Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)

Senator Brady is correct. I explained on Committee Stage that this amendment is unnecessary. The amendment proposes to prevent the board making a decision on an application, where there is a live request to the Environmental Protection Agency to make observations on an application which, "comprises or is for the purposes of" an IPPC or waste-licensable activity. I do not propose to accept the amendment. It should be noted that the board does not make decisions without having sought the views of the EPA where the board considers they are necessary.

The planning and IPPC licensing systems are separate but related processes. There is, however, an interface between them, the principles of which are set down in the Environmental Protection Act 1992, as amended by the 2003 Protection of the Environment Act. The current arrangements enable the planning system and the IPPC's licensing systems to reach their own conclusions on applications and for planning permission to be refused on environmental grounds, but opportunities are taken for each system to acknowledge the other and for the separate consent authorities to consult each other.

The amendment would put the strategic consent process out of step with the arrangements currently in place for dealing with non-strategic planning cases, which are working fine in practice. I am sure such an effect was not the Senator's intention but that would be one of the practical implications of what he proposes.

The proposed change would also introduce a delay into the strategic process which is contrary to what we are trying to achieve in this Bill and contradictory to the Senator's subsequent amendment to reduce the time the board has to make a decision. It would effectively tie the hands of the board in key cases, when in practice we need to ensure the board has the flexibility to make efficient and robust decisions. Senator Bannon in his contribution strongly supported the idea of making robust and timely decisions. He suggested an even more timely period than the 18 weeks provided in the Bill.

There is a contradiction in terms of the effect of the proposed amendment. First, it would have the unforeseen circumstance of rendering the consent process out of step with the arrangements currently in place for non-strategic cases and, ironically, would result in a further tieing of the hands of the board, which is contrary to good amendments put forward by the Senator in other cases. In the interests of ensuring the Senator is consistent, I will not accept the amendment.