Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

The change will allow planning authorities to exercise control over the major increase in large-scale off-licences and address the genuine concerns of local communities. The change is a very positive step. It will give local communities a direct input into the development and establishment of off-licences in theirareas.

This has been an area of genuine concern for communities in recent years as more and more outlets for the sale of beer, spirits and wine have sprung up. It is not my intention that this proposed regulation should be used to prevent consumer choice or to inhibit competition. Rather, the intention is to give communities and councils a right to determine what can and cannot happen in their planning areas. The change will ensure better planning in our towns.

The second amendment will facilitate consideration of the need for the environmental impact assessment of peat extraction projects, which fall under the heading of exempted development, but which could have significant effects on the environment by reference to criteria set out in the environmental impact assessment directive. The criteria in this regard relate to the characteristics of the proposed development, its size, use of natural resources and so on. The environmental sensitivity of the areas affected is also a consideration, as is the potential for significant effects.

At present the planning regulations of 2001 exempt those involved in peat extraction from the requirement to apply for permission and conduct an environmental impact assessment in the case of peat extraction in a new or extended area of less than ten hectares, or peat extraction in a new or extended area of ten hectares or more where the drainage of the bogland commenced prior to the coming into force of these regulations.

The European Commission has indicated a concern in this area and action is needed. This change is a response to that concern. Following negotiations, the Commission is agreed that its concern regarding the transposition of the environmental impact assessment directive, No. 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive No. 97/11/EC, as it relates to peat extraction can be resolved by a qualification to the existing planning exemption. The exemption would not apply where peat extraction is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

This would allow the planning authority to assess whether a peat extraction project would have a significant impact. Where it would have such an impact, the authority can step in and require the preparation of a planning application and, if necessary, an environmental impact statement.

The Commission is solely concerned with peat extraction activity covered by the planning exemptions but outside of special areas of conservation and natural heritage areas. Peat extraction in these designated areas is subject to separate conservation controls not touched on in this change.

The designation of peatland sites in natural heritage areas should be substantially completed by the end of July 2005, other than in respect of a relatively small number of sites where proposed designation is under appeal. Therefore, the Commission's sole concern relates to peat extraction of less than 10 hectares outside designated areas. I apologise to the House for the extraordinarily complicated nature of this subject.

We are confident this amendment to the planning regulations will greatly assist in avoidance of a daily fine for non-implementation and will not have any dire impact on traditional peat extraction or turf cutting.

The final amendment is a technical amendment to Schedule 5 of the 2001 regulations reflecting a relatively minor change to the environmental impact assessment directive, annexes I and II. Part I of the schedule lists the project categories for which an environmental impact assessment is mandatory. Part II lists the project categories for which mandatory thresholds have been set.

The amendments are designed to ensure that any change to, or extension of, a project in Part I will, in itself, require an environmental impact assessment where such a change or extension meets any relevant threshold in Part 1. As currently drafted, such an assessment is mandatory only where a development increases by 25%, or an amount equal to 50% of the appropriate threshold, whichever is the greater. This is more likely to have an impact on other member states than on Ireland because Ireland has a propensity to use environmental impact assessments much more frequently than other member states.

This change to the lists of project categories transposes part of Directive No. 2003/35/EC, commonly known as the Aarhus directive. This directive provides for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice. The transposition of the Aarhus directive will, for the most part, be achieved through regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, and further amendments to the planning and development regulations. Work is in progress on the latter two sets of regulations. I intend that the necessary implementation measures will be adopted during the summer.

On the overall position on European Union environmental legislation, I assure the House I am fully aware of the importance of timely transposition and correct implementation of such legislation. There are now some 200 items of European Union legislation transposed in this country, including more than 140 directives. The challenge following transposition is effective implementation. In cases where the Commission feels member states have failed to satisfactorily transpose European Union legislation into their national laws and implement it effectively, the issue is raised in correspondence with member states. If agreement is not reached on how to address the issue, the Commission may take a case to the European Court of Justice. However, the vast majority of issues are resolved without recourse to that court.

The European Commission's fifth annual survey on the implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law showed Ireland's overall performance to be average in comparison to our European Union partners. This means we are not "bottom of the class", as is often suggested, particularly by the Green Party, whose members are not present. However, it also means we still have much work to do in this area.

My Department, through the local authorities, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Environmental Enforcement continues to work towards maintaining a high level of environmental protection for Ireland, and to addressing any alleged cases of infringement of European Union environment law.

The task force, which I established in my Department to address the range of environmental complaints against Ireland in a more comprehensive way and which was mentioned previously at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, has been fully operational for some months. In addressing its work, the task force has intensified engagement with Commission officials. They have been very positive in that regard. The task force has also intensified engagement with the implementing agencies in Ireland.

The task force has undertaken a systematic analysis of each case that is the subject of infringement proceedings by the European Commission and for which my Department is responsible. This analysis has facilitated accelerated responses by Ireland to Commission concerns in a number of cases. It should also help to improve our response to any infringement complaints in future, and to provide full information on the excellent ongoing work being undertaken towards fulfilling our compliance with our European Union obligations.

I commend these amendments to the House. As I stated at the outset, the amendments are very technical. It would have been far more productive if we had all agreed to handle these technical matters at a committee meeting. I know Fine Gael and the Labour Party were in general agreement with me in this regard. A committee meeting would have been a much better way to proceed than proceeding according to the requirement the Green Party imposed on us, which its members are not present to meet.

See this speech in context