James Geoghegan (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister for being in attendance. He will be aware the greater Dublin drainage project was granted planning permission in July and a judicial review was subsequently initiated. This is an absolutely essential project for the existing half a million homes in this country and tens of thousands more homes that will not be built unless this project is continued. I do not need to tell the Minister, as a Dublin Bay South TD, about the impact the absence of the drainage project is having on the Ringsend wastewater treatment plant. On Wednesday, I raised with the Taoiseach the question as to what more can the Government do about judicial reviews, specifically on this project. The Taoiseach said in his reply that he has asked the Attorney General and the Minister to look at the option of bespoke legislation to drive that project, the Dublin drainage project, through because the common good is overwhelming here. That is one indication of what the Government intends to do about this specific project.

A second area the Government has made clear it intends to act on is to commence the relevant provisions of the planning Act legislation. It is not within the Minister's remit but as part of that there is a requirement that he be consulted in respect of that. At what level will we fix costs in respect of these types of Aarhus Convention environmental proceedings? What we do not want to have is some sort of cost incentive to bring forward these proceedings as distinct from the merits of the proceedings. Where are we with those regulations and the commencements of those provisions and at what level will we fix those costs?

A week ago, the Minister indicated he would bring a memo to the Government in respect of the civil reform Bill, which deals more generally with judicial review. Will the Minister clarify, in respect of that Bill, if it will impact planning at all because I am not entirely clear in regard to that Bill? Some of the recommendations contained in the civil report by President Kelly are already in the planning Act related to planning decisions. It is really about the commencement of the provisions of the planning Act to fix the costs of these types of actions, none of which will impact on these live proceedings regarding the drainage project that are before the courts, but other major critical infrastructure projects are being built in this country and this city, the Shannon to Dublin pipeline being one of them. That is another absolutely essential piece of infrastructure to ensure we see the delivery of housing.

It is essential we take every step possible not to restrict people's legal rights but to ensure the common good prevails. The public wants us to build this infrastructure. We cannot have a system where a single individual or a group of individuals can frustrate over half a million people. That is not proportionate and not within the intent of the Aarhus Convention.

I have a fourth idea for how the Government and State could respond to judicial reviews, namely, being put at risk of costs. Is it completely inconceivable that a party that brings this type of action would not have to face some risk of costs? That is a submission the TFI made to President Kelly's cost report review. Is that something the Government might also consider?

See this speech in context