Results 9,881-9,900 of 10,035 for speaker:Martin Cullen

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: From the Office of the Attorney General.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I know what the Senators are driving at, but I have the advice in front of me and I am obviously going to stick with it. If for some reason I were to agree to this, I could imagine the consequences for other legislation. Other legislation would be unpicked and somebody would try to suggest that a new interpretation had been given. We are where we are. It has been confirmed absolutely by the...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I have moved to meet some of the Senator's concerns but I do not believe it would be right to bring the period of review of licences from a minimum of three years to one of every two years, even, for example, where there is no change in the level of emissions from the activity or where the available technology to deal with these emissions has not advanced. Paragraph (a) of section 90(1),...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: Obviously if there is a major advance in technology, that would be one area. If something is wrong in terms of the operation of the licence and there is unsatisfactory application of the licence, that would be another reason. Some other possible reasons include changes in BAT which make it possible to reduce emissions further; questions of operational safety; a review is required due to any...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: The Senator and I are on the same wavelength in trying to make sure we do the best we can with the legislation. However, we also need to be practical. The application of BAT to control and limit emissions is itself a demanding standard, requiring a high general level of protection for the environment as a whole, and the effect of the proposed amendment would be to require reviews of licences...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: We should not depart from the terms of the IPPC directive. I am maintaining consistency in that area. The existing text of the Bill provides a balanced approach and if significant reductions in emissions can be achieved without imposing excessive costs, the EPA should be required to initiate the review and, on foot of that, make the appropriate changes in the licence. I do not agree, however,...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: We have already dealt with this. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: This proposal would delete a provision that was included in section 91(1) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 at the outset. By deleting the words proposed by the Senator, we could be ensuring that a new licence is required every time there is a change of ownership even if there is no change in the operating circumstances of the activity. This seems to be unnecessarily...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: There could be all sorts of implications. We do not want to introduce unnecessary bureaucracy into the system. What Senator Dardis has said is, in my view, correct. That possibility would be opened up, although that is not the intention of any of us. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: Section 94 is a new provision, which introduces new controls on the surrender of IPPC licences. The original 1992 Act had no such provision. It is important that there are such controls and that they are exercised before a licence is surrendered. While I appreciate the thinking behind the proposed amendment, it would be wrong to include a provision that would effectively compel someone who...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: Senator Dardis is correct. The Bill goes further when it comes to illegal activities. Previously, if illegal activity was occurring, one had to prove to the High Court that this activity was causing pollution. Under the Bill, it is automatically deemed that pollution is occurring by virtue the fact that illegal activity is taking place. This shortens the process, dealing, to some extent, with...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: In terms of the current legislation, the Senator is correct. However, this Bill changes the position so that people cannot just walk away. A process is now in place to ensure events such as those referred to by the Senator do not occur. The current situation is unclear and, therefore, I am bringing certainty to the law so that a company cannot just send the licence in the post and leave the...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: This section will do so. The Senator is correct about the current situation, which is why I am introducing this legislation. I am more than meeting Senator Bannon's concerns, but we seem to be at cross purposes. Under this section, the EPA will be given an interventionist approach which will prevent people from walking away from their responsibilities, unlike the current position.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: Section 94 is a new provision which introduces new controls on the surrender of an IPPC licence, whereas the 1992 Act contained no such provision. It is important there are such controls and that they are exercised before a licence is surrendered. The EPA can make an assessment to see what has happened on the site and make determinations before the licence is surrendered, whereas there is no...

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: They can only surrender a licence under this Act, where the agency accepts that they can do so – they cannot just surrender it. The agency will be a determining factor in the surrendering of the licence because of its interventionist role under the legislation.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: We have laws to pursue them in that case.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: Yes. They cannot just walk away.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: The Senator can be more assured than that, under the legislation they cannot just walk away. I understand Senator Henry's concerns about companies simply disappearing, but that is the case in any area of life and we have powers under the Act to pursue them. This is the case with many other aspects of Irish law.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I accept that. As a monitoring agency, the EPA should know exactly what is happening at all its IPPC licensed facilities.

Seanad: Protection of the Environment Bill 2003: Committee Stage. (25 Feb 2003)

Martin Cullen: I have listened to the debate on this matter with great interest. Perhaps I am not getting through, even though I have repeated myself on numerous occasions, and Senator Dardis may have put it in more succinct terms. The criminal law deals with all sorts of activities in legislation. If people commit illegal acts, the criminal law is there to deal with them. The Bill identifies a weakness in...