Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Before I come back in on the scripted response, I will raise a couple of quick points. Senator McDowell is always a rock of sense and he always makes sensible points. Specifically, I will not make any reference to the Derrybrien case particularly. It is subject to an ongoing planning enforcement and I am not going to give any feedback specifically in relation to it. I will just say that the Irish State is engaging separately on it with the European Commission regarding the fines. I think we had somewhat conflicting approaches from Senators Higgins and McDowell around the issue. This proposed legislation is being designed to comply with the legal cases referred to by Senator Higgins. Separately, I think site remediation on projects like that is also an enforcement matter on which I cannot comment.

Comments were made by Senator Higgins regarding other elements that could impact negatively on the environment such as peat extraction and forestry. As an aside to this, the Attorney General is involved in a review of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has initiated a review of An Bord Pleanála separately, so those are important processes.

I will note too that any relevant planning authority in a substitute consent case provides a report on a proposal to An Bord Pleanála. The planning authority's views are taken into consideration along with the public's views, and exceptionality is at the heart of the substitute consent process. The public are, therefore, fully involved. Senators Boyhan and Higgins both raised the issue of the Aarhus Convention and public participation, and I would agree. It is something about which I feel very strongly and that is something we should cherish. The ability of the public to be involved in such processes is critically important. The public are fully involved in the substitute consent process as per the Aarhus Convention.

The last point I will make is specifically in relation to the points that were made around offshore energy and the impact potentially on biodiversity. Development, be it wind energy or whatever it is, cannot be at the expense of biodiversity. That is why we have a Maritime Area Planning Bill and why we are bringing in marine protected areas. It is critically important that one cannot be at the expense of the other. Again, I welcome the contributions of all the Senators in relation to this.

Specifically then with regard to amendments Nos. 10 and 11 as tabled by Senators McDowell, Craughwell, Mullen, Boyhan and Keogan, which form part of the same suggested change to the operation of the Act, these proposed amendments to section 177E concern the application process for substitute consent and seek to include an additional clause to the effect that all applications for substitute consent must be accompanied by an independent review of the environmental, financial and community impact of the existing development, or the decommissioning of the existing development on lands under consideration. While I understand the reasoning behind the proposed amendments, I am opposing them. The suggested clause is superfluous with sufficient evidence already included as part of the independent planning process administered by An Bord Pleanála and of the various environmental impact reports that already form part of the substitute consent application.