This week we are seeing a new low when it comes to rushed, reckless, haphazard and confused legislation from the Government. Last September the housing committee was asked to do pre-legislative scrutiny of the Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2022. It ran to 18 pages. More than ten months later, late last Thursday, an amended version of the Bill was circulated by Government. It ran to 60 pages, with the addition of 48 pages of amendments. The Bill, which the Government has sat on for almost an entire year, had mysteriously tripled in size.

Some of the proposed amendments on challenging decisions of An Bord Pleanála in the courts were extremely far-reaching. For example, one provision would allow An Bord Pleanála to change retrospectively decisions that were wrong in fact or in law after the court challenge to the decision had been lodged. A person or group would take a High Court challenge, which is a highly onerous and expensive undertaking, and discover mid-proceedings that An Bord Pleanála had changed the decision on which the entire proceedings were based. The Irish Examiner informed us this morning that particular provision has been withdrawn. The Government did not bother telling the Opposition that. My colleague, Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, had to prise that information from the Minister of State, Deputy Burke, in the House this morning.

Other changes to the manner in which the courts deal with planning challenges remain in the Bill, along with a host of other problematic amendments. The fact the Government would try to shoehorn these kinds of planning amendments into a Bill that is supposed to deal with non-consequential issues when there are three separate investigations under way into An Bord Pleanála really beggars belief. The controversy swirling around An Bord Pleanála has already resulted in the resignation of the deputy chair, Mr. Paul Hyde, late last Friday. While he is a central figure to the three current investigations, his resignation will not end the problems of An Bord Pleanála, some of which have their origins in the bypassing of the planning authorities, thereby changing the nature of the planning appeals board. That change also happened before a recess in December 2016, when the then Minister, Deputy Coveney, introduced strategic housing developments, SHDs, which were an idea brought to him by the construction industry. The industry commented afterwards that he had introduced their ideas lock, stock and barrel.

Why is the Government ramming this legislation through the Dáil when its own review into the planning laws has not yet been completed. Will he tell us why the Government sat on this Bill for an entire year and only brought forward the 48 pages of amendments this week, just before the recess? Given the scandal that has consumed An Bord Pleanála, does the Taoiseach think it is wise to progress these changes before the reviews into its operation have been completed?

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. There are two separate issues here but I accept there is a connection in terms of overall planning. On the amendments coming forward to the Planning and Development Act, four sets of amendments were initially considered for inclusion by Government in the Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. All four sets of amendments were identified by Government for inclusion in the next available planning Bill, which was the Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, and these amendments were flagged in the Minister's Second Stage speech on the Bill in Seanad Éireann on 6 April. The legal drafting of the specific amendments was not ready for inclusion in the Bill when it was before Seanad Éireann and therefore the amendments are being introduced on Committee Stages in Dáil Éireann.

Two further amendments were more recently identified for inclusion where the Government is anxious to introduce new regulatory rules on short-term letting and a number of streamlining-type amendments to judicial review provisions in the planning Act as soon as possible. There is a current supply shortage in the private rental sector. Many people in the House have raised the issue of short-term lettings and the need to tighten that up to create a greater availability of supply in the rental sector, specifically in rent pressure zones, which are the areas of highest housing demand, thereby delivering increased units to the sector and stabilising rents. There is also a need to improve efficiencies in terms of the way in which judicial review cases are handled in the courts.

There will be a more comprehensive planning Bill in the autumn, but the consistent call in this House has been for rapid action on housing to enable greater supply in the housing market. Department officials briefed Members of the Seanad on the proposed amendments, except for the short-term letting one, on 25 May and latterly briefed the members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage on the proposed amendments on 11 July in advance of Committee Stage in the Dáil set to take place today.

The issue relating to An Bord Pleanála is serious but we must allow for due process in that regard. The Minister has commissioned a review by Mr. Remy Farrell, senior counsel, into certain allegations made against an individual in respect of his previous role as deputy chairperson of the board. The senior counsel is now due to report to the Minister by 29 July 2022. As the Deputy knows, An Bord Pleanála is also undertaking its own internal review, and the Office of the Planning Regulator has announced it is commencing a review into An Bord Pleanála's systems and procedures. We are going to consider legislation in respect of how ordinary members are recruited into An Bord Pleanála.

The Taoiseach talks about due process in An Bord Pleanála. Regarding the amendment the Government has now withdrawn under pressure, and it is not the only one, why would the Government even think of bringing that forward? It beggars belief when the Taoiseach is talking about due process. This is not the proper way to deal with legislation. We have a Second Stage, a Committee Stage and a Report Stage for very good reason. The idea that a Bill would triple in size after Second Stage and we get very late-stage amendments is absolutely outrageous. There is permission for 70,000 units under the strategic housing development plan, only 13,000 of which have commenced. The CSO figures for 2005 show that 86,000 dwelling units were delivered that year. That did not require strategic housing developments. The cutting out of the citizens from a process or restricting their access to that process is highly problematic. It is a part of the reason some of the judicial reviews are happening. This is no way to deal with the issue. Will the Government withdraw the more offensive amendments, particularly amendment No. 26?

Many of these amendments are not offensive and are quite pragmatic. We should always work to streamline our planning system and make it more efficient. Most people are saying it takes too long to get anything through the planning system. Judicial reviews need streamlining. That does not stop anybody having the right to go to judicial review. We need to examine the system because everybody in the House is talking about supply. Everyone wants projects built quickly, including the Deputy, when it suits.

That is true of affordable housing.

The Deputy is the first person in the House to ask why this and that have not been done. Any State agency asked about the vital infrastructure that is needed in the country will say planning delays are the most significant ones. It can take two or three years. In maritime area planning, it will take eight to ten years to get an offshore wind energy project done. That is too long. Collectively, we need to work our way through this because projects are taking too long. We have changed the strategic development provisions. The Minister has changed how that works and we learn lessons as we go on. Let us not escape the reality of how lengthy our planning process has turned out to be.