Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have received apologies from Deputy Ciarán Ahern. The purpose of the meeting is to consider Committee Stage of the Air Pollution (Amendment) Bill 2025. I welcome the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, Deputy Darragh O'Brien. He is accompanied by officials from his Department.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that any such direction is complied with.

Two amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The grouping list has been provided to members. Before we commence our consideration, does the Minister wish to make any opening remarks?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had a very good debate on this on Second Stage. I think all parties and all Members understand the importance of this legislation. I am looking forward to dealing with it on Committee Stage and moving this important legislation forward. I outlined in detail on Second Stage the Government position and the importance of this legislation for enforcement in particular. I look forward to getting into Committee Stage.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 in the names of Deputies Cronin and Pa Daly has been ruled out of order.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We would like to distance ourselves from some of the words in it as well. It was enacted by the Stormont Assembly, we said. It has been ruled out of order. That was not the language we used.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a statement, not an amendment.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 5 of Principal Act

5. The Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 5: “5. The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the definition of ‘best practicable means’ in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and other experts to ensure robust prevention or limitation of emissions arising under this Act.”.”.

This proposed amendment came from knowledge of certain cases that have been taken by local authorities where they are dealing with air pollution. In a lot of those cases, companies that have the means and the wherewithal have introduced a defence that they used the best practicable means, that they made an effort or used the best practicable means at the time. That goes back to the Air Pollution Act of 1987, which specifically provides them with a defence Without having a definitive proposal or answer, and I did mention this briefly on Second Stage, I am wondering if we can come up with something to strengthen that or tighten it up. It certainly prolongs cases I have seen, where a local authority may be acting in the interests of residents who are adjacent a non-domestic organisation such as, maybe, a quarry, and there is dust or pollutants going into the air. When there is a prosecution, a defence goes in whereby the non-domestic entity says that it took best practicable means having regard to all the circumstances at the time. Should we be moving towards a strict liability on that and making it a little bit harder for them to use that defence?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for the amendment. Unfortunately I am not in a position to accept it. The term "best practicable means" has been in the Act for nearly 40 years. Any move to remove it would require very careful consideration. I am not saying it is not something we could consider in the future, but I am not in a position to accept it in its current form. While I know this is not the intention, it could create uncertainty as the term would be completely open to interpretation without any guide as to what is intended in the legislation when referring to the best practicable means. This would be particularly problematic in relation to section 32(3)(a) of the Act, which stipulates that a local authority cannot issue a licence unless it is satisfied that best practicable means will be used to prevent or limit any emissions from the plant.

Separately, a review of the enforcement provisions of the 1987 Act was conducted by local authorities under the auspices of the EPA. Their report and recommendations were subsequently submitted to the Department. The published Bill includes a number of proposed amendments to the 1987 Act informed by those very recommendations with the aim of strengthening the enforcement capacity of local authorities. Issues around the definition of best practicable means did not arise during that review. However, this is a matter that could be considered as part of any future review of the Act, in consultation with the EPA and the local authorities. In a future review, we could ask the EPA and the local authorities to consider if there is a way of strengthening that. In these circumstances, especially given the stage this legislation is at and that it is legislation for which there is pretty much unanimous support, it would delay its passage. I am not in a position to accept the amendment for the reasons I have outlined. I appreciate the intention of what the Deputies have put forward.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department might just have a review going forward into the other parts of the Act the Minister mentioned, such as under section 32, so that we could move towards something almost at the level of a strict liability, just to keep it under review.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is okay, I will say that as part of the next review, we will make sure that element is specifically asked for. We will take that note from this committee. It will not be part of this legislation, I want to be very clear, but as part of the next review of this Act, I think we need the EPA and the local authorities to focus on this and I am quite happy to ensure that it is noted as one of the points we would like the review to have a look at.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the old section 5 of the 1987 Act, what is taken into account is the age of the existing plant, the nature of the facilities and the costs that would be incurred in renovating the plant or other premises. It is a concern not only among members of the public but even people in the local authorities who are tasked with enforcing provisions of the Act.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair point. It did not come up as part of the recommendations from the review. What we could do for the next review is specifically ask them to have regard to this point, to look at it. I will give a commitment that we will do that.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy Daly pressing the amendment?

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I am reserving the right to bring it back at a later stage.

Naoise Ó Muirí (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting and for the work done on this Bill.