Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I accept it is an issue. My starting point is that one-off rural housing should be maintained. I believe it is the right of rural people to build on family land without question. We have technology available to us to deal with water quality issues. If septic tanks are working properly, there is no issue. It is the language that concerns me as a person from rural Ireland, knowing the position of people within the Department. I understand the environmental concerns and I am not against addressing them. If a septic tank is not working properly, it is very problematic and needs to be addressed. We have to improve water quality. We know that, and we get the point on agriculture and rural housing.

The Minister of State mentioned transport. I do not believe any person building in a rural area, particularly a more remote one, expects a public bus to land at the front door. We are not looking for that. However, we do not want the inability to provide public transport to our front doors to be somehow used as a way to block people from getting planning permission. My point is on the mentality in this regard.

The Minister of State mentioned urban-generated rural housing. In Castlebar, where I live, very few properties are available to buy and the newer ones are quite expensive. If you and your partner are from the town, it is nearly impossible to get planning in a rural area. You have no option if you want to build your own house. That needs to be facilitated. Serviced sites would be very helpful. They comprise a way to bridge the gap. There are people who do not qualify for social housing who would like to build their own homes. If they are from the town, it is not an option for them. In the context of trying to encourage the development of housing of all types, that needs to be considered as well.

I have not picked up on the provision of age-appropriate housing. We need to provide housing in rural communities for older persons who would like to move out and downsize. That is not an option currently. It needs to be taken into consideration.

I will refer briefly to amendment No. 105. I disagree with the point that, by not supporting it, one somehow does not support people with disabilities. I absolutely reject such an inflammatory assertion from any Member of this House – an assertion made because there is a view that the amendment is not required, is catered for elsewhere or is not worded properly. It is very inflammatory to tell two thirds of the Chamber that they somehow have no concern for people with disabilities. I really reject that. It is really unnecessary language to be using.