Results 9,861-9,880 of 10,035 for speaker:Martin Cullen

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

Martin Cullen: In considering this amendment it might be helpful for Senators if I outline the background to the proposed new section 3B. Section 7 of the 1992 Act enables the Minister to amend the First Schedule to the Act, which contains details of the activities to be licensed and their thresholds. This can only be done, however, after positive resolution of both Houses. The new section 3B, therefore, is...

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

Martin Cullen: I am happy to accept two of these amendments. While I would like to accept the third I am advised it would be legally unwise to do so. Regarding the substitution of €5,000 for €3,000, there is a constitutional limit on fines for summary convictions. My advice from the Attorney General is that €3,000 is as high as the legislation can safely go on this. Accordingly I cannot accept this...

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

Martin Cullen: This amendment goes back to the first discussion on this issue I had with Senator Ryan, though Senator Bannon is coming at this in a different way. I cannot accept the amendment because Article 5.1 of the directive requires that all established activities operate in accordance with the directive not later than eight years after the directive comes into effect. This period expires on 30...

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

Martin Cullen: We may be at cross purposes. This amendment makes a point already covered by the Bill. The definition of a waste management plan is in section 5, page 10, line 18, and includes a hazardous waste management plan. Such a plan will be taken into account when licence applications are considered, along with waste quality, water quality and other waste management plans. The proposed amendment...

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

Martin Cullen: That is a valid point and that is why it is in the Bill. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Martin Cullen: It is not feasible for me to accept this amendment, although I appreciate the Senator's thinking. As the text stands, it is clear the EPA must be satisfied that emissions will not contravene standards for effluents or their treatment, which may be prescribed under section 26 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977. Adding the words proposed may appear to the casual reader to give...

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

Martin Cullen: They should not. We want the language in the Bill to be legally effective. These issues are dealt with under other legislation. The framing of this Bill covers everything we want to cover. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Martin Cullen: It is not practical to accept the amendment. Its effect could be to close down activities as no licensable activity could operate unless it produced no emissions. That might be a desirable objective, in principle, but in practical terms it is a non-runner. The title of the IPPC directive mentions pollution prevention and control. There is, therefore, an implied recognition that there will be...

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

Martin Cullen: It is not possible to accept this amendment because it would significantly reduce the powers the EPA needs for enforcement and introduce an unnecessary inconsistency between the IPPC and waste codes. The proposal would limit the application of the fit and proper person requirement to applicants for and holders of licences and transferees. This would be totally ineffective in the case of...

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

Martin Cullen: In considering this amendment we should be clear about the purpose of the relevant subsection. The requirement on the applicant to notify the planning authority in the functional area in which the development will be located is to ensure the authority is aware of all development proposals in its area and the possible implications for development control. This is consistent with section 91(6)...

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

Martin Cullen: If there are two different authorities involved, the applicant has to approach both of them in any event.

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

Martin Cullen: I do not wish to be argumentative and I understand precisely the point Senator Bannon has made. However, the IPPC licensing process has nothing to do with the application to the planning authority, which is a separate issue. The matter to which the Senator referred is dealt with by the EPA, which is not concerned with the planning boundaries but may look across the entire country if it...

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

Martin Cullen: The EPA deals with the IPPC licences, not the local authority. Anything in relation to emissions is covered by the IPPC licensing process. Planning matters are the responsibility of the local authority, which does not deal with the issue to which the Senator refers.

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

Martin Cullen: I can appreciate how we might arrive at cross purposes. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Martin Cullen: I wish to deal with this amendment in two ways. The Senator's proposed wording is not as clear as the text of the Bill, which is far more definitive. There is also a value in maintaining consistency between the IPPC and waste codes. The "absolute discretion" in the Bill mirrors exactly the provision in section 42(11) of the Waste Management Act 1996 in relation to a decision on the holding of...

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

Martin Cullen: Already, where there is a decision for or against an IPPC licence, there is an obligation to give reasons for the decision. Senator McCarthy's amendment is intended to require that, in similar manner, reasons should be given for refusal to hold an oral hearing. In the interests of openness, I am happy to accept the amendment.

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

Martin Cullen: There are already various provisions, in both the 1992 Act and the 1994 licensing regulations made under that Act, which put time limits on various aspects of the licensing process. These include, under section 87(3) of the new Part IV, an eight-week time limit on the EPA to issue a proposed determination from the date of receipt of all relevant information. This is extendable only with the...

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

Martin Cullen: I have already stated that consideration by a planning authority of an application is generally limited to eight weeks and I have told the Deputy that there is an eight-week time limit on the EPA to issue a proposed determination from the date of receipt of all relevant information. It can extend it only by agreement with the applicant.

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

Martin Cullen: I know what the Senator is driving at and I myself have no problem with putting in time limits, but we must look at the context within which we are dealing – certainly with the two specific issues under the Act to which I have referred. All the latest available data indicate that where there are limits they are working well. We should also bear in mind that an applicant must co-operate in...

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

Martin Cullen: I am advised by the Office of the Attorney General that this is unnecessary and that reference to an oath does include an affirmation. This derives from the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1937. It includes it and that is absolute.