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

The questions I asked were these. What are the problems here that are trying to be solved? What is the supporting evidence or data for the changes proposed? What is the intended impact of the changes proposed? What outcome is envisaged? What analysis has been done on the predicted effects of each change? If analysis has been done and there is data, will it be shared with us? It is important we get clear answers to those questions.

I have a concern about the landscape around JRs. Since this was envisaged there was a higher level of JRs because of very badly designed SHD legislation. Warnings were sounded about this at the time. It created a lot of delays and clogged up the system, rather than acting as a fast track for planning. There is extensive research on how it was lobbied for and how the changes lobbied for were delivered, lock, stock and barrel, according to one of the lobbyists in an academic paper published by researchers from Queen's University and University College Dublin. I have a concern about that landscape having shifted. We have not heard what the problem is that Government is trying to solve here. Is this trying to solve a problem because we are getting back to normality in terms of the number of JRs? That effectively is not there but we have not heard on it.

The detailed review of judicial reviews being carried out by the Department of Justice was committed to in the programme for Government four years ago. Has it started? If so, what stage is it at? When is it due to be completed? Why is the Government not waiting for it to be completed before making substantial changes to judicial review in the Bill here? If it is a comprehensive review, would it not be a good place to start in terms of any changes? Presumably, the comprehensive review will have some data or analysis that could then inform changes. Where is the data and analysis - the supporting evidence for the changes being proposed - and will it be shared with us?