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

This is a really incongruous section. It does not belong in this legislation at all. I do not accept, and have yet to hear a convincing argument, that it is in any way related to LRDs. My understanding is it is what is often called a leapfrog provision whereby on foot of a judicial review, where one party seeks appeal to the Court of Appeal, the other party can attempt to leapfrog the Court of Appeal and essentially fast-track a decision of the Supreme Court. I heard the Minister's explanation of this in the Seanad, namely that it was designed to speed up the process and while I do not dispute that this is the purpose, he has not explained what process is being speeded up. Only a tiny number of SHDs ever went to the Court of Appeal. As we know, a large number were judicially reviewed and they stopped there.

I suspect this was not meant to be in this Bill originally. I suspect it did not originate from the officials working on the replacement for the SHDs and the Minister needs to explain to us the origin of this section and why it is in this Bill. Members will be aware that we are due to debate significant and potentially controversial legislation next year on the reform of the judicial review process. Many of us are very concerned that this legislation will seek to limit people's access to justice but that is a debate we can have at a later stage. My suspicion - and it is only a suspicion - is that somebody else, somewhere else in the infrastructure of government, wanted this provision in place in advance of the judicial review reform legislation because they anticipate this provision may be needed, potentially for large infrastructural developments, for example. If that is the case, there might be a good reason for it and I would be open to listening to the Minister's arguments but in the absence of him credibly explaining why something that is not to do with residential developments is in a Bill on residential developments, I am left with no option but to oppose it.

My colleague, Senator Warfield, raised the very same questions with the Minister and neither I nor he was satisfied with the response. I urge him to tell us why this is here and what he is expecting it to be used for because if he did not expect it to be used between now and the passage of the judicial review reform Bill in the first half of next year, then it would not be here in the first instance. A little more transparency around this provision would be better for everybody. The Minister may surprise himself and actually convince some of us who are opposed to this section that it has merit. He did not do that on the floor of the Seanad and I urge him to do it here at this committee.