Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following regulations in draft:

Planning and Development Regulations 2005,

copies of which were laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 16 June 2005.

I am pleased to move this motion, the adoption of which by both Houses of the Oireachtas will pave the way for the planning and development regulations to be amended in three different ways: first, to make it a requirement for shops that wish to change into an off-licence or to sell alcohol to obtain planning permission; second, to facilitate consideration of the need for an environmental impact assessment, EIA, of peat extraction projects, that are currently exempted development, by referring to criteria set out in the environmental impact assessment directive; and, third, to reflect in the Irish planning regulations a technical change to annex I and annex II of the environmental impact assessment directive which lists project categories that require environmental impact assessment. The change is needed because the environmental impact assessment directive has been amended by the Aarhus Directive 2003/35/EC.

Positive approval of this House is needed for any change to the exemptions under the planning code, whether the change adds an exemption or limits exemptions, as these changes do. I had suggested that these changes would be discussed in an Oireachtas committee. I believe that would have been a much better approach from the point of view of everybody in the House but particularly from the point of view of the Opposition. It would have been a good and appropriate use of committee time. That format would have allowed for a freer and more extensive exchange of views than is possible in the 60 minutes we have available in the House.

As Members will know, I have for a long time been an advocate of the more extensive use of parliamentary committees, particularly for technical issues such as those under discussion here, not least because it allows the Opposition parties to make a positive input. Members will accept that I have been forthcoming in that regard. I have always been willing to listen and involve the Opposition and, where possible, to change. Oddly, the proposition was opposed by the Green Party and I am mystified as to why it chose to do that. The party is not represented here now so we will probably never know.

The first amendment will require shop owners who wish to change the use of their premises to an off-licence to obtain planning permission. Under the planning and development regulations 2001, a change of use from a shop to an off-licence does not currently require planning permission. This has always struck me as very odd. Planning permission is needed to open a chipper, for example, yet no planning permission is needed to open a full-blown off-licence to sell all forms of beer, wines and spirits. Whatever about chippers, there is no shortage of off-licence outlets. The Commission on Liquor Licensing, Interim Report on Off-Licensing, published in May 2001, evidently shared my long-held view on this. It recommended that permission should be needed for a change of shop use to an off-licence.

The number of shops changing use to off-licence or expanding into the sale of alcohol has increased significantly in recent years. The increase in off-licences has arisen both from changes to the restrictions on the transfer of an intoxicating liquor licence and from changes in the way in which people socialise and drink. These changes have had an impact on our streets and communities. There is therefore a land use issue that must be tackled through the planning code. By bringing the matter into the planning code I am giving local communities and councillors a say in the matter.

I have therefore decided to amend the definition of a shop in the planning and development regulations 2001 so that a shop changing use to that of an off-licence, or expanding what it sells to include alcohol, will in future require planning permission. The change will not affect the sale of wine as a subsidiary to the main use of the premises as a shop. The sale of wine from a corner fridge, which is a minor element of the overall trade of the shop, will not be affected by this change. Lest Members jump to any conclusion, they should note that the Commission on Liquor Licensing supported my conclusion on this matter.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it did.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have the document here. I can show it to the Minister.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Deputy reads it, he will note that it was very specific.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will allude to it line by line as soon as the Minister sits down.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Naughten.

Seán Ardagh (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like the Minister to be a man of his word. In a recent reply to a parliamentary question by Deputy Olivia Mitchell, he stated he would, in a very short period, introduce changes to the Planning and Development Regulations 2005. One of the commitments he made in the reply — I do not know whether he or his Department officials wrote it — was that he would address the need for a uniform planning application form throughout the country. The reply stated he would also address the fact that a very significant number of applications are actually turned down by local authorities, as brought to his attention by Deputy Olivia Mitchell. These two issues are very serious. I understand from Deputy Olivia Mitchell that approximately 50% of the applications in her area are turned down by the county council because of errors made in filling out application forms. Has the Minister honoured his word regarding these issues? Has he made the necessary changes to the regulations? Clearly, they have not been made. Neither is there clarity of thought or intent, which the Government ought to demonstrate in dealing with these issues.

In spite of all the changes the Minister is making, any existing premises that has a licence from the courts to sell alcohol can and will continue to do so. There is no change whatsoever, provided they continue to comply with the law in every respect. However, every new business, convenience store and shop around the country can sell wine from the fridge. It does not need to be the substantial business of the premises, but can represent a very large portion. It will not be the Minister's concept of a little corner fridge, and that is where he is making a mistake. He is requiring people who want to sell beer, which has a lower alcohol content than wine, and spirits to apply for planning permission. However, he is not requiring those who sell wine only to do so. His proposal is ambiguous and lacks clarity.

The interim report of the liquor licensing commission strongly disputes some of the issues. The Minister refers to councillors and the community having a say with regard to an off-licence. Due and proper space is given for that in the courts. It is very clear that an applicant for an off-licence must comply with the usual conditions regarding suitability of premises and the other grounds for objection as contained in section 18 of the 2000 Act. The applicant must go before the court and due notice should be given. This is to ensure general conformity with legislation and to give the public and authorities proper grounds for objection. When people object to an application, they are not objecting on grounds of planning or the physical premises but because they do not want it in their neighbourhood and perhaps it has been badly run in the past. All the issues and objections people raise can be dealt with properly and entirely through the courts system.

The commission recommends: "Should a full off-licence be required ... then the applicant shall be obliged to obtain planning permission and shall satisfy the Court at the hearing ... that any conditions have been complied with." This is in the interests of good planning practice and conformity with general practice to ensure that the lay-out of the premises is suitable. It does not make sense to introduce a planning application process for the sale of beer and whiskey but not for bottles of wine. Deputy Perry informed me that for every bottle of whiskey sold, ten bottles of wine go out the door. The Minister has swallowed this line——

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is one way of getting rid of the European wine lake.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will turn us into a nation of winos.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be helpful if the Deputy read recommendation 54.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am reading the recommendations. I am not finished and I will not let the Minister off lightly.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Recommendation 54 is a long way down the list.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should not open his mouth too soon. I will not suggest that he will turn the country into a nation of winos. Alcohol is a very serious issue and the people who spoke up at the commission against this proposal should be listened to. The members of the commission considered that the acquisition of a full off-licence for any premises involved a change of use of which the public should be made aware and should be entitled to object to at the planning stage. This recommendation was not acceptable to Ms Carmel Foley, the Director of Consumer Affairs, Ms Isolde Goggin of the Competition Authority and Mr. Brian Whitney representing the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on the grounds that any genuine planning issues are already covered by existing planning and licensing laws and this provision presents an unnecessary and unwarranted barrier to entry to the business.

Ms Ailish Forde, RGDATA, considered the scrutiny of the courts to be sufficient and the involvement of planning authorities inappropriate. On the other hand, some of the members were of the view that a planning permission requirement should also apply to new wine-only licences. These members were Messrs. Frank Fell, Licensed Vintners Association, Michael Murphy, IBEC, Tadgh O'Sullivan, Vintners Federation of Ireland, and John Power, Irish Hotels Federation.

On one side people are trying to vindicate consumer rights and competition and on the other there are people with an interest in the business. The Minister has clearly taken one side——

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Both sides are wrong.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has taken one side and we have taken the other. This regulation is heavy-handed and does not make sense. I agree with proper regulation. Perhaps the Minister should have considered the sale of beer, but he did not take that option. In America, low-alcohol beers are available in convenience stores, but not those with a higher alcohol content. The availability of spirits and alcopops is a very serious issue. The whole situation is a mess and the Minister has not thought it through. I therefore oppose the regulation.

What happened to the promises made by the Minister in his written reply to Deputy Olivia Mitchell? The Minister has again come to the lobby's defence.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A lot done, more to do. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the regulation. I agree with the Minister it is disappointing that we do not have more time to tease this out in committee. I will raise a number of points regarding the Minister's proposals——

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should accept that it is not the Minister's fault.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that. Five minutes in which to reply to all these queries is wholly inadequate. A committee is the proper place to tease out such issues.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should ask the Green Party about that.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue was discussed in 2000 and there was a significant amount of debate on this specific proposal.

I am disappointed the issue of afforestation has not been considered in respect of the regulations. There is concern in the Minister's county, as well as in many other counties, because the provisions do not allow a mechanism for public objection to forestry in instances when a community or individual is completely isolated by the type of forestry development taking place. The only mechanism available at this time is to object to the grant support that they may be eligible to apply for through the Department of Agriculture and Food. Will the Minister look at that specific issue?

The issue of peat extraction is close to my heart. This proposal has been brought forward because of the decision by the European Court of Justice. What has been the major change with regard to that decision from September 1999? This issue was discussed and debated in the House in 2000. A proposal was put forward at that time and the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said that with regard to the environmental impact assessment, he was examining the requirement to reduce the threshold of 50 hectares. He said that this would address the concerns of the European Court in a transparent manner and that there should be no further difficulty when it was done. However, it seems that there is further difficulty. Where did the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, slip up with regard to this issue? He seemed to be incompetent in respect of many areas when he was in charge of this brief, but how did he slip up with regard to this specific matter?

The word "significant" gives rise to huge concern in my constituency where people who cut turf, either for their own use or on a small commercial basis, could be roped in under this definition. Many bog owners and people with turbary rights cut turf on an acre plot. Half of the plot has been traditionally cut out and most active plots are approximately half an acre in size. Once the turbary rights are exhausted people must find some other form of fuel. However, the difficulty is that if one takes turf cutting on a contiguous basis on a bank of turf where individuals all along that bank have half-acre plots, one could very easily reach some of the thresholds in the regulations. Then some official in the local authority or an alleged do-gooder from some part of the European Union, who is visiting here and wants turf-cutting to be abolished because all the turf in his or her country has been cut, could decide that the turf-cutting has a significant effect. All of a sudden, individuals who are cutting three or four spreads of turf for their use and that of their neighbours will have to apply for planning permission and conduct an environmental impact assessment. That is the concern about these regulations.

The way that environmental impact is defined in the regulations could give rise to a situation where people who are cutting turf on a small, commercial basis or for their own use will be required to have an environmental impact assessment carried out because of the issue of taking a number of turf banks together along a particular bog. In that scenario, it is not just one individual half-acre plot. There could be a number of plots along the bank to be cut. That would be the normal procedure in that an operator would come in with a digger and a hopper, cut along the length of the bank, the turf would be spread out, dried, saved and then transported.

Livelihoods are at stake. Many contractors have put significant investment into upgrading their equipment. There has been much talk about the impact of turf cutting on blanket and raised bogs, but there has been very little acknowledgment of the fact that operators have moved away from the use of the sausage machine, owing to the assistance and encouragement provided by my colleague on this side of the House, Deputy Michael D. Higgins, and now use the hopper procedure which does not have the same type of negative environmental impact. As well as that, we must realise that we are talking about small plots on the edge of bogs. The majority of bogs in this country are either State owned or State controlled. We are referring to half-acre plots in many cases, and sometimes even smaller than that, on the edge of bogs. Cutting turf in such plots using a hopper will not have a detrimental environmental impact.

I do not know the reason for these new definitions and changes in the rules. The former Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, said that he addressed this issue in 2000, so how have the sands shifted regarding the same European Court of Justice decision? I would like an answer to that question. I would also like a firm commitment from the Minister that this will not have an impact on turf-cutting on a small, commercial basis or by individuals on their own or a neighbour's bank in County Roscommon and elsewhere.

Will the Minister examine a proposal that was put forward to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, for the development of a wetland wilderness park in the cutaway bogs of the north midlands? It would have a major economic benefit from a tourism point of view in that region. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to that proposal which is being submitted to his office.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Minister that this motion should have been considered by an Oireachtas committee where we could have teased it out in greater detail. I do not accept, however, the Minister placing the blame for that on the Green Party. Obviously, Deputy Cuffe can answer for his party in that respect, but I do not buy that the Minister did not bring his proposal to an Oireachtas committee because the Green Party objected to it. If that were the case, many proposals that are brought to the House or to committees would never appear. It is the first time I have ever heard that a Minister would not bring a proposal to a committee because an Opposition party of any size objected to it. I do not buy that argument.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There must be unanimous agreement to bring a proposal in that way.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a different reason, which I will come to in a moment. The motion has the potential to cause uproar in rural areas. The proposals before the House relating to peat extraction are a Trojan horse. The Minister may be right in saying that the proposals arise from the judgment of the European Court of Justice and the prospect that this country will face a daily fine of €26,000 if the issue is not addressed. However, the European Court of Justice imposed that fine two years ago. The Minister had two years to bring the issue before an Oireachtas committee; he did not have to leave it until the last week before the Dáil rises for the summer.

Furthermore, the issue first arose six years ago in 1999 and the Government had plenty of time to bring proposals on this issue to an Oireachtas committee or into the body of the House if it was of the mind to do so. We now have a motion, introduced two days before the Dáil rises, which will give rise to set of circumstances which will result in people who have traditionally cut turf for their own use on their own bogs now having to obtain planning permission and undertake an environmental impact assessment before the turf can be cut.

When the uproar starts — and this is where I come back to the Green Party — and the back bench Deputies of the Minister's party and the Government parties are confronted with it in their constituencies, they will blame the Green Party. They will say that the Green Party would not allow the matter to be discussed. That is what the blame of the Green Party is about.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is nonsense. The Deputy should tell the truth to the House. He knows what he is saying is disingenuous and untruthful.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us examine what is being proposed here. The Minister has found a formula to get around the judgment of the European Court of Justice and it is that an environmental impact assessment will be required where there is a significant impact on the environment. However, if one examines the criteria for that, one sees that they are wide open.

Deputy Naughten is right. If this was a situation where one was talking about individuals cutting turf with their own sleán on their own bank in their own bog, it would probably be fine. However, that is not what is happening now. These days a machine goes onto a bog and cuts turf for a number of people. By my reckoning, once a machine is cutting for around 20 people, it will be covered by these regulations and the operator will have to submit to an environmental impact assessment. This is why this issue should have been teased out in an Oireachtas committee and not in the last week of the Dáil session. It should have been dealt with long before now. This matter was held over until the last week, if not the last minute, so that the Minister could be in and out in no time and when the turf hits the fan, so to speak, he can blame the Green Party. That is the politics of this.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is more, Bord na Móna is exempt from the regulations.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have heard some conspiracy theories, but that one certainly takes the biscuit. One can always depend on the Labour Party for a spot of mendacious misinterpretation.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister can depend on my party to see what is going on.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is being untruthful and I am disappointed in him.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I expect that the Minister will confront a few angry public meetings on this issue in his own county. That is all in front of him, but what I want to nail here is the bit of political cleverality, to coin a phrase, that is being engaged in by the Minister to deflect the flak that will inevitably arise from this matter.

Two issues have been used to dress this up and make it look like it we are dealing with some wider amendment of the planning regulations. The first is to do with off-licences and I do not have any disagreement with the Minister's intent. Clearly where a shop selling sweets and newspapers is converting to an off-licence, it should be required to apply for a change of use permission. However, the situation is not always as clear-cut as that example and the Minister has left it ambiguous.

The new off-licence arrangements are very often in conjunction with an other activity which takes place in the shop. Typically, a filling station builds a new 24-hour shop, part of which sells alcohol. It is not entirely clear and I am not entirely clear in my mind whether it will be necessary for those who have already done so to apply for retention. I am not clear as to where the distinction lies between what the Minister describes as wine being sold from a fridge and part of a shop being used for the sale of alcohol and neither is it clear which activity will require planning permission. I am not clear if there is a distinction between the sale of wine and the sale of beers. Is the sale of beer from a fridge exempted from planning permission whereas the sale of beer outside a fridge requires planning permission? It is a pity the House did not have more time to tease out these areas of ambiguity.

I refer to the definition of "shop" in the motion. The sale of hot food is also being excluded. I am a little puzzled at this provision. Many shops sell hot food nowadays, in particular, filling station shops with a takeaway hot food counter. Will separate planning permission be required for the hot food arrangement? Some newer supermarkets also sell hot food. Will they be required to apply for a separate planning permission? I note this is listed in the definition of what is being exempted from the definition of a shop.

The second area turfed in, so to speak, with the peat extraction issue which is the reason for this motion, is the Aarhus Convention. What is delaying the implementation of the convention and why is only a portion of it being given effect in these regulations, particularly when the convention was to have been implemented last weekend? Why is the entire convention not being implemented? We had an exchange in the House yesterday about the Minister's planned infrastructural legislation. Why is the thrust of that proposal moving away from the Aarhus Convention? The convention is partly about making information on environmental matters available to the public but it is also concerned with the right of the public to participate in environmental decision-making from an early stage. The public does not have the right to be involved at an early stage in respect of major infrastructural projects in particular. In the case of the third pillar which is the right to challenge in a court of law public decisions made with regard either to information or public consultation, the thrust of the proposed legislation is away from the Aarhus Convention. I ask the Minister to address two questions. Why is only a part of the Aarhus Convention being implemented? Why does Ireland appear to drift away from the principles enshrined in it?

This motion is to amend the planning regulations and to address the area of exempted development. I am surprised the Minister did not take the opportunity to address the problems associated with the erection of mobile telephone masts and antennae. The Minister must be aware that considerable problems have arisen in many parts of the country with regard to the erection of masts and antennae on public property and claims being made that they are exempted development. Bodies such as CIE or ESB have erected them on their sites and claim exemptions because they are related in some way to their activities or are part of a shared facility for some other purpose. This is an issue that has caused considerable problems. If this motion is concerned with changing the regulations on exempted developments, I am surprised the Minister did not take the opportunity to deal with this issue. The answer to that question is connected to my first point about this motion.

This motion is about slipping through the dramatic change in peat extraction and turf cutting under the guise that this is some innocuous, technical change in planning regulations. When those members of the public who will be affected become aware of it, the Minister and his colleagues will then blame it all on the Green Party.

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy can do better than that.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has got it in one; bull's-eye.

Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Deputies Cuffe and Catherine Murphy.

I agree with the previous speaker and with the Minister when he stated that this motion should have been referred to a parliamentary committee for discussion. This would have provided a better opportunity to tease it out and the exchange of information would have been a better exercise than this present one which is in the old format of both sides shouting across the floor of the House at each other. While I am not totally convinced by the conspiracy theories it would have been a better format than the one we are currently enjoying.

I welcome the regulation relating to off-licences because this is an area requiring tighter regulation. A walk through O'Connell Street will provide examples of small shops and supermarkets substantially engaged in off sales of alcohol and the consequential contribution of that activity to disturbances. Significant alcohol-related disturbances have occurred on St. Patrick's Day in recent years. The off-licences in O'Connell Street cannot be blamed for all those disturbances but it provides an example of where the situation needs to be checked.

The reference to hot food causes me some concern. Modern living is convenience living and people will call into whatever little shop opens up. Most filling stations and local shops now have a hot plate area offering a range of hot, precooked food. I am worried they may be caught in the net. Such services are an integral part of modern living. If those shops were to seek planning permission and face objections from a competitor up the road and then be required to go through the process of an appeal to An Bord Pleanála, it would be a retrograde step and I would not welcome such a move. The hot food element is sufficiently regulated.