James Heffernan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not a member of the committee and I thank the Vice Chairman for allowing me to contribute to this discussion. I have some questions for the director general of the agency. Shortly after her appointment she stated in an interview with The Irish Times that in her opinion the EPA should not be racing to prosecute business for non-compliance with environmental licences and regulations. Was this her personal opinion at that time? Did it perhaps come from her experience in her previous life with her involvement with IBEC and Indaver? Is this the policy being adopted by the EPA? In my view, the fact that the director general has made such a statement gives the message to big business that it can continue to pollute without the possibility or even the fear of prosecution. She stated in that interview that she wants to move away from the idea of the EPA being a watchdog and an enforcer. In my view the main role of the EPA is to protect the environment and by extension, its role is to protect human and animal health and to safeguard communities against possible polluters. As she said then, economic recovery is certainly important but in my view, human health must take precedence. If big business and big companies perceive that regulation is light-touch or a less than enthusiastic approach to prosecuting people, this sends the wrong message about how we deal with them in this country.

The review group was referenced in a number of previous contributions and it seems to have been glossed over. Even though the review group lauded much of the work of the EPA and was mainly positive in its findings, as the director general said, the same review group also asked that alleged maladministration or complaints against the EPA be investigated by a separate environmental court or an environmental ombudsman. I ask if the director general thinks this is a necessary step and if she would be in favour of the establishment of an ombudsman to investigate allegations against the EPA.

The review group noted its concerns that section 15 of the Act grants the EPA immunity from prosecution. Has this section been invoked previously? Why is this provision necessary? I stated in the Seanad that we have confidence in the work being carried out by the EPA but if this work is carried out properly and effectively there should be no need for this immunity from prosecution.

Are the previous statements by the director general her personal opinions or do they reflect the policy being actively pursued by the EPA?