David Norris (Independent)

I am dealing with group 11 amendments. My briefing notes state that this is the subject matter of these amendments. If I am wrong, then I apologise but this is what the advice states. In any case, the principle certainly stands. For example, if a litigant, an applicant for review, is successful, it is only in the most exceptional circumstances that he or she can recover the costs incurred in making a legal challenge. Otherwise the applicant's full costs spent on lawyers and other necessary environmental experts can never be recovered. This replaces the ordinary rule whereby a successful applicant is only entitled to recover the cost of proceedings. The position of the ordinary citizen is actually disadvantaged as a result of this amendment. I am sorry if I have got it wrong but if I have, it is under official advice. I am talking specifically about the new section 50B introduced in section 33, if the Minister of State is interested in seeing it. What about people who may well conduct their proceedings successfully, briefly and efficiently but in most cases at a heavy cost to themselves, unless they choose to do so without a lawyer? That is the effect of this new amendment. I am very concerned about that because there may be something unintentional here and the interests of ordinary citizens may be militated against unintentionally by the operation of the new section.

In light of this, there should be a specific transitional provision. The Act could apply to proceedings instituted after the commencement or to proceedings issued in respect of acts or omissions which occurred after commencement. The latter would seem to be preferable as using the former would create an incentive to institute proceedings in a rush to have them started pre-commencement. In other words, it could be used as an incentive and this would have a very bad impact, although an unintentional one, on the legislation. I bow to the authority of the Chair and I am sorry if this is in the wrong place. I do not believe it is. Either one set of information I have given is correct and the other is incorrect but I was given it and, as a parliamentarian, I accept the advice I am given by people who know better.