Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as ucht na leasaithe. We had good discussion on these on Committee Stage. The proposals mirror each other regarding the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. They both concern the laying of orders made by the Minister under both Houses, setting timelines of six months on such orders, as the Deputy outlined. Section 7 of the Act of 1992 and the new section 44C of the Waste Management Act of 1996 already provide for the laying of such orders before each House of the Oireachtas. With regard to the proposal to place a time limit of six months on the orders, we genuinely do not believe that would be appropriate. The new section 88C transposes Article 1(3) of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive into the 1992 Act and reflects a similar-type provision under section 228 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Where the activity is for the sole purpose of the defence of the State - we had a good debate on this at committee - or, indeed, responding to a civil emergency, it is considered that the appropriate place for a time limit of such an order, if required, would be within the order itself to which the emergency relates rather than in the specific Act. A section 44C order made under the Waste Management Act 1996 simply removes the proposed determination stage of the licensing process and could only be applied in limited circumstances. I assure the Deputy that where an accident or emergency is associated with the licence application, a time limit on that type of order is not required. Therefore, as I set out at the committee, and I say this respectfully, I do not propose to accept either amendment.
Sentiment score: -0.10
Yes. The proposal is to put any timeline on that as opposed to in the Act itself. This should be a very rarely used provision.
Sentiment score: 0.13
Labhróidh mé ar leasaithe a 4 agus a 11. I will address both amendments together. These proposals mirror each other with regard to the EPA Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. They would go beyond the obligations set out under Article 2(4) of the EIA directive and may not meet the objectives or purpose for which the emergency provision is required. I assure the Deputy that new sections 88D and 44B were drafted following detailed and considered deliberation with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that they are absolutely fully compliant with the requirements of the EIA directive and they reflect a similar-type of provision under section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. All applications for a licence or review of a licence or, indeed, a revised licence are currently placed on the website of the EPA for the public to make submissions within a period of 30 days to the agency. This process will continue and the provisions of the new sections 88D and 44B will not change that. I am more than content that the intent of the Deputy's amendment is dealt within the Bill itself and, indeed, referencing back, to ensure that it is reflective of the provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2024. As I set out in a bit more detail at committee, on that basis, while fully understanding the intent, I do not propose to accept those amendments.
Sentiment score: -0.01
Tá an freagra chéanna agam arís faoin na leasaithe sin, leasaithe a 6 agus a 13. Ní aontaíom leis na leasaithe sin agus nílim ábalta aontú leo mar gheall ar an freagra chéanna ar leasaithe a 4 agus a 11. They are already linked. These amendments are linked to the previous ones that we discussed, amendments Nos. 4 and 11. I refer to those new sections 88D and 44B of the Bill. It is the same answer that I gave previously. The proposed amendments would go beyond the obligations that are already set out under the EIA directive and might not meet the objectives or the purpose to which the emergency provision is required. I am more than satisfied - táim lán-sásta faoi sin - that the provisions already within the Act, and in section 88D of section 15 of this Bill and section 44B of section 26, are appropriate as they stand. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the amendments.
Sentiment score: -0.12
Labhróidh mé ar leasuithe Uimh. 7 agus 14. Mar a dúirt mé cheana, níl mé in ann glacadh leis na leasuithe seo. Is é an freagra céanna atá agam arís. I reiterate that I am more than happy that the new sections 88D and 44B, as drafted, are fully compliant with the directive and san Acht forbartha freisin in 2024. Therefore, as set out on Committee Stage, bhí plé fada againn faoi na leasuithe sin sa choiste. We debated this matter at some length at the select committee. I am satisfied that the provisions contained in these new sections are appropriate. I cannot accept the amendments.
Sentiment score: 0.02
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as ucht na leasuithe seo. Labhróidh mé faoi leasuithe Uimh. 9 agus 17 le chéile. These amendments again relate to the EPA Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. They propose that ministerial regulations be prescribed in the context of timeframes for decision-making and the reporting obligations of the agency. Regarding the proposed new subsection (4), provision to prescribe such regulations is already provided for in the new section 90B(2)(c) of the EPA Act and the new section 46B(2)(c) of the Waste Management Act. On the proposed new subsection (5), in its annual report, the agency already reports on the number of applications, decisions and proposed determinations made in a given year. The amendment to section 51 would oblige the agency to provide details of the number of proposed determinations made within the prescribed period. Therefore, there should be no need to detail the number of determinations made outside that period because that will be evident. This does not preclude a request by the Minister to the agency to provide such information. That would have been very useful. Perhaps if we had got the amendment a little sooner - that is not a criticism - we could have taken action because this is something that needs to be monitored. As stated, however, the Minister is not precluded from making a request to the agency to provide the necessary information. There is also no preclusion on it being provided by means of replies to parliamentary questions. On this basis, I am genuinely satisfied that the provisions in this regard are appropriate. Therefore, as set out on Committee Stage, I do not propose to accept these amendments.
Sentiment score: 0.02