Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I strongly support Deputy Eoin Ó Broin's amendment on the need for us to have a report within at least six months on the Government's compliance with the European Union's environmental impact assessment directives and the Aarhus Convention. This issue has been drawn to my attention in recent weeks by environmental groups, specifically the Woodland League. I know that others are also very concerned about it. I had a discussion with some of the departmental officials before we came into the House about the number of cases pending against Ireland for breaches of the EIA directives and there seemed to be some debate about how many there were. I read an article recently in which it was suggested there were 15, including five at what was called the second phase. That may or may not be true and I see the officials shaking their heads. We will come back to that issue.

I do not have the command of the detail that others outside this House might have, but the point made to me about the landslide at Derrybrien, where a mountain collapsed after a windfarm had been built there, was that a case had been brought against Ireland because the developers and the planning authorities had failed to ensure proper compliance with the EIA directives. Subsequently, there were court cases, but the ruling was that we had failed to comply. Afterwards, as I understand it, a new concept was brought forward - substitute consent - to give retrospective permission, as in a retention order, for developments that were illegal and that did not fully comply with the EIA directives. In the case of Derrybrien I have legal letters which suggest that, even with the substitute consent required afterwards, the EIA directives were not fully complied with, particularly in respect of public consultation. At the heart of the original problem was the failure to comply with the requirement for public consultation and an EIA. The same was true of the substitute consent, which in itself is dodgy because it involves the retention of something that should never have happened. In this case it led to an environmental disaster. The new concept retrospectively legitimises stuff that was illegal and breached the EIA directives. In the case of Derrybrien, even the processes involved in seeking substitute consent were not complied with in murky circumstances. I do not have time to go into all of the details on this point, but it merits proper debate and I will submit parliamentary questions about it.

The State and semi-State companies are planning major infrastructural developments such as contentious windfarms and other renewable energy projects, but we have not fully transposed the EIA directives into domestic legislation. We have dodgy concepts such as substitute consent to try to cover our tracks and allow these developments go ahead without full compliance. Do not get me wrong - I am very much in favour of renewable energy projects, but big windfarms are very contentious. There are real issues about whether communities are being consulted and about the environmental impacts which were disastrous in the case of Derrybrien. This area needs to be seriously scrutinised. Apart from anything else, we could be subject to major fines, but these are controversial issues in terms of the impact on communities, engaging in proper public consultation and a proper assessment of the potential damage to the environment. There are big questions about the way we do things and suggestions that where the State or semi-State companies are doing things, there is a nod and a wink culture to get stuff through and ride roughshod over local communities and best practice that seeks to ensure the environment is not damaged.

For all of these reasons, the amendment is terribly important. We need a detailed report on the issue and a very detailed discussion and debate in this House which should be well flagged to give environmental groups and those with knowledge an opportunity to feed into the debate before it happens.

See this speech in context