Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to a few of my amendments relating to the national planning framework and its objectives. In many ways, what we as a country set as our objectives in the national planning framework could not be more important as it speaks to the type of country in which we will live in future years. This is at the crux of the planning system. I want one of the objectives in our national planning framework to be substantially reversing negative trends and indicators in respect of biodiversity loss, water quality, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. How that could not be accepted I do not know. I am also trying to insert the integration of Ireland's national climate objective and the inclusion of our approach to staying below sectoral emissions ceilings. I do not know why that would not be accepted. I am looking to include the objective of improving the health and well-being of existing and future populations in Ireland and to provide for the establishment of meaningful and effective metrics in that regard, and collaboration, collation and monitoring of those metrics. I do not know why that would not be supported.

I am also looking to support the achievement of just transition and sustainable development. It is incredibly important that those considerations are at the heart of what we are doing in our national planning frameworks and give support to the circular economy. These are important objectives that should be accepted and would make a transformative difference.

Amendment No. 141 relates to supporting the implementation of language plans. Deputy Ó Snodaigh has talked about the importance of language plans to supporting our Gaeltacht communities and our language in those areas. It should be a key objective of our national planning framework.

Amendment No. 143 relates to the support, protection and enhancement of biodiversity, and supporting our climate targets as per the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act. Those are key objectives.

I cannot understand why amendment No. 142 would not be accepted. It seeks to include in our national planning framework, along with the other objectives, the objective of ensuring the provision of a sufficient amount of affordable housing to buy and rent. I cannot see why that would not be accepted because it should be a core objective of our national planning framework. It should run through our whole planning system. I would not be tabling the amendment if there was a sufficient amount of affordable housing for people in this country to access and that consideration ran through our planning process but it does not. By its nature and for good reasons to do with spatial planning, the environment and ensuring we have food security and sustainability, our planning system organises land use in a hierarchical and zoned manner. As a result, the planning system by its nature creates pressures that can make housing less affordable for people than would be the case if we had a free-for-all planning system. I do not advocate a free-for-all and unplanned system because it would be disastrous for many reasons. A key part of restricting, controlling and regulating land use is that there must be measures in place to counteract the upward pressure on the prices of land and housing. It is about how we regulate land use. That should be at the heart of our planning system and should go through everything. It absolutely should be in our national planning framework as a key objective.

A recently published report by the Housing Commission states, correctly, that 20% of our housing stock needs to be social and affordable housing. I believe it should be at least this figure and, of course, we are way off it. The repercussions of not having enough affordable housing are felt in our economy and society, and in our ability to recruit and retain much-needed skilled workers in our disability services, healthcare and education across the board. It is felt by an entire generation of people into their 30s who are still living in their childhood bedrooms. Year after year we see the Government not being able to meet its affordable housing targets. Why on earth would we not put having affordable housing as a key objective in the national planning framework?

I support the other objectives that are already in there. As I said, they need to be strengthened and I have mentioned a number of others. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government will not support putting affordable housing as a key objective in our planning framework. I appreciate it is dealt with elsewhere but it should absolutely be a key objective of what we are trying to do in our planning system. We would not need to do it if the planning system was delivering enough housing and it was affordable for people at present. It is not and, in actual fact, on occasion it acts to constrain it. As I have said, there are reasons for this but there has to be a counterbalance. This is why it should be in the national planning framework as a core objective. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, I ask him to explain why not. What is the downside of having it in the national planning framework as a core objective?

See this speech in context