Mr. Eamonn Kelly:

It would depend whether remediation was required. That is the simple answer. It depends on a case-by-case basis. I am aware of circumstances with quarries in which there were high levels of environmental compliance, but an EIA had not been carried out. When it was carried out retrospectively, the quarries were found to be in full compliance and there was nothing additional to be added to it. There is no assumption that remediation must automatically occur, but it is very strong. The powers are there for An Bord Pleanála to ask for it. This is not a normal planning application. During the process and before it has issued its determination, the board may intervene and issue an interim order to cease activities on the site. I do not know if that answers the Deputy's question.

I am not aware of other fines in the context of environmental issues. Derrybrien is very unusual. This was the second case on the same aspect. Normally, the issues would be sorted out by then. In fact, the key aspect of the first Derrybrien case, around 2006, was ensuring legislation was in place and hence the substitute consent process, which was developed with the Commission. The only remaining piece is that specific project in County Galway.

There was a question on why there was no commencement on head 1. That is dealt with by the drafters. Normally, if there is no commencement, it commences whenever it is enacted. We would work that out with the drafters. We are still engaging with the office of the parliamentary council. It is not in the scheme because it would normally be added at the Bill drafting stage.

Many of the screening criteria, as is the case in the planning system, are addressed in the regulations. The fact they are being provided for is the key point. The regulations get into the minutiae of how the screening works.

In terms of the lack of Natura 2000 designations, that would be a better question for my colleagues in the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I am not qualified in my role to discuss the matter.

One of the last points was on fast-tracking and remediation. I have touched upon it before. This is not a normal process or one in which anybody would want to voluntarily be because it means one effectively has an unauthorised development that could be refused. One may be obliged to take it down or have significant costs to remediate. If one gets through the process, it shows one has complied with the EIA and habitats directives. It is not for the benefit of the developers, but the public and the planning authorities involved, that the expertise that has been developed to assess the substitute consent environmental issues is reused or used at the same time. There would be potential for a single oral hearing with the two applications, if the board so wished. That would benefit the public and make things clearer and cleaner for everybody involved in the system.

Given the work has been done by the board, it would be a waste or a duplication of effort if a local authority had to revisit much of that again and get its own independent expertise in. Many local authorities do not have or possibly do not need to keep full-time experts in specific, detailed areas of environmental science on their books. They often hire them in for individual cases. The fact the work would have been done by the board and it would have considered the difficult environmental issues in many cases would be of benefit to the public and everybody involved in the system. Yes, it would also be of benefit to the developer, but it is not for his or her benefit it is being put forward. It is to avoid duplication of work by the system, for which the taxpayer pays.