James Heffernan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I want to support this important amendment. This situation has gone on for far too long. I do not think there is any State agency other than the EPA that enjoys such protection with regard to its immunity from prosecution. I have stated on a number of occasions in this House that the EPA need not be in fear of anything if it is doing the job correctly, and that job is to protect the environment and have the issues of human health and animal health as its top priority. I do not know what the EPA fears and why that immunity should be in place, because it does not stand to reason that it should be afforded such protection.

As the Minister of State knows, this issue has been raised on a number of occasions, yet there seems to be an abject failure by the Department to deal with it. I was told previously that there was no way to find a correct wording to establish an ombudsman's office to look into complaints against the EPA and that, therefore, the EPA is pretty much a law unto itself. That has to be tackled by the Government if there is to be confidence in the EPA as an environmental watchdog, which is what it should be.

There seems to be a move under way, under the current director general of the EPA, away from being an environmental watchdog. I realise that in a previous life she was very much a spokesperson and a lobbyist for the incineration industry, which is something that would not inspire confidence in me and would perhaps make me question that particular appointment, although I know it was made before the Minister of State's time. A vetting procedure and a proper interview procedure for appointments to such positions should be held quite openly and candidly, and the public should know who are the applicants for such a major position.

If that is the view of the EPA, it is no wonder communities across the country feel as they do. I was present at a very well attended public meeting last Thursday night in Shanagolden which dealt with a proposed new gasification plant that is to be established on a landfill site. I have previously raised my concerns with the Minister of State. Certainly, the people in that hall had no confidence in the EPA, given the experience that people along the Shannon estuary in Limerick have had with the agency in recent years.

I would like to raise a case in point which will underline why this amendment is important. Aughinish Alumina was mentioned by other speakers. The licensing arrangement that was granted by the EPA to Aughinish was certainly questionable. As I have raised before, one meeting of the EPA recommended that Aughinish would have to put a bond in place to protect the citizens against potential environmental catastrophe, and that potential is there, as has been outlined by Senators O'Brien and van Turnhout. At a subsequent meeting of the EPA, however, the clause to have the bond in place to protect us was completely omitted from the licensing arrangement. I cannot understand how that can be allowed to happen and how a State agency can grant a licence to what is a known polluter under European regulations without any bond being in place. Therefore, it is very important that this amendment, if it is not accepted, leads to a commitment from the Minister to State to us today that the Department is serious about taking on the EPA and making it accountable to us, as citizens, and to the Minister of State, as a representative of the Government. She should make the protection and health of our citizens the EPA's priority and not make the EPA a big welcome mat for multinationals and conglomerates to come in and walk all over communities that do not welcome them. First and foremost, we must stand up for our people. The EPA should do exactly what it says on the tin - namely, protect the environment. Unfortunately, as has been said a number of times here, this has not been the case. I fully support the amendment.