Results 121-140 of 10,035 for speaker:Martin Cullen

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: It is not possible to accept this amendment because it would significantly reduce the powers the EPA needs for enforcement and introduce an unnecessary inconsistency between the IPPC and waste codes. The proposal would limit the application of the fit and proper person requirement to applicants for and holders of licences and transferees. This would be totally ineffective in the case of...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: In considering this amendment we should be clear about the purpose of the relevant subsection. The requirement on the applicant to notify the planning authority in the functional area in which the development will be located is to ensure the authority is aware of all development proposals in its area and the possible implications for development control. This is consistent with section 91(6)...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: If there are two different authorities involved, the applicant has to approach both of them in any event.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I do not wish to be argumentative and I understand precisely the point Senator Bannon has made. However, the IPPC licensing process has nothing to do with the application to the planning authority, which is a separate issue. The matter to which the Senator referred is dealt with by the EPA, which is not concerned with the planning boundaries but may look across the entire country if it...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: The EPA deals with the IPPC licences, not the local authority. Anything in relation to emissions is covered by the IPPC licensing process. Planning matters are the responsibility of the local authority, which does not deal with the issue to which the Senator refers.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I can appreciate how we might arrive at cross purposes. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I wish to deal with this amendment in two ways. The Senator's proposed wording is not as clear as the text of the Bill, which is far more definitive. There is also a value in maintaining consistency between the IPPC and waste codes. The "absolute discretion" in the Bill mirrors exactly the provision in section 42(11) of the Waste Management Act 1996 in relation to a decision on the holding of...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: Already, where there is a decision for or against an IPPC licence, there is an obligation to give reasons for the decision. Senator McCarthy's amendment is intended to require that, in similar manner, reasons should be given for refusal to hold an oral hearing. In the interests of openness, I am happy to accept the amendment.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: There are already various provisions, in both the 1992 Act and the 1994 licensing regulations made under that Act, which put time limits on various aspects of the licensing process. These include, under section 87(3) of the new Part IV, an eight-week time limit on the EPA to issue a proposed determination from the date of receipt of all relevant information. This is extendable only with the...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I have already stated that consideration by a planning authority of an application is generally limited to eight weeks and I have told the Deputy that there is an eight-week time limit on the EPA to issue a proposed determination from the date of receipt of all relevant information. It can extend it only by agreement with the applicant.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I know what the Senator is driving at and I myself have no problem with putting in time limits, but we must look at the context within which we are dealing – certainly with the two specific issues under the Act to which I have referred. All the latest available data indicate that where there are limits they are working well. We should also bear in mind that an applicant must co-operate in...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I am advised by the Office of the Attorney General that this is unnecessary and that reference to an oath does include an affirmation. This derives from the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1937. It includes it and that is absolute.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: From the Office of the Attorney General.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I know what the Senators are driving at, but I have the advice in front of me and I am obviously going to stick with it. If for some reason I were to agree to this, I could imagine the consequences for other legislation. Other legislation would be unpicked and somebody would try to suggest that a new interpretation had been given. We are where we are. It has been confirmed absolutely by the...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I have moved to meet some of the Senator's concerns but I do not believe it would be right to bring the period of review of licences from a minimum of three years to one of every two years, even, for example, where there is no change in the level of emissions from the activity or where the available technology to deal with these emissions has not advanced. Paragraph (a) of section 90(1),...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: Obviously if there is a major advance in technology, that would be one area. If something is wrong in terms of the operation of the licence and there is unsatisfactory application of the licence, that would be another reason. Some other possible reasons include changes in BAT which make it possible to reduce emissions further; questions of operational safety; a review is required due to any...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: The Senator and I are on the same wavelength in trying to make sure we do the best we can with the legislation. However, we also need to be practical. The application of BAT to control and limit emissions is itself a demanding standard, requiring a high general level of protection for the environment as a whole, and the effect of the proposed amendment would be to require reviews of licences...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: We should not depart from the terms of the IPPC directive. I am maintaining consistency in that area. The existing text of the Bill provides a balanced approach and if significant reductions in emissions can be achieved without imposing excessive costs, the EPA should be required to initiate the review and, on foot of that, make the appropriate changes in the licence. I do not agree, however,...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: We have already dealt with this. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: This proposal would delete a provision that was included in section 91(1) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 at the outset. By deleting the words proposed by the Senator, we could be ensuring that a new licence is required every time there is a change of ownership even if there is no change in the operating circumstances of the activity. This seems to be unnecessarily...