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

I think we are in for a long afternoon. We are told there is an ongoing review of the judicial review process in another Department, yet profound changes to the judicial review regime are being introduced in this Bill. That seems to me to make no sense whatsoever. Generally, we are told the reason we cannot have legislative reform, for example yesterday on compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, was because there is a review between two Departments on CPOs and the Law Reform Commission's report and that, therefore, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage could not proceed with some areas of reform in planning without dealing with the wider issues of CPO and valuation. Here we are being given the opposite argument, that a wide review is being undertaken but the Department has decided to press ahead nonetheless. That is the first concern.

The second concern is I do not believe there is a detailed review of judicial review. If there is, publish it. I am not saying there was not advice given by the Attorney General or discussions between the Attorney General and the group of senior counsels responsible for drafting this Bill. We are asking if there is an actual analysis of planning permissions judicial review processes that has fed into the drafting. If there is, it should be published. I do not mean legal advice but, rather, actual empirical analysis. The only data we have is from the Office of the Planning Regulator. That office publishes a really helpful report each year detailing the total number of applications, the fact the overwhelming majority of them are approved within the statutory time limits of our local authorities - there is a separate issue ongoing in the board - and the really small number of legal challenges. The evidence from the independent Office of the Planning Regulator is telling us this is not as big a problem as sometimes the political and public debate seems to suggest.

On the other hand, we used to have a relatively standard number of judicial reviews related to planning environmental matters in the courts each year. That ballooned out of control following the introduction of mandatory ministerial guidelines on building heights and design standards for apartments under the SHD process. The residential development community tells us now the large-scale residential development process has led to a dramatic reduction in judicial reviews on residential development, combined with the revised development plans. We are moving back to where we were before the SHD and SPPR impacts. What is to be fixed here if the empirical evidence suggests otherwise?

The Minister of State referred to "extensive engagement with stakeholders". That is not what stakeholders told us in this committee. Representatives of the Irish Planning Institute told us the level of engagement with them in the planning forum was very high level and they were surprised by large elements of the Bill. Many other sectors, such as environmental NGOs and legal bodies, did not give the impression the Minister of State suggests or, in some cases, were outright critical of the lack of engagement on the detail of this.

We have no idea what the cost regime will be because it is not in the Bill. The Minister of State is correct that it is being dealt with by another Department. The problem with costs, which we will get into when we deal with the sections, is that for two or three years there was an enormous backlog in the courts because of the dispute over costs in the Heather Hill case. That meant any judicial review with a similar dispute over costs could not proceed and that clogged up the courts and the system. That was resolved and there is clarity for the first time in years on costs. We are being asked to throw that certainty and clarity away for a legal aid scheme that has yet to be designed or published. Nobody understands how it will operate and be funded or how much it will cost. There is a fee-setting mechanism, which I am not against in principle, but there is no clarity on how it will work.

Here is the problem. I appreciate the Minister of State is new to the portfolio but I am sure he followed some of these debates. I do not want to see good planning applications for good quality residential development, offshore or onshore renewable energy or critical infrastructure, particularly by our semi-State bodies, stuck for several years in the courts because the Department has ditched Heather Hill and introduced as yet undefined cost protection measures which end up being litigated on and slowing everything down.

I ask again what empirical, policy-based evidence, not legal advice, are these measures based on? If there is such a thing, will it be published? Why is the Minister of State not listening to the long list of professionals who work this system, including planners and developers, whether public, private or semi-State, and legal professionals working on both sides of the litigation process? They told us in committee through clear submission and stark testimony. Some of them have been writing publicly in newspapers over the last while. The Irish Planning Institute's conference is today and this matter is being discussed on the platform as we speak. Why is the Minister of State not listening to the voices of the experts who will be working this system when they tell him he has got this wrong and it will lead to increased conflict, litigation and delay in our planning system, particularly for crucial infrastructure, residential development and renewable energy projects?