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

I will be moving amendments Nos. 960 to 963, inclusive, 967 and 969 to 971, inclusive,. One of the most important areas of reform in this Bill is Part 9, which updates the processes and parameters of planning judicial review and introduces a scale of legal fees relating to the judicial review and an environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism to ensure that the costs associated with proceeding with a judicial review are not prohibitively expensive, maintaining compliance with Ireland’s commitments under the Aarhus Convention. These reforms have been underpinned by the detailed review and advice of the Office of the Attorney General and by extensive engagement with stakeholders and other relevant Departments, in particular the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, which is leading on the establishment of the scale of fees and the environmental legal costs financial assistance mechanism.

Amendments Nos. 960 to 963, inclusive are of a technical and drafting nature. Amendments Nos. 960, 961 and 962 propose to add the words “or would relate to” in section 253, which deals with the time limits applicable to Part 9 judicial review. This section provides for the eight-week window from the date of decision in which an applicant must initiate a judicial review. The addition of "would relate" provides that, should the eight-week timeline elapse, the language would refer to a matter that judicial review may have related to rather than to an active case that is in being.

Amendments Nos. 963 and 967 expand the sections 256 and 260 to clarify which relevant body and which amendment is referred to in each section, respectively, by way of insertion of reference to the identifying subsection. Amendment No. 970 deletes the words “of this section” from section 268(1) as it is not required.

Amendments Nos. 969 and 971 enable the court to dismiss a judicial review if it “considers that the proceedings are brought for the sole purpose of delaying a development, or proposed development or securing the payment of money, gifts, consideration or other inducement, by any person to any other person”.

These amendments seek to strengthen the judicial review process under the Bill by providing that the court may make an order as to costs where it considers that the judicial review proceedings have been brought for the purposes of either delaying the development or securing the payment of money, gifts, consideration or other inducement. Where such an order is made by the court, the applicant will not be entitled to receive a contribution to his or her own costs from the environmental legal cost financial assistance mechanism.

The judicial review provisions currently provide that each party shall bear its own costs unless the court makes an order that a party shall pay costs to another party. Courts will now be able to make such an order where they are of the view that the proceedings were taken to delay the development or to secure the payment of money or other inducements. The court may already make such orders where it considers that the proceedings are frivolous or vexations.

I am also giving consideration to bringing further amendments on Report Stage to deal with spurious planning submissions and appeals. Among the issues being examined is the requirement for a person or an organisation making a submission on a planning application, to submit a standardised statutory declaration with the original submission confirming his or her or its bona fides and that the submission is made in good faith. Penalties would also be introduced for anyone making a false declaration.