Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I echo what Senator Norris has said on the issue of cost recovery and on section 33. I agree it gives cause for concern. It is about how the Bill is implementing the provisions of the directive. There is a concern and it has been raised with me by environmentalists and others that the Bill may be in breach of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention guaranteeing access to justice because of the change it makes. Although it protects applicants from legal costs orders against them, as required by the directive, the section really does not do this. The effect of the section will be to exacerbate and worsen the power imbalance that exists between individual environmentalists who litigate and the developers against whom they are generally litigating. Following the bringing into force of this section, which was not, I understand, debated in the Dáil, the environmentalists will be left with no option but to represent themselves in court. There will be significant costs, especially to a solicitor, in taking on a case like this, such as overheads and so on. Many solicitors, as we know, may do that currently on a no foal, no fee basis. There is a concern about access to justice and about its effect upon that. Senator Norris has put it very well. The provisions in some of the amendments in this group 11 refer to reasonable costs. We all agree that costs have to be reasonable and there has been recent reporting about the scandalously high level of legal costs in particular cases. I query as to who determines this. I see it as a theme running through the Bill. The board will determine the matter, according to amendments Nos. 90 and 91. That is why we need to scrutinise provisions to ensure they will not have a chilling effect on environmental litigation or worsen the power and money imbalance between the majority of individual litigants in such cases and the people against whom and the organisations and companies against which they litigate. We must be careful to ensure we are adequately complying with the directive and not worsening the power imbalance and obstructing litigants in taking action in planning cases.