Ivana Bacik (Dublin Bay South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Like others, I hope we will get to debate all the amendments despite the short time available here and the very constrained timeframe for Committee Stage debate. I would like to speak in support of amendment No. 1. I indicated earlier that I would support it. There is a lack of clarity with regard to how other sites might be deemed appropriate and what criteria might apply for deeming them appropriate. I asked earlier that the Minister might give a reason for the clause referring to "alternative appropriate sites". I did not hear a compelling reason. I want to support that amendment on behalf of the Labour Party.

I want to speak particularly to our own amendments within this grouping, amendments Nos. 4 and 5. Amendment No. 5 is the substantive amendment. I thank Deputy O’Rourke for expressing his party’s support for it. It is an amendment that we bring forward in a constructive spirit to ensure more democratic accountability for the provisions in the Bill. I explained the rationale behind it earlier. Clearly the central thrust of the Bill itself is to disapply the Planning and Development Acts and to substitute a ministerial approval process for the development on a temporary and emergency basis of electricity generation projects. We understand that a roughly similar approach was adopted on a non-temporary basis under Part 4 of the Prisons Act 2007 in relation to the construction of new prisons. The key difference in that scheme was the requirement that resolutions would be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas as a final step in the approval process. We have used that model and mechanism in proposing to insert a similar provision in section 7 of the Bill through our amendment No. 5, which provides:

If the Minister proposes to approve a designated development, whether subject to conditions or otherwise, he or she shall before doing so move a draft resolution in both Houses of the Oireachtas ...

This simply seeks to ensure more transparency is provided for in the process and there is democratic oversight of the ministerial approval process. In no way does it seek to undermine the Minister’s power to make an approval of this nature. It simply seeks to ensure there is adequate scrutiny. When we are debating Bills in such a truncated timeframe and on such an emergency basis, and given that this is the second emergency energy Bill we are being asked to debate and rush through this year, I think it is reasonable to require that there would be that level of democratic oversight within the provisions of this Bill.

See this speech in context