Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

During Second Stage and in conversation with colleagues before coming to the House today, I pointed out that this is a very technical Bill. By its nature, some of its language is technical. In fairness to the officials who drafted the text, they endeavoured to make it as understandable as possible. Committee Stage provides us with an opportunity to tease out issues to help us understand the Bill.

In tabling the amendment, I am sure the Senator was not aware of some of the consequences of his proposal. As proposed, the amendment is not appropriate as it would go far beyond the intention of the directive as it will be applied in the other EU member states. I repeat that the legislation needs to be consistent with the directive and the legislation introduced by other member states. In other words, we should act in a manner consistent with what is happening in all other member states and should not do anything which would make it more difficult to operate and meet the terms of the directive.

The amendment would link BAT, the most up-to-date technology, irrespective of whether it was practical. It would not achieve a proper balance between environmental protection, which is my aim, and what is economically and technically feasible. We have got this balance wrong in the past. My officials and I have given much thought to ensuring that in striving to ensure we introduce the best available technologies, which is a major innovation in the Bill, we also take economic considerations into account. The definition of BAT for the purposes of integrated pollution prevention and control is set out in Article 2.11 of the directive and is reproduced in the Bill. We should follow this approach.