Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, to the Seanad. We are resuming our deliberations on amendment No. 139.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 139:

In page 104, between line 22 and 23, to insert the following: “(3) The Department shall produce a report on the viability of the provision of independent legal and technical advice to elected members of the planning authority to assist them in their role in creating and reviewing the development plan.”.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 140:

In page 104, lines 32 and 33, to delete “10 years” and substitute “6 years”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 141:

In page 104, to delete lines 35 to 38.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 142:

In page 104, line 35, to delete “chief executive of a planning authority” and substitute “elected council of a local authority”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 143:

In page 104, after line 38, to insert the following:

“(c) In circumstances referred to in paragraph (b), the elected council of a planning authority may by resolution overturn the extension requested by the chief executive and granted by the Minister.”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 144:

In page 105, to deletes line 1 to 5 and substitute the following: “(6) Any assessment carried out in relation to a development plan for the purposes of complying with the requires of Article 6 (3) of Habitats Directive or the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive shall take account of the fact that the development plan may, by virtue paragraph(b) of subsection (5), have effect for a period of 10 years.”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 145:

In page 105, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: “(c) A planning authority shall be required to liaise with the Chief City or Chief County Planner whose role will be defined by regulations set by the Minister.”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 146:

In page 107, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(i) a statement demonstrating the manner in which the plan incorporates objectives to facilitate and support culture and recreation, including artistic creativity and performance, and to secure access for all to participate in, learn, enjoy, and engage with the arts in their community, including through the provision, protection and promotion of cultural spaces within the functional area to which the development plan relates.”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 147:

In page 107, line 28, after “facilities,” to insert “cultural spaces,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 148:

In page 107, line 28, after “facilities,” to insert “night venues,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment no. 149:

In page 107, line 29, after “for” to insert “cultural,”.

Frances Black (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 150:

In page 107, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(d) the location and extent of cultural, social and recreational facilities in the city,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 151:

In page 107, line 36, after “facilities,” to insert “cultural spaces,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 152:

In page 107, line 36, after “facilities,” to insert “night venues,”.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 153:

In page 107, line 37, after “for” to insert “cultural,”.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 154:

In page 108, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: “(7) The written statement referred to in subsection (2) shall include provision for the zoning of land for affordable housing within the meaning of the Affordable Housing Act 2021.”.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 155 to 191, inclusive, are related; and amendments Nos. 171 and 172 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 170. Amendment No. 187 is a physical alternative to amendment No. 186 and amendments Nos. 155 to 191, inclusive, may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 155:

In page 108, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following: (d) the provision, or facilitation of the provision, of cultural, social and recreational facilities including, but not limited to, arts centres, community centres, libraries, public spaces, public sports facilities, music and event venues, playgrounds and parks,”.

This Bill represents a grey and banal vision of what life will be in our future. There is little in it that protects and promotes the provision of the type of infrastructure that brings vibrancy and colour to our lives. Amendment No.155 seeks to include a provision of cultural, social and recreational facilities and strategies for sustainable development and regeneration. Amendments Nos.157, 159 and 169 seek to include cultural, recreational and social facilities, alongside the promotion of economic development, employment generation and retail provision. This Bill seems to prioritise economic development and activity over other types of activity.

The Government has a duty to our society regarding more than just economic and commercial development. Our urban centres should not only be about people going shopping and spending money as they should also be places where people can gather socialise, relax and interact in a physical space where culture can ferment. Take the community I am from, namely, Tallaght. It has a huge population of approximately 100,000 although I do not know what the current statistics are population-wise. Obviously, though, it is one of the largest. Tallaght village is located within the area covered by one of the richest county councils in the country in terms of money but Tallaght village is unlivable in terms of intergenerational breakdown. Other towns and villages in much smaller places are much more vibrant spaces in which to spend time.There is also a lack of class analysis. We talk about cultural and social spaces and only focus on economics when, in many of our communities, such as Tallaght, there is a lack of class analysis in understanding what those cultural spaces look like.

Expanding on amendment No. 161, it seeks to include social development alongside economic performance as an aim of planning strategies. Social development is a core responsibility of the State. An economic model and planning system that disregards these responsibilities is an irresponsible one. As we see more and more division in our society, we need our planning legislation to aim to promote and provide spaces where we can break down the barriers between us. This is the function of social and cultural amenities. They should be considered to be of as much importance, if not more, than economic and commercial development. The problems that arise from this myopic focus on economic development are seen currently in our dysfunctional planning systems. Dublin is awash with office developments that have the highest vacancy rates in Europe. CBRE has estimated that the current vacancy rate is at 17.7% and will peak at 20% in the coming years. When we devise a planning system that only aims to maximise economic return, we ignore the social, cultural and emotional needs of citizens in our towns and cities.

Amendment No. 163 seeks to add language to section 146 that obligates planning authorities to consider how best to create sustainable intergenerational urban and rural communities as relevant to their area. We see throughout Ireland how regional inequalities, the housing crisis and over-centralisation are impeding people from continuing to live in the communities they are connected to. So many young people want to build their lives and start families in rural Ireland but cannot because of a lack of employment opportunities and suitable housing. People from Gaeltacht communities are being priced out of their areas because of the proliferation of holiday homes and Airbnbs. Young people are being forced out of the Dublin communities they were raised in and work in because of inflated rents and house prices. It is fundamentally unsustainable and inequitable for people not to be able to afford to live in the places where they work. Those who are driving buses and teaching children in Dublin, and nursing people in Dublin hospitals, should be able to afford to live there. That should not be controversial. If you listen to the proceedings of the health committee on any week, you will hear about the catastrophic impact the staffing shortages have. We need to get house prices under control if we are to have sustainable levels of public service provision in larger cities in the long term. These issues are part of a real, interlocking crisis that is negatively impacting people throughout the country, which should be reflected in the legislation.

There are several sections of the Bill where a reference to Ireland's UNCRPD commitments should be included. Amendment No. 164 relates to one of them. Ireland's ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was a huge step forward. Our ratification of the convention means that we have an obligation to ensure, in all elements of our society, that people with disabilities are empowered to fully participate. This is a significant task. There are areas where great progress has been made and areas where we continue to fail. It is crucial that all legislation that comes through the Houses is examined through a disability rights lens. Proper planning is an essential part of creating inclusive and accessible communities. We need to build infrastructure and amenities that serve everyone in our society. It is so important that our obligations under the UNCRPD are explicitly referenced in the national planning framework. It is also important, when we look at disability rights and the UNCRPD, that we also add the extra lens of class analysis. We have an ageing population in many of our communities that was once able to access local amenities and community centres, whether it was to access addiction services, family support services or any of those things. Due to the lack of planning and upgrading of any building, we now have an ageing population, which includes people who are already disenfranchised, who are developing disabilities in later life and are unable to access support services within their communities.

I do not intend to use amendment No. 165 to enact another fight about whether the Government is meeting its housing targets or if those targets are adequate given the scale of the housing and homelessness crisis. This amendment just seeks to place the reality of unmet social housing need into legislation. Planning authorities must reckon with the urgent need for more local authority and social housing to alleviate the suffering of people languishing for years on waiting lists, who are living on couches or in hotel rooms, or other forms of precarious living. The planning authorities must also reckon with the issue of voided local authority units lying empty for unacceptably long periods. It is madness that so many council-owned units are in a state of disrepair and active decay, when they could transform lives in a positive way with some investment of time and money. This needs to be a priority. I appreciate that tackling the issue of dereliction more broadly is mentioned in the legislation. I am glad of that. However, a subsection acknowledging the issues I raised would help focus the attention of planning authorities, which could do a lot of good.

Amendment No. 171 is a modest amendment but a necessary one to ensure that planning authorities take a balanced and foresighted approach when they are developing a housing strategy in urban areas. It seeks to insert the word "appropriately" into the subsection, which would mandate planning authorities to explore sites that could be used for much-needed housing. Building more housing is a top priority. However, planners need legislative guidance that stresses the importance of sustainable development and building balanced communities with access to green space and other essential amenities. It must be noted that access to green spaces and the volume of trees planted in areas are often correlated to socioeconomic inequalities. It is important that new houses are built in a way that is harmonious with the area they are in. We need more housing and more dense housing settlements. We also need to access nature and community. This small amendment would help communicate that need for balance. I hope the Minister accepts it.

Amendment No. 172 is another small amendment but one that is important in creating a balanced text in the Bill. It seeks to instruct planning authorities to consider the need for public amenities, as well as housing units, when looking at activating an empty or derelict site. We must build more housing, especially more social and affordable housing. However, we must not repeat the mistakes made in the creation of new Dublin suburbs in the 1970s, when communities were created without the surrounding businesses, public services and amenities required to create sustainable and functional communities. It is important that these lessons about the elements needed for sustainable development and community building are threaded throughout the Bill, if it is to be the new basis of our planning system.

We raised the issue of accessible green spaces in previous amendments, but it is important that this section contains a commitment to accessible green spaces too. That is what amendment No. 173 seeks to do. We all know how important it is that communities have shared spaces, where people can come together to exercise, socialise and be among nature. This is an essential part of building healthy and sustainable communities that are cohesive and welcoming. We must ensure that our green spaces are accessible to people with disabilities. These areas are community amenities and need to be accessible to everyone. We need to embed inclusive and empowering design into the fabric of all planning decisions. That is why a reference to accessible green space is so clearly necessary in this section. We are in the midst of a significant cultural and political reckoning with the extent to which people with disabilities are being let down by society. We need to act with urgency to rectify this, especially given our obligations under the UNCRPD. We need to incorporate disability justice into all the relevant legislation that comes through the Houses, including this Bill.

We raised the issue of Traveller accommodation previously. It is important to us that it is also mentioned in this section of the Bill, which is the aim of amendment No. 174. Despite ring-fenced funding for Traveller accommodation, many local authorities have failed to make plans to utilise those funds, despite having many Traveller residents in dire need of housing. This is an incredibly sad situation. The money is there but the political will and administrative commitment is lacking. That needs to be rectified. People are enduring terrible living conditions that are having terrible impacts on their physical and mental health. Young Travellers in overcrowded accommodation have a hard time finding the space they need to do schoolwork, etc. Inadequate housing and homelessness compounds educational and health disparities. It prevents people from living healthy lives and achieving their full potential. If the Government is issuing national planning statements, then issuing one on this crisis should be the Minister's first priority. I hope he will accept this amendment. Amendment No. 175 is necessary because while there has been some progress in terms of house building, there is a stark underperformance when it comes to building new local authority housing and bringing voids back into circulation. This is particularly egregious given the huge waiting list full of people in desperate need of local authority housing. Local authorities in the 1930s and onwards under Fianna Fáil governments built huge quantities of high-quality homes. They created new suburbs in Dublin and further afield. This transformed Irish society. It is how we finally ended slum living and it gave successive generations a real chance to break out of intergenerational cycles of poverty and exclusion. It was economically and socially transformative. We desperately need that kind of ambition today to tackle the endless waiting lists and the scandal of families living in hotel rooms, which is just another form of institutionalisation. If the poor, backward Ireland of 90 years ago could manage it, I do not understand how the Ireland of 2024, a wealthy country with billions of euro stashed away, cannot capture the same determination to alleviate the suffering that is placing a huge strain on our society. Local authority housing, if properly managed and maintained, provides the best possible security of tenure and is the most equitable way of housing people whose incomes are too low to be able to engage with the private sector. In the long term, it is far more sustainable than the endless subsidisation of private tenancies through HAP, which represents both an upward transfer of wealth from taxpayers generally to the landlord class and a persistent source of inflation within the strained private rental market. The Housing Commission's report identified this issue and I hope the Government will act on its expert opinion. I also hope that, in the spirit of listening to housing experts and the people in desperate need of housing, this amendment will be accepted.

Amendment No. 176 is crucial. The housing crisis is an under-recognised contributor to the epidemic of domestic violence and violence against women more broadly. We all should understand that, for people suffering from abuse, extracting themselves from that situation can be a fraught and complicated psychological and social process. It can sometimes take multiple attempts to break contact for good. These complex issues are further amplified and entrenched by factors such as poverty, addiction and homelessness. It is much harder to leave an abusive and dangerous situation if you have nowhere else to go. That is why women's refuges are so important. However, refuges are only a temporary solution. Planning authorities need to ensure the provision of longer-term accommodation for survivors of domestic violence. No one should face homelessness if they flee violence. We know housing support and security is an essential part of an effective and holistic strategy to end domestic violence and violence against women. If one is facing homelessness and a lack of safety and security, it replaces physical violence with a structural violence and a continued situation whereby somebody is safe in the physical sense from a person who was domestically abusing them, but he or she enters a space of systematic and structural violence where they cannot seek safety in terms of having four walls around them.

Amendment No. 177 is essential. We are living through an era of increasing global instability, with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza and the persistent threats of famine in places such as the Horn of Africa. Climate breakdown will contribute to ever larger numbers of refugees all over the world. This is the reality that states must deal with. If refugees are not treated with the dignity they deserve as human beings, it will be corrosive to the democratic fabric of our society. Look at how racism has rendered the political culture of the United States and the United Kingdom incoherent and increasingly self-destructive. Part of any humane and rights-based asylum system is finding accommodation for people as they wait for their claims to be processed. We are failing miserably in that regard. Despite a High Court order demonstrating that making single men, including children, seeking asylum homeless as a matter of course is illegal, the Government is persisting in this heartless policy. Now, it is engaged in a cruel and pointless game of whack-a-mole with asylum-seeker camps as they pop up throughout the city. These homeless asylum seekers have nowhere else to go, yet their belongings are routinely confiscated and destroyed by An Garda. The legal basis for this is unclear. These homeless asylum seekers, which we can see in the wider homeless setting, are the global homeless. They then come to Ireland and become the Irish homeless, being harassed and assaulted by racist activists who are tormenting men for the entertainment of their social media followers. It is obscene. We have a duty to house men and protect them from violence. I cannot understand why we are refusing to do so. This cannot continue. Not only is it illegal, allowing it to continue would fundamentally be destructive to the moral and social fibre of Irish society. If we are a modern liberal democracy, we cannot tolerate human rights abuses such as these. This is not just a current temporary crisis; it will be an issue to which we need a long-term solution that requires sustainable planning and development. That is why it is so important that this amendment is accepted. It is something planners need to work on.

Amendment No. 181 seeks to include young adults in the provision relating to the preservation of cultural and social amenities and facilities in a strategy for a sustainable place and community. While it is welcome that children, the elderly and people with disabilities are mentioned in the context of the preparation of these strategies, the needs of young adults are not accounted for at all. We are facing a crisis in terms of the amount of social and cultural facilities for young people in the country and the lack thereof. There is a loneliness epidemic in Ireland. Young people are socialising less often and spending more time isolated online. There is no housing for young people to begin to gain any autonomy and build their own lives outside of their family home, with 68% of people between the ages of 25 and 29 still living with their parents. Compounding of all this, there is also a critical absence of social and cultural facilities for young people to be able to build connections with their peers. Where do we expect young people to set the foundations of their lives? Where do we expect them to meet their friends and partners, to begin to plan and have a family, and to begin to build connections for their lives and, to frame it entirely in economic terms, their careers? Emigration levels are rising. Young people do not see a future in Ireland. A large number of social amenities that were available to older generations are no longer available to younger generations. Those figures continue to fall. As we have already highlighted with previous amendments, social and cultural facilities are facing an existential crisis across the country. We need to get young people's input into what their communities look like from a cultural perspective. There are many local plans, including for the regeneration of parks. In some communities, the use of scramblers and the relationship with horses are seen as a negative thing. When culturally planning at a local level, some plans have suggested skate parks in a community where there is nobody on skateboards but there are many people who care for animals, such as horses. There are plenty of spaces where we could engage with young people to ensure that our plans for what local amenities and communities should look like reflect their interests and will allow them to develop skills based on those interests.

Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 represent small changes to make the obligations of planning authorities regarding public rights of way to sites of natural beauty set out in section 51 more ambitious. Instead of the existing language about merely preserving already established public rights of way to these sites, we should be creating an obligation to try to open new rights of way to sites that are currently difficult to access. We know that people's right to wander in nature and access sites of natural beauty in Ireland is underdeveloped and we should have ambitious language in this legislation that seeks to empower people to spend more time in nature. I hope this amendment can be accepted.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak specifically to the amendments and to the legislation. While I have some sympathy with amendments Nos. 155 and 156, I am not certain whether they should necessarily be included within the legislation. However, the guidelines adopted by local authorities when large-scale developments are put in place should have greater regard for community and social infrastructure.In fairness to most local authorities, they will conduct community and social audits. There are the requirements with regard to childcare which are placed on some of the larger developments. I think there can be even a negotiation with the Department of Education on school places, but in some of the guidelines, and this does vary from local authority to local authority, regard to the community and social infrastructure is also critical.

I reject, though, this idea that the Government is not investing in community, social and sporting infrastructure. This year alone, we will see, under the sports capital and equipment grant, €250 million invested, which is a record-breaking figure which exceeds the €163 million record-breaking figure which was invested two years ago. In addition this year, €120 million is being invested under the large-scale sporting infrastructure fund. My only question on that is whether or not it will be sufficient. What is critical is that, in the allocation of some of that funding, it is also lined up with local development plans and so on. This is less for the legislation but more in the community and social audits that local authorities will carry out, but sufficient regard should be had to the need for these facilities. In the same way that for large-scale developments we have particular requirements around childcare facilities and crèches, and there are some issues with those but I will not go into them, we need also to look at the community and social audit issue.

I have some sympathy with these amendments. In the guidelines that are issued to local authorities, this certainly varies from local authority area to local authority area. I am fortunate in Wexford in that when we look at large-scale developments there tends to be regard to the sporting infrastructure. The Minister will be familiar with the St. Waleran's development, in Gorey, for which large-scale housing development is planned. He will be glad to know that the sporting infrastructure within that has progressed far more quickly than some of the housing infrastructure. That is part of the overall planning guidelines being followed by the local authority. As I said, while I have some sympathy with the amendments, it would be important for the Minister to stress within the guidelines that are issued to local authorities how those local authorities should conduct their own community and social audits. It is not just about building lots of houses, as the Minister knows; it is about building communities and putting these facilities in place. We are doing that as a Government, but sometimes there is a need for a bit more joined up thinking between local authorities and different agencies.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak initially to amendments Nos. 155 and 156. I strongly support those amendments because we should have specific provision for social and cultural amenities in our development plans and that should be hardwired into this legislation. I know that many local authorities make reference to this in their county and city development plans, but the reality is that so many of our local authorities are so taken up with what I think many see as the core work of housing, waste and road maintenance that social and cultural amenities, whether arts spaces or sports facilities, are seen sometimes as an afterthought across some local authorities, not all. Certainly, there is a huge inconsistency and a haphazard approach to how we embed that provision across local authority planning in this country. The reality is that it is not just about putting roofs over people's heads; it is about building communities. As Senator Ruane powerfully said, certain communities were built with just houses but with no thought to the facilities around them. We see it in certain parts of the city at the moment, including in Dublin 8 but also in the north inner city and across the north side. There are real issues with regard to accessing social and cultural amenities. A big issue for me is that, fundamentally, we have divested some of this responsibility now to the private sector in terms of the 5% floor space which is to be part of any large-scale residential development and given over to an arts space. That is very welcome but there will be a key issue with enforcement. We have seen this with regard to childcare spaces. We have had this provision in place for quite a number of years yet little or no enforcement of that floor space for childcare.

Ultimately, it is fine to point to city and county development plans that already refer to social and cultural space, but this Bill is an opportunity to hardwire that into the legislation. If I may speak to Dublin for a brief moment, last week I held a meeting about arts spaces in this city. This is the responsibility not just of the Minister's Department but also, of course, of the Department of arts and culture. There is a real hurt and frustration in the city because we have seen a hollowing out of arts spaces over recent years. Now culture cannot compete with capitalism. We see spaces bought up and, ultimately, there is a lack of a comprehensive response from our local authority. It is doing a small bit but it is a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed. Unless we hardwire the requirements for social and cultural space in our city and development plans into this Bill, we will have an inconsistent, haphazard approach into the future and, ultimately, we will fail artists and those who want to develop more cultural spaces in our city.

Maidir le leasuithe Uimh. 166 agus 182, tá tagairt don Ghaeltacht sa Bhille agus fáiltímid roimhe sin, ach níl ach tagairt amháin. Níl aon sonraí ann seachas tagairt do chaomhnú na Gaeilge. Is é an caomhnú is fearr do na Gaeltachtaí ná spriocanna soiléire daingne do dhaonra na Gaeltachta agus tithe do Ghaeilgeoirí sa Ghaeltacht. Tuigimid go bhfuil a lán frustrachais maidir le cinntí pleanála sa Ghaeltacht i dtaca leis seo agus tá easpa deiseanna do dhaoine le Gaeilge chun cónaí sna Gaeltachtaí. Creidimid gur cóir plean daonra agus tithíochta do gach limistéar pleanála teanga. Ní féidir an Ghaeilge a spreagadh mura bhfuil córas ann chun an saol trí Ghaeilge a fhorbairt. I am struck that there is a specific requirement in the Bill for population and housing targets for city development plans yet we do not have that same requirement for the Gaeltachtaí, the Gaeltacht language planning areas, Gaeltacht service towns or areas that might be designated as Irish language networks. That is a glaring gap in the legislation. I know it has been a big call of Conradh na Gaeilge. No doubt it has been knocking on the Minister's door as well. We need to see much greater detail maidir leis na dualgais don our local authorities with regard to housing population and housing targets, planning targets, in the city and county development plans across the country maidir leis na Gaeltachtaí agus na ceantair Ghaeilge.

I will make two last points about the amendments in this grouping. As regards our amendment No. 170, we welcome that there is a reference to the analysis of vacant and derelict land or sites within local authority areas and a strategy to be put in place. As the Minister knows, long-term vacant housing and derelict housing are a blight across all our communities. It is not as if this is something new because we have a vacant homes tax and a derelict sites register. A real question has to be asked as to what exactly will be done to push on and transform long-term vacant housing and derelict properties into homes across our cities and towns in this country.I welcome the reference to a strategy here but I am not personally convinced that there is a political will to tackle long-term vacancy. We need to see reform of the compulsory purchase laws. We have seen properties that have stayed for a long period of time on derelict site registers. Indeed, there have been houses on the derelict site register that have been done up by the local authority - Senator Fitzpatrick will be well aware of them in our area - that have come off the derelict site register, that have had to go back on the derelict site register and, eventually, are the subject of compulsory purchase order by the local authority. Unfortunately, we are not taking the opportunity in this Bill or, indeed, in any other Bill to transform our CPO laws. We would like to hear much more from the Minister as to what we are actually going to do, led by him as Minister, to transform CPO laws and truly tackle dereliction and vacancy in our cities and towns. The reality is, specifically with regards to the long-term vacant homes, the tax is not worth the paper it is written on. It is set at such a low rate that is not designed to raise any sort of serious revenue or to penalise or prompt those into action. There is a real question mark about how serious this Government is about vacancy and dereliction, particularly with regards to those properties that are caught up in many years of litigation. In my view, the State is sitting back and saying that it is litigation and it cannot interfere. That is no longer good enough. There are thousands of people who are desperately seeking homes to rent and to purchase and their hearts are broken every single day walking past these homes.

The last point I want to make is with regards to Moore Street. I refer to leasú Uimh. 185. For as long as I have been in Dublin, which is 24 years at this stage, there has been talk about what will happen with Moore Street. There have been various plans but none of them has come to fruition. The time has come for this Government to make clear, working with Dublin City Council and all the property owners, and to put a comprehensive plan in place now for Moore Street. This has gone on way too long. Many of us have spoke about the blight on O'Connell Street but in terms of the overall lifting of O'Connell Street, the lifting of Moore Street and the recognition of the historical importance of Moore Street, we need to see some sort of action now as opposed to this continuing interminably. To most people living in Dublin who do not understand the ins and outs of what has gone on over the past number of years, there is a degree of confusion and bewilderment as to why Moore Street has been allowed in some parts fall into greater decay and that greater action has not been taken. I get that this is not only the responsibility of Government but it is Government, the local authority and those who own the property on the street. I very much support amendment No. 185 to press on with the plan for Moore Street at this stage.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The CEG has put in numerous amendments around social justice for people with disabilities and for members of the Traveller community. Yesterday we were told that the planning Bill had nothing to do with gender equality. We disagree with that. We are not future-proofing through this legislation. I said it four times yesterday. It is one of the largest pieces of legislation to ever come through the two Houses and meaning no disrespect to the Minister, the Department is failing the Traveller community once again, refugees once again, and women and children who are going through domestic violence once again.

We are failing our children in the education system by putting in little sheds. In St. Mary's school in Ardara, we are putting a little shed to extend. We have no zebra crossing outside for the safety of our children. We have a crèche in Ardara that is about to fall down with mica. We are not planning for them.

We are not planning for people in Donegal. The homes of young children in Donegal are crumbling down around them.

I will not touch on any of the amendments that Senator Ruane has touched on around rural Ireland. However, if the Minister thinks this legislation is fit for purpose for the others in society, for disabled people, for Travellers, for women, for young children in educating and for extending our schools, it is not.

The Bill extends to over 700 pages. I have full-blown dyslexia. Some people would say I am not the full shilling. I have read this document for the last two weeks and to me, this is not fair and it is not just. It is an unjust piece of legislation. It is unjust to the Traveller community and people with disabilities. On climate change, we are not future-proofing, as Senator Ruane has said on amendment No. 177, around direct provision for people.

The Minister can sit there and say that the Government is solving the housing crisis. We are not solving the housing crisis - far from it. Although I do not want to, sometimes you have to be dramatic and you have to say how it is.

I hope the Minister is proud of himself. We only had 21 hours to deal with over 600 amendments that were brought forward. Now the Bill will be guillotined through and yet people at the bottom of Irish society are, once again, left behind. I congratulate Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. I congratulate the Green Party. You are again failing people at the very ends and the very margins of society. I say, "Well done to you all."

We, the Opposition, and the people living on the ground worked tooth and nail to bring about a just document and not one of our amendments are accepted. I have no more amendments to talk to but shame on the Minister and his Department for bringing forward this massive piece of legislation that is unjust.

Emer Currie (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 190 is in relation to public rights of way. Public rights of way, permissive rights, are topical at present. They have really come to the fore since Covid. We encouraged people to enjoy what was right under their nose and they could. They were able to appreciate, in their 5 km and their 2 km, the outdoors.

I am a big believer in ensuring people can appreciate the natural beauty of their community and access mountains, rivers and lakes. In my area, for instance, we have the Liffey Valley which is a protected area but we do not have enough access to it. We have St. Catherine's Park, we have the Phoenix Park but we do not get as much access to the riverbank as we would like. All across the country, there are areas that people want to enjoy.

In 2010, under legislation, the planning process recognised the importance of rights of way. Local authorities were obliged to include information for public rights of way in statutory development plans, including lists and maps. I believe the Minister stated in the Chamber that there would be no substantive changes to that in the Bill. Section 10(2)(o) of the 2010 Act says that the development plans "shall" include objectives for the preservation of public rights of way and the changes in the Bill say that they "may include objectives for any of the following", including preserving rights of way. The devil is always in the detail. There is a big difference between "shall" and "may", and I ask the Minister if that is something that he could address.

In relation to all of the discussion about community infrastructure, we will debate a Private Member's motion that I put forward this afternoon at 3.30 p.m.It is about better planning for local childcare and specifically addresses issues that people have raised in relation to the local authority guidelines for childcare facilities. Those guidelines say that for every 75 houses or homes, there should be childcare provision for 20 children. That is just not happening, however. There are loopholes, exemptions and gaps in the planning process. We have mandatory referrals for new developments to the Department of Education so that it can make a recommendation about schools. We also have such referrals for Irish Water and we even have them for flight paths, especially in my area, and yet we do not have mandatory referrals when it comes to childcare provision. The process relies on the local authorities but they are not equipped to be the bodies that do the forward planning for childcare based on the needs of communities. I hope those Senators who are interested in that issue will speak on the motion later today.

The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, will be in the House to take the motion, but the Department if Housing, Local Government and Heritage is equally responsible for changing the relevant legislation and ensuring that we are delivering childcare places when there is an upturn in housing supply. We are seeing an increase in housing supply at present. In Dublin West, 4,000 homes have been delivered in the past five years but we have not seen anything like the level of childcare facilities that are needed. We are missing out on the opportunity to deliver childcare facilities. I ask the Minister to ensure, following today's discussion, that this will become a top priority not only for the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, who has a lot on his plate, but also for him and his Department. We must ensure there is reform and an overhaul of our planning guidelines and legislation in relation to childcare.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The list of speakers I have is Senators Gavan, Higgins, Murphy, Dolan, Boyhan and Garvey. Is that right? Does that include everyone who wants to speak?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and in that order.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will we hear from the Minister?

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will come back in after he has heard from everybody.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am wondering if there will be an opportunity for that on the basis of the time remaining.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is in the hands of the other Senators.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair point. I am going to try to be brief because we want to get through as much as we can. I will start by saying that Sinn Féin is extremely disappointed with how the Minister is dealing with the Bill. He produced hundreds of amendments on Report Stage in the Dáil, with no opportunity for people to scrutinise them. There are hundreds of amendments here that we simply will not get to today because there is a guillotine. This is entirely wrong. We know what happens when legislation is rushed through the Houses; it ends up being bad law. This Bill will lead to further delays in housing, critical infrastructure and renewable energy projects. I was struck by the fact that Senator McDowell, who would be pretty much be on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Sinn Féin, made the same points yesterday. There is a broad consensus across the Opposition that this Bill is going to make things worse, not better. The fact that the Minister has not been inclined to listen is the most disappointing aspect of all, along with the fact that he will not take on board even one amendment that we have put forward today. When I use the word "we", I mean the Opposition collectively. Every amendment so far has been rejected. Even those amendments that members of Government parties have highlighted as being of value have been rejected. The Minister is literally using the Seanad as rubber stamp. That is not good enough.

I want to endorse every point made by Senators Ruane and Flynn. I agree wholeheartedly with them and Sinn Féin will support all of their amendments, as well as those proposed by Senator Sherlock. I will now deal with the amendments in this group and will try to be brief. Senator Fitzpatrick is right that we need to get as many people in as possible, get a response from the Minister and hopefully get voting on some of these amendments.

As the Minister knows, Sinn Féin has placed a particular focus on the absence of references to the arts, culture and the night-time economy. Amendments Nos. 156, 160, 162, 167 and 168 deal with that. Last year, we had a very good debate on the night-time economy. There was a consensus about the fact that the night-time economy is in crisis and has been for some considerable time. We have 80% less night-time venues now than we had 24 years ago. The night-time economy is dead. The fact that there are no references in this Bill to the night-time economy is really poor and the fact that the Minister does not appear to be willing to include any references to it is unreasonable.

Similarly, the absence of any reference to our artistic community and to culture is a fairly basic omission that really need to be addressed but I do not believe the Minister is going to address it. That is hugely disappointing. Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 also give voice to concerns about the night-time economy, our arts community and culture. It is very disappointing that a Bill of its size has such a narrow base. The Minister should have found the space to include references to our night-time economy, artists and cultural spaces but he has not done so.

Amendment No. 183 places an obligation on planning authorities to prepare a Gaeltacht housing and population development strategy. Sinn Féin believes such a strategy is necessary to tackle the Gaeltacht housing emergency. Population and housing objectives for Gaeltacht areas must be identified in order to ensure the sustainable growth of Gaeltacht communities and to ensure sufficient provision of housing to support that growth. This subsection is necessary for the protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of the Irish language and to ensure that Gaeltacht communities are included in the urban, co-ordinated and priority area plans.

I also want to reference our amendment relating to Moore Street, which has been described by the National Museum of Ireland as the most important street in Ireland for historical reasons. The street was instrumental in the 1916 Rising, the struggle for Irish freedom and the foundation of the State and is also home to our oldest food market. The Dáil unanimously passed Deputy Ó Snodaigh's Ceathrú Chultúir 1916 Bill 2021 on Second Stage, and this amendment would oblige Dublin City Council to prepare a strategy to achieve the aims of that Bill by developing a living museum, preserving key sites and saving the historic terrace from the threat of demolition for private profit. There is much more I could say but in fairness to other colleagues, I will leave it at that and hope that we get a chance to hear the Minister's response and a chance to vote on these amendments.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have six more Senators to speak and then the Minister.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I share the frustration of others. As colleagues have pointed out, some of the premise for this entire project, this giant planning Bill that is being pushed through in an unusual way without proper process and proper scrutiny, is the suggestion that it somehow represents taking action on the housing crisis. We need to remember that planning is not and has not been the cause of the housing crisis. There are, for example, 100,000 unused planning permissions in Dublin. The vast majority of planning applications are granted permission and only a very tiny percentage of them are challenged. The actual problem behind the housing crisis is poor policy, from strategic housing developments to the absolutely appalling decision to depend on leases rather than the direct building or buying of social housing.

We are dealing with the legacy of still relying on leasing and of the Government's mixed motives because it is invested in large investors in speculative housing even at the same time as local authorities are trying to buy houses. Small decisions matter too, including Part V and the way it is full of loopholes that allow developers to create an inequality in who gets housing and to substitute another site rather than actually building our cities in the way they should. There are major issues right down to the grain in terms of housing, including the fundamental point addressed by some of the amendments before us, which is the question of what will happen to public land and whether there will be public housing on public land. Will it be affordable and social housing or just social housing on public land? The Bill is worded in such a way as to make it a very blunt tool. The local authorities just have to say how many units they can fit in. It is clearly designed to lower standards such that we will build a certain number units. The reality is, however, that it is about people and families rather than units. Maybe the local authority will fit in fewer units because the housing need is for families, given the huge rates of family homelessness that we have.That is why we have an amendment that states "appropriately", because it is about recognising what kinds of units are needed and what amenities go with them, rather than, as the Bill says, how many units. If you want to make it dorm rooms for student accommodation, you will be able to fit a few more units in. These are the kinds of things that are an issue when we look at the housing policies.

There is also something that makes me kind of sad in this debate. We heard it when Senator Currie spoke about more ambition for public ways. We spoke about that. I know that people right across the House have good ideas for how local development plans could be better and do more. I know that councillors across the country have ideas for how local development plans could be better, do more and make liveable and better places. I know the public, in its input to local development plans, has ideas that matter in terms of the decisions being made where they live, and what it could be, and how it could genuinely be somewhere they and their families could have a good life. All of those ideas are ultimately overwhelmed by the fact that regardless of what goes into the local development plan, this Bill facilitates the complete railroading of that.

Regardless of how great the ideas we put into the local development plan are, an coimisiún is a rebranded An Bord Pleanála with the same dubious measures including ministerial appointment of the first commission board. It can, in an appeal, effectively disregard something in the local development plans by saying it is strategic infrastructure, which may include LNG. We also know the Minister is proposing new large underground or overground storage for gas as one of his amendments. It can also overrule because something is in the Minister's planning statement. If the Minister's planning statement says what he actually wants to happen, an coimisiún can say it does not really matter what is in the local development plan, which means that all the work everybody put into it and all the ideas everybody pooled do not matter either. There are many ways this can happen when it comes to the crunch. Development plans are not decorative - they are meant to matter when planning decisions are being made - but when planning decisions are being made, local development plans are way down the pecking order, underneath the Minister's personal statement, the coimisiún's interpretation of that and the many areas of exempted development.

In section 212 the Minister will be proposing more categories where we do not even need permission. He talked yesterday about exempted developments. This even includes the foreshore. The Attorney General has acknowledged that there are issues about how "foreshore" is defined. An coimisiún and our marine planning authority will effectively be able to say it is nice that the people there thought these things and that it went into the local development plan, but by the by what it plans for the State trumps that. If people try to challenge it through the courts, they will come up against the many obstacles intentionally being placed there. Huge obstacles are being placed against who can challenge a planning decision, the scope of what they can challenge and what kinds of remedies are available when it comes to the timeliness of the solution. There are huge issues and questions around costs, which were previously used as a way to pull the public out of that decision making in the courts. There is now a wider range of areas in which people will face obstacles, and of course there are huge access to justice issues too. These are the two strands of Aarhus. Public participation with local developments plans is one of the core pieces of that, as is access to justice. However, public participation is being overridden by the many provisions relating to an coimisiún and the Office of the Planning Regulator which has got further because an coimisiún has gotten a little off the hook especially given its extraordinarily poor record on decision making found by the many judicial review it has lost. A judicial review is not about whether something should be built or not; it is about whether proper process was followed. It has lost these cases because it has not followed proper process. It is now being given 20 more excuses and reasons it can disregard local development plans. It is now allowed, as now indeed are all planning authorities, to amend planning permission without going back to public consultation. All of this is undermining public participation, and on the other side we have the issue of access to justice, and we are making sure to tie everybody's hands in that regard too.

I find this discussion sad because people have beautiful, good and reasoned ideas. That is not confined to the Opposition. Government Senators have ideas. Councillors across the country from every party and none have run for election because they genuinely have ideas. I feel this will probably adjourn when we are still discussing the development plan, but not the fact that the development plan will not be given the proper weighting it should when planning decisions are being made, particularly up the line, and many decisions now will not be in the planning process at all.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like the Leas-Chathaoirleach, I am privileged to be asked to chair debates by the people who run this House. I acknowledge the importance of everybody's comments and their points of view. I am also conscious that the Minister and his officials have been here for two hours, and he has not been allowed to make one comment. I also calculated-----

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is happy.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I make my comments now without interruption? I do not interrupt people. I have also noted that we have probably lost the chance to have an extra 100 amendments put through because of so many long speeches. I am saying this to everybody.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the speeches were cut, many of the Senators would get their amendments through. They can shake their heads all they like; it is a fact of life. I am calculating at the moment the amount of time that has been spent on long speeches. I am also looking at the document, which has quite a number of repetitions of amendments. That is fine. I acknowledge there is some good stuff in there. However, maybe we all need to look at this and the way we run our business and realise. The Senators can smile at it, but the facts are that the longer they speak on an issue and the more repetition put in, the fewer amendments can be discussed. The order of the House was agreed by everybody on Monday, so they know what the Order of Business for the House was for the week.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was opposed.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I compliment him and his two Ministers of State and their officials for at least bringing this Bill before the Houses of the Oireachtas to get something done about planning. This has been going on and has been discussed for years and little has been done. He is here and there has been a lot of discussion within parties and outside parties, and with local authorities and local authority members. I will make a few brief points because I am aware that other people want to speak. Life goes on outside this planning Bill. Yesterday I made the point to Senator Flynn that many of us, without going public, have worked hard behind the scenes to try to sort out Traveller families. That includes the Minister. As Senator Dolan knows, we have worked on one particular case to get a family housed in Ballinasloe, County Galway. They were living in terrible conditions. It was a young family. When we thought we had a house for them, there were issues with Tusla. The point I am making is that sometimes other bodies get in the way. They have their jobs to do, and we do not get people into housing the way we want to. We do not want to see people living in terrible conditions. That is one area, and we would all like to be able to do more on Traveller accommodation.

I will speak about disabilities and point out to this House one of the greatest projects for disabled people. I know the Minister likes the River Shannon and he knows about Lough Ree Access for All. It is a unique project and the only one in Ireland where the community, with Government funding, has organised trips on the Shannon for people with disabilities. From all over Ireland, and from the city of Dublin, hundreds of families are using that project.It has been so busy that the project has had to purchase a second boat, again with Government funding. Senators Carrigy and Dolan were involved in this project along with me. Things are happening on the ground. Also, it is now well known that public and sports facilities will not be able to access grants for facilities unless the disability situation is in order and everything is right for people with disabilities in such a project. Things are happening.

On funding, if I am not mistaken, the Minister made a major announcement in April of a commitment to €2 billion in funding under the urban regeneration and development fund, URDF, out to 2030. On regeneration, €164 million was announced by the Government and the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, for regeneration projects throughout the country. We have the Croí Cónaithe scheme to address derelict sites, which I spoke about yesterday, in urban and rural areas. We have hundreds of people taking up that project in Roscommon.

The point I am trying to make, and I make it fairly, is that a person listening to this debate would think that there is nothing happening. A great deal is happening on the ground and in communities and the Government is funding those projects like never before. Are there problems, issues and challenges? Of course there are issues and challenges. There has been a great deal of talk here about public spaces. More Government funding than ever before has been put into developing public spaces throughout the country. Can we do more? Yes, we can. I will speak again about Sliabh Bán, which is right beside where I live. It is being developed into a massive walking area used by thousands of people. It is close to the Ballyleague-Lanesborough area and Strokestown.

The point I am making is that all of these things are happening. It is not as if life does not go on, things do not happen and the Government is not committed.

On environmental issues and meeting our challenges, we all know what we have to do. What do Senators really mean sometimes, however, when they speak of meeting our environmental challenges? Is it to close down rural planning? Is it to deny people the right to have a house in a rural area? I do not know but there are many questions which need to be asked here. I acknowledge the right of all Senators to make their views known, but a significant amount of time is sometimes lost as a result of the way in which we express our points of view, particularly in the context of dealing with legislation. If Members make long speeches, we certainly lose out on time to deal with amendments. Many members of the Opposition table amendments and get their point of view across and the amendment dealt with in the space of a few minutes. That is the way it should be done. I respect everybody's right to make their point of view known, however.

Aisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, for being with us today. This is an incredible commitment by the Government which will revolutionise planning and development across the country. It has been in preparation for four years and I again compliment the Minister, the Ministers of State and their team in the Department. It is one national planning statement, three regional assemblies, 31 local authority development plans, and area plans. This is what it breaks down to.

I briefly referred to this yesterday, but I will bring to the Minister's attention a point about the regional assemblies and regional spatial and economic strategies, RSES. In the area covered by the Northern and Western Regional Assembly, NWRA, Athlone is a growth centre. What is wonderful about the development plan and the framework is that it is being linked to the census, which is crucial. We are looking at a planned population growth from 20,000 people to 30,000 people in Athlone. That area is between the Eastern and Midland Regional Assembly and the Northern and Western Regional Assembly. Ballinasloe and Roscommon are key towns. Making Roscommon and Galway fantastic places to have a home, to live and to work is our priority. We want to ensure that we have more people living in the west. That means more people in our schools and more students choosing our colleges and working in companies and businesses in the west of Ireland. Having all of this, however, and fighting for homes, classrooms, the construction of technological universities at TUS in Athlone and the Atlantic Technological University in Galway and Mountbellew, and the University of Galway, requires huge amounts of funding. It also supports where we want to see growth in this area. It cannot be the case that the whole population of Ireland is going to be based within an hour's travel of Dublin city centre. That cannot be the case. Unless we see investment coming into our area in the west, this will always be the case.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senators' contributions must relate to the Bill. I know that what Senator Dolan is talking about relates to planning but she must relate it to the amendments under discussion.

Aisling Dolan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This discussion is on the county development plan. The county development plan is looking at a number of these sections, including: sustainability and regeneration; economic development; housing; the creation, improvement and preservation of sustainable places; environment and climate change; and the conservation of natural and built heritage. We talk about balanced regional investment but things like wastewater supply and services must be considered. The NWRA came out with an infrastructure tracker two days ago. It referred to the fact that the ability of these areas to grow capacity has been extremely limited. The figure for County Galway is approximately 30% in terms of population growth. For Roscommon, it is something like 65%. Roscommon is in a far better situation. It is down to things like wastewater supplies and services, as well as transport and the dual train line we want to see from Portarlington to Galway.

On the county development plan and the way we are working on this with planners, how will we ensure we will have planners with the training, qualifications and supports required to able to do this? I know staffing for planners has been a challenge for Galway County Council. It causes stress and much angst for local authorities, which are working, I am sure, with the best intentions. That does not, however, translate to people on the ground who are putting in their planning applications. I ask the Minister to address that issue in his reply. In addition, I ask him to explain how the RSESs from the Northern and Western Regional Assembly and the Eastern and Midlands Regional Assembly work? Is it the Ministers and the national statement that will be seeking to ensure the RSESs align in the context of a growth centre that crosses both of these RSESs?

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the interest of brevity, I will speak to amendment No. 190, which is in my name and that of Senator Currie. It relates to development and rights of way. Senator Currie has covered the amendment very well so I will not go back over it. I fully support it.

I will briefly comment on parliamentary democracy. The reality is that politics is a numbers game. The Minister and I know that, as do all present in the Chamber. I do not have access to the Minister's folder of briefing notes, which is in front of him, but I know it aids him. I know he does not need to be reading notes as he is on top of this brief. No Opposition amendments have been accepted, however. This has been very much the way this whole Dáil and parliamentary period has been. That is just the way it is and we have to live with it. Opposition is a meaningful role. The Minister was in it for long enough himself. There is a role for us all in parliamentary democracy. This is an issue which the Minister might just take away and consider with regard to future legislation. At best, we have six more months here. The record has been one of solid opposition to everything we have proposed. I will leave it at that. I would not like to go away without stressing that point directly to the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, as a very senior Minister in the Government. This is something which needs to be considered. I fully support amendment No. 190. I do not know what the Minister will have to say about it.

Amendment No. 191 proposes the insertion of "provisions, plans or existing rural housing". We debated this at great length and indeed much of it was covered in the media today. I know the Minister is personally committed to rural housing but he is in government as part of a tripartite coalition and he needs to work with all of his partners. I refer to the day of deferring. For the past seven years, I have been receiving letters about rural housing. I could paper the walls downstairs with them. I am told they are ready or they are working on a draft, or another draft. The Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, who is from County Westmeath, was very committed to this. He was very strong on rural housing. I understand the limitations and the politics of it, which is also a very important part in the mix. We were told yesterday that this matter is now on the desk of the Attorney General for further advice or clarification. That is legitimate and fair. It is his prerogative. When did the matter arrived on the desk of the Attorney General? I think it was a long time ago. Is there a timeframe for its completion?Whatever the outcome of the Government's policy on a draft of the rural housing guidelines, which is the Government's prerogative, there comes a point at which the draft guidelines should go out for public consultation. I do not believe it is the end of the process; it is the beginning of one. I call on the Minister to commit to putting the draft guidelines out for public consultation for a period when the time is right. This is really important. We cannot talk about consultation in the context of a development plan if we do not have consultation throughout all processes. That is the natural way to go. I would have thought it would have been the Minister's favoured option. Maybe it still is. It is really important. Many rural Deputies, Senators and county councillors are saying we need to facilitate families in the farming and rural communities to build homes. Invariably, they have their own sites or potential sites. Having a site lowers the cost, which is great. We want to strengthen rural communities and to have vibrant towns and villages all over this country. I accept the Minister's enormous commitment in this regard and, to be fair, there has been great progress. However, because of the political dynamic in government, some people seem to be stalled on this.

If the Minister is in a position to clarify when this was put on the desk of the Attorney General, when does he hope to get it back so he can look at it? Will he commit to a period of public consultation? I will not specify the length of time as that is the Minister's call, but people are getting a bit tired of excuses all over the country. I received two calls about this matter this morning from agricultural media correspondents. Following up on what was dealt with yesterday, they were asking how we can make progress on this matter. It is a live issue and a political issue for the Government. It is an issue out in the communities. People want to go through a proper, sustainable planning process that permits an application to be considered and facilitated, although not guaranteed. Yes, there has to be proper housing and sustainable development. This matter is really interesting. I am not going to let up on this. I have consistently argued for it for the past eight years, and the time has come. As we face a general election in six months, people in rural communities and towns all over this country want to know where the Government stands on supporting rural communities, including farmers and landowners. It is a key issue and we need greater clarity on it. It would be very helpful if the Minister could provide it today.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome to the Distinguished Visitors' Gallery the Jackson family from Boston and New York. They are most welcome and I thank them for coming to Seanad Éireann today.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Talk through the Chair.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The select committee-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order-----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Through the Chair.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please, through the Chair.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Garvey does not seem to know what she is talking about.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the select committee, Senators are not asked----

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under Standing Order 39, an intervention can be asked for, if Senator Garvey allows it.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a select committee.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Garvey is in possession.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say that.

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

As of 22 July.

Micheál Carrigy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. Senator Garvey mentioned battery storage. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are currently no regulations or safety framework for battery storage under any of the county development plans. Recently in counties Cavan and Kildare, planning permission was given for battery storage, and I think both cases are now before An Bord Pleanála. The reality is that we do not have any safety framework to take into consideration when deciding on an application for battery storage. That is not correct or fair. Planning permission is being given in rural areas beside households. It is recognised that there are dangers associated with battery storage, in particular. If a battery storage unit goes on fire, there is supposed to be access to sufficient water to put it out, yet planning permission has been given in areas where that is not the case. It seems to be a case of letting the facility burn, for however long that lasts. Given what has happened in other countries, that could be for several days or weeks.

There is also the issue of the residue, which could seep into watercourses. Section 49 sets out an obligation to prepare a strategy on the environment and climate change. Section 49(2)(e) states the strategy shall include objectives relating to the "reduction of the risk of serious danger to human health or the environment arising from a major accident having regard to the Seveso III Directive, and the limitation and mitigation of the consequences".That is in this section, but the reality is that batteries are not classified as chemicals, despite the fact that they are. They do not come under the Seveso III directive, which is in place to make sure we can safeguard where we give planning permission to these battery storage units. We need them. I totally accept that but we need them to be in appropriate locations. We need to put in place the safety framework so that these decisions are made based on it. I ask that consideration be given, when looking at section 49, to batteries coming under that directive. We talk about working with and empowering communities when we are making these decisions and bringing communities with us. If we do that, that can be the case. Let the decisions be made based on a safety framework, which is not in place. There are significant concerns in a large number of local communities. Environmental impact studies are not done on these applications. We cannot foist these facilities on rural or urban communities without proper due consultation, consideration and especially, the consideration under a safety framework, which is not in place.

Will the Minister look at section 49(2)(e) and take into consideration the classification of batteries because they are chemicals? Chemicals leak. We all know that from every battery we have so they should be considered under the directive.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not spoken on this Bill yet because I was leaving it to others to do so on my behalf. The Bill has been a long time in the making and it is unbelievably necessary. From going back to study law, I know the multiplicity of different Acts all over the place and they needed to be consolidated. We needed one strategy and this is it. The time for change is now. It is long overdue, much needed and much wanted. I am an optimist by nature and I see this as an opportunity for a massive reset. Something this size will not be absolutely right and not all of it will work the way envisaged - though a huge amount of work has gone into ensuring it will - and it will perhaps need tweaks and amendments in the future. However, that is humanity. We are better to go while knowing we are open to change than to wait and to drag it out until we have something perfect. Perfect in that instance would be the absolute enemy of the good and the absolute enemy of providing suitable housing and addressing all the needs of our future.

In this group of amendments and under these sections, I highlight the words to facilitate "compact urban development". I come from a constituency which already has compact urban development. More is needed. It would facilitate people's proximity to Dublin city, public transport and so forth. It is fantastic. However, the infrastructural facilities in the community are well below what is needed. We used to have a multiplicity of build to rent. The Minister amended that and it does not happen any more but there is still dense housing without public infrastructure. Organisations such as Sporting Liberties and Dynamic Drimnagh are desperate for facilities for children. For compact urban living, people not only need a roof over their heads, they need to be able to live. In the past, we have had constructive conversations about the development levies and their suspension. We need to make sure that money gets spent back in those communities, ensuring that there are proper facilities to support compact urban living.

Senator Currie spoke about childcare facilities. It was the subject of one of the earliest Commencement matters I raised with the Minister. It is the idea that builders and developers can abdicate their responsibility and provisions of planning by saying that one and two-bedroom properties do not need to be counted when making up the number of 70 units to require the installation of a crèche. People in one and two-bedroom apartments have children. There is a novel idea. It is not reasonable that is an exemption. As Senator Currie stated, it is the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman's area, but he was supposed to consulting with the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. I have already had the ear of the Minister on this and I appreciate that, but we need to move to a place where crèches facilitate the size of the community. Even where a crèche is put in place in a development, sometimes it is too small to be commercially viable. Such things need to be given consideration and we need to ensure they are in place. Some service providers I have worked with who have tendered to lease a facility are unable to because they could not have a baby room. Such things need to be given proper consideration.

I ask the Minister to consider that Part V also includes making sure there is a medical centre. As the competition for space and its utilisation goes up in these compact urban developments, there is no obligation to provide a medical centre. People need dentists and doctors. In looking at planning observations in the past four years, they have been real considerations. A development might cater for up to 1,000 people and those people will need doctors. They will put pressure on the local GP service. All those supports have necessary implications for quality of living . In whatever way these sections of the Bill manifest in regulations and statutory instruments later, those things need to be considered and prioritised.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I interrupt the Senator for a second as we have a distinguished visitor in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery, the lieutenant governor of the state of Washington, Mr. Denny Heck. He is most welcome. As he served a number of terms as a member of Congress in Washington DC, I am sure he knows Congressman McDermott who served there for many years and is here with our consul general, Micheál Smith. They are most welcome here to see democracy in action. Having served in both Washington and Washington DC, if they have any tips for us on how to do our business we are always open to new ideas.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Big time.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank them for being here.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been extensive pre-legislative scrutiny. I know from another Bill I was personally involved in that it not a case that it happens over there and we are not allowed in the room. We are allowed to be in the room. I attended the deliberations of the Dáil select committee on assisted human reproduction, AHR, and made it my business to speak to TDs who were going in and to anticipate what was going to come up. Not only that, but we can send a text message to someone at the table, including the Minister. To be fair, the Minister's colleague, Deputy Donnelly, was open to being pestered by me throughout that process. To characterise any of this as undemocratic is not reasonable.

In the past 24 hours, there has been a characterisation of Government Senators as not having done anything on disability for the past four years. Many of us have spent 24-7 working with disability organisations and doing everything we possibly can. We are known personally and are on speed dial with people. We are responsive to anything that arises. I have had people to dinner in my home, gone to their homes and spent extensive time in recent years working on disabilities. There is a characterisation of us simply because we do not agree with amendments or choose to air our influence in the context of a parliamentary party and vote with a Whip because we have influence in that place and speak to it. The evidence is that the Taoiseach has a special disabilities group in his Department. A heap of Ministers have worked exceptionally well in the past few years in trying to deliver for disabilities. Are we there? By no means. I acknowledge that absolutely. I fully respect all the organisations. However, no entity and no one Senator has the unique preserve to speak on behalf of all disabilities in the country.The characterisation of Government Senators has been completely unacceptable and disrespectful to the democratic process and to all our hard work over recent years. I needed to put that on record because there was a characterisation of me yesterday that was deeply unfair and grossly inaccurate.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to give most of my time to those Senators who felt they had little time and then abused all the time they had. First, as Senators Seery Kearney, Garvey and others have outlined, the Bill has been more than two years in the making. Senator Boyhan knows this because he participated in it when we received the heads of the Bill. We considered not only them but the wider Bill extensively through pre-legislative scrutiny. It is not fair to characterise his contributions or those of other Senators or Deputies from the Opposition as having made no contribution to the Bill. I do not believe that is the case and any examination of the facts will show that. There has been ample opportunity for debate. Hours, days, weeks and months were spent by the select committee, which any member of either House could attend. They have direct access to the members of that committee and not one or two amendments but hundreds were tabled.

Let us introduce a bit of honesty into this House and into the record. There have been grossly dishonest and disingenuous contributions not only to the Bill but to every matter that relates to it. In respect of housing, I do not know whether the contributions being made are ignorant, are being deliberately mischievous or are just lazy or caught in a time warp, but the Senators are doing a disservice to the people they purport to represent when they make statements that are factually incorrect. It is not spin or content for a social media post. It is a fact that since this House passed legislation that changed our housing policy, more than 110,000 homes have been built. That is a fact. In the past six months, more than 35,000 homes have been commenced. More than 26,000 social housing units are under construction. There are far too many people in emergency accommodation - we all know that - but more people are being prevented from entering it and more people are exiting it. We need even more to exit it, but the only way that is going to happen is if we have a sustainable plan underpinned by legislation that allows for homes to be planned and go forward, to be commenced and constructed and, ultimately, to be occupied and lived in.

On the use of public land, we legislated in order that the Land Development Agency would use public lands to deliver 100% social and affordable homes. There is no query as to what we are using public lands for. It is there in the legislation. It was passed in both Houses. The Land Development Agency has thousands of homes under construction, and it is worrying that Members of this House do not know that or choose not to acknowledge it. We live in a democracy that is under threat, and if those of us who have the privilege of having a direct opportunity to participate in our democracy do not use that opportunity and privilege in a responsible way, that is very worrying and concerning.

I will speak to one local issue in the context of the amendment relating to Moore Street. Moore Street is in the heart of our capital-----

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Which amendment is the Senator speaking to?

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to Sinn Féin's amendment No. 185, in the names of Senators Warfield, Boylan and Gavan. Before I was elected to this House, as the Minister will know, when I was a city councillor, I worked with my colleagues on the council - ours was not a Government party at the time - to drive the Oireachtas and the Ministry and to enable the city council to take action to preserve Moore Street. In fact, it was a Fianna Fáil Minister and Government that initially designated 14-17 Moore Street as a national monument.

With this motion from Sinn Féin, the Senators are attempting to completely overreach on what is an independent authority. Our local authorities are independent bodies, and the amendment seeks to have legislation dictate to an independent local authority what it should do. Second, it completely ignores the fact the national 1916 commemorative centre is under development and that Ralph Appelbaum Associates has been assigned and is working on the development of a 1916 commemorative centre at the national monument in Moore Street. In case Senators are not familiar with that organisation's work, it is the same people who designed the African-American museum, the National Museum of Scotland and the United States Holocaust museum. They are not nobodies. They have done world-class work and I believe they will deliver world class in Moore Street too.

There is an irony in Sinn Féin trying to propose anything in Moore Street that overreaches on a local authority when its leader has blocked a €500 million investment in Moore Street, O'Connell Street and all that dereliction that is such a shame on my constituency, my community, our capital and our country. It shows the absolute gall of Sinn Féin Senators to come in here, put down a motion and pretend they give a shit.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must ask the Senator to refrain from using unparliamentary language.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat.

Rebecca Moynihan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the record, somebody who is sitting in the Chair should not interrupt a Senator mid-flow to welcome somebody to the Visitors Gallery. I want to be clear on that. It is not a fair thing to do. The Chair can wait until the Member finishes his or her contribution and then do it. I thought it was very disrespectful to Senator Seery Kearney, when she was in the middle of speaking, to be interrupted mid-flow for that.

I am going to raise a couple of issues and speak to our amendment relating to the obligation to prepare a housing development strategy where the planning authority's functional area consists solely of a city. One of the key reforms that is lacking in the Bill relates to the CPO process, which is one of the most difficult functions that local authorities have to contend with. Acquiring derelict properties by CPO can be very complicated. Sometimes I think that when we talk about dereliction, people have a misunderstanding that local authorities can just go in and take what is there. The CPO process is overly cumbersome. If this planning Bill is passed, as it will be, can we at another stage look specifically at the CPO process within the context of the development plan? It is one aspect that prevents local authorities from actively managing towns and villages away from dereliction. With our amendment, therefore, we are seeking that the provision relating to vacant units be changed from "could be" to "could appropriately be". I would like to hear an update on the CPO process and other moves that might be made to change and reform it.

This section deals with the obligation on local authorities to prepare strategies. In that context, the climate change Act underpins the national planning framework. They have to interact with each other.This is a very small issue but it has a big impact in that in many places bike bunker storage, particular within small, dense urban areas requires and has been turned down for planning permission. It was raised with me in Ballintemple in Cork city. I see it has happened in Clontarf. We have huge difficulties in getting bike bunker storage. If I park my car, I can take up public space with my car outside of my house. I cannot take up that public space with bike bunker storage. I have both a car and a cargo bike. My car is absolutely fine to leave outside and it will take up that public space but my cargo bike cannot take up that public space. We need to make sure we are, through planning, allowing for active travel and the facilities and infrastructure that will facilitate that.

I will come back to the issue of interpretation of the OPR of the national planning framework and the marine planning framework. It relates to section 53 ,which covers "Consultation with [the] ... [the] Planning Regulator before preparation of draft development plan". We need to look at the accountability of the OPR to local authorities and to the interpretation of those development plans and how they interact with each other. Taking the national planning framework, no real work has been done. In Scotland, for example, regional planning frameworks have to be prepared within its 11 marine planning networks. We do not have anything like that with our national planning framework. It is very young and only setting off. The OPR should be interpreting both the national planning framework and the marine planning framework. That will impact on local authorities along the costs where DMAPs are being prepared, for example in Galway, Waterford, Wexford, Cork, Kerry. I would like to have on the record how that would work in terms of the marine planning framework, the national planning framework, the interpretation of the OPR of that, and how the operation of that will work.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to mention two issues. Yesterday, I was chastened for not apparently understanding what section 58 actually provides for in the powers it gives councillors to propose variations of development plans. The point I was making - and a number of people contacted me to ask me to make this point - is that when one looks to sections 61 and 62, the OPR does have a very significant effective role of control and veto over such variations. My point, which Senator Moynihan has just made, is that there is a sense that the OPR has such huge powers in interpreting legislation, and that, coupled with the capacity of the Government, through the Minister, to establish frameworks and issue statements, that the way in which development plans for local authorities are developed is massively influenced by the centre and the OPR is effectively the enforcer of that influence. Maybe people are happy with that situation but I am not. I repeat that I am not happy with that situation.

I see local government as having a very different role from many people. I said yesterday that during the local election campaign, few enough of the candidates who presented themselves to me for my choice made the likely attitude they would take to development plans a point of policy on which I was to choose between them. In my area, Senator Moynihan will be glad to hear, that one candidate who stood out above the others for suitability for electoral support and that was Councillor Dermot Lacey because of his experience, wisdom and commitment to local government over decades.

I believe local authorities need not merely pixie dust thrown over them; they need a total transformation. They need to be born again in the sense that they need to suddenly be told they must drive the development in their areas and they must not be passive spectators in the development of their area. If they want something to happen, they should go and do it. If they want land to be converted into public, social, private or mixed housing, they should go and get it and make arrangements with developers to build public, affordable, private or mix them all together as they wish. The should go and do it, and become executive agencies in the whole process of development. That is what I believe is the future of Irish local government. I feel this with a passion.

The point I have been trying to make is that it is all very well for wealthy speculators to buy a site on the corner of Appian Way and Leeson Street and propose a ten-storey block there because it is available. That is not the way to build a city. That is not the way to decide whether a city should or should not be built or how that area should develop. We need a coherent plan for that area, which is implemented, through direct intervention, by the local authority.

Senator Moynihan has touched on this and I reiterate for that purpose unless we allow local authorities to use what in America is described as the "doctrine of eminent domain" or compulsory purchase order in Ireland and make that realistically possible, the local authorities cannot really drive the process of development in urban areas. Every day, I pass a site on Tara Street. There is one public house sitting in the middle of a development site where the development has not yet started and there are all sorts of complications with railway considerations and all the rest of it attaching to that site. If it makes sense to develop that site as part of a city, it may also make sense that the public house be incorporated into the site to make a sensible development of that mini-block in the city centre of Dublin. The point I make, as Senator Moynihan has, is that unless we have a system of workable CPO powers for city councils and they have the encouragement and resources from Custom House to exercise those powers and the Department does not second guess-them such as asking to see and check their plans for social housing and rechecking them with their own architects and the like, and unless city councils are given their heads and told to assemble sites, look at areas of dereliction in the city, take them into public ownership and then give out building leases or whatever, depending on whether they want to own it themselves thereafter or hand it to private or semi-private ownership, or partnership developments, there is no hope for decent urban development in Ireland.

With regard to CPO powers, I mentioned the other day a meeting I had with a very experienced Labour Party councillor who had sat on Dublin City Council for 20 years; it was not Councillor Dermot Lacey. At the meeting, which was on a different matter completely, when the question of compulsorily purchasing some land came up, she said it takes 15 years for the council to CPO land. That is the experience.It could be due to inertia in the council's law department or a desire to avoid using CPO powers and to try to negotiate at length instead or legal delays or challenges or the need to go to court for confirmation of CPO powers. One of the first things I did when I went to the Bar in 1975 was to advise in respect of the compulsory purchase of land in the Dodder Valley and the need or absence of need for that to be taken into public ownership. Unless we have a workable system of compulsory purchase, local government is bound to be a spectator in planning. Local government cannot say it is able to assemble that site for someone. A developer may say there is a ransom strip being sat on which is frustrating him or her in developing this block of the city. The developer might say that if he or she could get that strip and two small landholdings without paying through the nose, he or she could put together a decent development. What if Dublin City Council could in those circumstances decide to acquire those parcels and allow the developer to build what he or she has got to build? If we had a positive approach for city councils to engage in positive planning of their areas then many things that are happening at the moment would be avoided.

Going back to the much more urgent public issue of housing, as mentioned by Senator Fitzpatrick, I agree completely housing is an issue we must deal with and that bogus objections must be dealt with. I have no problem whatsoever with doing any of that.

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

That is why that is so important.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know there are important bits in this Bill. I am referring to the whole Bill. I said yesterday, in the Minister's absence, that if those changes had been made separately, consolidation could have taken place on a different day but we are being asked to take a huge bundle of things together and some things we have to agree with and some we do not want to agree with. That is what I find difficult. If we want to do something about housing in the greater Dublin area, it is going to require not merely the Land Development Agency sitting around waiting for State lands to become available or to engage in negotiations with landowners to put together schemes. It is going to require an agency that goes out there, draws a line on a map and says this is where we plan to build a new suburb, that it will be beside the Luas, the trains or whatever and we are going to take the initiative and drive that process forward. I notice that out in west Dublin there are a few pilot schemes of that kind, but it needs to be the norm not the exception. This must happen right across the board if we are to drive the process forward.

I have a final point about Senator Fitzpatrick’s contribution. I will use more parliamentary language but I have to say because I was professionally engaged on the part of the Attorney General in relation to the Moore Street site, I saw what happened there. It was the Moore Street site and the upper O’Connell Street development. I agree with Senator Fitzpatrick that one would need a neck of brass to come in here and complain about that street and at the same time ignore one's own strong party political involvement in frustrating everything. I know about that. That, however, only underlines what I am saying. It should not be for British Land or whoever it is now to overcome all the difficulties. Dublin City Council should take out a map and say what is in public ownership and if the present owners of the Carlton site and the adjoining lands want to be part of a consortium to redevelop this area the council will do a deal with them, but it is taking the initiative and bringing all that land into public ownership and drive it politically. I favour a museum on Moore Street and the OPW drew up very elaborate plans for a really good museum at that site. That could be part of the scheme as well. Unfortunately, it had to go the whole way to the Court of Appeal for some logjam to be cleared away but a derelict area of Dublin was being attended to. There were schemes to deal with it. With that site we had the legal system, and politics, and a bit more than politics, namely, people standing around in a threatening fashion and preventing people even from inspecting the land. That is what took place at that site. I agree with Senator Fitzpatrick that if people come in here complaining about something, they need to take a slight look in the mirror about what they and their friends did to leave upper O'Connell Street in a semi-derelict state 100 years after the Rising.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before Senator Cummins speaks, I welcome guests of Deputy Grealish from Galway to the Chamber. I believe they are from Ireland, the United States and elsewhere. On behalf of all the Senators here I hope they enjoy their stay and tour of Leinster House. I also acknowledge, because Senator Fitzpatrick told me so, Clemence and Ciarán from the North Strand in Dublin Central who were here earlier as guests of Deputy Devlin. If our guests see them somewhere they should tell them we said hello to them. I hope they have a wonderful day.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the Minister for his sitting in the chair for the last three hours without getting to speak. I promise I will be brief in my points. I feel left out of the conversation this morning, so felt the necessity of contributing. I will bring it around the amendments and sections we are dealing with. Section 46 deals with housing development strategies and section 52 is on settlement-specific objectives. Obviously, the feed-through of any development plan which we are debating in these sections is the ability to be able to get planning permission for a development in a timely manner and to have certainty about timelines for decision-making. I appreciate we will not get to the later amendments I have on those matters, but it is relevant and important to say the biggest frustration for many is they have not been able to get through the planning process in that timely manner. I have a number of amendments on timelines for An Bord Pleanála's decision-making process. The timelines set out in this Bill are simply too long. The board or the coimisiún would have 18 weeks, followed by a period of four weeks, then a further period of six weeks, followed by a period of a week to make a decision. My amendments try to shorten that by four weeks. I hope that can be taken on board on Report Stage. It could be 18 weeks plus six plus one or 18 weeks plus four plus two plus one. It is important, in terms of making these development plans real, that people are able to get through the planning process in a timely manner.

Much has been said about rural planning policy and rural planning guidelines. Another point to make is that as the Minister would know, an important part many rural dwellers have is the option to apply for outline planning permission. It is a more cost-effective way whereby they do not have to go to the expense of going through all the full plans to get outline planning permission. I am aware that during the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, officials were not in favour of retaining outline planning permission. It is in the Bill but the way it has been written essentially makes it redundant because it starts the timeline for outline planning permission and if people subsequently get planning permission their time started from when they received the outline planning permission rather than planning permission, which totally defeats the purpose. I ask that be taken on board on Report Stage.The most important thing is that we have certainty in our planning system for all parties, whether those who oppose a development or those who support it. That is what we seek to do with this but I believe we need to go further and hope those things will be taken on board on Report Stage.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome more guests of Senator Noel Grealish, all the way from New York. "New York, New York". They are very welcome. May they have a wonderful day. I hope they enjoy the workings of our Parliament. The weather is even good for them.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have less than half an hour to discuss this very important piece of legislation. While I admire Senator Fitzpatrick, I have yet to see the Senator in any of her videos speaking about Traveller accommodation or disabled people's accommodation. That is a point I want to make here because I think it is unfair that when people like me stand up with passion, through the lens of human rights and equality, I am seen as being aggressive. I am far from being an aggressive or unrealistic person but when Senators like Senator Fitzpatrick stands up, she is doing her job and when I stand up, I am seen as aggressive. I am doing my job here today as well. This piece of legislation is not fit for purpose around equality for people. The only threats to society are inequalities and that we leave working class people behind. We leave marginalised people like the Traveller community behind. We do not celebrate Traveller culture or night life or people within Irish society. This Bill has failed. I will put this all on my social media and we can continue this discussion there. We are failing so many people. As I said, I do admire Senator Fitzpatrick but I am yet to see any of her work around accommodation focused on the others in society and that is my job. I do apologise, for the record, if I come across as aggressive but the Senator has to understand I am speaking on behalf of the most marginalised people within Irish society. Other Members of this House speak on behalf of political parties and are looking for votes in the general elections; for me, I could not give a damn if I am back in here again. I have one bite of the cherry with this piece of legislation that is going to be rushed through in the next 15 minutes. It is unfortunate. I do say it with a lot of passion and a lot of emotion but it is unfortunate that we are leaving the most vulnerable people behind and the only threat to Irish society is politicians like Senator Fitzpatrick who are not inclusive of all.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that we are over three hours into the debate. The Senator speaks with passion, we all accept that and nobody is against that. I will give the Senator one minute for a right to reply because the Minister has had no opportunity to get near. The Senator is entitled to her right to reply.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unfair to target a Member like that.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not personalise my comments or my contributions at any point to any Member of this House. I do not see why I should become the target of any other Senator's contributions.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness, Senator, I allowed you in.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator should not give it out if she cannot take it.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, please. I allowed the Senator in. When Senator Fitzpatrick has finished her comments, that is the end of it. This man has sat here for three hours and he still has not had an opportunity to deal with the issues the Senators are questioning him on.

Briefly, Senator Fitzpatrick. You are entitled to your good name.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you. In my contribution, I encouraged all Senators to inform themselves and not to make contributions in this House that are ignorant of the facts. The contributions that were made earlier were ignorant of the facts and I pointed that out. My track record in helping people of abilities of all levels and none is my track record and I stand on it. I do not need the judgment of any other Member of this House on it. I am very comfortable with my track record and my credentials as a person who always champions equality.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lots of people speak out for people in difficult circumstances. At last, I have the opportunity to let the Minister have the floor.

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

My legs are gone. There is a lot to cover. I want to thank all Senators for their contributions. I did watch a lot of the contributions yesterday as well. Before I try to address some of the remarks, I want to bring to the attention of the House that I may bring further amendments on Report Stage and I want to detail them briefly. We will be coming back on Report Stage here in the Seanad and the House will have ample time. The amendments relate to the revised governance structure at the OPR - and I might touch on that too because it was the subject of long discussions yesterday; further transitional arrangements including to deal with judicial review; consequential amendments to update references to the current Act; and other legislation including the roads and railway Acts in relation to the application to an coimisiún pleanála for roads and railway orders. We are also reviewing the provision regarding the suspension of the duration of a permission whilst it is subject to judicial review proceedings. That is a very important provision we are bringing forward with the OPC to ensure that it is appropriately worded and covers all scenarios. Similarly, the extension of duration provisions and in particular transitional provisions dealing with permissions granted under the current Act are also being examined as are further technical and drafting amendments to ensure consistency across provisions. This may include amendments to Parts 14 and 15 to deal with the CPO and compensation in the maritime area. The removal of leasing as an option under Part 7, which is the Part V, is another area. There was a remark earlier that we are still dependent on leasing. I have been phasing it out. I will speak on that in a moment. That is further underpinning this because it is bad value for money. I will return to that. These will also include amendments to other legislation including the regulation of approved housing bodies - that relates to the registration criteria for approved housing bodies and the appointment of an interim CEO if needed; the Building Control Act 1990 to ensure necessary underpinning of the building control regulations and other amendments relating to enforcement matters and powers of the building control authority; and the Affordable Housing Act 2021, which we did debate at length in this House, to refine cost rental policy and allow for cost rental tenancies for tenants in situ. That is a provision I brought in last year which I want to underpin. I am using this Bill to put that piece in. There will also be amendments to allow for multi-occupancy cost-rental units and secondary legislation on the assessment and allocations process in respect of cost rental homes. It will also amend the Local Government (Mayor of Limerick and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 relating to pension arrangements for the mayor and regulation-making powers, which I know all Members here will be fully supportive of, and the Remediation of Dwellings Damaged by the Use of Defective Concrete Blocks Act 2022 to give effect to a policy decision to apply an increase in rates that may occur to an existing application providing works that have not yet commenced and certain technical amendments. I am putting the Seanad on notice that there will be further amendments on Report Stage.

I want to genuinely thank Members for their contributions. Quite a lot was covered there. First, I want to deal with the issue of this Bill being rushed. That is just not correct in any way. We started this three years ago. I would have had it in the Seanad earlier if there was not strategic calling of votes when Members were not present in the select committee. The Sinn Féin Party, in particular, took a strategic decision to leave one of its members sitting outside of the room so that every time the vote was called. the full eight minute bell had to be rung because the full complement had to be there before the votes were taken. We lost days and days because of the actions of Deputy Ó Broin and his colleagues in Sinn Féin. When Senator Gavan, for whom I have a lot of regard - he happens to be a Tottenham Hotspur fan like myself - comes in and complains that we are not providing enough time here, I think he should go back and talk to his colleagues about the behaviour of his party.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No -----

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

It was not only them, to be fair. Colleagues in the Labour Party, the Social Democrats -----

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everyone on this side knows that the Minister is not giving enough time. Everyone.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sentaor Gavan. Allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

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

They behaved that way. They formally withdrew Deputy Thomas Gould and told him not to go to the select committee so that the time was used up for voting purposes. That is a fact. It is what it is.We had the planning advisory forum, including the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, and the Ministers of State, Deputies Kieran O'Donnell, Alan Dillon and Malcolm Noonan, with all stakeholders. The Bill was published in January 2023. The Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage did comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny. Senators Boyhan, Fitzpatrick and Cummins were there, along with many interested Senators. Senator Moynihan was there and Senator McDowell paid a particular interest to this. Other Members have brought forward amendments that I saw in the Dáil, and which are replicated here, who did not participate in any way, shape or form. That is fine. It is not a criticism, because Members have many different things to do and many priorities, but we had 120 hours of debate on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect, this is the Seanad. It has been 21 hours in the Seanad.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has sat here for three hours. If Senators want to say something, say it through the Chair. I ask Members not to interrupt. We only have a few minutes left. If Senators want to hear the Minister out on some of the issues, let him speak. That is all I ask.

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

I know this is the Seanad. I had the honour of serving here for five years. I have great regard for this Chamber. I have commenced legislation in this Chamber and come here as often as I can. Senators Moynihan, McDowell and others raised the CPO issue. The Law Reform Commission's long-awaited report is published. We had already been at an advanced stage of preparing the Bill. I took a decision at that stage to proceed with the legislation as it is, while we are still looking at the Law Reform Commission's CPO reviews. I believe much of that will be incorporated into the Act by way of amendments in the future. I have absolute regard for that but I did not want to delay for another year because this legislation is fundamentally so important because we need clarity, certainty and consistency in our planning system.

I do not expect every Member of the House, either Government or Opposition, to agree with absolutely everything in the Bill, but if you talk to someone outside this gate, walking down Grafton Street or Moore Street, and you mention planning, the first word that will come into many people's minds is "delays". Delays cost and not just in monetary terms. It means we do not deliver houses for people who want them. Some Members here say they want that. Sinn Féin has objected to 6,000 homes in Dublin alone in the last three years. Other homes are delayed through the courts. This is what we are talking about. If we are serious about delivering the homes that we need for our people, and I certainly am, we need planning legislation that will underpin not just the housing delivery need, but also the strategic infrastructure, homes, schools, offshore renewables, and all those various things.

Trust me when I say that in no way, shape or form was this legislation rushed. It was considered and worked on in great by the members of the joint committee, from both Government and Opposition, two Attorneys General, very senior counsels across the country, and most importantly by legislators here. It is in no way, shape or form rushed.

I reject outright the characterisation of the situation here in Ireland. I listened to Senator Ruane earlier, who I have regard for and who is a good parliamentarian, but if I listened to her, I would think she was referring to Soviet Russia in the 1970s. She is perfectly entitled to have her view on things but in no way, shape or form is it the case for any of the progress made by successive Governments, this country and its citizens to move us forward into a modern society, which still has many challenges. I listened to some of those contributions earlier. They push this failed state narrative that suits politically. It is wrong. It is insulting to our citizens because this is not a failed state. We have many challenges. In the few minutes I have, I could go through all of the different achievements of this country since our independence and over the last four years, with what we have done in housing and planning, but I will not do that, because we discuss that time and again.

To those who say they want more homes and an efficient planning system, in the literally hundreds of hours of debate, I have seen no alternative brought forward by any Opposition parties where they say they do not like this planning Bill and what they are proposing to do. Instead, I saw amendment after amendment, with much duplication and triplication, sent in by various groups, which they are entitled to do, should they wish. They are basically amendments written by outsiders that are then sponsored by political parties and put in the names of their housing spokespeople and members. They are amendments that were written elsewhere, not by legislators here. They were written by groups, some of which frustrated developments in this country for a long time. I have said before and will say again that access to justice is crucial. Compliance with the Aarhus Convention is crucial and is central to what this Bill will do when enacted. The last place where the planning decision should have to be made is in our courts.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

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

It should not be the norm. It should not be just a go-to. There are reasons some of that happened. I got rid of the strategic housing developments, SHDs. I understood the principle of them. The application of them was different because communities felt they did not have their say. If they went to the board and it decided against them, their only recourse was to the courts. We made that decision to go back to a two-stage planning process and to get back to the local authority. That is why the development plan changes are not in any way removing powers from local authority members. It is to have a better plan-led approach at a local level so we can have a proper strategic view.

Senator McDowell made some points here earlier about how local authorities will develop land. We are doing that through the LDA and other organisations. We have some good examples of it. The threat of the CPO in local authorities often works to unlock the land. CPO changes are certainly needed.

On the situation of cúrsaí pleanála agus tithíochta sa Ghaeltacht, d'athraigh mé an Bille chun pleanáil sa Ghaeltacht a neartú. Tá sé istigh sa Bhille anois in ailt 52 agus 72. Mar sin, don chéad uair ó thaobh an dlí de, caithfidh gach rialtas nó údarás áitiúil pleanáil speisialta a dhéanamh le haghaidh gach ceantar Gaeltachta sa tír. Caithfear plean forbartha a sholáthar i ngach ceantar Gaeltachta, ach go háirithe ar na hoileáin. Tá sé sa dlí don chéad uair riamh. I have listened to the Gaeltacht communities. I want us to be able to provide more homes in our Gaeltacht regions. As I said I would, I have put in special provisions for our islands and Gaeltacht in the Bill.

A few things were mentioned which I will come back to in more detail. A number of Senators, including Senators Cummins and Boyhan, have raised rural housing. Some 5,000 rural homes were granted and delivered last year. I understand people get frustrated with this. I support rural housing. I also support a Town Centre First approach. That is why our vacancy grants have been so successful across the country. We talked about vacancies. More than 5,000 grants have been approved already, which people can use for old homes, both farmhouses and in villages. Some 5,000 rural homes were built in 2023. This Government supports good rural planning.

Those planning guidelines have been with the Attorney General for final legal checks. I have asked my officials for an update on it. That is since late last year. It is with the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. I expect any publication of draft guidelines would go on public display too, as we did with the compact urban settlement growth guidelines, which are making a real difference. We have seen the first planning applications being lodged under those new arrangements. There are more viable own-door units and more appropriate units in the appropriate places. They have been working well.

Senator Moynihan raised a point regarding bike storage. I do not mean to pick one minor issue out of all this. I am using that as an example. That type of thing will be looked at with the regulations.

It is crucial that this legislation passes. We all know of situations with the grey areas created since the Planning and Development Act 2000. All the changes, various amendments and amending legislation have left a number of grey areas and a lack of certainty and consistency of approach.I heard the House debating the national planning statements yesterday. Why are we bringing forward national planning statements? It is because the way guidelines have been interpreted heretofore has been such that they could be interpreted differently in other areas and, frankly, the courts have torn them asunder in many instances. Guidelines have been ripped asunder. National planning statements will be Government decisions. Yes, they will be centralised but it is about a Government's policy to be able to deliver the national development plan and to deliver on a housing strategy like we are doing. It is important that is done. The planning will be at a local level. The development plan-making will be at a local level, and rightly so because I support councillors in doing that.

I know there was quite a significant debate and back and forth yesterday with regard to the Office of the Planning Regulator. I have flagged already that we are looking at improving the governance arrangements within the OPR but I do want to say just a couple of words in support for the Office of the Planning Regulator and for the planning regulator himself. We all know where the office came from. It is important we have a regulator. In section 61 that Senator McDowell referred to, there are recommendations for the regulator. The regulator does not hold the whip hand, but it is right and proper that a regulator is in place who will ensure development plans are consistent, that what is passed in a development plan is actually-----

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister-----

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

I will conclude now. I will come back on that on Report Stage.

Eugene Murphy (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is with regret I have to interrupt the Minister. As it is now 1 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of 15 July 2024: "That amendment No. 115 is hereby negatived in Committee, section 44 is hereby agreed to in Committee, the Government amendments undisposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee, Schedules 1 to 6, inclusive, are hereby agreed to in Committee and the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee."