Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This is an amendment we had submitted previously and I thank Senators Boyhan and Higgins for putting it forward now.

A legal challenge in a judicial review is not on the substance of the planning application. It is not returning to whether it is a good or a bad application. It is being appealed on a point of law or a point of process. If the environmental impact assessment directive requires certain assessment studies to be done in making a decision on a planning application and they have not been done, then the proper process has not been adhered to. On those grounds, a judicial review will happen.

There are many environmental judicial reviews. They are not necessarily trying to stop a development. They are trying to ensure the environmental implications are clearly understood so they can be fully mitigated.

There are many judicial reviews at present but we cannot reduce people's access to justice. People access the courts because environmental legislation is not properly transposed or is not properly adhered to and, because of this, we get fined by the European Court of Justice. The key is not to restrict access to justice. It is to make better planning decisions and to better transpose the law.

The court will often make someone liable for costs. We had amendments on that that have been ruled out of order.

In terms of this amendment, locus standiis who has the right to take a judicial review. The same arguments apply here as would have for the previous amendment. We are signatories to the Aarhus Convention, ensuring people have a good quality environment. To ensure that, they need good quality access to good quality information. Having access to information means they have the right to challenge if they think something is damaging the environment. The exclusion of maritime area consents from being considered as environmental decisions and, therefore, subject to judicial review is a mistake, and they should be included.