Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025.

The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, plays a pivotal role in protecting, improving and restoring our environment through regulation, scientific knowledge and working with others. As part of this role, there are approximately 900 EPA licences in operation in Ireland which regulate large industrial installations in sectors such as waste, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, intensive agriculture, energy, food and drink production and cement production. Such installations are licensed under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. Installations carrying out these activities are required to have an EPA licence - an industrial emissions, integrated pollution control or waste licence - in place before they can operate.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we get a copy of the speech?

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will get a copy of it. Apologies, we will circulate that. Tá brón orm faoi sin.

Before changes that affect emissions from an existing installation can be made, the operator is required to amend or review the existing EPA licence. This is an important system overall which protects our natural environment and human health. While strong licensing procedures are critical to protect our environment, the legislation should be proportionate and support decisions being made in an efficient manner, within predictable timeframes. To operate otherwise hampers investment in infrastructure and presents a disproportionate burden on all licensees. In engaging with industry and those operating under these licences, it has become apparent that there are a number of issues identified with the current legislation.

This Bill addresses four problematic issues identified with the current legislation governing licences: there is no definite timeframe within which decisions on licence applications are made; it is taking too long - in some instances, two years or more - for decisions to be made; even minor proposed changes to an installation require a full licence review meaning that the full licence is examined; and the civil emergency and exceptional circumstances provisions of the environmental impact assessment directive have not yet been transposed into national law to allow the agency to avail of those provisions in future emergency circumstances. Improving the legislation in these areas will incentivise investment and allow for more efficient delivery of infrastructure, including the infrastructure necessary to meet many of our climate objectives and deliver the transition to a circular and more resource-efficient economy.

The Bill aims to stimulate sustainable development and sustainable economic activity within a licensing system that is designed to protect our environment. This includes the deployment of improved emissions abatement and other progressive environmental protection technologies which require amendments to existing licences.

The Bill will do this by providing powers for regulations to be developed which will set timelines for proposed determinations on EPA industrial and waste licence applications. It is my intention that such regulations will set out a timeframe of no longer than one year after planning is settled for the agency to examine an application and make its proposed determination, which, if no objections are received, becomes the final decision on that licence. I intend a shorter timeline where the planning and licence applications are lodged simultaneously and for limited licence reviews.

In line with the general scheme, the Bill proposes that the agency may carry out partial reviews of a licence in limited circumstances only where, in accordance with Part IV of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 or Part V of the Waste Management Act 1996, the agency determines that an environmental impact assessment is not required and that the activity does not constitute a substantial change as defined in the industrial emissions directive. Setting out the detail in regulations allows the flexibility to amend timelines, including shortening them, to meet current and future demands. Indeed, the future is already here, and the direction of travel is set in terms of the EU legislation that requires environmental authorisation decisions to be made in definite and shorter timeframes, including under the Critical Raw Materials Act and the Net-Zero Industry Act.

Through providing shorter and predictable timeframes for decisions, the Bill aims to improve our competitiveness and remove barriers to investment in infrastructure, and its provisions align with the Government’s action plan on competitiveness and productivity. The Bill also seeks to facilitate the timely development of critical infrastructure in the energy sector, which will facilitate the transition to renewables and reduce the potential need for emergency generation, as well as the delivery of the national biomethane strategy.

The Bill further proposes some changes to the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 in relation to green public procurement and a provision to allow income that may arise from extended producer responsibility, EPR, schemes to be paid into the circular economy fund. The main objectives of the provisions on green public procurement are to put the preparation of national green public procurement guidance and criteria on a statutory footing; and to require reporting on the use of green public procurement criteria in order for public bodies to demonstrate transparency in implementing green public procurement policy in line with the “comply or explain” approach.

I will now outline the provisions of the Bill, section by section, to clarify its content. The Bill comprises 25 sections in four Parts. I will begin with Part 1. Section 1 contains standard provisions relating to the Short Title, construction and commencement of the Bill. Section 2 provides definitions for the purpose of this Bill. Section 3 repeals certain provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. These repeals are consequential amendments as a result of the provisions of this Bill.

Part 2 concerns amendments to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, including the amendment of section 3 of that Act. Section 4 amends section 3 of the 1992 Act to insert additional definitions consequential to the provisions of this Bill. Section 5 amends section 51 of the 1992 Act to oblige the agency to capture the number of licence decisions made within the new timeframes as may be prescribed. This provision also covers the Waste Management Act 1996. Section 6 amends section 82D of the 1992 Act to oblige the agency, when considering applications in emergency circumstances, to do so in a manner consistent with the objectives of section 15(1) of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 to the extent that it is practicable, considering the emergency nature of the application.

Section 7 amends section 83 of the 1992 Act to allow derogation from the obligation on the agency to carry out an environmental impact assessment, EIA, in line with derogations provided for under Articles 1(3) and 2(4) of the environmental impact assessment directive. Section 8 amends section 85 of the 1992 Act to ensure transboundary consultation where an activity is likely to have transboundary effects on another transboundary convention state outside of the European Union.

Section 9 amends section 87 of the 1992 Act to refer to a new section 87B and is a consequential amendment. Section 10 proposes a new section 87B to the 1992 Act to remove the obligation to issue proposed determinations in emergency situations where a derogation from an EIA has been granted either under planning legislation or under this Bill.

Section 11 proposes five new sections to the 1992 Act, as follows. Section 88C enables the Minister to make an order allowing a derogation for certain licence applications from the requirements of the EIA directive and the obligation to carry out an EIA. This will apply only where a licence is required for an activity in the event of a civil emergency or for the defence of the State. The provision mirrors a similar enabling provision for development consent in civil emergencies under section 228 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Section 88D allows an applicant to apply to the agency to grant an exemption from the requirements of the EIA directive before making an application for a licence. This exemption will apply in exceptional circumstances only. The provision obliges the agency to ensure that the objectives of the EIA directive will be achieved by other means. The provision mirrors a similar enabling provision for development consent in exceptional circumstances under section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Section 88E removes the obligation for the agency to issue a proposed determination in certain emergency circumstances where the Minister has made an order to that effect. Section 88F provides details of the information that the agency shall consider for applications where an exemption is granted under section 88D. This information will include the assessment as may be specified under section 88D(6)(a) and details of the documentation that the agency shall incorporate into its decision. Section 88G outlines notification procedures for a licence application where an exemption under section 88D has been granted.

Section 12 proposes two new sections to the 1992 Act. Section 90A allows the agency to review a part of a licence or revised licence, but only where an EIA is not required and any change does not constitute a "substantial change", as defined within this provision. Section 90B enables the Minister to specify timeframes for proposed determination decisions of the agency. This new section includes the potential to prescribe a stop-the-clock provision to allow for requests for further information and a response from the applicant. Time periods will be specified in subsequent regulations.

Section 13 amends section 96 of the 1992 Act to enable the agency to expand its consultation, as appropriate, to include planning authorities and other persons. Section 14 amends section 99A of the 1992 Act to allow the Minister to make regulations providing for the payment to the agency of fees in relation to a request for an exemption under the new section 88D, which is outlined at section 11 of this Bill.

Section 15 amends section 7 of the Waste Management Act 1996 at subsection (3) to enable the Minister, by order, to make regulations prescribing matters in the emergency circumstances as set out under sections 44A and 44B without need for such regulations to be laid before the Oireachtas. The provision also removes a reference to section 72(12) from subsection (3) of section 7 as that section was repealed under the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022.

Section 16 amends section 37 of the 1996 Act to insert additional definitions consequential to the provisions of this Bill. Section 17 amends section 40 of the Waste Management Act to allow exemption from the obligation on the agency to carry out an EIA in emergency circumstances. This provision mirrors the provision at section 7.

Section 18 amends section 42 of the 1996 Act to refer to the new section 42C. This is a consequential amendment to support the provision introduced under section 20 of the Bill. This provision mirrors the provision at section 9.

Section 19 amends section 42B of the 1996 Act to enable the agency to expand its consultation, as it deems appropriate, to include planning authorities and other persons. This provision mirrors the provision at section 13.

Section 20 proposes a new section, section 42C, of the 1996 Act to introduce an amended proposed determination procedure. This provision mirrors the provision at section 10.

Section 21 proposes five new sections to the 1996 Act. Section 44A enables the Minister to make an order allowing a derogation for certain licence applications from the requirements of the EIA directive and the obligation to carry out an EIA. Section 44B allows an applicant to apply to the agency to grant an exemption in exceptional circumstances from the requirements of the EIA directive before making an application for a licence.

Section 44C removes the obligation for the agency to issue a proposed determination in certain emergency circumstances where the Minister has made an order to that effect. Section 44D provides details of the information the agency shall consider for applications where an exemption is granted under the new section 44B. Section 44E outlines notification procedures for a licence application where an exemption under the new section 44B has been granted. These provisions mirror those at section 11.

Section 22 proposes two new sections to the 1996 Act: section 46A, which allows the agency to review a part of a licence or revised licence but only where an EIA is not required; and section 46B, which enables the Minister to specify timeframes for proposed determination of decisions of the agency. These provisions are mirrored at section 12. Section 23 amends section 50 of the 1996 Act to allow the Minister to make regulations providing for the payment to the agency of fees in relation to a request for an exemption under the new section 44B, which is outlined at section 21 of this Bill and mirrors the provision at section 14.

In Part 4, section 24 proposes two new sections to the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022. Section 7A enables the Minister to designate a public body for the purpose of preparation of green public procurement guidance and criteria that may be applied by public bodies in respect of goods, services or works procured by such State bodies. Section 7B provides and requires public bodies to outline in an annual report each procurement of goods, services or works in the previous calendar year where relevant green public procurement criteria were not integrated into the procurement process and explain the reasons it was considered appropriate and proportionate not to include any of those green public procurement criteria in the procurement process. Section 25 amends section 8 of the 2022 Act to allow the Minister to pay income that may arise from extended producer responsibility schemes into the Circular Economy Fund.

The Bill is intended to streamline the EPA licensing legislation. It will ensure we continue to protect our environment but also provide more certainty around the timeframes of decisions on applications for EPA licences for the energy, food, pharma, chemicals, waste and other sectors and industrial sectors. It will provide more options for the agency to efficiently regulate lower-risk activities and to efficiently process minor changes to existing licences. It will remove barriers to competitiveness and investment in the infrastructure critical to our sustainable development and will help us to meet our environmental and climate goals. It will provide us with a legislative framework that ensures environmental protection while being proportionate with the flexibility to adapt to future demands.

I look forward to Members' contributions and welcome the opportunity to engage in a productive discussion this evening as we move this Bill through Second Stage. We will be open to suggestions from Members on Committee Stage as well.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025, which deals with the EPA licensing system. Like many other systems, it is facing many problems, not least the long delays for many applicants. This poses a threat to the protection of the environment and erects barriers to the delivery of critical infrastructure. Sinn Féin is committed to Ireland's green energy revolution. With the correct political will and ambition, Ireland can transform from a net energy importer to a net energy exporter but we must seize the incredible opportunity rather than waste it, which has been done for many years. This is not just about the climate; it is about the extortionate cost of energy in this country. We face a climate crisis and a cost-of-living crisis and the solutions to both are inextricably linked. If this Government is serious about solving these crises, it must show urgency and determination in the delivery of renewable energy driven by the common good. As a Minister recently said, the Government has been sitting on its hands and navel-gazing for far too long. Tackling the delays in EPA licensing in one area is an area where this Government must take action but as with all legislation, the devil is in the detail and the reforms must be held up to scrutiny.

Just last week, Sinn Féin introduced a motion to the Dáil which highlighted the links between Ireland's creaking energy infrastructure, the slow pace of our transition to renewables and the extortionate energy bills for workers and families. We have the most expensive electricity in the EU. We used to have the cheapest but our publicly owned infrastructure was sold off to the highest bidder. The systematic sell-off of our assets was presented as an EU requirement and as a means to deliver more affordable energy, neither of which were true. Households paid nearly €1,800 a year, 30% more than the EU average, and that is €500 less in people's pockets when they are already crippled by skyrocketing costs such as rent and groceries.

One of the reasons for this is Ireland's overdependence on imported energy. A total of 80% of our final energy demand is imported and this leaves us dangerously exposed to the international energy market and geopolitical instability. In 2023, only 15% of our total energy consumption came from renewables, compared to an EU average of 25%. Ireland ranked bottom of the EU table for renewable energy in 2022, with 13% of energy consumption from renewables. Sweden, by contrast, hit 66%. State-owned energy companies from Norway and France own more of our offshore energy resources than we do. Ireland has to pick up the pace. This is not just a failure of policy; it is a failure of ambition. We need decisive action to remove the bottlenecks stalling our green energy revolution, including the EPA licensing processes which have been marred by delays, bureaucracy and a lack of resourcing. The consequences of this are generating a riskier environment for investment, hampering sustainability and threatening energy security. The reforms, however, have to be right. The defence of our environment and nature must be prioritised and the public must continue to have their voice heard. Rigorous regulation must be upheld; we will not solve this by creating loopholes or skipping essential steps.

To get into the detail of the Bill, the introduction of the mandatory timelines is welcome and should increase certainty, reduce risk and make a more attractive investment environment. A number of unanswered questions remain, and must be addressed. First, regarding the exemptions for environmental impact assessments, more clarity is needed on just what exactly constitutes an exceptional circumstance. These exemptions must not weaken environmental safeguards. It is also essential that public engagement and transparency is not taken for granted. The principle of democratic oversight must be upheld. While the Bill requires public notification for EIA exemptions, critics say this may not ensure meaningful public participation. Too often, communities are stonewalled and ignored and we need to ensure accountability for missed deadlines. What happens, for example, if they are missed? As regards changes related to emergency licensing and partial licensing, the criteria for qualification must be of a high standard.

Ireland's biodiversity is the beating heart of our economy and society and must be protected while ensuring that critical infrastructure is delivered. There is no point in reforming the rules unless they are going to be upheld. There is an enforcement issue. Many licensed facilities already fail to meet their licensing conditions. A total of 884 non-compliances were recorded for 272 sites in the first half of this year. The problems are bad in certain areas, including food and drink, non-hazardous waste and intensive agriculture. Our wastewater infrastructure should frankly be a source of deep shame for this Government. Apart from the fact infrastructure is in a poor state, half of all licensed treatment plants consistently fail to meet the standards. If this Bill is going to weaken environmental standards, the problems could get worse.

The reform is necessary but it must be done correctly and we must put in place safeguards to protect transparency, public participation and the environment.

Réada Cronin (Kildare North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Decades of inaction, mismanagement and a lack of ambition from successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments have caused Ireland's critical infrastructural deficits to develop into a full-blown crisis across multiple sectors. An Teachta Daly referred to the motion that Sinn Féin brought forward last week and the snail's pace at which the Government has rolled out the transition to renewable energy. On this, we are way behind our European colleagues. While countries like Scotland, Denmark and Portugal have seriously invested in their renewable infrastructure, we have failed to address the need to build clean, green energy infrastructure. Such infrastructure would help us to meet our climate goals and reduce our reliance on imported energy from abroad. Because of this delay, Ireland has the highest energy bills in all of Europe.

Households are crippled by sky-high bills because not only does the Government lack the political will and ambition to build renewable infrastructure, but it has also created a system full of bottlenecks and bureaucracy and a lack of resourcing. Ordinary workers and families are being fleeced as this Government continues to make life harder for them by removing badly needed energy credits that they need to keep their heads above water. Over 300,000 families are in arrears as of July of this year. That figure will only rise now under the watch of this Government, especially with the winter coming in and the cold nights ahead.

Our grid capacity has also come under serious pressure, with an urgent need for investment. What is worse, the Government has prioritised data centres for grid connections instead of new houses that are urgently needed to tackle the worst ongoing housing crisis in all of Europe. The first-come-first-served policy is not just insane; it is actually heartless when we have over 5,000 children in homeless accommodation.

The delays in EPA licensing in other sectors have been highlighted as another step in the process which is hampering efforts to develop renewable energy and bring down energy prices. Reforms are urgently needed to address these delays. However, these reforms should not be used as a smokescreen to bypass meaningful public participation in environmental processes, nor should they seek to weaken environmental safeguards already in place.

The recent report on the state of Europe's environment is a damning indictment of this Government's treatment of Ireland's natural beauty. Some 85% of our protected habitats and almost one third of protected species of flora and fauna have an unfavourable status, according to the report. Half of native plant species are in decline and more than 50 bird species are of high conservation concern. If that report, published the other day, were a parent-teacher meeting, the parent would have gone home very disheartened. "Poor" was the overall message of the report card. We are in the midst of a climate and biodiversity crisis and the Government has done nothing to seriously address the concerns we face. The Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss produced its final report in April 2023, with over 59 agreed-on recommendations for the Government to action. None of them have been implemented. The assembly also found that successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments have failed to take biodiversity seriously and have failed to nurture our natural ecosystems, which explains the crisis we are in now.

It is essential, then, that we move to immediately address concerns when it comes to EPA licensing. We must streamline the process by introducing timeframes and addressing the delays. We must ensure speedy investment in critical infrastructure that is green, clean and essential in tackling the cost of living and the climate crisis we face. Mar a deireann an seanfhocal, éist le fuaim na habhann agus gheobhaidh tú breac. Ach nílimid ag éisteacht, agus is trua sin.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is clear that our current environmental standards are not fit for purpose. The Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to granting licences, amending licences and a whole range of work that needs to be done in that respect. It is causing huge delays in building our infrastructure to meet our energy needs and expansion of businesses, the expansion of our housing and so on. We have huge problems, with delay after delay. Many of these delays are because of the high level of bureaucracy in all aspects of the engagement people have with the State, but particularly when it comes to licences relating to the EPA and environmental standards. Intensive agriculture, such as poultry and pig production, requires EPA licences as well. When it comes to renewing those licences, if there are small expansions involved there are huge problems. I think the Minister acknowledged that in his speech earlier.

We have targets for renewable energy across the country and we are well behind on all those targets. That is partly due to delays in granting EPA licences but also due to Government mismanagement for years with regard to how we will roll out the critical infrastructure we need. The reality is that we have a target of 80% renewable energy by 2030 and we are currently nowhere near that. I do not think anyone looking at it could possibly expect that we will ever reach it, in light of the way it is happening at the moment. We need offshore and onshore wind turbine projects started if we are going to reach these targets. I suggest that is not going to happen because of the Government's ineptitude and failure to meet its obligations. As regards servicing these turbines, even when they are put offshore, we will have issues in respect of our ports and their ability to provide the services when we do get that far.

We have huge problems in respect of our infrastructure. We are reliant on importing energy as the Government fails to develop our own energy independence. This has resulted in Ireland's consumers paying the highest energy prices in the European Union. With every report we see, we talk about the cost of living. One of the key aspects of the cost of living is the cost of energy, not just for the householder or the small business or whatever in the electricity they have to purchase, but also for the cost of the food and everything else they get because the energy inputs into all those products have gone up and up and continue to go up.

The aim of this Bill is to speed up the EPA licences with statutory timelines of 26 and 52 weeks. This is obviously a welcome change to the current position, where people can wait up to two years. We welcome that and we see that there has to be development, much more speed and much more urgency put into this. There are concerns, however, with such transparency and public consultation around all this, that we need to see the process sped up. We also need to ensure that we have sufficient time for public engagement, that the whole process is transparent and that we know where we stand at the end of the day. We do not want a situation where we take a problem and turn it on its head and it becomes a free-for-all. That cannot happen either, so we have to have a level of balance brought into all this. That is critical to it.

When it comes to environmental impact assessment exemptions, we need to know what those exemptions are, what an exemption means and what the definition of that is. We also need to understand, where these decisions are going to be made, what is exceptional and what is not exceptional and what the definition of that is. All those things need to be teased out in a practical way. I understand that when it comes to the committee etc., there will be work done there and other members will have an input into it. I hope we will get in experts who will also have an input into it. Unfortunately, however, having been here a while, my experience has been that very often committees can come up with very sensible recommendations but Ministers and those around them seldom listen to very sensible recommendations and just bull ahead with what they were going to do in the first place. We certainly hope that is not the situation with regard to this legislation.

Parts of the Bill are very vague, such as partial licensing and emergency licensing, which could be open to abuse in order to fast-track projects without proper environmental scrutiny. The country needs to do these things faster at the same time as the planning process needs to be sped up. It is also important that we have robust safeguards in place to protect fair public participation and transparency and the environmental standards that we need to keep in place. Environmental standards are very important, particularly with regard to our biggest industry in this country, which is our agriculture industry. We produce an enormous amount of food. We export that food to every country around the world, particularly across the European Union, and the standards we have here are very important. It is because of them that we have the top-shelf products in many places we go. We need to ensure we hold those standards. It is vital that happens.

Sinn Féin wants to see the development of critical infrastructure to ensure we are less reliant on imported energy from fossil fuels and to help to meet our climate targets in relation to renewable energy. Across the county, we need to ensure these things can be done in a balanced way. That is why this legislation is so important. I hope that when it is time for the Bill to get to Committee and Report Stages, the Minister and the Department will take on board sensible and proper ideas and positions put forward by the experts in the field and by the people on the committee.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. There are a few elements to it and I am broadly supportive of what it sets out to achieve, but with some qualifications in certain areas.

The main element of the Bill is the changes to the EPA licensing. I welcome the initiative to take a more streamlined approach. I must admit that I was initially a little uneasy with elements of the licensing reform proposed in the Bill. Almost intuitively, what appears on the face of it to be a softening of environmental impact assessment regulations does not sit entirely comfortably with me, but I understand that there is a balance to be struck here, particularly if it is to enable the development of sustainable infrastructure. If environmental impact assessments are causing delays or are overly onerous in the development of infrastructure like low-carbon energy facilities, anaerobic digestion facilities, wastewater treatment plant upgrades and so on, then, obviously, any effort to address those delays is something we should debate. There is a bigger picture we have to look at. Still, we need to be careful. Public participation is a vital part of the planning process. If exemptions are being granted for part of that process, transparency will be key.

People have a right to be informed. I note that in enabling exemptions for EIAs in cases where a response to a civil emergency is required or for the purposes of State defence, the public participation requirement under the 1992 EPA Act is also exempted. We need to be conscious also of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention. I welcome the fact the Minister will be required to publish the reasons for granting exemption orders but still, no notification or explanation alone is a perfect substitute for meaningful participation. That must be recognised. In the interest of transparency, it is important when an environmental impact assessment derogation is granted that the public receive early notice of the particular project as well as access to key information and that there be some mechanism for observations to be made. A concern I have is that neither civil emergencies nor activities that constitute defence of the State are defined in the Bill. I am particularly interested in the defence of the State element. I have heard the argument on a number of occasions that the Government's proposed State-led LNG terminal is required for energy security purposes, given that a possible threat to our energy security is a hypothetical attack on our interconnectors with Britain. Without well-defined criteria for what activity or piece of infrastructure development constitutes defence of the State, there is a possibility something like a State-led LNG terminal, which will see the importation of fracked gas and open the door to commercial operators, could be granted an exemption under this section of the Bill. That cannot be allowed to happen. There are huge concerns around this facility and what it will mean in terms of other commercials facilities being set up here, such as Shannon LNG or the Predator facility, and the effect that would have on our emissions. It would essentially lock us into fossil fuels for additional decades. I am conscious that even if such an exemption is granted by ministerial order, the EPA is bound by the provisions of section 15(1) of the climate Act, which may act as something of a safeguard. Even still, some clarity on what constitutes defence of the State under the Act would be beneficial.

The provisions for exemptions for civil emergencies are simultaneously more clear-cut while also more ambiguous. There are things like floods, storm damage or other serious weather events, but I can appreciate that they need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In other words, I get why exemptions granted in response to a civil emergency might not be best served by having a rigid definition of such emergencies, but there should be some criteria or threshold that must be met in order for a ministerial order to be granted. In circumstances where an emergency derogation is granted, the Minister should be required to publish the rationale and demonstrate that there is a genuine, time-bound emergency and that there is no reasonable alternative other than to grant the exemption. A sunset clause should also be included. It would be beneficial if some kind of after-the-fact reviews were carried out, a sort of environmental audit, after a specified period.

There are also the exceptional circumstances grounds for exemption from EIAs. I am again concerned about the lack of a meaningful definition of what constitutes exceptional circumstances, as some colleagues have already mentioned. It is quite a vague term for something that could be so consequential. I fear that without statutory criteria for what constitutes exceptional circumstances, we leave ourselves open to the risk of inconsistent application by different Ministers and in general could leave the process open to abuse. There has already been a fairly sizeable increase in the number of exempted projects across Europe in the past number of years. Between 2014 and 2017, the European Commission was notified of only three, whereas between 2017 and 2024, 42 notifications were made. More generally, EU case law requires that criteria for exemptions be interpreted narrowly and strictly. I am concerned that things are being left too open-ended by not defining what constitutes exceptional circumstances. We run the risk of enabling a liberal interpretation and putting ourselves at odds with the environmental impact assessment directive. Closer to home, the lack of a definition or criteria for exceptional circumstances also makes it more difficult to test whether a derogation is actually lawful. I accept the good faith this measure is made in and I am sure that more often than not it will be to enable quicker development of positive, sustainable infrastructure, but that should be more clearly articulated in the legislation. It is worth noting that in examining projects that received exemptions up to 2017, the European Commission said:

... the urgent need for the project was such that failure to proceed would have been against the public interest and would have threatened political, administrative or economic stability and security. If such a situation occurs, there is some, though limited, scope to apply this exemption, provided that all conditions are met.

We should clarify what constitutes that public interest or those conditions in the legislation, or in other words, what actually constitutes exceptional circumstances, such as if there was an immediate and serious risk to public health and safety or to the environment if a project was delayed because of a pending completion of an EIA and no alternatives were available. I welcome the fact that where an exemption is granted, the objectives of the environmental impact assessment directive will still have to be met by some alternative means. That is a positive and affords at least some protection in mitigating environmental risks that might arise. Again, however, similar to my point with regard to emergency derogations, a mandatory post hoc review should be carried out and published to better inform considerations on future exemptions and so that we know the actual environmental impact of a given exemption.

Another aspect of the licensing reforms is the introduction of statutory timelines for the issuing of licences by the EPA. That is welcome but if I were to criticise the Bill on this element, it is that they do not appear to have been given much teeth. The introduction of timelines is great in that they will provide some level of predictability and will, I hope, encourage investment in renewable energy or waste treatment facilities, but the concern is that there is very little in the Bill in terms of enforcement. There is a reporting requirement on the EPA, but then what? As far as I can tell, the timelines are not binding; rather, they are just targets. Forgive me, but we do not always do targets particularly well in this country, at least under the past couple of Governments. If we want this element of the Bill to have real meaning, those timelines need to be binding and there have to be consequences for missing them. Merely having to note it in a report if they are missed is not much of a consequence. I do not claim to say what the consequences should be but perhaps we should come back to it on Committee Stage. I am conscious the Government will table its own amendments. I hope that will form part of them. I also note there is no additional resourcing provided for in this Bill but that is also an important aspect. Speeding up the licensing and review process requires committing to increasing the EPA's capacity so it can meet these statutory deadlines. On resourcing, I am talking about both funding and staffing. It is no use introducing these statutory timelines and then expecting them to be met with the same level of resourcing that currently exists. Part of the issue regarding the length of time it takes to issue a licence is the current level of resourcing.

The other element of the simplification of the licensing process this Bill sets out to achieve is the introduction of partial reviews. This is an overall positive step. If we are setting out to reduce the bureaucratic burden, it makes sense a full review is not required where only minor changes are being made to an already licensed facility. Given my previous comments regarding the absence of definitions for what constitutes an emergency or the lack of criteria for an environmental impact assessment to be granted, it is welcome that there are clearer guidelines in this regard on when the granting of a partial review is appropriate. The definition of what constitutes substantial change, thus triggering a full review, and what does not is fair enough. Nevertheless, in the context of wanting to strengthen the Bill, we need to be conscious of the cumulative impact of minor changes. We cannot allow a situation to arise where a particular applicant makes several minor changes over a period to a point that, taken together, they would constitute a substantial change without a full assessment having been carried out. There should be some sort of screening for the cumulative effect and impact of these minor changes alongside the existing operations undertaken by the EPA when applications for a partial review are received. That could be seen as against the spirit of simplifying the process but it is an important safeguard. There is potential for a series of minor changes having a big impact without having been properly assessed.

It has been suggested that these licensing changes will positively impact our ability to develop renewable energy facilities. I do not dispute that. It is welcome we are addressing delays and speeding up the licensing process. However, to focus on one area of renewable energy for production, biomethane anaerobic digestion facilities cannot necessarily be addressed in the licensing system. Several people working in the biofuels industry have got in touch with me to raise concerns around fraudulent palm oil mill effluent, POME, entering the Irish market.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We banned that.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am aware of that. They said we will never be able to properly develop an indigenous biofuels industry as long as that happens. I know the Minister is aware of these concerns. I welcome the regulations he has introduced to end the additional incentives that existed for the use of POME. The concerns, however, have not gone away. There is still POME from the Far East entering Irish and European markets. The issue is that it is certified as a waste product outside of the EU, where it is impossible to verify, so there is still strong suspicion of fraud in the supply chain.

There are also concerns around crop-based biofuels more generally and their negative environmental impact, including land use change, deforestation, biodiversity loss, etc. The Minister has not ruled out limiting the importation of POME, which is something we should do. We are taking a good step towards enabling the development of our biofuels industry but, as I said, POME is still a big issue.

The green public procurement, GPP, element of the Bill is a really positive step. Having centralised criteria and guidance will, I hope, significantly shift public spending towards low-impact goods and services and enable us to better achieve our circular economy goals. It is important that the State leads on this and the public sector sets the example for the private sector. The Bill does not set out the relevant criteria, instead conferring power on the Minister to designate a public body to prepare them. I hope they include quantifiable indicators rather than just broad principles. One aspect of this should be that providers contracted under GPP for the delivery of goods, services or works commit to engaging in collective bargaining and that they recognise trade unions representing their workers. There was a massive missed opportunity in the most recent GPP action plan to enhance collective bargaining rights in Ireland. The absence of both that and trade union recognition generally in the socially responsible public procurement principles is a gaping hole in those documents. The inclusion of trade union recognition and collective bargaining rights in GPP contracts is a must if we are serious about achieving a just transition. Addressing the climate and biodiversity crisis will require a restructuring of our economy and a significant change in how we go about things. Green public procurement is an important part of that change. We must use it as a vehicle to protect workers and improve their rights, pay and conditions.

The fight against climate change is inseparable from the fight against inequality, including wage and wealth inequality. As per the EU's adequate minimum wages directive, which we still have not properly transposed, the best way to improve people's wages is through collective bargaining. The Labour Party has always maintained that we face enormous challenges in transitioning to a clean, sustainable economy but there are also enormous opportunities. There is an opportunity here, through the GPP process, to improve trade union coverage across Ireland, improve wages and living standards and make the climate transition work for workers. Under the GPP process, I ask, at the very least, that those who engage in collective bargaining and recognise their workers' trade union are looked on favourably in considerations of contract awards. That should be included in the criteria.

Also on the GPP aspect of the Bill, and similar to the point I made regarding the enforcement mechanisms, or lack thereof, in the timelines for EPA licence decisions, there does not seem to be very much by way of consequences where public bodies continually fail to integrate the GPP criteria when awarding contracts. I can accept there will be instances where it is not possible to do so and I welcome that public bodies, when they do not do it, will have to publish their reasoning for not doing so, but, as with the EPA reporting on when statutory timelines are not met, the question is what happens then. We could strengthen the commitment to GPP among public bodies if there was some degree of enforcement. Repeat offenders, for example, could be made to submit and enact a corrective action plan after a certain threshold of non-compliance is met.

I reiterate my support for the Bill in broad terms. It is positive in what it sets out to achieve. I have identified issues with it but they are not entirely insurmountable and do not require us to go back to the drawing board. A few amendments here and there will, I hope, suffice. I look forward to coming back to the issues I have outlined on Committee Stage.

Jennifer Whitmore (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. At this point, we are looking at it on a high level. As we go through the remainder of the process, a lot of the details will be discussed and elements of it will, I hope, be improved.

A few points strike me in the first instance. In principle, I absolutely welcome statutory limits and timelines. What will be really important is what they mean in practice. We do not want to see any watering down of environmental protections as a result of those timelines. That will be key but, in principle, statutory time limits are welcome and will give agencies a target to work towards and a timeframe within which to stay. The question then is what happens if those deadlines are missed. What will be the impact for the licences? Will they be left in limbo or is it a matter for the EPA to deal with? That is an issue we need to look into in greater detail.

The question was asked as to what the exceptional circumstances will be. We must be sure to be very clear about that. The language cannot be vague or open to interpretation. It must be set down clearly. We do not want a situation where there is not full environmental scrutiny of any of these proposals. That would be a slippery slope in the wrong direction.

I am making these points in the context of our poor environmental record to date. The latest EU report - they seem to be coming out every week - is once again scathing of our record on environmental protection. That record is not just a matter for this Government or the previous Government but all the governments before them. We have never been good at protecting our country's environment and, unfortunately, that is still the case.

On lower-risk activities, while standardisation is helpful, we cannot have it become the back door to deregulation. What is the extent of that and what it will mean? We will need transparency, site-specific assessments and public input. We cannot have a situation where public participation is merely a box-ticking exercise. The Aarhus Convention was mentioned earlier in this regard. Public participation must be meaningful. It is really important that any of these proposed changes do not undermine the ability of the public to engage in environmental processes and planning.

Those are the high-level issues. The one point I would emphasise to the Minister is that if he is bringing in these changes, he needs to bring in additional resourcing and funding for the EPA. None of this will work if the agency is under-resourced when it comes to implementing the changes.

The other point, and I will go into it in more detail and give examples, is that we have sufficient legislation to deal with a lot of the environmental issues that land on the desks of the different agencies. However, our record on enforcement is really poor. The climate committee is meeting right now to discuss the River Blackwater fish kill, with representatives of a number of agencies in attendance, as well as some anglers. I am sure the Minister is well aware that more than 42,000 fish were found dead in the river and that the agencies cannot identify a reason for it. That is the discussion the committee will have, including looking at the processes that were followed.

An issue that came up during the examination of the catchment on that river system was in regard to North Cork Creameries, NCC. While the EPA has said it cannot see any causal link between the activities of the creamery and the fish kill, its final report on its investigations has absolutely incredible detail on the record of that entity. It states: "NCC is a site with a history of failure to consistently achieve compliance with its licence discharge conditions and was already the subject of significant enforcement activity by EPA prior to the incident..." The EPA, it is stated, continues to "monitor the licensed site closely". Recent non-compliances were detected when it was investigating the fish kill, with those instances taking place from June to August. The EPA describes them as "serious and entirely unacceptable".

Later, the report goes into more detail about the creamery. LEAP is the EPA's public online system, which people can use to see the different licences and their compliance rate and any compliance issues.

When you go onto that and you search for North Cork Creameries, NCC, 134 instances of non-compliance come up. That is just since 2020. The EPA has put North Cork Creameries onto the national priority site system. That means the EPA has identified this entity and prioritised it for enforcement based on its environmental performance. The EPA uses this site to target the efforts at the poorest performing sites. Essentially, the EPA has said North Cork Creameries is one of the poorest performing sites because of the list of non-compliance and that it is therefore going to prioritise it to make sure that it remains within its licence conditions. North Cork Creameries was on the EPA's national priority sites list in quarter 3 of 2021, quarters 2, 3 and 4 of 2022 and throughout 2023 and 2024. It was not on the list in quarters 1 and 2 of 2025 because the EPA said there had been a bit of improvement, but following what has happened in recent weeks it expects that it will go back onto it again.

Since the NCC was granted its licence as a creamery, the EPA has carried out 46 inspections, with samples taken on 23 of the site visits. I would imagine the EPA must spend a huge amount of time in that creamery. I cannot understand why we are still discussing the creamery, which has consistently not been complying with its licence. At what stage will the licence be removed for non-compliance?

I understand there are lots of jobs at risk, and it is not the case that anybody would want the creamery shut down, but it must operate within the conditions of its licence. However, it is clear that it has not, and that has been the case for a number of years.

This is a very clear example of an entity that has gone through the EPA process, that has an EPA licence and where the EPA does inspections. The EPA has enforcement measures it can apply and yet the creamery is still operating and polluting the river. Even though the EPA has said it cannot find any real link between the creamery and the fish kill, the levels of discharge by the NCC into the site were incredibly high. That just goes to show that we can try to improve the system by having timelines and modify and make changes to the system, but the EPA has to enforce the legislation that is in place and that it needs to be resourced to do that. Otherwise, it will all go to waste.

Our history and track record when it comes to protecting rivers is not acceptable. This is not just about the creamery. The river is really important to the local area from a recreation perspective and from the perspective of small businesses. There are a lot of anglers and angling businesses on the river. There is also the tourism perspective and the broader conditions relating to the environment, biodiversity and nature that need to be protected.

I wanted to use that as an example to show that we have not got this right. There are many problems with how the system is being applied. I know that is outside the scope of the Bill but it has to feature. I hope we will have a big discussion on the Blackwater and see what the process is, but this is something that absolutely needs to be addressed. We cannot continue as we are.

Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their contributions here this evening. They were all constructive. Deputy Whitmore raised specific issues and made suggestions, as did Deputies Ahern, Cronin and others. Charges were made about certain things but I will leave them for a more general debate. I welcome the broad support for the Bill.

I assure Deputies that as we move to Committee Stage we will be seeking to improve the Bill. The regulations on the timeframe will be done by secondary legislation, which is the better thing to do in that they can be more flexible. We will not have to come back and amend the legislation.

The same goes for resourcing. A couple of colleagues mentioned resources and asked questions about tighter timelines, which we badly need. We must balance that as well with public participation. I am acutely aware of that too. I do not believe that this legislation will impact upon that but we have to watch this as it works through. Unquestionably the EPA will need further additional resources. It has been further resourced over recent years. I do not have a figure on that but, as Deputy Ahern is aware, it would not be written into the Bill either. We will have an opportunity to talk about them in more detail on Committee Stage.

This legislation did go through the pre-legislative scrutiny process in June 2024 and a report was published on it in July 2024. We did have input on it from other stakeholders. It is about striking the balance between making sure we are competitive and that we have definitive timeframes because it is impossible for people to operate within a system that does not have a timeline or deadline. In particular where there are minor changes, we are creating work for ourselves with reviews or minor changes to existing licences. That is notwithstanding the points and contentions that Deputy Whitmore made about a specific case. I will not comment on it, but enforcement is critical and key for whatever legislation we have.

I value our biodiversity. I also value the beautiful environment in which we live. I regret the continued degradation of our inland waterways and water courses. There are many reasons for it. We must reverse the trend on that. It is something I was acutely aware of in my previous Department. While we are doing many things well, we need to do other things better. The provision of renewables is one of the areas where we are advancing well. Deputy Pa Daly made remarks earlier about the percentage of renewables within the grid. I disagree with the points he made, but that is for another day. I am sure we will debate that on another day. I welcome the broad support that has been given here for the Bill. I have taken on board the points that have been raised here and I will consider them. I look forward to getting to Committee Stage and working with colleagues in committee to advance this piece of legislation as quickly and efficiently as we can.