Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, line 34, after "2000" to insert ", provided that an environmental impact statement for the purposes of this Act shall be carried out by a person who does not benefit financially from the approval of the project to which it relates".

I do not know how many Members have read environmental impact statements. I have read too many and have become increasingly sceptical because I have never read one that found that a project would harm the environment. I am a little sceptical about the fact that every project turns out to be of minimum impact, because human activity has an impact on the environment.

In my unfortunate absence from the House from 1992 to 1997, I did a great deal of work with the clean technology centre in Cork Institute of Technology. During that time I spoke to people from overseas, many of whom suggested that an EIS should be carried out by someone who does not stand to benefit financially from a positive outcome to the project. Most of the environmental impact statements I have read have been written by the consulting engineers for the project. I do not suggest for one second that people are being bought off. It is never as simple as that, but their perceptions and judgments, the weight they give to various factors and the way they present matters are invariably affected by their view of the project.

The profession of which I am a member is full of people of integrity who would not take on projects if they believed they were not ethically acceptable. I am sure there are exceptions, as there are in all professions. That said, if there is a requirement for an environmental impact statement, the sensible approach is to require it to be done by an individual or body who, as our amendment suggests, does not stand to benefit financially from the approval of the project to which it relates. I am happy to leave the detail of how this should be worded to Report Stage.