Ms Danielle Conaghan:

It is about whether the fixing power the Chairman mentioned in the context of the board makes sense. It is worth pausing to remind ourselves that a judicial review is an ask of the courts to look at the decision made by the coimisiún, whether it was made in accordance with Irish and European law, and any gap that may exist between the two.

There is an interest in decision-makers, individually and collectively, making robust decisions in accordance with the law. Decision-makers have a duty of candour to act in accordance with the law. The case law states that. This provision will enable them to do that. It states that at any time within eight weeks of making a decision, the decision-maker involved can review it in terms of assessing whether they got it wrong or made an error of law. It is in everyone’s interest, including their own, to carry out that spot check in order to ensure that they have taken into account the relevant considerations or submissions or have used the appropriate assessment test. It is in everyone’s interests that they have the power to do that.

This is before judicial review arises. It is especially important that decision-makers have the power to do it if judicial review proceedings are brought and that they have the power to seek to have judicial reviews adjourned. When judicial review proceedings are brought, you have the grounds on which it is alleged that you have made an error of law in this or that respect. If you allow a case to run, even with the expedited timelines, for a year, it gets to the stage where that review leads to the planning permission being quashed, it is then - after one year at best, with the expedited timelines - going to be remitted to the coimisiún to fix the matter. There are several positives in this in the context of saving time and the proactive fixing provision, but it has to be resourced.