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

This group of amendments seeks to amend the various judicial review procedures set out in this Bill. I state from the outset that I will not be accepting any of these amendments as the provisions have been developed in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and I am happy with them as they stand.

I will touch on the substance of these amendments. Amendment No. 44 seeks to insert a provision providing locus standifor certain cases. There are a number of issues with this amendment. As discussed at length on Committee Stage, I do not accept that the MAC is an environmental decision for these purposes and the advice I have supports that position. This amendment seeks to attempt to establish the MAC as an environmental decision by reference to the proposed insertion. It is simply not acceptable.

Notwithstanding that, I have serious concerns with the proposal that a body or organisation could establish itself and pursue environmental objectives for just one month before it could have locus standiin judicial review proceedings. This is a significant deviation from the existing provisions, including the existing provisions of the planning Acts and those proposed in section 133 of this Bill. This provision could unintentionally lead to abuses of the system and would undermine the good work of the existing and longstanding environmental NGOs. There is no justification for this and it is curious that the Deputies have not proposed a similar amendment to section 133 in respect of licences.

Amendments Nos. 42 and 50 seek to limit damages but the text is without precedent, is not defined and would deviate from existing provisions, include the planning Acts. In any event, my advice is that this is not necessary.

Amendment No. 49 attempts to provide a definition that is not necessary. The reference section refers to the preceding section where the definition is provided in subsection (7).

Amendment No. 51 seeks to delete the entirety of section 134. I note this deletion was also proposed on Committee Stage and ruled out of order, albeit that it was also proposed at that stage to delete almost the entirety of the judicial review provisions for licensing. In its current form, it still proposes to remove the environmental cost provision. While I note the justification for this, I have not been advised to remove this section by the Office of the Attorney General and I will oppose.

We will, of course, keep all judicial review provisions under constant review, having regard to emerging requirements, case law and other amendments elsewhere, such as in any future review of the planning Acts, but I will not be changing them here without specific advice from the Attorney General.

See this speech in context