Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Regarding amendments Nos. 27 and 23, the Minister is using the example of having the environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment or the decision that they are not required or required as a proxy for environmental significance when they are not an adequate proxy. They are tools that are useful regarding considering environmental significance but they are not in themselves a complete and shorthand proxy. In amendments Nos. 23 and 27, I am seeking to make the legislation more robust by using the language that is in the Article 6(1)(b) of the Aarhus Convention, which is around activities that may have a significant impact on the environment. I gave examples whereby things that may not be captured by environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment, which are necessarily quite narrow tools, may nonetheless have a significant environmental impact and which, because of that, may be subject to and require public participation regarding Article 6(1)(b). I do not believe that what the Minister of State has put forward is an adequate solution.

I also agree with the many others who for other reasons are concerned about the wide breadth of the kind of development or class of development that might be exempted under this. Terms like "greater flexibility" and "agility" are being used a lot. Even though this all sounds wonderfully athletic, what we actually saying is that there will be less accountability to the Oireachtas, less transparency in terms of us knowing exactly how these are used and less oversight regarding what might be considered an exempted development.

In the context of amendment No. 28, this is a particular concern in the context where, elsewhere in the Bill, restrictions are placed on whether members of the public want to seek declarations as to whether something is or is not an exempted development. This will be a constraint that needs to be looked at again. When it comes to the significant powers that are there, that the public's power to seek declarations is constrained and that things are moving from legislation to regulation that can be changed in an agile, flexible and mysterious way, I am disappointed. We will see issues arise in respect of exempted development. The issue with exempted development, particularly in the context of ministerial discretionary power regarding regulations relating to such development, really goes against the core principle we used to have in planning whereby the Minister would not intervene. Here, the Minister is effectively able to take whole categories of things, including individual developments, out of the planning process. My concerns remain.