Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The planning laws are under review, and we are due to see the result of that review by the end of the year. Judicial review legislation is due in the autumn, so I have to ask why we are trying, at breakneck speed, to introduce quite serious changes to the judicial review process that have a fundamental impact on people's right to access justice. We are not going to stop judicial reviews from happening if we cannot screen out the bad planning. As we know, the significant majority of judicial reviews are won. I believe the success rate is around 70%, so there is clearly an issue with the applications being submitted.

What the Government is trying to do is address three parts of the judicial review. The first aim is to allow An Bord Pleanála to amend its decision after a judicial review process has started. It can be as sloppy as it wants but it will be facilitated in cleaning up as it goes along. I draw attention again to the information now in the public domain regarding what has been happening with An Bord Pleanála. We are basically saying today to An Bord Pleanála that if it makes an error or mistake, it should not worry about it because it will be able to clean up as it goes along.

The second element is that the Government is now going to require applicants to ensure they have exhausted all administrative avenues before they can take a judicial review. I find that ironic because, under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, provisions, which the Government is also trying to railroad through, big corporations do not have to exhaust all avenues in the domestic courts before taking legal challenges. The problem with judicial reviews and insisting people exhaust all legal avenues is that judicial reviews can be taken at any stage. It is at the discretion of the judge. Our independent Judiciary decides whether to grant leave to take a judicial review based on the information presented to it. It can also insist that people exhaust all other options. The proposed change is fundamental and interferes with the independence of the Judiciary.

There are areas in respect of which it is important to be able to initiate judicial reviews speedily. For example, if a special area of conservation were being damaged or decimated and an NGO tried to stop that environmental damage, would the Government seriously say the entire administrative process should have to be exhausted? Consider how long it would take before we could stop the damage being done. Consider also the case of a quarry carrying out its actions illegally and the related matter of substitute consent. Major issues arise in that the Government is blocking people from taking judicial reviews where doing so might be expedient in stopping a development causing damage.

The third change is quite sinister. It requires the High Court to send the case under review back to the planning authority when a decision has been made on the judicial review. Effectively, people will make an application for a judicial review and make their legal case, and then the Government will send back to An Bord Pleanála the legal case of the applicant trying to stop the development or to do the right thing by taking the judicial review, in order that An Bord Pleanála can just adapt and tweak it. As I have heard somebody explain it, it is changing the goalposts halfway through the match. That flies in the face of anything we could call proper access to justice.

I am aware the Minister of State withdrew one amendment in the Dáil regarding judicial review. I urge him to withdraw the proposal before us and wait until the review in September. That is when to introduce any changes he wants to make to the judicial review process. In September, the committee will be able to carry out full pre-legislative scrutiny and properly analyse what exactly the Government is trying to do. This is desirable because these are huge changes proposed to the right of access to justice. I cannot understand how the Minister of State can sit there and justify making changes like these to try to stop people from accessing justice.