Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am happy to speak to the group of the amendments and then come back on their finer details. I would like to spend a little bit more time on amendment No. 205. There are several issues, including that the relevant section of the Bill lists 15 areas on which a national planning policy statement can be issued. I know the Minister will remind me, and I am surprised he has not done so already, that with regard to the list, the preamble in section 24(1) states "including, but not limited to". This means new things can be added and I accept this. However, it begs the question that even though the list is potentially unlimited, and anything can be added by any Minister in any Government at any point in time, there is clearly a reason the 15 listed from paragraphs (a) to (o) have been chosen. Somebody decided these were worth listing and others were not worth listing. It does not mean they could not be considered by somebody at some point in the future but they were not important enough to make it into the top 15. This is what it reads like.

To be helpful, I will speak to all of the amendments in the group. What we are proposing relates to what in many instances does not get adequately addressed in the existing national planning framework, development plans or development management. The promotion of human health and well-being is an example and Deputy O'Callaghan made the case quite well. Often there is not adequate consideration of the promotion of human health and well-being in terms of how we plan our built environment. This includes active travel and transport-oriented development. It also includes exactly the issues we were discussing previously on national standards and so on.

We often see in the newspapers stories about people who live in certain parts of the urban environment and, for example, whose son in a wheelchair in getting from home to the bus must navigate steep staircases that were built without any due regard for people with disabilities. This is with regard to amendment No. 203. We also see all of the time in our planning system growing advocacy for wheelchair users, people with restricted mobility and impaired vision. They make the case that, if you will excuse the pun, the planning system is completely blind to the needs of people who have a very specific condition.

It is precisely because of issues of human health and well-being that the "promotion of patterns and layouts of development to better facilitate those with disabilities, to address gender considerations and to address challenges of those experiencing financial, learning, or other challenges" should be baked in to the Bill. Amendment No. 203 proposes that disability should be included among the categories listed. This is with regard to people who constantly remind us, and rightly so, how the built environment is not consequent to their needs and, therefore, not only do they often experience social or economic discrimination or disadvantage but physical disadvantage in the built environment.

With respect to amendment No. 205, there is legislation and there are Government housing plans. We can debate the merits of these on another day as it is not for today, despite the fact we would all like to have this argument once again but we will do it somewhere else. I would have thought one of the most compelling cases for a national planning policy statement is exactly as amendment No. 205 outlines, which proposes including the "provision of a sufficient amount of affordable housing available to buy and rent", with all of the very detailed guidance and notes that the Minister has.

With regard to amendment No. 206 perhaps it is not important to the Minister or the framers of the Bill but in Dublin we have seen an 84% drop in cultural venues, according to the Give Us The Night campaign, with a significant impact on the built environment, the night-time economy and the quality of life and impact on residents and visitors. We are trying to ensure there is adequate recognition in the statements that will then influence development plans and other plans on cultural space.

My argument to the Minister is not that these will not be included, as the Minister might decide to include them even though they are not on this list. My argument is that if they are not on the list they are not being prioritised by the legislation and they are less likely to happen. If they were on the list Opposition Members could rightly say to the Minister that it is in the legislation in paragraph (o) or (n) and ask why it was not being done. Having it in the list strengthens the case to ensure a Minister, whoever it is, takes regard of these. Given that these are the areas most commonly ignored, excluded or underserved in our planning policy and in the development of our built environment, it is a compelling case to put them in, notwithstanding the fact that section 24(1) states the list is "including, but not limited to". They should be added to the text of the Bill.