Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Daly for introducing his amendments, some of which deal with issues we discussed at length on Second Stage. I will briefly address each of them individually. As he mentioned, there is some crossover between the Waste Management Act and the Environmental Protection Agency Act. Some of the amendments are identical but apply to the other Act.

Amendment No. 10 proposes to place a time limit of six months on an order under section 88C of the 1992 Act, as inserted by the Bill, and an obligation to lay the order before the Houses. Section 7 of the Act provides for the laying of an order made by the Minister under the Act, other than under sections 2, 19(2) or 32(1), before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This obligation will not change and will apply to a section 88C order. With regard to the proposal to place a time limit of six months on an order under section 88C, this section transposes Article 1.3 of the environmental impact assessment directive into the 1992 Act and was constructed following careful consideration by the Office of the Attorney General to reflect a similar type of provision under section 288 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Where the activity is for the sole purpose of, one, the defence of the State or, two, responding to a civil emergency, it is considered that the appropriate place for a time limit on such an order, if required, would be within the order itself, depending on what the emergency might be. On that basis, I am satisfied the provisions of the Bill regarding orders under section 88C are appropriate. Therefore, I cannot accept amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 13 relates to public submissions on emergency orders. Section 88D of the 1992 Act, as inserted by the Bill, transposes Article 2.4 of the EIA directive into the Act and was constructed to reflect a similar type of provision under the Planning and Development Act 2024. The amendment proposes that there be a period of 30 days before the agency can make a decision as to whether the applicant is one of exceptional circumstances under Article 2.4 of the directive. This provision would go way beyond the obligations set out under Article 2 4 and may not meet the objectives of the purpose for which the emergency provision is required. It might delay the making of a decision where an emergency measure is needed. That might not be the intended consequence of the amendment but it could well be an unintended consequence.

All applications for a licence or review of a licence or revised licence are currently placed on the website of the EPA for the public to make submissions to it within a period of 30 days. It is intended that this process will continue. There is no intent at all to change it under the Bill. Under section 89 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, I am empowered to prescribe for the processing of applications under sections 83 and 90. Procedures relating to an application for licensing that may have a section 88D order associated with it will be provided for and will ensure the current submission period of 30 days regarding applications for a licence remains absolutely intact. This will ensure compliance with an obligation under the Aarhus Convention. The only difference for emergency applications under the Bill is that the second period for public consultation on the proposed determinations will not apply. On that basis, I am satisfied the provisions of the Bill regarding the current processes, particularly relating to public submissions, are appropriate. Therefore, I regretfully cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Deputies.

Amendment No. 15 proposes a definition of "exceptional circumstances" that does not derive from the EIA directive. The latter does not provide a definition of "exceptional circumstances" and specifying such a definition may be either too restrictive or too broad. We should not tie our hands in this regard. It is intended that each emergency be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I assure the Deputy this will not be taken lightly. Any action taken would be in extremis and would have to be in compliance with the EIA directive. The European Commission guidance, which I mentioned previously, notes that exemptions to general rules must be interpreted and applied restrictively. We absolutely will ensure that is at the heart of any decisions made and that they are compliant in that regard. An example I gave on Second Stage is a circumstance relating to electricity supply. The current provisions were drafted by the Office of the Attorney General. The text is based on the same principle as set out in section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. I am satisfied the existing provisions of the Bill regarding emergency applications are absolutely appropriate. As such, I regretfully cannot accept the amendment.

Section 88D, to be inserted in the 1992 Act by the Bill, was drafted following detailed deliberation with the Attorney General to ensure it is fully compliant with the requirements of the EIA directive. It is so compliant and, therefore, amendment No. 16 is not required and I cannot accept it. Amendment No. 17 is a similar provision. I refer, as before, to section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Again, I am satisfied with the provisions of section 88D.

Amendment No. 18 proposes to place a time limit on an emergency order under section 88E of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, as inserted by the Bill, and an obligation to lay the order before each House of the Oireachtas.

The amendment appears to wrongly refer to section 88C provisions of the EPA Act rather than the order under section 88E of the EPA Act as inserted in the Bill. I cannot accept this amendment for the following reasons. Limiting the duration of exemption to what is necessary to deal with an emergency would be overly prescriptive. I do not know whether that was an error in the amendment. It could well have been but we do not believe that would be appropriate. The order can only be made where there is an accident or emergency and simply enables the agency to make a decision on a licence application without having to issue a proposed determination. There is already a provision to lay such an order before each House of the Oireachtas and that is provided under section 7 of the EPA Act of 1992. I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 18.

Amendment No. 20 proposes ministerial regulations to be prescribed and reporting obligations on the agency. Regarding the proposed subsection (4), it is a provision to prescribe such regulations as already provided for at section 90B(2) of this Bill and the proposed subsection (5) provides that the annual report of the agency will report on the number of applications and the number of decisions and proposed determinations made in any given year. The current amendment to section 51 will oblige the agency to provide details of the number of proposed determinations made within a prescribed period. Therefore, there should be no need to detail the number of determinations made outside that period as that will be evident. This does not preclude the agency from a request to provide such information. That can be done at any time. On this basis, I am not in a position to accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 28 proposes a public consultation period for emergency applications in exceptional circumstances. I go back to section 227 of the Planning and Development Act. It is basically transposing the environmental impact assessment directive into the Act and was constructed to reflect that same provision. The amendment proposes that there be a period of 30 days before the agency can make a decision as to whether an application comprises exceptional circumstances. I think I have covered that because we have already explained the rationale for not accepting that amendment.

Regarding amendment No. 29, it is the same as amendment No. 15 so I have already explained that. It is the same as amendment No. 15 on the Waste Management Act. Amendment No. 30 is the same as amendment No. 16. I have given the rationale there too so I do not propose to accept that amendment. Amendment No. 31 is the same as amendment No. 17. I have given the rationale as to why I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 32 is similar but relates to a different Act. That is the same as amendment No. 10. I have given the rationale for not accepting that amendment. Amendment No. 33 is the same as amendment No. 18. I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 34 is the same as amendment No. 20 so I am not in a position to accept that amendment either but I have put forward on the record here the rationale for not accepting those amendments. That rationale applies to those similar amendments to a different Act.