Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

These amendments are grouped together because they propose to redefine what can best be described as the actors involved in the planning process, namely, the EPA and prospective applicants, thus resulting in consequential deletions. I do not propose to accept them. I am happy that the Parliamentary Counsel has been very clear in the approach adopted. Much effort was put into the drafting of the Bill and I am confident that it is drafted clearly.

The term "Environmental Protection Agency" is just as good and may be clearer than the shortened version proposed by Senator Bannon. However, I accept that he is trying to achieve clarity. If his amendment were adopted, it would be necessary to make a number of amendments to the Act of 2000 to bring the reference in that Act into line with the changed definition. That is a very important point. It seems unnecessary to do what is proposed because, ultimately, it would not add a great deal of value to the legislation.

"Prospective applicant" is defined where it applies in each case throughout the text. As it is only used regarding applicants or prospective applicants for consent for strategic infrastructure under sections 37A to 37C, its inclusion as a definition in Part 3 of the Act would add no real value in the sense that the Senator clearly intends.

Amendment No. 2 also has a fundamental flaw within it. It proposes to add a section 32 to an Act that already has a section 32. The existing section 32 contains the primary foundation statement of planning law that permission is required to carry out development. It also imposes the primary obligation to obtain planning permission on people who want to carry out development. I am certain the Senator does not want to replace that section or cause confusion in that regard but the proposition in amendment No. 2 would have that inadvertent effect. I do not believe the amendments add any real value. The Parliamentary Counsel has been particularly careful in these sections and reluctantly I do not intend to accept the amendments.

Amendment No. 2 is one of a large number of proposed by the Senator, which in essence would tweak the language of the Bill, rather than to make a substantive change. I fully accept that it is done in the interests of introducing clarity. Laypeople like the Senator and I, looking at the language used by legal draftsmen, often find it rather tortured. I have said as a Senator and a Deputy that if we could find legal language more easily read and assimilated, we would do a great service. While I appreciate that the Senator's intentions are to try to improve the language of the Bill from a layman's point of view, the Government must take the advice of the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel as to the best way to express certain ideas and to make them legally watertight, which is why the language may at times be tortured.

While we may believe that something can be worded more clearly, we might not appreciate that a loophole is being left or that some confusion is being sowed. The challenge for the Parliamentary Counsel is to find language that most accurately expresses the intentions of the Bill. There is a particular risk of confusion when different language is used in different sections to express the same idea. Much of the language used in the Bill is based on the existing phraseology in the 2000 Act. While I understand the amendments are tabled with the best intentions, I do not propose to accept them for the reasons I have outlined.