Mr. Eamonn Kelly:

On the Senator's first question, regarding whether there was no earlier opportunity for the State to deal with this issue, this is the highest priority for us to address. The judgment was issued by the Supreme Court in July. We engaged immediately with the Office of the Attorney General. We have been working with it in terms of drafting and getting legal advice and we continue to do so. Off the top of my head, 11, 12 or 13 other judicial reviews followed immediately after that case, so we were addressing those issues. As I mentioned, it had been our understanding from the Attorney General that because this was directly implementing the provisions of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive, we would be using a regulation under the 1972 Act to which I referred that is used to transpose directives. It was not until Thursday of the week before last that the Attorney General advised us to go into primary legislation. To answer the Senator's question, it was following much the same course. If it had gone through the 1972 regulations, it would have been done around now anyway. We are conscious of it every day that goes by in terms of fines we have to pay. I do not know whether that answers the Senator's question. In effect, it was moved into this legislative process on legal advice.

On the issue of how the public can engage in substitute consent generally, the best way of explaining it is that it is effectively a form of planning application, for want of a better comparison. It is where the developer has to put forward a remedial environmental impact assessment report which, in effect, takes into account what went before. The developer submits it to the competent authority, namely, An Bord Pleanála. It is like a normal application in that there are site notices and newspaper notices and members of the public get to engage. That is what we were building into the provisions.

It is very complicated to read, but even for applications that are currently in the system there are two steps or stages as it currently stands in the context of substitute consent. One is that there first has to be an assessment of whether the circumstances are exceptional. If the board agrees they are exceptional, it goes to the next stage, which is the substantive piece. We are now retrofitting back into the first step that there has to be public participation and it would bring it forward into the second step that there has to be consideration of exceptional circumstances. In effect, if a member of the public already submitted information on an application that is currently before the board, they will get a second chance when this legislation goes through. The best way of describing it is that it is like a normal planning application, for want of a better comparison, in terms of public participation rights and the fact that people can write to the board and the board must take account of their views. I hope that answers the question.