Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14b:

In page 4, lines 12 and 13, to delete “the proposals arising from” and substitute “any proposals being considered during”.

Section 4 lays out the process that will apply to a review. The two amendments relate to the sequence in which the elements of a review and a post-review will be taken. The Bill indicates that the Minister will carry out a review of three issues which the House has discussed at length. I refer to section 4(4) which states:

The Minister shall, in relation to the effects on the environment of the proposals arising from a review under subsection (1)—(a) carry out an assessment, including public consultation, under the European Communities (Environmental Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004 (S.I. No. 435 of 2004), and

(b) if it is required, carry out any other—

(i) screening for an assessment, or

(ii) as the case may be, assessment, including public consultation.

The Minister of State has articulated his intent to apply the provisions of section 4(4)(a) and (b). I would much prefer if he engaged in public consultation under the relevant European Communities Acts and regulations and if the findings of social and environmental impact assessments were applied prior to proposals being made. I am concerned that there will be a ministerial review within very limited criteria in designating or dedesignating from which proposals will arise, following which there will be public consultation and so on. Particularly when social and cultural needs will be among the factors to be considered when making proposals, it seems economic, social and cultural needs would be a natural fit. I would, therefore, like public consultation and both social and environment impact assessments to be part of the development of proposals, rather than something that will happen after the fact.

If amended, the section will read: "The Minister shall, in relation to the effects on the environment of any proposals being considered during a review under subsection (1) ... carry out an assessment" and so on.The Minister of State made it clear they are part of his intent. Why not do these things during the consideration of proposals rather than after the fact? It is a simple step but it would ensure the proposals that emerge from the review process under this legislation will be more robust and that it will not be the case that a Minister will conduct multiple reviews and then discover there are problems subsequently. It would be better if the review itself were more comprehensive and included all these factors. It would lead to better outcomes. With regard to the actual issues associated with the bogs the Minister may wish to designate or de-designate, about which I acknowledge the Minister of State is concerned, it would probably be a smoother process to incorporate them into proposal generation.

I hope the Minister of State might be able to consider accepting my amendments. I recognise they might not be perfectly worded and that is why I introduced both amendments Nos. 14b and 14c. I am hopeful that in the limited time left to the Minister of State, and perhaps to the Dáil, he might be able to address the timeline issue. If he has an alternative proposal as to how it might be addressed, I would, of course, be very willing to see it accepted instead of mine.