Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The built environment is cognisable under the provisions of the section, as amended. In regard to the Senator's question on oral hearings, I wish to clarify that the procedure outlined in this Bill does not involve the Minister making the final decision. Part 4 applies to a particular development where the Minister directs that it should do so. Such a direction is deemed to be a statutory instrument. Before proceeding with the development, the Prison Service must appoint a person to prepare an EIA in respect of the project, including all the materials set out in section 19.

On receipt of these documents, the Minister gives notice of the development to the planning authority, members of the public, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and, in certain cases, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. If the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment of another party to the Espoo Convention, which deals with environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context and was signed at Espoo in Finland in 1991, there must be compliance with the provisions of that convention.

Section 21 provides that the notice given by the Minister must include the date on which it was issued; give a brief description of the general nature of the development, including its size and purpose and the number of prisoners it is to accommodate; identify the location; indicate how many copies of the documents outlined in section 19 may be obtained from the Minister pursuant to section 22; invite interested parties to make submissions to a rapporteur appointed under section 23; and state that the submissions so made must be accompanied by the name and address of the person making them.

Under section 22, the Minister must make a copy of the documents available to any interested party either in written form or electronically. The Minister must then appoint a rapporteur to receive written submissions, and the latter must consider only those submissions received within the requisite period. The rapporteur then prepares a report on the basis of those submissions. He or she effectively analyses the responses to the EIA documentation that was made public.

Section 24 sets out the procedure that should be followed when the Minister, having regard to the report of the rapporteur, decides to make a so-called material alteration to the development. This involves the preparation of a supplementary EIA. According to section 25, the Minister, having regard to the EIA, the rapporteur's report and the supplementary report, may make further alterations to the development and may decide whether to proceed with the project. If the Minister decides to do so, he or she must come before both Houses of the Oireachtas with a resolution in draft form setting out his or her proposal. Before the Minister moves the draft resolution, all the documentation must be made available to the Houses. If the draft resolution is approved by both Houses, and confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas, the Minister may proceed with the matter. This is analogous to the old restrictive practices commission procedure which was in place before the Competition Authority. The groceries order is an example of such an order. There was an examiner of restrictive practices who carried out an inquiry, made a report to the Minister with a recommendation for or against an order and the Minister then laid the order before the Houses. An Act, however, had to be passed by the Houses to confirm the Minister's order before it had legislative force.

The purpose of this section is to give legislative force to a proposal to build prisons. It cannot be simply a matter for An Bord Pleanála to decide whether there should be a prison on a certain site. The State must have the right to build prisons. In this day and age, however, it is unsatisfactory that a Minister could decide to build a prison here or there without any regard to anyone's interests and no democratic input. The Minister must submit all materials, including a public response phase, to the Houses which will then decide to confirm the Minister's intention in an elaborate process. At the end, it will have the force of law.

From an EU law perspective, what would otherwise be an obligation to submit it to an independent outside body is avoided as it becomes a legislative Act. EU law requires either independent binding decisions or a legislative Act in cases of this kind. This is the basic background to this proposal.

It may be asked why An Bord Pleanála should not decide where a prison should be. On issues such as this, in the last analysis, it is a matter for the security of the State for which the Executive, tempered by the legislative process, makes the decisions. We cannot have a situation in which An Bord Pleanála decides Leitrim rather than Portlaoise is a better place for a prison. It is not a matter of a free choice for a group separate from the process of government to make fundamental choices of this kind.

I was interested in the radical distinction in the way in which the proposals for Thornton Hall and the Kilworth suggestion were handled. Castlerea is an example of a community which welcomed the prison proposal with open arms. Other communities will say, "not in my backyard". For those who take the NIMBY position, I cannot deny them the right to have their views taken into account. However, in the last analysis, society must have the right to decide the location of, say, a motorway. This procedure is designed to ensure it is fully compliant with EU law.