Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages Dail Éireann — 2026-07-08 ============================================================ John Cummins (FG), Waterford At the outset, I will address the timing piece. I am not saying this to be provocative, but I have to put it on the record that I stood here last Thursday and concluded my contribution to an empty Chamber. We finished 30 minutes ahead of schedule. I have to say that because we made sufficient provision for debate on Second Stage. I am happy to debate the substance of any of the amendments. I am aware also that a couple of the sections are opposed. The amendment tabled by Deputies Ó Broin and Gould seeks to insert a new section into the Bill. It stages: The Minister shall lay a report before ... the Oireachtas within 12 months ... detailing the impact of the amendments to Part 4 of the Principal Act related to Judicial Reviews and detailing whether the procedural changes have resulted in a speeding up of planning related Judicial Reviews or increased the volume of planning litigation resulting in increased delays for residential and infrastructural development. I am not in a position to accept the amendment. First, on a technical matter, judicial review planning procedures are set out in Part 9 of the 2024 Act. However, the proposed amendment makes reference to Part 4 of that Act. I presume the reference in the amendment is in error. That is one of the reasons I cannot accept it. Second, the monitoring, analysis or reporting of data relating to judicial reviews, including associated timelines and durations of proceedings within the courts, is a matter that falls outside the remit of my Department. The management of the courts is the responsibility of the Courts Service, which is independent in the performance of its functions and under the aegis of the Minister for justice, Deputy O’Callaghan. My understanding is that there is a ten-year modernisation programme already under way within the Courts Service and that significant progress is being made in that regard. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to provide for a reporting requirement in relation to judicial reviews relating to planning. The amendment, as proposed, is not considered workable because it would place a statutory requirement on a Minister to report on matters that are subjective in nature. As the Deputies will appreciate, there are a wide range of factors that could give rise to an increase or decrease in the number of planning judicial reviews. It may not always be possible to determine the exact reason for changes in such levels or in the average duration of proceedings. Judicial reviews against the State, in which my Department may be included as a party, are co-ordinated by the Chief State Solicitor under the guidance of the Office of the Attorney General. An Coimisiún Pleanála can also be challenged by judicial reviews on a range of its functions, including decisions on appeals and planning applications in respect of strategic infrastructure developments. Moreover, it already publishes details with respect to legal cases in its annual report. It is for these reasons I cannot accept the amendment. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-07-08/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-09-14T01:01:07+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-08