Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

From my work as a public representative and my interactions with people in the local community, I will comment and use an example not to do with judicial review. We could be working on any issue in the local area, such as being involved with a Tidy Towns group or writing a letter for that kind of group. Even when it comes to something as uncontroversial as that, I know from interactions on the ground that most people, unlike public representatives, are not in the public eye and enjoy their privacy. When they get involved, then, collectively, in a residents association, a local clean-up group or whatever, they are not looking to get their names and addresses put out there.

They like to be able to participate collectively and have their privacy respected. That is before one goes anywhere near something as contentious and conflict based, potentially, as a judicial review. People want to respect that. They want that to be respected. As we were told in the testimony we got as a committee, there is no question that a provision like this will have a chilling effect, although the Minister of State disputes that. All I can say to the Minister of State is that he must have a very different interaction with people in his local community than I have because my experience of this has been very different.

There is a practical issue that must be given some thought. There is an eight-week window between a decision being made and a group or an individual deciding to take a judicial review. In that eight weeks, a huge amount of work would have to be don, so the practicalities of a residents' association convening a meeting of all of its members, getting them all together, or even deciding to do that, and then doing all the subsequent work to prepare for a judicial review means a curtailment of access to justice.

I will outline what worries me the most, as a public representative. We have talked about this issue when discussing other sections of the Bill and it is public participation and the fees to make a submission. One must pay €20 to the local authority. It costs €50 to lodge an observation with An Bord Pleanála, and it costs €220 to lodge an appeal with An Bord Pleanála. In my constituency there are significant areas where people can participate and pay those fees but there are other parts of my constituency where people simply do not have €20 at the end of the week between trying to juggle their heating bills, put food on the table and get children to school or whatever. Some of my constituents simply do not have €20 at the end of week to pay fees. Making access to justice and rules governing it more difficult means that the communities that are already really outside of participation in the planning process, and really do not have capability and wherewithal in terms of a judicial review, are an even further distance away if it were something they had a particular need to do.

The Minister of State has talked about transparency. Access to justice is critical for transparency. I want to see as few JRs as possible, for JRs to be dealt with as fast as possible and, critically, for lessons to be learned from JRs when they do happen. Judicial activism is often talked about in a negative sense. However, one can see that judicial activism has over the years, and not just in planning, produced good results for us in a lot of areas. All the discourse around judicial activism is all negative but we would not be the country we are today without it. In fact, some of the rights that I enjoy in my personal life are the result of judicial activism that was taken by people decades ago.

Finally, can the Minister of State tell me whether there has been an analysis of the effect of this provision and the impact on the short window of time people have to apply for a JR? Has there been any analysis done on what effect this will have on, and how it might restrict, access to justice?