Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

The directive was spurred on by the sinking of the Erica, which is why I gave it as an example. There are obviously specifics in the directive about exemptions and defences. If there was an oil spill or damage was caused to our coast or our waters or if our land was contaminated or operators of facilities with an IPCC licence damaged the environment, the legislation would mean they could be held financially responsible for the damage. Therefore, the Government could recover the costs, if for example there was a threat to wildlife. The Government launched a report a few weeks ago about the threats to many species in protected areas. What if environmental damage was caused to habitats in protected areas? The legislation needs to be in place to ensure the safety of such habitats. It can help prevent damage by acting as an incentive not to cause damage, but if necessary it can help to recover costs and hold those who cause the damage to account.

The Minister said he hopes to have the legislation in place by end-2008. While long overdue, it will be welcome then. The Minister has been in office a year and has not got it done yet. As far as I know, it is not on the Bills list, although it should be if it is to be introduced in 2008. I do not understand why the Government must have so many consultations about straightforward legislation. The consultation on this legislation has already been done. We have had the three years plus another year for it.

This is a European directive which must be transposed into Irish law, which should not be difficult to do. We do not need loads of consultations and submissions. The Labour Party does not see the need for all of that. That is playing for time. The Minister needs to get the legislation in place now. When exactly in 2008 will he do that?

See this speech in context