Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 721:

In page 265, to delete lines 1 and 2.

These amendments relate to Part 6 of the Bill, which provides for environmental assessments, and are designed to make the Part more readable.

Amendments Nos. 721 and 722 are minor amendments that separate out the subsection that notes that Part 6 applies to extensions or alterations of permissions into its own section.

Amendment No. 828 is a textual amendment that reorders text without changing its meaning.

Amendment No. 829 adds the phrase "having regard to the European site’s conservation objectives" into the provision. This is a more accurate reflection of the wording of the habitats directive. The amendment will ensure that the Natura impact report will identify significant effects regarding the site’s conservation objectives only.

Amendments Nos. 831 and 832 change syntax to make the provision more readable.

Amendments Nos. 833, 841, 870 and 872 are the same amendment and will be discussed together. This amendment removes the definition of "Minister" from the section as it is not required. This reflects the fact that heritage functions have moved to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. This definition occurs a number of times in Part 6, hence the requirement for multiple amendments.

Amendments Nos. 834, 835, 842, 843 and 845 are similar amendments and will be discussed together. These provisions give effect to Article 6(4) of the habitats directive regarding imperative reasons of overriding public interest. The provisions outline the process to be taken in the preparation of a statement of case when the competent authority is the Minister, the competent authority is not the Minister, the site hosts priority habitats and species, or the site does not host priority habitats and species. The proposed amendment is intended to make clear that a statement of case can only be prepared where the competent authority considers that all three tests have been met, that is, there is an absence of alternative solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest exist and the compensatory measures proposed are adequate.

Amendments Nos. 838, 839, 840, 846 and 847 are related and will be discussed together. These provisions give effect to Article 6(4) and outline the steps to be taken on receipt of a statement of case in respect of plans and following consideration by the Minister of the statement of case, both where the European site affected hosts a priority habitat or species and where it does not.

Amendments Nos. 838, 839 and 840 provide that the Minister will also have to come to a conclusion, when considering the statement of case received, in relation to the absence of alternative solutions. This will allow the Minister to veto approval of a plan where it is considered that the statement of case does not indicate the competent authority has given proper consideration to all alternative solutions to the plan, and include follow on consequential amendments to reflect the fact that the Minister is to come to a conclusion regarding the absence of alternative solutions.

Amendment No. 840 further relates to the requirement for a competent authority to inform the European Commission of the compensatory measure being undertaken when approving a project under the Article 6(4) process. The proposed amendment provides that the European Commission is informed of the compensatory measures intended to ensure the overall coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

Proposed amendments Nos. 846 and 847 are similar amendments relating to plans which host priority sites or species. Amendment No. 847 was substituted, as it had omitted a line which needed to be deleted to allow for the correct substitution of the new text.

Amendment No. 848 relates to the making of a plan where the site hosts a priority habitat or priority species. The amendment provides that a plan shall not be made unless the competent authority is satisfied that all of the proposed compensatory measures will be carried out. Amendment No. 849 relates to the requirement for a competent authority to inform the European Commission of the compensatory measures being undertaken when making a plan under the Article 6(4) process. This proposed amendment is a technical drafting amendment intended to make the provision more readable.

Amendments Nos. 873, 876 and 885 to 887, inclusive, relate to environmental impact assessments. Amendment No. 873 removes the definition of “public concerned” from this Part as it is not required; for example, there is no reference to public concerned in this Part. Amendment No. 876 gives effect to Article 2(4) of the environmental impact assessment directive, which provides that an exemption may be granted from the requirement to carry out an EIA. It is a technical amendment to make the provision more readable. Amendments Nos. 885 and 886 relate to arrangements prescribed for transboundary environmental impacts. Amendment No. 885 provides that submissions from an EU member state or a transboundary convention state may include submissions in relation to an environmental impact assessment report. Amendment No. 886 provides that a competent authority may also make a submission to an EU member state or a transboundary convention state in relation to a project. Amendment No. 887 provides for the co-ordination of environmental impact assessments under different enactments. The amendments proposed are intended to improve the readability of the section. They also provide for the inclusion of additional relevant permissions, for example, industrial emissions licence and abstraction licences.

I wish to advise members that further consideration is being given to the wording of the provisions in Part 6 and that some further amendments may be made on Report Stage to ensure consistency in the provisions.