Joe O'Toole (Independent)

These are important amendments. I seek clarification on certain issues. My understanding is that this amendment deals with the issue I attempted to deal with in amendment No.41. In other words, the decision of the commission would stand rather than stand suspended. In that case I take the view that the provisions of amendment No. 41 have been met by the Minister, which I appreciate. My concern was that people could submit an appeal to stop the implementation.

Two legal questions arise from what the Minister said. Generally, I support these amendments and I will not push amendment No. 41. I value the addition of the new section 47(4) regarding "notice of an appeal and the grounds for it". This is important. I listened to what the Minister said. This provision does not deny an applicant the right to a judicial review. I would like to hear more about this. I thought the High Court would not look kindly on someone seeking a judicial review when the Bill provides for a direct appeal to the High Court rather than the possibility of taking the judicial review route. We should not encourage the judicial review route. I have been the subject of some judicial reviews myself and I know what it means. It is important all the issues are dealt with here by the Minister.

I am uncomfortable with the new section 47(9) regarding the determination of the High Court on the hearing of the appeal being final except that, by leave of the High Court, an appeal on a specified question of law shall lie to the Supreme Court. I hate anything in legislation which is unnecessary and this seems unnecessary. It is not our business and it is up to the High Court to decide. Whether we have this included an appellant may go to the Supreme Court on the conditions outlined. This is nothing new, it is the law and it is in the Constitution. This is how it stands at the moment, unless I am completely wrong. I am quite happy to say "the determination of the High Court of an appeal under this section is final". However, I would be happier to get rid of the new section 47(9) because I do not think it is necessary. I do not want to be inviting people to go to the Supreme Court. Let their lawyers advise them to go there if they so wish. There are plenty of them to do so. It is not as if this gives any extra powers.

The amendment provides that the power of someone to appeal on a specific question of law shall lie to the Supreme Court. This is the position of the moment and would remain the case had we remained silent on the matter. There is no reason to add anything to it. In the main, I believe the amendment has addressed some of the issues I have raised. This amendment provides for an appeal structure. I have a problem with the possibility of creating more High Court appeals. I acknowledge, accept and appreciate an appeals structure is in place, which is important.

I will move another amendment shortly, amendment No. 44, relating to binding arbitration. The reason I raise the matters of mediation and arbitration is to try to avoid people going to the High Court. However, I anticipate the response of the Minister's advisers in this regard, that is to say, this is the Irish way of doing things and that immediately following mediation one goes to the courts in any case. Perhaps I am wasting my time making the point.

I recognise what the Minister has done and I welcome the deletions of section 38(4) to 38(6) inclusive. I intend to withdraw amendment No. 41 as a result. I fully agree with the Minister's other amendments. I recognise that amendment No. 39 is simply a tidying up exercise. Therefore, two questions remain. First, I am unsure whether the notion of a judicial review is a good idea. Second, should the reference to the Supreme Court be included?