Good morning. I welcome everybody back to our consideration of this legislation. Yesterday, we had reached amendment No. 141, which had already been discussed with amendment No. 60.
Planning and Development Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
I move amendment No. 141:
In page 61, line 12, after “cultural” to insert “, Irish language community”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 142:
In page 61, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(vi) air quality management,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 143:
In page 61, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“(vi) compliance with the State’s European Union obligations for waste management, water quality, air quality, nature conservation and restoration, and reduction of green house gas emissions,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Matthews, Steven.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 144 to 146, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 147:
In page 61, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(iv) preserve the Gaeltacht settlement patterns in which the Irish language has survived as a community language in the case of Gaeltacht Language Planning Areas;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Matthews, Steven.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 148:
In page 61, to delete lines 19 to 23 and substitute the following:
“(d) conservation of the environment and its amenities, including—
(i) landscape, landscape features, including hedgerows,
(ii) ecology,
(iii) biodiversity,
(iv) water resources,
(v) archaeological, historic, architectural and natural heritage,
and the establishment of metrics and criteria for evaluating these elements of the environments and monitoring them and the effect of the plan within the life of the plan;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Matthews, Steven.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 149:
In page 61, line 19, after “conservation” to insert “and enhancement”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 150:
In page 61, line 19, after “conservation” to insert “and restoration”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 151 not moved.
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 61, line 23, after “architectural” to insert “, cultural, linguistic”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 153 not moved.
I move amendment No. 154:
In page 61, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(e) promotion of sustainable development consistent with a focus on improving human health and well-being and the establishment of metrics and criteria for evaluating these considerations and monitoring them within the life of the plan;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 155:
In page 61, line 26, to delete “centres.” and substitute “centres;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 156 not moved.
I move amendment No. 157:
In page 61, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(g) (i) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta and in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta within the Gaeltacht, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012,
(ii) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta outside of the Gaeltacht and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 158:
In page 61, between line 26 and 27, to insert the following:
“(g) protection of the linguistic and cultural heritage of Irish language and Gaeltacht communities including the promotion of Irish as the community language, specifically by supporting the implementation of language plans in Limistéir Phleanála Teanga Ghaeltachta, in Bailte Seirbhíse Gaeltachta, and in Líonraí Gaeilge, pursuant to Acht na Gaeltachta 2012.”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 5.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 159 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the national planning framework and the related subsequent sections deal with the review. In yesterday’s response to the decision to defer the publication of the draft revised national planning framework, with which I have no issue whatsoever, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, outlined that new statistical information was awaited from the final report of the ESRI. The previous report spoke about population growth being the result of what it called head room, that being, new household formation within the existing population, and inward migration, including Irish people returning home, people coming to Ireland to work, etc. What is not in this section of the Bill in terms of the NPF and its review is consideration of what is called pent-up demand or existing demand separate to head room and inward migration.
Following general commentary and the Minister of State’s response yesterday, I am concerned that the ESRI report that is currently being produced is not examining the issue of pent-up demand. The terms of reference were set by the Government, not the ESRI, so this is not a criticism of the ESRI. For the previous ESRI report on this issue in 2019, the Government’s terms of reference did not include pent-up demand. Consequently, the average figure of 33,000 new homes per year did not take into account existing demand, only new demand year on year. If consideration of pent-up demand is not explicitly required in the legislation, particularly in subsections (1) and (2) here, it means that the NPF review, whatever we think about it, will be based on the same flawed chronic underestimation of housing need. This will have an impact. One of the elements that flows from the national planning framework is the Government’s housing plan and housing targets. If we do not have pent-up demand bolted into section 19, it will not be in the terms of reference of the ESRI report, will not inform the NPF review under sections 20 and 21 and will not inform an accurate revision of the targets underpinning the housing plan.
Where is pent-up demand considered and why is it not mentioned in this section of the Bill? Why does it seem to be excluded from the terms of reference of the current ESRI report, which will underpin the NPF review, which is relevant to sections 20 and 21?
My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, read a note for the committee yesterday. Regarding the ESRI, Deputy Ó Broin will appreciate that we should operate based on the final figures.
Agreed.
The ESRI’s previous projections for population growth to 2040 were based on demographics and econometric modelling and had regard to the results of census 2022 and other factors that could potentially influence the situation, such as fertility, mortality and migration trends. The research will outline the projected rate of structural housing demand, having regard to purchasing, headship and obsolescence. The ESRI is finalising its research and has its own modelling. We are trying to project housing demand in terms of the headship, composition and types of families and houses’ obsolescence and lifespans. Our Department will receive the report in March. Later this month, it will be peer reviewed and published. The final report is likely to be available in April. The ESRI is undertaking a comprehensive body of work and its modelling is empirically based. It has already done work and this is just an update on that. Its original projections were based on the previous occasion. It is now updating those projections. It is looking across a large timespan.
I thank the Minister of State for that information. It was the same information that the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, gave us yesterday.
May I add something? Regarding headship, we are considering changes in family structures and the number of people living in homes, so a great deal of what the Deputy is seeking should be covered under that heading.
I have no issue with the information as presented, but the Minister of State has not addressed my question, which related to section 19 specifically. Let me explain it with a little more clarity. When the ESRI did its study in 2019, which was based on the census figures from 2016, the terms of reference for that work were not decided by the ESRI, but by the Department. I know this because I have met the ESRI, I have gone through the ESRI report and we have discussed this at some length. The 2019 study is a good piece of work and the ESRI did exactly what it was asked to do under the terms of reference, so nothing I am saying is a criticism of the integrity of that research, but under the terms of reference, the ESRI was not allowed to examine what we call pent-up demand. This demand is not new household formation, which is what the headship category deals with, or people coming into the country, be they returning Irish or folk from other parts of the world; it is the unmet demand in the system at the point in time the survey is being done.
The problem is that the census data does not properly capture pent-up demand because it does not ask that question. There are some relevant elements in the census, for example, the number of people in their 20s and 30s who are living at home and how that number changes over time, but that is not a full consideration in and of itself.
When I met the ESRI about this matter last year and asked whether it would be possible to model an accurate projection of current pent-up demand, the ESRI said it would be but that it had not been considered in its previous report. From what the Minister of State has said, it is not being considered in this report either. It is not the same as headship and new household formation. It is very different.
I am not asking why pent-up demand is not included in the ESRI report, although that is an important question. Rather, in the absence of it being explicitly listed in section 19, the Government is now being allowed to do what it did in 2019, that being not including pent-up demand or unmet demand in the ESRI’s terms of reference. Why is the issue of pent-up or existing demand not included in section 19(2)? Why is it not explicitly referenced in sections 20 and 21 in respect of the review of the national planning framework that is being undertaken currently? Does the Minister of State not accept that, just like the 2019 ESRI report based on the 2016 census and the inadequate terms of reference given to the ESRI by the Government, chronically underestimated new need for housing is one of the reasons the Government has been so widely criticised by all independent experts, the industry and the Opposition for having macro targets in the housing plan that are too low? If the Government repeats the same mistake – from what the Minister of State has said, it sounds like it will – any revision of the underlying population growth targets in the national planning framework, the review of the planning framework and the subsequent underestimation of real housing need delivery in the revision of the housing plan, as these three matters are connected, will pose a major problem. Why is the issue of pent-up demand not included in section 19?
I apologise, but I must leave for the Chamber shortly. I will read the record to see the Minister of State’s response. From his answer to Deputy Ó Broin’s question, I am not entirely clear that pent-up demand is not included in the terms of reference of the ESRI study. Will the Minister of State provide us with a copy of those terms of reference so that we can see them?
We will provide them to the committee. I have no doubt that Deputy Ó Broin is aware of them, but I have no issue with providing them.
Section 19(3)(a) refers to "identification of nationally strategic development requirements as respects cities, towns and rural areas in relation to employment, future population change, and associated housing, commercial and public infrastructure development requirements".
The national planning framework is a document that looks forward. It is not as if we are bringing the ESRI in and it has not done a previous body of work. It has. This is basically an update of previous work it has done which looked at the previous population. It is looking at the demographic change as we had a census recently and structural housing demand. It is about ensuring that housing forms a key component of the national planning framework and that it has to be based around population, population shifts and changes in the make-up of households.
The ESRI is looking at it, but it has already produced projections which it is now updating. We believe that when we are looking forward, as we are doing in seeking to get to a point where we produce an updated version of the national planning framework rather than a new national planning framework, the empirical data underpinning it in terms of population must be fully up to date in advance of the final work being carried out by the ESRI. That is why we have deferred the conclusion of the updated national planning framework, not by a long period of time but by a number of months.
We will provide Deputy Ó Broin with the terms of reference. If he looks at what we are discussing here, he will see that it is covered under the legislation. It is about looking at what the future demands are. Obviously, when the ESRI is looking at that, it will factor in the current situation as well.
This is my final point. This is a fundamental point. Section 19(3), which the Minister of State refers to, talks about "identification of nationally strategic development requirements as respects cities, towns and rural areas in relation to employment". It goes on to refer to "future population change, and associated housing". That is the problem. The current national planning framework only looked at future population change - that is what the ESRI was asked to look at - and associated housing. It did not look at existing demand. If our population remained static for a number of years, there would still be a need for additional housing to meet the pent-up unmet demand. We know the Housing Commission will publish its report.
I want to come back to this.
I am not trying to delay in any way.
It is okay.
It is a fundamental point. My understanding is that when the Housing Commission submits its final report to the Minister, it will give a figure for the first time ever of unmet pent-up demand - separate to future population growth and new household formation - from the existing population. My problem is that it is not a requirement of the NPF or the NPF review. The reason that is a problem is that the chronic underestimation in the population growth targets and unmet housing demand in the existing NPF, in turn, led to underestimation of new housing demand in the Department's own housing plan and has led to widespread criticism of the Government. In fact, section 19(3)(a), to which the Minister of State has pointed, confirms my point rather than undermines it.
The national planning framework is a planning document that looks at how we will plan in terms of the make-up. I believe that the ESRI's final report will be a key component in the update of the national planning framework in terms of population because the shifts of population are different in different areas of the country.
We believe that what Deputy Ó Broin is talking about is covered. We are getting the ESRI to do a body of work because we have had a census recently. We want to update that. We are looking at the implications for future population projections and the structural housing demand. I believe the point the Deputy is making is covered under section 19(3)(a). The two points I want to link in are future population change and associated housing. Obviously, implicit in that is to look at what the current situation is as well.
We will provide the Deputy with the terms of reference. We can agree to differ. Ultimately, the national planning framework is a key document in feeding into the type of houses we require and the change in population. One can use the technical term "headship". For me, it is about family sizes and various structures. A key element implicit in that is the building of homes.
We have built over 30,000 units in the past year - we are ahead of target - and we are seeing 500 to 600 people per week purchasing their first home. We are very much going in the right direction. Would we like to build more houses? Absolutely. That is our objective. I do not think it is fair to say that we are not building; we are.
I have one tiny question and then I am done. So that we are completely clear, is the Minister of State saying on the record of this committee that the ESRI report that will underpin the NPF review will include a calculation of unmet pent-up housing demand? Is the Minister of State saying absolutely it will be in that report?
No, what I am saying is that the ESRI, when it is considering its report, because the national planning framework is a future planning document-----
This is a "Yes" or "No" question.
When it looks at "future population change, and associated housing," obviously, partly built into that will be looking at its previous projections and at what the current position is.
Is the Minister of State saying that it will include a calculation of pent-up unmet demand? It is a straightforward yes-no question. I will leave it at that.
I am not saying that.
So the Minister of State is saying "Maybe".
I am saying that when it is doing its work in the normal way, it will have to come forward. We will provide the Deputy with the terms of reference. When it is looking at future population change and associated housing, it will look at demographic shifts. It has previously done work in this regard - this is an update. It will look at structural housing demand. Implicit in that work will be an examination of what the current situation is. The national planning framework is about the future.
Is that a "Yes" or a "No", or is it a "Maybe"?
I am saying it is required to give us data to enable us to plan for the future in the national planning framework. When it looks at that, obviously it will consider all aspects, but the national planning framework document is fundamentally about the future.
I thank the Chair for his indulgence.
Question put: "That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 2.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Níl
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 20
I move amendment No. 160:
In page 62, to delete lines 7 to 9 and substitute the following:
"(3) Each subsequent review shall be completed before the expiry of a period of 1 year, which period shall begin on the date of publication, by the Central Statistics Office, of the final results of the second occurrence of a census of population of the State held after the completion of the previous review under this section.".
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Amendment declared carried.
We will suspend and reconvene at 12 noon. I thank the Minister of State for his engagement. We will see him after the short break.
Sitting suspended at 11.07 a.m. and resumed at 12.03 p.m.
I welcome members back to the debate on Committee Stage of the Planning and Development Bill 2023. We finished on amendment No. 160, which was agreed by a vote. Amendments No. 161 and 162 cannot be moved because amendment No. 160 has been agreed.
Amendments No. 161 and 162 not moved.
Question put: "That section 20, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Níl
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 62, after line 37, to insert the following:
“(e) board members of Údarás na Gaeltachta, Foras na Gaeilge, the Minister responsible for the Gaeltacht, Language Planning Officers and Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 164 not moved.
I move amendment No. 165:
In page 63, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“(h) Roinn na Gaeltachta, Údarás na Gaeltachta and Foras na Gaeilge,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 166:
In page 63, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“(h) prescribed bodies,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 167:
In page 63, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(i) language planning,”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 2; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 168:
In page 63, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:
“(i) states where transboundary impacts of the plan may arise or where such consultation is requested by another state;
(j) the public in a state where transboundary impacts of the plan may arise;”.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 3; Níl, 6.
Tá
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
Níl
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
Amendment declared lost.
As it is 1 p.m. and we agreed to finish by that time, we will recommence tomorrow on amendment No. 169.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The select committee adjourned at 1 p.m. until 9 a.m. on Thursday, 7 March 2024.