Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

A copy of the Minister of State's speech was not distributed. Will the Minister of State remind me how many amendments he proposes to bring forward on Committee Stage? I am wondering why they were not included in the Bill as drafted so we could debate those issues on Second Stage, as would normally be the case.

I read the briefing note that was drafted and circulated last week and the words "unauthorised developments" were used on two separate occasions. I am sure I have heard those words in the course of this debate. What we are talking about here are illegal developments. These developments are breaking the law. They do not have planning permission or consent under Irish or EU environmental law. Because of the failure of previous governments to deal with the issue and because of their failure to legislate to create a process to deal with it, there are an enormous number of illegal developments in the State. There are illegal quarries, illegal peat harvesting and illegal wind farms, such as the one at Derrybrien.

Sinn Féin welcomes this Bill because there continue to be far too many illegal developments. We want to work with the Government to fix this issue. These developments are not only in breach of planning law but are potentially causing significant destruction of the social, economic and environmental well-being of our communities. It is not some minor issue.

I mentioned Derrybrien wind farm in south County Galway. A piece in The Irish Timeson 8 February 2022 stated:

The peat slide in October 2003 during excavation work for the wind farm saw 450,000 tonnes of peat disturbed over an area of 25 hectares and resulted in the mass movement of 250,000 tonnes of material downslope.

Inland Fisheries Ireland told the appeals board that investigations after the peat slide indicated that about 50,000 fish died in an 18 km stretch of river down to Lough Cutra.

The State has already amassed fines of €17 million as a result of an ongoing failure to ensure proper standards were adhered to at the Derrybrien development.

I understand this is the single biggest case of an illegal development in our history. For 20 years, because of an illegal development, the social, environmental and economic well-being of this part of Galway has been devastated. Because of an inadequacy on the part of the State and its Government, €17 million worth of fines has been amassed.

In February, An Bord Pleanála ruled on the matter and refused substitute consent to the ESB subsidiary Gort Windfarms. The wind farm should never have been built. I am concerned that the decision by An Bord Pleanála does not state what should happen next. Who is going to pay? Who is going to clean up the mess? Who will undo the environmental damage? Who will compensate the local community? The Bill is silent on all of those issues when it should have been the place to outline what happens next. What is left for the people of Derrybrien who have had to endure 20 years of destruction? Given what they have had to put up with and the scale of the fines the State has had to pay, it is important we get this legislation right. We are supporting the Bill but we have genuine concerns I hope the Minister of State will address. I hope we can resolve those concerns here in the Seanad or in the Dáil at a later time.

The legislation is doing away with the application to leave stage. Why are we doing away with that stage in the substitute consent process? It is removing a significant step in the process and, therefore, I would like the reasoning to be explained in full.I am also concerned that we are allowing someone who has applied for substitute consent to simultaneously apply for permission for a new development. Sinn Féin is of the view that the go-ahead for that new development is essentially rewarding somebody who has been breaking the law with a fast-track planning application. It does not make any sense if somebody who has been breaking the law for a number of years gets this favour from applying for substitute consent and gets fast-tracked planning permission to do something else. If someone who has been breaking planning law wants to apply for a new development, that should be done through the mainstream planning process. There should be no access to a fast-tracked process for a new development rolled in with the substitute consent process. Let us not reward bad behaviour in planning.

I am also surprised that there is no consideration in this Bill for the sub-threshold developments and that they have been excluded from the Bill. I would like the Minister of State to explain that in his response. Whether the original development would have automatically required an EIA or an EIA screening, both should have to be addressed in this Bill and it is a mistake that they are not. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's response to that. Substitute consent should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and I am disappointed that the Government has not strengthened the exceptionality test. My fear is that illegal developments will secure substitute consent even if there are no exceptional grounds involved. Why did the Government not revise or strengthen the existing exceptionality test and amend that legislation? In this Bill that has been removed or transposed from the old legislation.

I ask the Minister of State to outline to the House exactly what he is doing about public consultation. The better the public consultation process, the better the outcomes for everyone. What level of access will the public have to information, consultation and documentation? Is the Minister of State satisfied that the legislation is fully consistent with the Aarhus Convention? Has the Attorney General been consulted to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are consistent with our legal responsibilities under the Aarhus Convention? A series of quarry-specific amendments to this Bill have been introduced but they were not in the general scheme. Why has the Government done this and what are the full implications of those changes?