Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

It is quite difficult to hold the Bill when standing because it is so large. I have listened to many of the contributions. There is much food for thought in what has been said. I am conscious that the Bill has been four years in the making, so it was not brought here in a rush. However, it contains a great deal.

I will respond to some of the comments made by Senator Higgins and Senator McDowell on the planning statement. I take on board Senator Gavan's comments on the night-time economy. I would also like to see a more thriving night-time economy in smaller towns and villages in rural Ireland. That does not really exist any more. That will come down to things like transport around those towns. Where I live in Castlebar, taxis are a big issue. It might be controversial, but I would love to see Uber available in Ireland. It is stated in section 26 that it is not limited to what is listed, so there is scope to include more. There is also scope to deal with the night-time economy in that context.

Senator McDowell mentioned rural Ireland. I agree with him that there is often a very Dublin-centric approach to planning and other such matters. Very often, the most senior positions available are based in Dublin, which makes it very difficult for somebody living in rural Ireland to obtain employment in one of those roles. I was made aware recently that the Housing Agency is looking for a director of service and a senior executive officer, but the positions are based in Dublin. To a certain extent, I understand the reason that many of those roles are based here, but this precludes people from the west in particular from taking them up. I refer to people that have lived experience of rural areas and what it is like to live in a rural area. I know Senator McDowell is a regular visitor to the west. I have grave concerns about some of the policies and the mentality that is coming from the Planning Regulator. I do not think it is intended to stifle rural Ireland or restrict the development or the continued vitality of rural areas, but it is an unintended consequence at times.

One of the things listed in the planning statement is the protection of the amenities, character and vitality of rural areas. Planning in rural areas is always contentious and is one of the biggest things I deal with as a public representative in a rural area. People should have the right to build a home on family land. I fundamentally believe and am passionate about that for many reasons. Senator McDowell mentioned wanting to live close to mom and dad. If parents want to live in their own home for longer, often that is facilitated by having a son or daughter living close by. The more difficult we make that, the more likely it is people will not be able to stay in their homes for as long as they would like because they do not have a son or daughter living close by. That is how we live in those areas. I do not think adequate regard is given to that. A big concern for many older people is their son or daughter will not get planning permission on family land or will not be able to live in the local village. Even if they are encouraged to live in the nearest town or village, if it is a 20- or 30-minute drive, that is a massive distance when it comes to keeping an eye or mom or dad when they are not in the best of health or in their later years. Facilitating people living close to their parents will have a knock-on impact on maintaining rural villages and keeping young families in the area, and it means they can look after their parents. It is intergenerational living, which we want to promote and sustain.

I question where we are going. We are still waiting on the rural housing guidelines. I said yesterday my preference is that when they are published they are right and that we get them right. There is not, unfortunately, a consensus around planning in this country. People have very different views. There are Members of this Chamber who do not support my position that people should be allowed to build one-off rural housing on family land. Those views are misplaced, maybe due to a lack of experience of what that means to a rural area.

A key reason a person gets planning in a rural area is he or she is from the area. There was a time when people had families of seven, eight or nine children and now we are down to families of one, two or three children. The number of people qualifying under that condition is reducing all the time. Straight away, we are limiting the ability of a village to maintain its population, never mind grow it, and then we see local services close down.

I am not as negative about rural Ireland as some of the comments Senator McDowell made on town centres. Some of our towns are thriving. During the Covid period there was a reset and people got to know their local areas very well. I have seen small local businesses pop up, such as coffee shops, because of that renewed focus on and greater appreciation of where we are from. That is not every town and we need more of a focus on reimagining and reusing vacant areas. The Croí Cónaithe scheme is working quite well for getting properties back up and running but the CPO procedure needs to be improved.

The intention behind the Bill is not to restrict development; in fact, it is to remove some of the blocks. There is huge frustration with the planning system. It regularly comes up. People who are not part of the local community can come in. I completely agree with the point made that local communities should be able to drive development in their area but we have people from outside those communities who make it their business to involve themselves in planning matters that, from what I can see, they should have no interest in. That is frustrating people. There was an onus on the Government to try to do something around the planning system to streamline it, make it easier to get a decision through and remove blockages.

I take on board the comments Senator Higgins made on the national planning framework but there is nothing to suggest the planning statement would not be consistent with that. Allegations have been made that addressing climate issues has been thrown out the window but that is not the case. It is clearly stated in the Bill multiple times that it is about sustainable development and we need to consider environmental concerns. Of course we will. We will not go backwards on those things. We have obligations under EU and domestic law so that is a red herring and an attempt to stoke fear and anger around the Bill. Those intentions are not in the Bill. There is scope to look at the ability of elected members to have input into these matters but Ministers and the Government have a mandate. They are elected by the people to govern. I do not have a difficulty with the Minister for housing and planning making a statement on housing and planning. It is his or her job to do those things, develop policies and lead on them. It is difficult to progress decisions if there is wide consultation on every minor detail. That is not to say we go the other way and have no consultation but a happy medium has to be struck. That is the intention behind the Bill.

I take on board the comments that it is quite a large piece of legislation. That is evident from the size of the Bill I am holding but the intention is to make planning easier and less frustrating and to get delivery on key areas like housing. Housing is the top priority of this Government. The Bill has been four years in the making, notwithstanding any suggestions it has been rushed through. It has taken time because of the size of it. Genuine concerns of Members of the House will be taken on board by the Minister. That has been said today and yesterday, and the Minister, Deputy O'Brien, will be in the Chamber tomorrow.