James Heffernan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, to the House. This matter concerns the need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to establish an environmental ombudsman office to deal with complaints made against the EPA. This stems from a number of sources. It goes back to the report commissioned by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the previous Government, John Gormley. In fairness, it was a very comprehensive review undertaken by John McCarthy. It said that serious legislative change was needed to make the EPA more accountable and effective. It said that under the legislation covering it, the EPA had blanket statutory immunity when carrying out its functions. The report said that this was very difficult to justify in a modern context because there should be no need for that kind of statutory immunity if the EPA is carrying out its job and functions correctly. What is it afraid of? I do not see why it should be afraid of litigation if it has done everything in the right order. Perhaps that is the crux of the problem. That report also said that it would be appropriate for the agency to be brought under the remit of the Ombudsman in respect of any alleged maladministration.

I raised the matter of an environmental ombudsman with the director of the EPA, Laura Burke, when she attended a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht last November. That stemmed from an interview with Ms Burke when she took over, which I read. It alarmed me because when she took over, she said she wanted to reposition the agency to support economic growth and move away from the perception that it was purely an environmental watchdog or policeman. She did say that Irish businesses were broadly compliant. I do not know what kind of statement that was. Was she referring to investors who are not Irish and who might not be compliant? That investigation also noted concern among stakeholders at the apparently low level of prosecutions being taken. At the time, the director general said:

What you don't want to do is go racing to prosecute. What you look at is guidance for the sector, you put in a proper licensing regime, you then do audits, inspections, etc, and you give businesses a chance to put in rectifying measures. And in the context of companies not delivering on their side of licensing, then you go to prosecutions, but enforcement is much more than prosecution.

That to me gave carte blancheto any investor and told them that the EPA is open for business, that they could do what they wanted and that the EPA would not be heavy-handed with regard to any regulation. It seemed a bit lax and light touch. We have seen where light-touch regulation got this country in the past. When it comes to investment and investment in jobs, this Government's mantra has been that it is all about jobs.Where I come from, there is a plant called Aughinish Alumina, which employs approximately 250 people. While it is great that we have those jobs in the county, the EPA should not be facilitating jobs for the sake of jobs or economic growth if human health comes second. This may be what is happening. When I questioned the director general of the EPA about whether the agency would have an argument against falling under the Ombudsman legislation, she said "Absolutely not." She stated:

In drafting the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government engaged extensively with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Office of the Attorney General on this issue to achieve an acceptable legislative wording to enable administrative procedures to fall within the legislation, but excluding the quasi-judicial function of the EPA. A satisfactory form of wording was not finalised so the EPA remains exempt for the purpose of the Act. However, we have no objection to falling within that Act.

Is it that there has not been enough capital investment to create such an office? There certainly is a need for an office of the ombudsman for the EPA when decisions have to be questioned. This is so people will not have to go to the High Court, Supreme Court and elsewhere. There should be an ombudsman's office to protect people.