Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 22 is a relatively minor amendment. It seeks to ensure a notice of a screening determination for the environmental impact assessment, EIA, would be published on the website of the Department, together with information on the procedure for seeking to have that decision judicially reviewed. The screening determination, which decides whether an EIA is needed, is something which can be, and sometimes rightly has been, challenged. I seek to ensure the notice is on the Department's website and it is clear to people what actions they can take if they believe the screening determination has been erroneous.

Amendment No. 23 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 34 to provide that, in respect of a Minister's determination in regard to a relevant application, the Minister would demonstrate due regard to the results of the EIA. We discussed this in another context. There are replications of other amendments in other parts of the Bill. The Minister of State pointed to places where he believed due regard is required. This amendment is an attempt to strengthen that. It seeks to make sure the EIA is not simply seen as a procedural point to be tipped through. We need to bear in mind this is something which is not always necessarily done by a Minister of State but can be done by a Minister. We need to ensure the EIA actively informs, and is demonstrated to inform, the Minister's ultimate determination.

Amendment No. 24 seeks to provide that, in section 34(6), if an applicant, before submitting an environmental impact assessment report, EIAR, to a Minister under the chapter, so requests it, the Minister shall, after consulting the applicant, the board and the local authority in whose functional area the relevant monument is situated, the regional assembly in whose administrative area such a monument is situated or any other person whom the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances, give an opinion in writing on the scope generally and level of detail of the information to be included in the EIAR. The Minister will be aware that the question of how a local authority is engaged with is something we previously discussed at length. The reason I include the word "generally" is because I want to ensure there is no danger an applicant could claim he or she was not asked by the Minister to provide specific information and, therefore, there would be a reasonable method by which an applicant could not provide full information. It is a significant ask. It is one thing for a Minister to give guidance regarding an applicant, but that guidance should not preclude the general duties of an applicant in terms of the relevant environmental information.

Amendment No. 25 seeks to insert a new subsection into section 34 which provides that nothing in subsection (6), which is the subsection where the Minister is giving guidance to an applicant around some of the information the Minister wants to ensure is included, is seen as in any way precluding or limiting the obligations and responsibilities under the EIA directive, which is, of course, law in itself. We do not want a situation whereby it is the case that if you do not ask, I do not tell. We may come across that danger. If information is required by the directive which the Minister happens not to have mentioned in this advice to an applicant, it would be unfortunate if the information were not to be included.

Amendment No. 26 seeks to amend section 34(10) by deleting the phrase "the extent to which".This arises from the same concern. While the phrase "the extent to which" can be viewed positively in that the Minister is making it clear that a minimalist approach to information would not be adequate, there is also a danger that the phrase could be seen as setting a limit in terms of how much is needed.

All of the amendments seek to ensure that "relevant opinion" would include additional information specified in Annex IV of the EIA directive and this will be contained in the environmental impact assessment report, EIAR, concerned.

Much of the language used in this section comes from the directive. While the directive is the context, it has been identified, including by citizens in the biodiversity forum and elsewhere, that Ireland has not always been the best at applying EU law and that sometimes there can be great creativity applied in finding ways to avoid the application of the letter and spirit of these directives. I am trying to copper-fasten the sections against such evasions, misinterpretations or genuine errors in terms of shortfalls of information. While I acknowledge the language used is taken from the directive, I hope my amendments, whether the Minister of State can accept them or not, offer an opportunity to signal how the Minister of State believes the directive should be interpreted. I would welcome his response.