Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Respectfully, when it comes to legislation, it should not be a matter of imagination, but hard data, evidence and facts. That is what we have been asking the Minister of State for. We do not want people imagining things. We just want to see what the data and evidence are. Will he provide them to us? Can the legislation and the changes the Government is making be justified by hard data and evidence? We can leave imagination to other discussions, but legislation should be evidence-based.

Regarding the Minister of State’s comments about the extensive process with the planning advisory forum, I received strong feedback from the forum’s members to the effect that they did not feel there had been strong engagement with them on the judicial review changes. In fact, they said they had sought the identification of issues in the current JR system in terms of evidence, analyses of impacts and changes, and assessments of the changes’ legal compliance with the Aarhus Convention and EU and international law, but that none of that was provided. They said it was missing from the discussion papers supplied to them and that the rationale for and detail of the changes in the Bill were not provided. As such, there is a strongly different view from members of the planning advisory forum.

The Minister of State might address my question on the proposed section 250(6), which relates to the eight-week window for applying for leave for judicial review. The Aarhus Convention compliance committee’s communication ACCC/C/2015/131, which issued on 26 July 2021, clarified that the running clock for a window to seek judicial review should not start until the public is notified of the decision, with relevant information on that decision being available. That is clear in paragraph 175(a), which addressed this and stated: "The time frame for bringing an application for judicial review of any planning-related decision within the scope of article 9 of the Convention is calculated from the date the decision became known to the public and not from the date that the contested decision was taken." It is almost three years since that communication, so why is it not addressed in the changes the Government is making through the Bill?

We do not want imagination. We just want the data and evidence and compliance with our international legal obligations.