John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

I raised this issue on Second Stage. I cannot agree with Senator Bannon. We have to have regard to cost. The original BATNEEC referred to "not excessive costs", which was used as an opt-out, certainly by local authorities at some points. I refer, for example, to the pollution of the River Liffey by sewage treatment plants. That reference was used as a type of refuge or an excuse for not doing something that should have been done.

The Minister spoke earlier about the type of technology used and I agree with him in that regard. This provision cannot be open-ended. We cannot say that there cannot be some regard for costs. Perhaps I am doing Senator Bannon a disservice, but nobody would say we should tell farmers that they must install a pollution control system which will be so expensive that it will put them out of business. It would be better not to have the activity rather than adopt that attitude.

The proposed new section 5(2)(b), to be inserted in the 1992 Act, refers to "taking into consideration the costs and advantages, whether or not the techniques are used or produced within the State". I am not sure about the distinction between where we are now and where we were with BATNEEC. We now have best available technology, but previously we had best available technology at not excessive cost. We still have regard to cost in the Bill and I am not clear on the distinction or how this is more or less restrictive than what existed previously. I would be grateful if the Minister would illuminate that area for me because I am somewhat confused about it.