I will echo the questions put by Senator Warfield. What projects are involved? This change does not only apply to residential developments but allows for all kinds of judicial reviews to be pushed directly from the High Court to the Supreme Court. If there is a judicial review, a process that is currently being reviewed, the appropriate place to deal with the matter is in the review of judicial review. The measure can be brought through as part of the judicial review legislation. It is not enough to simply say we w…

The section just does not stand up. There is not so great a backlog of judicial reviews in the Court of Appeal that we cannot wait one year to deal with judicial review properly through legislation. We do not need immediately to get the Court of Appeal out of the way in regard to judicial reviews. This is not housing specific; it relates to judicial reviews in general. There are many types of judicial reviews, including on environmental issues, that may need to be taken. Leapfrogging from the High Court to the Supr…

Looking at the amendment, it is good to see references to owner-occupiers, as long as that is additional to social housing. The Minister has been clear that this is an addition to Part V. I, of course, reserve the right to amend this new amended section on Report Stage but it is positive to be referencing owner-occupiers. There is a question of carrot or stick involved here. I understand that the intention is that there might be supportive provisions to follow, although they are not here. That means not only that t…

I move amendment No. 36: In page 15, to delete lines 10 to 28.

I move amendment No. 37: In page 15, to delete lines 29 to 32.

The Minister acknowledged the flaws in the SHD system. He has stated that this is a better system. This is about ensuring we move to a new system as soon and as expeditiously as possible, with all the benefits of better planning that might bring, but also ensuring that applications in the pre-planning process are rerouted into the new large-scale residential development process. It just seems to make sense. It is a reasonable and good proposal from Sinn Féin and I support it.

I move amendment No. 40: In page 17, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Report on vacant units in LRD development 17. The Minister shall, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining the number of completed housing units under the LRD process which remain vacant.”. This amendment and amendment No. 41 relate to the same issue and the fear I have that is derived from and grounded in what we have seen emerge in respect of previous measures. I re…

With regard to amendment No. 41, I am getting a signal from the Minister that he is willing to engage between now and Report Stage. That would be useful. Those data are crucial, whether they are put in a report laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas or before the Oireachtas joint committee. There is a piece the Minister did not address but he said there was no problem in providing information. I expect he will engage with the part of that information on issues where there are sales and resales. They are the spec…

I move amendment No. 41: In page 17, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Report on the operation of the provisions of this Act 17. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining— (a) the proportion of sites, expressed as a percentage, which have been granted LRD planning permission where construction has not commenced, (b) the proportion of sites, expressed as a percentage, which have been granted LRD planning permission and …

I move amendment No. 42: In page 17, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “Further transitional measures 17. (1) Where an application under section 16 in respect of the Act of 2016 is proceeded with and planning permission has been granted, such planning permission shall be revoked 12 months after it has been granted in respect of scenarios where construction of the proposed development has not commenced. (2) Any applications which have been granted planning permission prior to this enactment under the A…

I will give a wider speech on my amendment a little later. On section 2, I will flag that it is good there is a provision allowing those who may have already registered under the current process to preserve that, yet we also protect those who may wish to register in future. It might, however, be an area that could require further clarification. One area I might look at on Report Stage concerns those who have started the process of registration. I warmly welcome the Minister back to the House and I thank her for her…

I have had a bit of back and forth with the Minister in respect of section 3. I appreciate the information and useful tables she supplied regarding applications. My question relates specifically to the foreshore and State lands. As I understand it, while the legislation is moving back in terms of the previous periods that applied, it is also effectively removing many of the provisions of the 2009 Act relating to private easements and profits á prendre on private land. However, for State land and foreshore, some of …

I should have mentioned this in the previous section. We are going back to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. This legislation is moving forward in a very tight timeframe. With regard to easement versus profit à prendre , we could and should be looking at shorter periods for certain profits à prendre , as basic as the right to light, but that will potentially be part of the review. I will speak on the extinguishment of easements and profits à prendre . This Bill will not fix the legislation on easements…

The point I would like to make relates to section 5, but it does not matter too much. I welcome that it has been recognised that the burden of proof in the 2009 Act was so high that it would, in some cases, almost be in conflict with legislation that has come in subsequently, such as the general data protection regulation. For example, people would be required to provide large amounts of information about their neighbours, which they could not do. I welcome the shift in that section where there is a recognition. Th…

I move amendment No. 1: 1. In page 5, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following: "Report on engagement 7. The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining progress in relation to engagement with the Law Reform Commission, the Oireachtas, local authorities and other key stakeholders in respect of the provisions of this Act and potential further legislative or policy measures in respect of prescriptive easements and rights of way.". Th…

There are rights to declare public rights of way but local authorities do not use them. Compulsory purchase order powers tend not to be used. There are a lot of powers that are not used and it is a sad fact that in a lot of local authorities, members do not feel empowered to suggest new rights of way. We do not tend to add new public rights of way very often but we can. We extinguish public rights of way all the time. I will not go into it because it is a separate piece but it is also around making sure local autho…

I do not object to the speedy moving of the Land and Conveyancing Reform Bill as I have called for the legislation for a year. It is important that we act before 30 November but I am not sure technically if it is necessary in the Seanad because we do not normally have the practice of pre-legislative scrutiny in terms of legislation coming to the Seanad. I do not want us to set a precedent.

Yes.

Was that to require pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation initiated in the Seanad?

We may revisit that at a Committee on Parliamentary Privileges and Oversight meeting.