Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will comment briefly on a few points. I hope our dealings in the context of the Maritime Area Planning Act demonstrate that I have listened to the Opposition. We took a series of amendments from the Opposition, withdrew some amendments and came back on Report Stage with further amendments in consultation with the Opposition. I firmly put that on the record. We have listened today in terms of our withdrawal of amendment No. 25 due to concerns raised. Deputy Matthews rightly articulated those concerns.

I did not say that all these amendments are technical in nature, as was suggested by some Members. I said that some of them are technical and some are urgent in nature. I specifically went through each of the sections to which I referred and the category of each amendment.

I did not criticise the media. I referred to reports in the media in terms of contributions that were made in respect of the Bill being rushed. I wish to be clear on that. I gave my rationale. Some members of the Opposition are passionate and make strong contributions. I, too, have the right to stand up for my case. I hope we can do that respectfully across the House, as is fair and reasonable.

As regards comments in respect of the design envelope and housing, obviously, that is already custom and practice in the courts due to a High Court decision, but it is the planning authority that adjudicates on that.

As regards flexibility in the context of applications, that puts public consultation at the heart of the planning process. Citizens get to see every option in front of them and those options have to be presented when the application goes through the local authority rather than having a series of separate planning applications. That is reasonable and balanced.

With regard to judicial review, we have withdrawn amendment No. 25. In terms of the administrative process, this involves a small number of cases, as was rightly pointed out, but there being a process that should be utilised before a judicial review is taken gives consistency.

With regard to other aspects that have been referred to in the context of a planning application going back to a previous stage, that is already custom and practice. The courts have already determined that in a number of applications. Again, it underwrites that with statutory certainty, which is important.

The changes in respect of the Planning Regulator are important.

Sometimes when listening to the varied responses from the Opposition, particularly hearing, first, that people should be allowed object whenever they want and then, second, the same person giving out about someone taking a judicial review against a particular case. It would be hard for a legislator to respond to some of those comments. I want to say clearly and firmly that, as a citizen and as someone who was democratically elected to this House, I am firm in my belief that the right of the public to challenge a public decision should be protected. That is very important. My issue is that it should be adjudicated on in a timely manner and the vehicle to do that should be very clear in our primary legislation. That is what we are about. I am quite prepared to work with Members of the Opposition, as I hope have demonstrated in the past.

See this speech in context