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

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 19, line 21, after “2001,” where it secondly occurs to insert “the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011,”.

Amendment No. 2 updates the Long Title to take account of amendment No. 203 which I will come to shortly.

Amendment No. 110 updates the references in section 41(1) to include approved assessment notices alongside those that are already listed in the Bill relating to EIA notices. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Deputy Cian O’Callaghan, who raised a number of important matters during Committee Stage relating to the Aarhus Convention and section 41 of the Bill. Following discussions with senior counsel in the Office of the Attorney General, I am moving a number of amendments to section 41 in order to ensure the Bill is fully aligned with the Aarhus Convention and to ensure only a single judicial review regime will apply with respect to the issuing of licences under section 151.

Following discussions with senior counsel in the Office of the Attorney General, I will be moving a number of amendments to section 41 to ensure the Bill is fully aligned with the Aarhus Convention and that only a single judicial review regime will apply with respect to the issuing of licences under section 151.

Under Order 84 of the rules of the superior courts, judicial reviews of any administrative decision of a public authority are provided. The timeline for the institution of a judicial review under Order 84 is three months from the date of decision. As is the case regarding section 50A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, section 41 of the Bill modifies this time limit by reducing it to eight weeks. Importantly, this eight-week time period can be extended by the High Court under section 41(9). The purpose of the reduced time limit is to help ensure judicial reviews are instigated in advance of a licensable activity being carried out or completed.

It is in everyone's interest that any claimed legal faults regarding licensing decisions be brought before the courts for review at the earliest opportunity. This avoids situations where works, for example, urgent conservation works, are delayed pending the elapsing of a lengthy period for instigating a judicial review. It also means legal errors are identified and corrected at an early date rather than after licensed works are completed, when it would be too late to make any practical difference to how the works were carried out or whether they should have been carried out at all.

As part of our review of section 41, it was highlighted that the eight-week time limit would apply only to licence decisions that involve an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or appropriate assessment, AA. This would mean that, for non-EIA or non-AA cases, a judicial review would need to be taken under Order 84, and as a result a three-month time period would apply. It has therefore been determined that to avoid two judicial review regimes applying to licences granted under section 151, amendments Nos. 113, 121 and 123 are proposed to ensure section 41 judicial review provisions apply to all licence decisions and not just those involving an EIA or AA.

The wording "decision, act or omission", featured in amendments Nos. 112 and 120, is proposed to fully align the language used in the Bill with that used in Article 9.2 of the Aarhus Convention. Amendments Nos. 117 and 203 are proposed regarding section 41(6) of the Bill and section 4(4) of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 to ensure the necessary costs protection provisions work as intended. In light of the judicial review amendments I intend to move today, I ask Deputies to consider withdrawing their corresponding amendments to section 41.

See this speech in context