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

Amendment No. 954 replaces Part 9 entirely and reinserts provisions from the existing Act in sections 50, 50A and 50B. The amendment makes some minor changes to what is currently in the legislation, particularly in terms of the counting of the eight-week judicial review window. Part of the reason is to ensure it is compliant with the European Court of Justice decision in case No. 470 of 2016, as well as doing away with undertakings, which is something the Department does in the Bill.

To justify this, I am absolutely convinced that what motivates the new Part 9 is a group of legal professionals who are fighting the last war. They are looking backwards at things that have happened that concerned them which are no longer necessarily the problems we will face in future. They are fixing things that no longer need fixing, particularly under the large-scale residential development process.

Very quickly, I want to insert into this response three related responses to the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon. They are related to the amendment. It would be entirely possible for the Department to compile a summary of the evidence base upon which the Attorney General has recommended the section I am essentially trying to remove. It is clearly the custom and practice for the Government not to release Attorney General advice, although previous governments have published an Attorney General's advice in advance of referendums in the interests of transparency. It would be possible for the hard-working officials of the Department to produce a policy summary and for this to be published and forwarded to the committee. I urge the Department to do this because, other than repeating again that we want to reform and speed up the system, nobody has set out an evidence base for why these particular proposed reforms will work in the way it is proposed they will. I press the Minister of State on that.

I want to correct the Minister of State Deputy Dillon. While the arrangements for the Courts Service are a matter for the Courts Service, the addition of dedicated judges on the environmental planning subpanel of the High Court is ultimately a matter for the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice has to provide the resources for this to happen. In fact, when the announcement was made recently that three judges - although it is really only two full-time judges - would work on this matter, it was a Government announcement with the Minister alongside it claiming credit. It is not the case, just to correct the record of the committee, that the expansion of the number of judges dealing with judicial reviews on environmental planning matters is a matter for the Courts Service. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Government and more should be provided.

The Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, kept using the phrase, when speaking to the Opposition, that "we feel" that what is in this will make things worse. None of us have said we feel that way. We have listened to expert testimony from the people who are going to work the system, including on the section I am trying to replace with this amendment. They tell us that, based on their professional expertise as planners, lawyers and barristers, this will make it worse. This is not about a soft feeling among the Opposition; it is the considered view of the overwhelming majority of people working in the field who give testimony on this matter.

Of course there will always be differing opinions. Expert planners advise the Department and they may well take different views. There will never be unanimity. However, there is very strong consensus that what is in the sections of the Bill that my amendment is trying to alter will make things much worse. On this basis, the amendment as outlined is trying to remove the damaging sections, so far unjustified and unexplained on any evidence base by the Government, and at least allow us to continue with the system which, especially with respect to residential developments, is now working well. This is not my view or feeling; it is what residential developers tell us. They are asking us to leave well alone, let large-scale residential development bed down and let them get on with the process of applying for planning permission and delivering the homes that people need.