Mr. Gavin Lawlor:

I will answer the questions in reverse order. Should the provisions on the land value sharing tax be in one Bill? Yes, absolutely. It makes considerable sense to do it that way. We should get as much as we can resolved in the draft Bill rather than having, as happened with the 2000 Act, a series of amendments directly afterwards. I totally agree with that.

On the regulations, the Deputy is right in saying it will be very cumbersome. If will have 750 pages of a principal Act, then the regulations are likely to be longer. That is the way it was the last time around. Exactly as the Royal Town Planning Institute representatives said, can we not just simplify some of this? It is horribly complex when it is that long. It might need to be, but we should be looking to consolidate some of this. Maybe some of the stuff intended to be dealt with in the regulations should be in the primary legislation, and vice versa. It would be very helpful if we had a set of regulations to go along with the eventual Bill, rather than just the latter. It is a bit early for that at this stage in the process, and obviously they can change. Having the two of them side by side would make the intention much clearer, however. In terms of the transitional arrangements, it would also be clear when things are likely to happen. It would be possible to talk through some of those concerns about resourcing and so on.

I will deal with the thorny issue last. Limiting people's access to judicial review is problematic for the institute.