Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

First, I cannot accept amendment No. 1. I understand the Deputies are concerned that the proposal may appear to be open-ended and as such could be used to approve other developments. To be clear, what I am asking the House to approve is the delivery of up to 450 MW of electricity generation for installation by next winter. That is considered an exceptional case for the purposes of Article 2(4) of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive. The alternative assessments can be carried out by the State.

The individual component developments, which themselves are the subject of a procurement procedure run by EirGrid on foot of the passing of the EirGrid, Electricity and Turf (Amendment) Act 2022, will be the subject of a further assessment by An Bord Pleanála and approval by myself. Therefore, the Oireachtas is not approving any development or granting a development consent. There is an inextricable link between the preferred sites and the procurement process currently being concluded by EirGrid. Given that this legislation is passing through the Houses while that process is concluding, it is only prudent that we would ensure it will not be necessary to go back to the House again with further emergency legislation in the event that an alternative site might be needed should that process not be concluded. What is important here is that we have sites available to accommodate this temporary generation and that we can move on those sites in the quickest way possible. The removal of the reference to "alternative appropriate sites" would unnecessarily restrict the application of the processes provided for in this Bill to the two named sites and would provide no back-up options for the State. The sites brought forward would be the subject of further assessments and public consultation. What is critical here is time. I cannot concede to an amendment that would tie the State's hands to the detriment of its citizens. I am satisfied that this approach is compliant with the EIA directive and have sought the Attorney General's advice in this regard during the preparation of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

I understand the intention of each of them. With regard to amendment No. 2, I fear the Deputies may have misinterpreted the intention of the provision in section 5(3). That provision is being inserted to confirm that no obligations arise in respect of transboundary impacts. In effect, the Deputies in their proposal are concluding that the designated development is not likely to have a significant effect in this or another state. It is in effect making conclusions in respect of the environmental impact assessment. When it comes to the prospective sites, there are knowns and unknowns that should be assessed by the relevant competent authority. We know, given the site locations, that impacts on other member states are not likely, and consequently the transboundary requirements can be considered early and satisfied. With respect to effects internal to the State, we have provided for an assessment of those effects in the law as proposed. By replacing subsection (3) with the conclusion as to the significance of the impacts, the Oireachtas would be supplanting the role of An Bord Pleanála as provided for here, which would not be appropriate.

I am not saying there will be significant environmental impacts on the receiving environment in the locations but rather that I wish the relevant competent authority would review the information presented to us and provide me with a reasoned opinion in advance of approving the proposed development. This is not an unreasonable ask. I ask the Deputies to consider the effect of their amendment, if approved, on the approvals process. The formulation as proposed would not be appropriate, so I ask that the Deputies withdraw the amendment. In the absence of that, we on the Government side cannot accept it.

On amendment No. 3, I appreciate again the Deputies' intentions but cannot accept it for reasons related to flexibility and adaptability. It would seem to be unnecessarily limiting to restrict the applicant to a particular class of person. That said, and as explained before, the sites are known. We know what needs to be done, and where. While we have built some flexibility into the legislation, this is not unlimited. It is directly related to other processes being undertaken further to the aforementioned EirGrid, Electricity and Turf (Amendment) Act 2022 and directions issued by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities and me. This is not a free-for-all; this is a targeted set of measures aimed at ensuring security of electricity supply for the winter of 2023-2024. It is limited in scale by reference to the 450 MW, and it is limited in location as there are only a very limited number of sites that can technically accommodate the proposal. The scope of any development to be carried out is limited also by section 8, and I cannot therefore accept the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, in the name of Deputy Bacik, complement each other. They relate to the insertion of an additional Oireachtas approval between the assessment of An Bord Pleanála and the approval to be issued by the Minister. I propose to reject these amendments as they would add an unnecessary step to the process that could delay the commencement of on-site works. Amendment No. 4 requires a Minister to only approve the designated development further to an additional process set out in amendment No. 5. That process requires the movement of a resolution in both Houses of the Oireachtas, with additional reports and conditionality over and above what is set out in the legislation. I reiterate that the purpose of the legislation being proposed is to remove unnecessary administrative steps so the relevant approvals can be issued as soon as may be possible. There is already a process available to the Minister to approve a proposed development to address an emergency under section 181(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. I have done this already for a development at the North Wall power generation station. What the Deputy is proposing goes beyond the existing provisions, and it would seem counter-productive to concede to such an amendment where time is of the essence. The process I am proposing is shorter than the one already in the Statute Book.

I want to address some of the potential concerns of the Deputy. The proposed legislation requires me to arrange for an assessment of the proposed development in advance of approval. This goes beyond the strict requirements of the environmental impact directive, whereby member states are required merely to consider whether an alternative form of assessment would be appropriate. Therefore, an assessment will be carried out, although it may happen in a phased manner, something that is suggested in the commission guidance on this matter. Moreover, I have included provisions to comply with the birds and habitats directive to ensure Ireland complies with its obligations under the two directives. These are set out in section 6. It is my intention to ensure there is public consultation on these assessments, which will allow for some of the public scrutiny the Deputy wants.

I draw the Deputy's attention to section 7(1), under which I am required to take into account the assessments of the board and any conditions recommended by it when approving a development. It is my intention to do just that. In this regard, it would appear that the Deputy's proposal would not only add an unnecessary step to the process where time is of the essence but would also serve as a retrograde step in terms of powers already available to a Minister under the planning Acts. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendments.

See this speech in context