Mr. Philip Jones:

I will see if I can find it. It is basically trying to change the system. I do not think it was a mistake. That is my point. I will find it before the end of the meeting. The key problem is that I had heard it is going to go into the land value sharing. I went online in the last couple of days and had a look at the heads of the land value sharing Bill. That only applies to newly zoned land and not to existing zoned land, whereas the section 48 scheme, which was adopted by the elected members for local infrastructure so they could decide independently of central government to spend on things like cycle paths and parks and so on, is gone. It only applies to new zoning. As the committee is probably well aware, there are huge amounts of legacy over-zoning in most development plans, coming from the Celtic tiger era. There was a very recent High Court case involving the group Protect East Meath. I had a quick look at it. That case involved a group of local residents who were not too happy about the fact that their local authority had considerably over-zoned. I will just give the figures mentioned in the judgment. It is a public judgment now. Some 19.9 ha were needed in east Meath but the council members had voted for 157 ha. That is one section of one county, so that will give an idea of how much over-zoning we have. The land value sharing will only apply to new stuff. It is not the place to put it. It should be in this Bill.