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

I thank our guests for their detailed engagement, which is helpful for us in getting our heads around the provisions of the draft Bill. I have a couple of comments and will then put a general question about the draft Bill to all of the groups. I will also ask a specific question of WEI. It is important to put additional information on the record in respect, for example, of planning permission. According to the CSO, planning permission was granted for 40,695 new units. The year before, the relevant number was 39,934. There is a significant outturn of new planning permission. That does not contradict or undermine Mr. O'Connell's point on those in the system. However, a large number of planning permission applications are being processed through the system each year. It is important to put that on the record.

There are also 10,000 ha of zoned and serviced land, some of it with planning permission and some of it without. At a conservative estimate, that is at least 200,000 homes. If some of the land is in higher density areas, the number of homes will be even higher. I agree with Mr. O'Connell. I do not believe the home builders he represents would be sitting on sites. I am aware, however, of landowners, not home builders, in my constituency who in certain instances are making strategic calculations about the value of their assets. That is a separate issue that will have to be dealt with when we deal with related legislation.

I fully agree with all of the criticisms of the housing needs demand assessment. One thing that has not been mentioned is that the assessment never took account of pent-up demand, existing demand that had emerged over years and years. In particular, its figures for social and affordable housing are a fiction. They were based on outdated census data. The granular detail and the estimates not only for how many homes are required but how many social and affordable houses for purchase and rental are required simply have no basis in fact. We have commonality on that point.

I am less convinced by the arguments in respect of zoning. If we accept we have to bring about an end to suburban sprawl and must have compact growth, the conversation should be a little bit more lax about zoning in the commuter belt and it should be about asking how we can assist people to develop compact growth in our urban cores. That is a policy conversation for another day. I do not wish to pick a row, but there is a danger with the presumption of grant. The second formulation that Mr. O'Connell gave to Deputy Higgins is a better one. Mr. O'Connell is not going to accept this on the record but we all know that there are bad planning applications. We all know there are people who put in applications in the hope that during the two-stage process, or whatever, the inadequacies of the application will be washed out in the system. The presumption of grant would only work in a world where everybody's planning application is up to standard. In the real world, that is not the case. I am not castigating the development industry. I am just saying we all know of some planning applications and developments that even as they are built are hugely problematic.

I say to Mr. Gaine that we are going to have to rethink how big we want the private rental sector to be. It grew too dramatically and in too unplanned a way, with too many individual landlords and tenants finding themselves in a sector with which they cannot cope. One third of all private rental tenancies are social housing tenants, subsidised by the housing assistant payment, the rental accommodation scheme or rent supplement. That is not an argument against the private rental sector but we must ask what we want that sector to be in our housing system. How big should it be? Who should it be for? Over what time period? I am not convinced that as a percentage of our housing system it has to grow. That is not an argument against new private rental sector stock. It has to grow, particularly to replace stock that is leaving the market. I wanted to put that on the market. The social, affordable purchase and cost rental sectors are the real growth areas, plus affordable purchase from the private sector.

If our guests had the opportunity, which two or three improvements to the Bill itself, and not the surrounding policy areas, would they articulate to the Minister? I would be interested to hear their suggestions. It is a question we often ask people who come in for these pre-legislative scrutiny sessions.

I will go back to what Ms Conaghan said about an error in fact and law. I hear the argument. There is a flip side, which is that it could create a perverse incentive that somebody might not do as much due diligence before they put the application in because they know they will get a second bite if they have that period. How do we ensure we do not have that perverse incentive?

I am not going to argue in favour of or against judicial reviews. If we had a planning system where everything was plan-led, there would be far fewer challenges and, therefore, for fewer reasons to go to court. However, the value of a judicial review is there is a challenge on a point of law or process and it is for the courts to decide. It is not for me, an applicant or a third party to decide. It is judges who decides and we may like or dislike their decisions but they are independent and get to make those decisions. One of the concerns about allowing for changes to the decision on substantive matters of errors or law is that we could be denying the Judiciary its role in these legal processes to make legal clarifications. Ms Conaghan is right in that the board, for example, may clear up its act, or whatever, but we have lost the opportunity to establish in law what the actual legal fact is. To return to a point made by Mr. Spain, legal decisions may be unhelpful but it is the job of judges to interpret the law. Once they do that in judgments, it is meant to provide clarity. Mr. Brian Moran is right to say there are many contradictions in the system and, therefore, sometimes clarification on a point of law through a judicial review decision clears things up for many people.

I would like to hear from everybody, starting with Mr. Duffy, two or three things about the draft Bill that should be changed. If Ms Conaghan has time, with the indulgence of the Chair, perhaps she could respond to that point about an error in fact and law. Would it not be better, for example, if we used quash and remit more often and had one dedicated planning and environmental court that could expedite decisions in a more informed and timely manner, rather than the complicated provisions around judicial review contained in this draft Bill?