Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

If I miss some of the questions, the Deputies might remind me of them.

Regarding Deputy Ó Broin’s question about fewer judicial reviews, that is not anticipated, nor does the Bill try to have fewer judicial reviews. There would be quicker processing of reviews and certainty about costs. It is not the intention to try to stop people from taking JRs. This is about speeding up the process.

The interdepartmental group on environmental legal costs was chaired by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications and was established to examine the implementation of the proposed changes. As approved by the Government, the group’s remit is to progress the drafting of the necessary regulations on the scale of fees review to mitigate any potential risks arising from the establishment of a financial assistance mechanism. The Government has approved in principle the establishment of a cost assistance mechanism, and the Bill will set out the provisions for that. The role of such an evaluation would be to identify any potential risks arising from the establishment of the mechanism and how they are to be mitigated. To date, the group has met four times, examined the legal necessity for the mechanism, decided on the approach to consultation with stakeholders with a professional interest in environmental legal costs, and progressed work on identifying and assessing risks associated with the establishment of a financial assistance mechanism. The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications will report to the Government on this matter within three months of the Bill’s passing.

Deputy O’Callaghan asked about amendment No. 954. We are satisfied that the notification procedures are appropriate and align with the Aarhus Convention. This is based on advice from the Attorney General.

The Planning and Development Act 2000 required an application for leave to apply for a judicial review of proceedings. The original intention was for it to act as a form of screening for valid cases, but due in part to the widening in scope of the environmental parameters related to planning JRs, almost all cases now proceed past leave stage in practice. Removing the leave stage removes a time cost and unnecessary legal costs for all parties. In every case, all applicants must provide evidence of sufficient grounds and interest to proceed. A further provision on an application to strike out a Part 9 judicial review maintains the ability of a party to apply to the court to strike out the proceedings on a stated criterion, such as lack of standing, being out of time, a failure to exhaust appeals and administrative procedures, and a failure to disclose an arguable case. Additionally, the court may deem applications to be frivolous or vexatious.

Deputy O’Callaghan stated that the planning and advisory reform did not receive good engagement in terms of-----