy on climate change adaptation and mitigation could include other policies that either are not included or may not be consistent with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act. That is the rationale for the amendment. In some senses, we agree with what the Government is trying to do with its amendment but there is a fear or lack of clarity in the language, which our amendment is trying to address.

With respect to Deputy Michael Healy-Rae's comment, I make this comment constructively. Right across Europe, there is currently a whole variety of housing developments, some in rural areas, some in semi-urban areas and some in high-density urban areas, where public and private sector developers are using some of the most wonderful, cutting-edge building technologies that have far lower carbon content than the technology we use here, whether for self-builds, small and medium enterprise builders or larger developers. They are predominantly using timber-based products. One of the wonderful things about timber is that we grow it here and it creates jobs and manufacturing opportunities. We have companies in Ireland, both public and private, that are developing these technologies.

What I would say to Deputy Healy-Rae speaks directly to the amendment, which is why I am saying it. In those countries that use these technologies at scale, where government procurement and public works contracts provide a pipeline of work for such building systems and where the planning and building control regime positively incentivises people to use them, they are building high-quality homes that meet all building standards and fire safety regulations. They are doing it at the same cost as traditional building or, when they get scale, at a lower cost. Far too many new homes that we build in Ireland are built with technologies that are out of date. People are used to them and have never been given an opportunity to move in another direction. I know we have many disagreements on aspects of climate policy, which is fine. The Deputy is entitled to his views, as are the rest of us. However, we have a real opportunity, and this is where I agree with Deputy Matthews. Our committee has done much work looking at how we can ensure that new homes we need in the future are built using the best quality materials and building systems manufactured in Ireland which are better for the environment.

As Deputy Healy-Rae also knows, in many rural areas where his constituents are desperate to live, there is significant vacancy and dereliction and not enough assistance and help for people to use those properties because, of course, the lowest carbon home is that which is renovated and restored. In many respects, what the Minister is trying to do with this amendment, notwithstanding my concern that there are some language problems, is to respond to requests that many of us made that we need far greater integration of planning, building control, building systems and climate. I am not saying that this Government is going to do it right but when it is done right, everybody wins, which is important to say. It is unfortunate that the lengthy discussions we had on the need for the planning code and building regulations to address issues of embodied carbon have not really been included in amendments, but that is a battle we will have another day. If the Minister of State is able to clarify that one point, I would appreciate it.

Thomas Gould (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments go to the heart of social and affordable and cost-rental targets. To give the Minister of State an insight, in Cork, 32 cost-rental properties came on the market from Cork City Council. Some 900 people or couples applied for them. That is why targets are so important. Do not get me wrong. It probably changed the lives of those who got the 32 properties, but imagine the disappointment for the 868 applicants who did not get them and the heartbreak they felt. This is not just for cost-rental housing but also affordable housing. Affordable housing is not working. I raised it two weeks ago with the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy O'Brien. I have a situation now where four people are trying to buy affordable houses in Cork in Whitechurch and White's Cross, in two developments, but they are short.

This goes back to the whole idea of targets. When the affordable housing Bill came in, it was possible to get 40% of the equity, but that has now been capped at €100,000. I am dealing with four people now. I raised one case with the Taoiseach. It involves a separated father who is working full-time and has two children. He is trying to put a roof over his head. He is living with his parents at the moment. Under the current system, he cannot have a home for his family. He does not qualify for social housing because he is earning too much. He cannot buy a house on the private market because he does not earn enough. The only hope he has is affordable housing but he cannot get it because this Government's affordable housing is unaffordable. A lady was on to me this evening. She switched from a three-bedroom, semi-detached house to an end of terrace house because it was slightly cheaper. Now she is still €14,000 short. This lady had been on the housing list for eight years. She has one child. She has done well. She went back to college. She got an education. Now her salary has put her off the housing list but she cannot buy affordable housing.

Targets for social, affordable and cost-rental housing need to be built in, but they also really need to be truly affordable. I can only speak for the communities I represent in Cork North-Central. What is being offered at the moment is not affordable. House prices and rents are rising.

Affordable housing was one of the biggest weaknesses with this. Affordability was linked to the market when it should have been linked to people's income. The biggest problem with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is that it has always been based on the market when it should be based on need.

I spoke at an event last week. I came from Knocknaheeny social housing and so did my wife, who lived around the corner in Courtown Drive. I bought my own house. My two sisters built houses and my wife's brother built a house. Social housing was the safety net that my family needed and that many other families need. This Government is failing to provide enough social housing because its targets are too low. I will give the Minister of State one example. In the first three months of this year, in both Cork City Council and Cork County Council, 31,000 people bid on 145 social houses. There were 31,000 bids for 145 houses. That is madness. This is the issue, however. The Minister of State should think of the heartbreak people experience every Wednesday in Cork city and county because of the choice-based letting, CBL, system. People text and email me at five minutes past midnight every Wednesday night. They want to be the first people into the CBL system because it is open for a week. They make a bid on a house and then text me to ask if I will make a representation for them. I will then make a representation for a house in Glanmire or maybe Blackpool but it will turn out that I will make 54 representations for the same property for 54 different people and families.

I was in Cork City Council on Monday with a lady who has been on the housing waiting list for 18 years and four months. How can any person be 18 years on a list? Does the Minister of State know the reason? She was put into a rental accommodation scheme, RAS, property and forgotten about. RAS and the housing assistance payment, HAP, are not social housing. If this Government could do one thing before it finished up, it would be to stop describing HAP and RAS properties as social housing. They are not social housing because people do not have security of tenure and they do not know when they are going to be evicted.

I have a book here with a list of people facing notices to quit. I ring them once a week to see how they are getting on. Last week in Cork, a lady got a letter from Cork City Council to say it had no emergency accommodation. This was on the front of the The Echolast night in Cork. The lady took a case against Cork County Council to the Ombudsman because the council wanted her to travel 30 miles to emergency accommodation. She could not get to work and the children could not get to school because transport services were too far away. To be fair, the Ombudsman ruled against the council. I am also dealing with a lady tonight who has been in recovery for a year and Cork County Council will not give her emergency accommodation. That is how bad things are. That is why we need targets. We do not have realistic targets. I am not talking about the Minister's current targets which are too low. He knows that if people reach the target, it looks good for him.

I will leave the Minister of State with this message. Until such a time as the Government provides more housing each year than the number of families and individuals on the housing list, the housing and homeless crisis will get worse.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the time I have left, I will try to sum up in response to the points and queries raised by Deputies.

In case I do not get time, again, I thank Deputy Matthews and all the committee members for the incredible work they have done. I sat in on quite a few of the sessions. The output of work from the Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage over the past four and a half years has been impressive but this has really shown the incredible work it does. It goes unnoticed in the public discourse, but it is incredible. I thank all the committee members, the secretariat, the Bills Office, our departmental staff and my colleagues, the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, as well as the previous Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, for the work they put in on this transformative legislation.

On the point Deputy Ó Broin raised on amendment No. 232 regarding the word "including", from our perspective, this wording is consistent with national policies of Government on all matters, including the climate Act. It is to ensure climate obligations are met and to give clarity on the renewable energy support schemes with regard to the climate Act.

I will try to go through some of the points, starting with Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. I thank him for his nice comments towards me. I am reminded of a Joan Armatrading song in which she sang, "I'm flattered, but I don't understand."

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would say you are, all right.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This goes back to a point raised by Deputy Ó Broin as well. In the past few weeks, the recast of the energy performance building directive has taken place at EU level. This was not done by the Green Party; it is happening at a high level in the EU. Deputy Ó Broin is correct with regard to modern methods of construction and the changes to procurement policy that need to take place. This process is moving in the right direction. It will lead to better energy performance in buildings.

With regard to the issues around embodied carbon in buildings, I recall from my time on Kilkenny County Council trying to bring through policies on GGBS low-carbon cement and the logjam caused by those who were against that. This is all going to be good and the procurement will favour low carbon. It is recognised that the use of machinery, diesel and so on is needed in the construction of houses but reducing the embodied carbon in buildings is good. I pay tribute to outgoing Green Party MEP, Ciarán Cuffe, for the work he undertook over the last five years in that regard. He has done very important work.

In my constituency, 80 apartments have been approved in County Carlow using modern methods of construction and timber frame on a social housing programme. This is already moving out of the pilot into the mainstream.

I agree with Deputy Matthews on amendment No. 227. The Bill has been strengthened by the committee, particularly with regard to issues of climate and biodiversity, both on pre-legislative scrutiny stage and Committee Stage. Again, I thank the committee for the work it has done.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh spoke about amendment No. 228 and Gaeltacht language planning areas, the áiteanna pleanála teanga, and the status over and above. I reiterate the point that it is not appropriate at regional level to try to replicate what is going on in local plans.

The Deputy also raised points regarding the protection of built and archaeological heritage. There are cross-cutting elements there in terms of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023 in relation to that.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for interrupting the Minister of State but we are out of time.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not your fault. If we move ahead then, I take it everyone is happy.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ecstatic.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, like myself.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are overjoyed.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As am I.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 228:

In page 73, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

“(c)the viability of any Gaeltacht communities within its region and the strengthening the use of Irish therein.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 229:

In page 73, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“(c)the language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns, and Irish Language Networks.”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 230:

In page 73, lines 30 and 31, to delete “the preparation of, the making of and the revision of” and substitute “the preparation, making and revision of”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 231:

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 232:

In page 74, lines 25 and 26, to delete “reflects national policy objectives and” and substitute “is consistent with national policies and measures, including those prepared pursuant to the , which”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 232:

To delete “is consistent with national policies and measures, including those prepared pursuant to the , which” and substitute “is prepared consistent with national and international climate obligations and pursuant to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015, and which also provides”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 234:

In page 74, line 36, after “including” to insert “integration of the National Biodiversity Action Plan and”.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 234:

To delete “integration of the National Biodiversity Action Plan and” and substitute “therefore the integration of and facilitation of the objectives of the National Biodiversity Action Plan, recognising the obligations of all public authorities under section 59B of the Wildlife Act 2023, in respect of the National Biodiversity Action Plan; and”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 235:

In page 74, line 37, after “architectural” to insert “, cultural, linguistic”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 236:

In page 74, line 38, before “the” where it firstly occurs to insert “as appropriate,”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 236:

To delete “as appropriate,” and substitute “in all instances where it is regionally appropriate,”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 237:

In page 74, line 38, after “Gaeltacht” to insert “, the use of Irish within Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas, Gaeltacht Service Towns and Irish Language Networks, their economic, social, and infrastructural development in coordination with Údarás na Gaeltachta or Foras na Gaeilge as appropriate, and support for the implementation of language plans in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 238:

In page 75, line 2, after “landscapes,” to insert “including historic landscapes,”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 239:

In page 75, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

“(v) sets out proposals for supporting the work of Údarás na Gaeltachta to augment the economic performance of Gaeltacht communities and ensure employment opportunities for Irish speakers within the Gaeltacht;”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 240:

In page 75, line 20, to delete “land use” and substitute “land-use”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 241:

In page 75, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“(iv) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network relevant to the area of the regional spatial and economic strategy;”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 242:

In page 76, line 3, to delete “was justified” and substitute “is justified”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 243

In page 76, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(s)a strategy relating to cultural matters, including consideration of requirements for cultural spaces.”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 244:

In page 76, line 31, to delete “must” and substitute “shall”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 245:

In page 77, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“(12) (a)Where a part of the metropolitan area of any city or a key town falls within a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, or is designated as a Gaeltacht Service Town, the regional spatial and economic strategy concerned shall respect the need to protect the use of Irish therein and the viability of the relevant Gaeltacht community.

(b)Where a part of the metropolitan area of any city or a key town is designated as an Irish Language Network, the regional spatial and economic strategy concerned shall respect the need to support efforts to promote the Irish language and sustain the Irish-speaking community within the area, city or town.”.

Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 246:

In page 78, line 6, after “cultural” to insert “, Irish language”.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 247:

In page 78, line 7, before “an” to insert “without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a),”.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 248 to 261, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 248:

In page 78, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

“(iv) any relevant language plans agreed in accordance with the Gaeltacht Act 2012 for a Gaeltacht Language Planning Area, Gaeltacht Service Town or Irish Language Network relevant to the area of the regional spatial and economic strategy,”.

I heard the Minister saying that it was not appropriate to insert "Gaeltacht" or these in similar provisions in the regional section and that it would suffice at a later stage where you are talking about the various different plans, whether the urban, the priority or the co-ordinated area plans. As I explained, the Gaeltacht region is a region and it is quite appropriate to ensure that when there is a review of the regional spatial and economic strategy, we ensure that this is cognisant. The amendments follow from that and I will not delay proceedings.

Amendment No. 248 is to ensure that in carrying out a review, a regional assembly shall ensure that the strategy is materially cognisant with the relevant language plans. I explained that previously. Subsection (3)(b) here takes account of those language plans.

In each case, it is appropriate. There is a number of others. It is to try to ensure that when putting together plans and when reviewing those plans, there is in the back of everybody's mind, because it is specifically laid out here, a need to be cognisant of planning around language where it is relevant.

It is a regional plan and there is not a Gaeltacht area in every county. There is not a Gaeltacht area, for instance, in the whole of the midlands and there are two such regions in County Meath. The rest are nearly all confined to what they now call the Wild Atlantic Way but, before that, it did not need to be called that. People knew it, if they did, because it was mainly a Gaeltacht region and over time that shrank to what we have now so that there are pockets that are not within the designated Gaeltacht area. Then you have An Rinn in Waterford obviously not on the Atlantic, as in the Wild Atlantic Way, but it is still in the Atlantic. That is the reason. We are trying to ensure not that there is a separate spatial strategy but that at the very least in those strategies that are published, we at least ensure that those who are in the first instance drawing them up and in the second instance, where there are regional assemblies, have to take account of those when reviewing those strategies.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will address amendments Nos. 248 to 250, inclusive, 253 and 254 tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould and Ó Snodaigh.

These amendments relate to the interaction of the RSES with Gaeltacht matters, such as notification of relevant Irish-language bodies. As I have discussed previously, following Committee Stage and reflective of Government's support for the Irish language and the Gaeltacht communities in general, a review of the relevant notification sections was conducted, including in this part of the Bill relating to regional assemblies. To this end, Government amendments have been tabled relating to the bodies that should be notified and consulted as part of the various plan-making processes at regional and development plan level.

In each instance, where the functional area of the planning authority includes a Gaeltacht area, we have named Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge and Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga explicitly. This has been done at sections 54, 55, 58, 75 and 76 as well as Part 22 on UDZs. I will, however, commit to further reviewing the references to such bodies in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media to review whether the correct bodies are referenced and if such references should also be included elsewhere in the Bill and will bring forward further amendments if necessary.

In any instance where a direction from the Minister or the OPR is involved, we have also included the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport, and Media, in addition to Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge and Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga.

Specifically relating to regional assemblies, these changes are relevant to the sections dealing assessment of RSES and directions issued.

For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Deputies on this matter.

As before, I have a number of grammatical amendments to this chapter - amendments Nos. 251, 252 and 255 to 261, inclusive. These relate only to grammar, clarity of references or phrases.

For example, amendment No. 251 replaces the word “issues” with “matters”, while amendment No. 252 replaces “it shall” with “the Authority shall”. Amendment No. 255 points the reader to the exact subsection of section 31 that is relevant whilst amendments Nos. 256, 257, 260 and 261 clarify that the number of weeks cited commence from the date of notice.

Amendment No. 258 removes parenthesis brackets from the term "or draft revision" and amendment No. 259 clarifies that the number of weeks cited commence from the proposal to make a material alteration.

None of these amendments makes any substantive change to the meaning of the sentences involved.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, at this point coming onto midnight, we are leaving 585 amendments behind us. It is disgraceful at this time, although not the Ceann Comhairle's fault, for the Government to be guillotining this important Bill before the House. It is wrong and unfair on the people of Ireland.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's objection is noted.

On the Planning and Development Bill 2023, Fourth and Fifth Stages, as it is now midnight, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of 11 June: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and not disposed of, excluding amendment 265, but including those in respect of which recommittal would, in the normal course, be required, are hereby made to the Bill; amendment 265 is hereby negatived; amendment 266, and amendment 267 as amended by the amendment to that amendment, are hereby made to the Bill; Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and the Bill is hereby passed."

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.