Mr. Paul Hogan:

No. As I said, it is reflecting experiences I have had. Every time we do the first stage of consultation and we ask people for their views on what should happen, they tell us that we are the people responsible and we are the experts, and they ask us to put our views forward and then they will respond. Unfortunately, it was made very clear, and people were facilitated to give their views. To give an example, as the Deputy has pointed out, the issue of the development plan timelines remains unresolved. We have been very clear that there is definitely scope, and to partly answer the Deputy's question, one of the things we would wish to change is the two-year process, because it is too rigid. We have been very open from the outset that there should be the capacity for additional time, within that two-year period, to extend it beyond as needs be. We have sought views as to how that should be done and it remains unresolved. It is something that we are going to work into the final version of the Bill. We did not get a very strong and clear view in the engagement, which meant that that position could not be nailed down at the outset.

The Deputy mentioned omissions. There is a very good reason - and Ms Mulhern might be able to explain it - sections 48 and 49 are not included. It is an omission and we absolutely intend to bring them back in. We are committed to doing that.

On the question of centralisation,-----