Roderic O'Gorman: Bill Will Undermine Climate Protections

Thanks very much Ciann Comhairle. First of all, I think having been denied the opportunity to tease out some of the provisions of this legislation by the decision to waive PLS, I think giving a mere 60 minutes to debate on report stage is entirely inappropriate. I have deep concerns about what the government is doing tonight. Firstly, because I believe they're seeking to undermine the Climate Action Act by the back door. But more significantly, by the provisions of section 7 of this legislation, which disapplies section 15 of the Climate Action Act, it's actually going to make it more likely that challenges against big infrastructure projects will be successful. And let me repeat that, by disapplying section 15, it is more likely that challenges to big infrastructure projects, particularly infrastructure projects that are going to help us reach our climate targets in the area of public transport, it will be more likely that those projects will be successfully judicially reviewed in the courts. I want to take us back to the decision of the Supreme Court earlier this year about section 15 of the Climate Action Act in Cool Glass. You might just recall the situation there. Cool Glass had applied to build a wind farm in County Leash, on board Planola rejected that application. They rejected it on the basis that the Leash development plan said no wind farms in particular areas. The Supreme Court held that on board Planola had not applied their section 15 obligation to consider the climate obligations of this particular wind farm development, not to consider its pro-climate benefits. So section 15 was determinative, was the critical factor in the Supreme Court overturning a rejection of planning permission. And what the bill put forward by the Minister today is saying is that any piece of legislation that is critical infrastructure, section 15, which we have just demonstrated three months ago, protected a major infrastructure project, section 15 will no longer apply to those projects. And this entire piece of legislation is being conveyed on the basis of let's change the law to get stuff over the line, let's get these big projects delivered. And when we have seen that one time that section 15 was actually used in our courts, section 15 was the decisive factor in a rejection of, in that case a wind farm, swinging to an actual acceptance. So this notion that's being put forward that what we're doing here is actually going to help us deliver big infrastructure projects is entirely wrong and is demonstrated by a recent decision of the Supreme Court. I mentioned earlier in this process, you know, I take three judicial reviews, three real life judicial reviews against public transport projects. The judicial review of the Lewis in Finglas, the judicial review of Dart West and the judicial review of Bus Connects in my own constituency between Blanchardstown and the city centre. In each one of those, an individual was protecting their private property rights through a judicial review. Now I didn't agree with those judicial reviews, I wish they hadn't gone on. I'm glad two of them has actually been resolved. But someone exercised their rights. These weren't environmentalists, these weren't people with a climate objection, these were people with a personal property right objection to these particular projects. And time and time again, they are the source of the majority of judicial reviews that come before the courts, not environmental matters. Now firstly, this bill does nothing to restrict the ability of somebody to take a judicial review on the basis of protecting their property rights, the much bigger driver of judicial reviews within our courts. But in each of those cases, and one of those cases has eventually been litigated before the courts, in each of those cases, the body taking forward the project, the National Transport Authority, having section 15 saying that as part of bringing this project forward, it's implementing its climate objectives under section 15, strengthens its case for getting acceptance of that particular project. And we have to be very clear, for any big public transport projects, and public transport projects are explicitly listed as one of the areas that this critical infrastructure bill is to apply to. Tonight, we are taking away the extra protection that section 15 gives to these particular projects. And where it's been described as something that's going to help deliver these projects, it is exactly the opposite. And you can be sure that as this government and future government does advance major infrastructure projects, but particularly in the area of public transport, they will be judicially reviewed. They always are. And people do it because they don't like the CPO, they don't like losing a bit of the land. Look, they have a right to do that. But by passing this bill tonight, we're making it more likely that those judicial reviews will be successful. We are making it more likely that public transport projects will be successfully judicially reviewed by courts, that grants of planning permission will be overturned. And we're doing that willfully. And I've raised this throughout. The Minister has at no point come back and explained why he is ignoring the extremely powerful decision of the Supreme Court in the Koolgas case, where it actually shows that section 15 protects that are seen to have a positive climate impact. And we're willfully doing that today. So I just want to put it on the record of this House that this bill will not advance big public transport projects. This bill undermines and lessens the chance that they will get planning permission and particularly strengthens the case of those who want to judicially review them for their own personal reasons.