Mr. Gavin Lawlor:

This comes down to how European law is transposed into Irish law and to being a little clearer and more specific in our law. The problem in that instance is clarity and transparency of the law. There are different things. If something comes from Europe and somebody takes the case to Europe claiming that is not what the directive meant, that is purely legal. If something is because we have not interpreted it properly in Irish law and an Irish court cannot say what the difference between particular wording in that directive versus this Act is, it may refer a case to Europe. The extent of legal interpretation and remittance to the courts in Ireland is very significant when compared with our European friends. The key question is why. It goes back to what we were talking about as planners: it is evidence based.

I believe the Deputy asked the board and the OPR if anybody had reviewed the 146 judicial reviews and what lessons were learned. However, he did not get an answer. I find that remarkable. If we are to move forward and improve, we need to learn from our mistakes. The best way to do that is by reviewing stuff, gathering the evidence, putting the evidence forward, identifying what went wrong, why it went wrong and how we can change it. It is that objective. People can see why stuff is being done. It should not end up with people saying that courts should not be making planning decisions. If somebody believes that the court is making planning decisions, that means they are interpreting that the judge is exercising planning judgment, which should not be the case. Members of the Judiciary will say that should not be the case. The perception that this might be the case is problematic and we need to fix that problem. We say it starts with getting the plans right in the first instance. That is the start of the process. We have a problem and mess that sits between the two.