Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

The amendment seeks to ensure that a person or company carrying out an environmental impact statement which is associated with a planning application for which an IPPC licence is required has no financial interest in the project in question. Senator Ryan spoke on the amendment on Committee Stage and highlighted what he regards as the way in which an environmental impact statement may be nuanced in favour of the applicant, given that it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit an EIS. Notwithstanding his arguments and those made today by Senator O'Meara, I remain of my original view and, therefore, decline to accept the amendment.

As I mentioned on Committee Stage, the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 dealing with environmental impact statements are based on the requirement in European Union Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended. The directive is clear on the point that the developer should supply the relevant information to the consent authority. If the amendment were to be accepted, we could find ourselves in a position where a company with the in-house technical expertise required to prepare a satisfactory EIS would find itself forced to employ outside consultants, as it could be argued the in-house team, as with all employees, would benefit financially if approval were granted. This appears unreasonable.