Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am going to respond to amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. They relate to the insertion of an additional Oireachtas approval between the assessment of An Bord Pleanála and the approval to be issued by the Minister. I propose to reject these amendments as they would add an unnecessary step to the process that could delay the commencement of on-site works.

The second amendment requires the Minister to only approve the designated development further to an additional process set out in amendment No. 3. That process requires the movement of a resolution in both Houses of the Oireachtas, with additional reports and conditionality over and above what is set out in the legislation. I reiterate that the purpose of the legislation being proposed is to remove all unnecessary administrative steps so that the relevant approvals can be issued as soon as may be possible. There is already a process available to the Minister to approve a proposed development to address an emergency under section 181(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has done this for a development at the North Wall power generation station. What the Senators are proposing here goes beyond the existing provisions, and it would seem counterproductive to concede to such an amendment where time is of the essence. What is proposed here is shorter than the one that is already on the Statute Book. I have set out why that is necessary.

I want to address some of the potential concerns. The proposed legislation requires the Minister to arrange for an assessment of the proposed development in advance of approval. This goes beyond the strict requirements of the EIA directive, whereby member states are required merely to consider whether an alternative form of assessment would be appropriate. We will be carrying out the alternative form of assessment. The assessment will be carried out, although it may happen in a phased manner, something that is suggested in the Commission guidance on this matter. Moreover, provisions are included to comply with the birds and habitats directives to ensure Ireland complies with its obligations therein. These are set out in section 6. It is my intention to ensure there is public consultation on these assessments. I also draw the Senator's attention to section 7(1), under which the Minister is required to take into account the assessments of the board and any conditions recommended by it when approving a development. It is the Minister's intention to do that. During the debate in the Dáil yesterday, it was claimed that the wording of section 7 meant the Minister did not have to take into account the assessment of the board. I disagree with this assertion and note that the reference to "may" relates to the options the Minister has in terms of the types of decisions. However, in coming to that decision, he or she must take into account the assessment of the board.

What the Senator is proposing goes beyond this and requires, in effect, that a second assessment be carried out by Members of both Houses. In that regard, not only would the amendment add an unnecessary step to a process in which time is of the essence, but it would be a retrograde step in respect of powers already available to a Minister in the planning Acts. I therefore reject these amendments.