Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In general EIAs are welcome because we have only one environment and developments have a habit of not lasting as long as the environment.

We are discussing the new regulations. I note that the witnesses have some concerns but they are mostly monetary and not environmental. Correct me if I am wrong but they referred to the need for additional administrative and professional technical resources for the processing and carrying out of the EIAs by the competent authority. Some time ago there was some debate in the European Union on making processes easier for local authorities in general. If that is going through a process in the EU, why would that result in extra administrative work?

We are at a time in this country where there is less development going on than was the case in the boom. In terms of staffing arrangements and so on, some staff who were required in the planning section some years ago might be diverted to dealing with EIAs. The witnesses may not have it with them but they might provide us with a detailed note on the reason the administrative burden will cost more when there is less planning and development taking place. If there is to be more environmental impact scrutiny, where will the cost come into that?

On the timescale, Mr. Nugent referred to a six-month period, but how does that affect the fast-tracking of planning projects and so on?

I ask the witnesses to comment on the simplifying procedures to which the European Union referred. It was linked in with this. I read about that somewhere but how will the changes affect Ireland? We hate to see regulations coming from Europe about, say, cheese makers and yet in France they seem to be able to make cheese in various localities or they can sell eggs in certain localities. Perhaps there are stricter regulations in Ireland. There should be commonality among all European Union states on EIA directives. I am aware other countries have raised questions about that.

Scoping was always necessary, and local authorities gave guidance on that, but mandatory scoping is necessary now. There is also more of an onus on the developers not simply to include any information and hope for the best. There are competent people who can ensure the people the developers employ are competent in what they write down and that they can stand over that. That is welcome.

In terms of the negative aspects, the witnesses pointed out the cost, administration and so on and hopefully that can be dealt with, but what else should we object to? We want development but we also want to ensure the environment is protected.