Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The language suggested by the Law Reform Commission, as outlined by the Minister of State, is different from the language used in the Bill. General public importance is very different from exceptional public importance. Exceptional public importance is, by its nature, exceptional, so that it must be shown to be different from other issues of public importance. The interests of justice is an important point because the Law Reform Commission is recognising that individual access to justice component which stands and is related to individual rights. There may be a reason why this cannot be addressed. I have come up against something similar in regard to other provisions. I refer to situations relating to what is described as gaming, whereby a High Court decision will stand pending an appeal. Rather than an appeal being a premise that allows for the delay in the enactment of, for example, a required measure, a High Court ruling would apply pending an appeal. The presumption would sit with the High Court judgment while a decision on an appeal is awaited, rather than it being a case of removing access to the appeals process altogether.

That is what I was getting at in the context of the time component. I understand that there is a concern in the context of there being a delay in enacting a requirement. Is there a way to address that by giving a presumption for the interim period, rather than, for example, the presumption being that a directive of the High Court might not need to be applied because it is subject to appeal? Genuinely, that is a legal question that I would be interested in hearing the answer to. It would be useful. I am concerned about access to justice because, to be frank - this does not relate to the Minister of State alone, it relates to the Government as a whole - I have been extremely concerned in respect of provisions relating to access to justice in other areas, including the environment. That is why I seek to be vigilant about access to justice. I am no championing the relevant vendors' situations or their trying to avoid access; I am concerned with the general principle. I am looking at why this approach removes blocks from that piece. I may introduce amendments on Report Stage in the context of the wording the Law Reform Commission suggested, which is quite different from that in the Bill.