Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)

As regards section 1, and the 30 days or the 18 months, it is a question of whichever is the lesser. However, after 18 months it has to go to the courts and the reason for this is to ensure proportionality and fairness for people who may still have objections. The compulsory purchase order regime has been very carefully balanced over time. One cannot just issue CPOs willy-nilly around the place. Constitutional rights of property and so on are in place.

The reason the Attorney General provides in the Bill for the necessity of High Court proceedings, if it continues for a longer period, is precisely to ensure that a person's constitutional rights are not being infringed by such a continuance. Rather than a layperson, such as the Minister, deciding on this, who might be prejudiced in some people's eyes - because of wanting a project to go ahead or whatever - the courts should have the opportunity to decide whether a person's property rights are being infringed in an unfair or disproportionate manner. One may infringe people's property rights provided this is proportionately done for the public good. That is the reason for this provision about the High Court.

See this speech in context