Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will speak briefly on the amendment. While there are aspects of amendment No. 11 that are constructive, I suggest it is important that there is like with like such that there is an independent review of the environmental impact, rather than just an assessment of the environmental, financial and community impact. A situation can be created whereby a good financial case outweighs concerns around the environmental impact. A compelling environmental case has been put and we should consider looking at one environmental impact alongside another environmental impact. However, when financial impacts are added in, there is the creation of a situation where like is not compared with like. There is a financial benefit, which is probably a financial benefit to companies generally speaking. As we have heard, they pay the small fines and the State pays the large fines when we fail to deliver on our environmental obligations. That financial benefit could be outweighing the environmental considerations. While the idea of having a wider frame on the environmental considerations, including the impact of decommissioning and rehabilitation and how that works, has some merit, I note that in this amendment the financial impact is placed alongside that.

Unfortunately, what makes this frustrating is that the EU was not suddenly being unreasonable. It signalled earlier that this was coming and it should have been acted upon. Ireland would make a more convincing case if we had shown that we have learned from the incident. Sadly, the message over the past few years, as I have seen, is that Ireland does not seem to have learned from it. Despite this case and despite the absolute waste of energy, time, infrastructure and everything that goes into a project wrongly situated or not planned properly, we have continued to say that perhaps we could save a bit of time by getting through the stages quickly, when we know that it makes for a longer and more expensive journey in the long run. A sign that we have not learned from the experience is that we are reading in the newspapers today that An Bord Pleanála - which, under this legislation, will be dealing with it all on its own - has one ecologist among their 60 inspectors. Of the 60 inspectors, whose advice is not always listened to, only one of them is an ecologist. How could Ireland be paying fines of millions of euro over the last few years and not be thinking that perhaps we could do with having a lot more ecologists and staff who can conduct environmental impact assessments in order that we do not dig ourselves into these holes in the future? Ireland had to be pushed by the European Court of Justice about not doing environmental impact assessments on peat extraction properly. In an 18-month period over the last few years, 1.5 million tonnes of horticultural peat were exported from Ireland. We know that large-scale industrial peat extraction simply was not being properly planned or subjected to environmental impact assessments. The EU gave out to us about forestry and how we were failing to complete environmental impact assessments for large forestry projects. I acknowledge that the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, has increased slightly the number of ecologists in that area. It is important. That is the solution, rather than hoping that fewer people will take appeals.

I sympathise with the idea of specific projects being looked at and the environmental impact and the environmental piece being looked at in the round. There is some merit in the kind of idea being put forward, as indicated by the language in amendment No. 11, as one of the considerations that might be taken into account. However, sadly, Ireland has not demonstrated and is not demonstrating in this legislation that it has learned from the experience and it will not repeat its mistakes. Another example of how we have not learned from it is apparent in the case law that I referenced. Senator Buttimer asked me about that. Specifically, in paragraphs 57 to 58 of the Commission v.Ireland, C-215/06, the original Derrybrien case, the Court stated that: "While Community law cannot preclude the applicable national rules from allowing, in certain cases, the regularisation of operations or measures which are unlawful in the light of Community law, such a possibility should be subject to the conditions that it does not offer the persons concerned the opportunity to circumvent the Community rules or to dispense with applying them, and that it should remain the exception." The Court highlighted, in paragraph 58, that a system of regularisation, such as that in force in Ireland at the time, "may have the effect of encouraging developers to forgo ascertaining whether intended projects satisfy the criteria" for prior assessment. That is why having like with like in the current proposals is important. If the Government wants to bring that in, the public consultation element and the rights of the public, under the Aarhus Convention, to be part of environmental decision-making are important. I am sure there are many members of the public, who, like Senator Craughwell, may make a very strong case from an environmental decision-making perspective that they believe something should be retained rather than removed and started again. The key is that there must a conversation about the environment and environmental decision-making. This legislation actually truncates the public involvement in that by skipping the local authority stage in respect of associated new developments. In that sense, it reduces the opportunities for public engagement in environmental decision-making. The approach of looking at the mistakes of the past to see how we can find the best possible way forward would be more convincing if it was actually accompanied by really strong measures that show a sea change and strong public involvement in an environmental discussion around issues like Derrybrien and many others. It is by strengthening and widening the environmental discussion that we can actually do more, rather than by truncating it again or trying to find ways to smooth out the process retrospectively and into the future.