Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

There is no distinction between a standard permission of five or be that ten. We checked these points. We looked at it, particularly in the context of environmental assessments and so on, with the OPC and the Attorneys General, and this provision is absolutely sound. With the passing of this Bill, changes will be made. We are seeing fewer JRs now anyway, which is good. That is down to the abolition of the SHDs, frankly. We brought back planning to a two-stage process and back to our local authorities, where it should be in the main. The environmental court section will be established as well, where expert judges will look at specific cases taken, particularly on environmental grounds. For the record, I again say that I respect the right of groups and individuals to pursue JRs. We expect we will have a process and there will be much shorter JRs anyway. I do not envisage a situation in the future where something will be held up for years and the data submitted by way of the application and permission is irrelevant or different.

I would see this in a very small number of cases. I understand the point the Deputy made, namely that if something is held up for four or five years, a survey may no longer be valid. I am not making any changes to this insertion, but I will reflect on it. We do not know how long something will be in the courts. If something goes to the courts, we would like it to be shorter anyway to give clarity to everyone – those taking it to the courts and the developer or person who holds the permission. The whole purpose of the legislation is to streamline it.

Regarding the effective stopping of the clock, it is a fair provision. It gives certainty. Deputy Bacik spoke to issues around planning, funding and those type of things. We discussed big issues such as this. You just do not know how long something will be in the courts but then also it eats into the time the permission is valid for, which is a big problem. It challenges the viability of much-needed projects. That is the intent of the amendment I tabled.

I take the point but we have checked this with OPC and the Office of the Attorney General, particularly in respect of its compliance from an environmental perspective. The strong advice is that it absolutely is compliant. There is no issue with that. What Deputy O’Callaghan mentioned relates to the practicalities on the ground.