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

The question has still not been answered so I will ask it again. No one on this side is misrepresenting the consultation process. We are merely saying what we were told by the people involved in the process during pre-legislative scrutiny. I urge the Minister of State to go back and read the transcripts or even ask his officials to give him a summary during the break. In fact, during PLS, many of us commented on the fact that we had extensive engagement with the officials from the Department. However, what we were told by the key stakeholders - the people who will work this system - is that the consultation was not extensive and the outcome on the other side was very surprising to them. If the Minister of State wants to accuse them of misrepresenting the process, that is fine, but they made very strong criticisms of it here. One of the most striking was from the Irish Planning Institute. The testimony of professional planners who make and decide on planning applications was very strong.

I am in complete agreement with the Minister of State. I would like to ensure that we have a system whereby when a judicial review of a planning matter is taken, it is taken as speedily as possible. As I have said, the single best way of addressing that is to resource the courts. However, the Minister of State is not addressing the specific questions that legal and planning professionals have raised with this committee and that we have an obligation to raise with him, namely, that what is being done in this section will have the opposite effect. I am not asking for the legal advice because I know that the Attorney General's advice cannot be shared and published, unless someone wants to leak it from a Government party to the press on the eve of a referendum but that is a separate day's craic.

This is an important analogy because it is directly related to the issue of JRs. When Deputy Simon Coveney and the then head of planning in the Department, Niall Cussens, who is now the Planning Regulator, introduced the strategic housing development legislation, we asked for the empirical evidence on which the legislation was based. We had to fight to get it by threatening an FOI application. We eventually got the evidence in the form of a spreadsheet showing a set number of large-scale planning applications and how long they were in preplanning, planning, further information and appeals. When we saw the actual evidence, it did not support SHD and we made that case at the time. We argued for statutory timelines at all stages of the process. We told the Government that this was the wrong approach. It was not just me who said this; other members of the Opposition, including Senator Boyhan, who is still on the joint committee, also did so. We urged the Government to take a different approach. We said that this would lead to delay and conflict. The Government did not listen. Very significant numbers of planning applications ended up in the courts or ended up in judicial review and created a backlog in An Bord Pleanála. We were proved correct and years later, the Government did, broadly speaking, what this committee and the Opposition had asked for. I will press the Minister of State again on the question. Is there empirical evidence on this? Did someone conduct a review of judicial reviews within the planning system and based on that empirical evidence come up with the proposals? The Chair is absolutely right,; there is quite a detailed annex in the OPR's report. This does not support the types of changes set out here.

Will the Minister of State tell us if there is empirical evidence underpinning this set of legislative proposals? If so, will he give it to the committee so that we can scrutinise it in advance of Report Stage? Those of us on this side are lay people trying to make our way through a very complex Bill. What does the Minister of State say to the professional bodies, the Bar Association, the Law Reform Commission, specialised committees on planning and environmental law and the Irish Planning Institute? The latter body told this committee, and has said so publicly, that what is here will make things worse, not better. There are two questions and then we will start moving into the amendments.