Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Irrespective of one's views on this legislation, and we have heard many views expressed today, it is a remarkable achievement for the Minister and for his Department officials, to put together legislation that runs to 709 pages, contains 541 sections and is divided into 22 Parts.

The purpose of the legislation is to try to consolidate our law in respect of planning and development. When one looks at its length and complexity, it indicates the extent to which the Oireachtas regulates this area. It is an enormously regulated part of human behaviour in Irish society and so it should be. We certainly do not want a situation in Ireland where people are just entitled to put up a development wherever they wish just because it suits their own personal interests.

Another factor arises as a result of the length and complexity of the legislation, which is that inevitably, there are parts of this legislation which the Minister will probably have to look at again more closely when it gets to Committee Stage. Some Deputies have complained about how we have to debate legislation of such complexity in here in such a short period of time. Obviously we are not going to be able to go through the Bill in that level of detail here but it is the Minister, his officials and the other members of the housing committee who will have to go through this legislation, not just page by page through the 709 pages but line by line, to assess whether the sections are correct or can be improved upon.

I note that some Members here are complaining about the fact that it is a Bill of such length and that it is difficult to comprehend it. Unfortunately, part of our job is to draft and consider legislation that is put before the House. If there is legislation of such length, unfortunately, there are no shortcuts for us as politicians. We simply have to go through it, to read it and to appraise it.

As I have not been able to look through it all in the detail that I would like to for the purpose of this Second Stage debate, I propose to look at one Part upon which I believe I may be able to make some useful comments. That is Part 9, which concerns judicial review and decision-making. We should recall at the outset that these Houses of the Oireachtas are entitled to try to change the law and to expedite the processes in order that one can achieve the political objectives of these Houses of the Oireachtas. The political objective of the Government behind this legislation is to try to ensure that we can get houses built in a quicker fashion. I acknowledge there are criticisms that can be made by saying there are other mechanisms which need to be looked at for the purpose of building houses. Of course there are, but it is unquestionably the case that many developments have been delayed because of judicial review applications. I fully accept that people are entitled to bring judicial review applications but similarly, the Oireachtas is entitled to put forward legislation for the purpose of trying to expedite that process. That is what is being done in Part 9 of the Bill.

The first notable change contained within the Bill in Part 9 is in section 252. At present, if somebody wants to judicially review a decision of a local authority or of An Bord Pleanála which has granted permission for a development, it must apply in the High Court for leave to bring judicial review proceedings. Under section 252, we will have a different procedure. One will no longer have to seek leave to apply for a judicial review. Instead, judicial review can be initiated by simply issuing an originating notice of motion. That is provided in section 252.

I believe that is a much preferable method for an individual seeking to institute judicial review proceedings. The standard route is to seek leave. A very low threshold is required by the courts. People then meet that threshold and one then goes on to have a return date for hearings where the respondent comes in. The leave process delays the whole application and for that reason I welcome the fact that section 252 seeks to do away with leave and now simply states that if one is issuing judicial review proceedings, one does it by an originating notice of motion. There are specific rules set out in section 252 as to which parties must be put on notice when one is bringing that application and that is only necessary and appropriate.

Section 253 deals with the time limits. The time limits are not that different from what exists at present. The time limits, as set out, are that one has to commence one’s application within a period of eight weeks. It is appropriate that if one wants to challenge a decision, one does so promptly. At present, the general law in respect of judicial review is that one has to do it promptly and the Planning and Development Act also provides that there is a tight time period for it. There is also provision which allows the court to extend that time whereby, if one cannot do it within the eight weeks, there is a procedure whereby it can be extended. It is also a requirement, under section 254, that if one is going to court to challenge a decision on grounds of judicial review, one is limited to what one states in one’s grounds. One cannot then subsequently, when the case comes on for hearing, decide that one wants to extend one’s grounds beyond what is contained there at present.

The significant issue is that the Bill puts in the statutory regime the test that one has to have a sufficient interest in order to bring judicial review applications. The 2000 Act stated that one had to have a substantial interest. That subsequently was changed, by amendment in 2011, to having a sufficient interest. The courts have adopted the fairly broad interpretation of what is a sufficient interest for the purpose of bringing an application for judicial review.

One will see in section 258 that it expressly states that one will not have sufficient interest unless one can show that the applicant is “directly or indirectly materially affected by the matter”. That is a useful provision and if it is the case that somebody is bringing judicial review proceedings in respect of a development and that they are not affected by it in any way, then they should not, in my opinion, have thelocus standi to challenge that application.

There are different rules, however, when it comes to the environmental cases and they are set out subsequently there. That is why this Part of the Bill distinguishes between cases which affect individuals and entities personally, and those which have an impact upon the environment.

I have only had seven minutes and have no further time to speak. I would like to speak more about it but, as I say, I believe all of the work will be done on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context