I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I am pleased to bring the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 before this House following its passage through Seanad Éireann. Other than in a relatively small number of respects, I can reasonably say that the Bill was generally well received in the Seanad. I was struck by the constructive and helpful nature of the contributions of most Senators and I look forward to similar positive engagement in this House. Before turning to the contents of the Bill, I would like to make a few comments on which I think there will be unanimity across the floor of the House.
Care for our environment is a key responsibility. It is sufficiently important to deserve to transcend party political divisions. This is not just for the sake of environmental excellence – a vital and laudable end in itself – but care for our environment is also inextricably linked to the objective of sustainable development. I refer to the idea that we need to achieve the right balance between economic, social and environmental issues so that we can take a comprehensive approach to human welfare and we can work for a better quality of life in all its dimensions. The protection and enhancement of our environment deserves everyone's best attention and commitment for these reasons. We wish to see the most modern and responsive licensing systems put into place, building on the frameworks laid down in the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. We wish to ensure that the polluter pays – I am speaking literally in this regard. We wish to see people acting positively for our environment, right down to local level. Addressing these matters, with a focus on better environmental implementation and enforcement, is at the heart of this Bill.
I expect that there will not be unanimity in this House on all the Bill's provisions. This is to be welcomed in some ways as it shows that the Legislature is doing its job properly. I look forward to what I expect will be vigorous debate on aspects of this Bill, especially regarding some of its proposals on waste management. I listened attentively to contributions in the Seanad on waste management, many of which, though not all, were well-considered and measured. I left that House more convinced than ever that progress, as opposed to rhetoric, is essential. We must intensify our provision of the high quality environmental infrastructure the country obviously needs. I refer, in particular, to waste infrastructure. Nobody should be under any illusions about the enormity of the waste management challenges we face. The broadly-based acceptance that we need to make significant progress in the waste management area is reflected in the new partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, where the social partners have identified waste management as one of the key areas for special focus in the months and years ahead.
We tend to get into difficulty when it comes to turning the awareness of the need for progress into concrete action on the ground. We no longer have the luxury of dancing around the issues. We all know the mix of waste infrastructure required and the difficult decisions that are needed to deliver this simply have to be taken.
Let me refer to the link between care for our environment and the economy. Lack of environmental infrastructure holds a very real threat to our economic future. Potential inward investors need certainty about the environmental regime they will face if they are to commit to this country. They need to know how they can deal with the inevitable environmental challenges they will face. Lack of infrastructure is a key threat to investment, with wider implications for jobs, creation of wealth and the level of social services we can deliver. Ultimately, there are potential impacts on the very lives, and livelihoods, of every man, woman and child in Ireland. It is that serious.
As we embark on our consideration of the Bill, there is a choice to be made about how we deal with it. There is the constructive and responsible route or there is the option that is concerned with short-term political capital. I sincerely hope that we choose the former option. For my part, I will, as I have shown in the Seanad, be open to suggestions which will genuinely improve the provisions of the Bill. The primary aim of the Bill is to complete the transposition into Irish law of the 1996 EU directive on integrated pollution prevention and control, IPPC.
By way of background, integrated pollution control, IPC, licensing under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and waste licensing under the Waste Management Act 1996 have been administered by the EPA since 1994 and 1997, respectively. In general, the licensing provisions of both Acts anticipated the provisions of the IPPC directive and have delivered substantial compliance with it.
After nearly ten years of IPC licensing, 550 licences have been granted and are in force across 13 economic sectors with the potential, unless properly regulated, to cause significant pollution. The licensing system is generally acknowledged to have secured substantial improvement in the environmental performance of the industrial and other activities concerned, for example, reduced emissions to air and water; energy savings; moves to more environment-friendly processes; and lower noise emissions. In the EU context, Ireland was one of the first member states to implement integrated, as opposed to single medium, licensing. This was done in advance of the IPPC directive itself, and to this day we are recognised as among the leaders in this area. Building on the successor to date, the Bill brings national legislation fully into line with the directive by amending the licensing provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996.
Turning to the amendment of the 1992 Act, a number of the key new provisions arise from the directive. Transposing the directive requires a move from integrated pollution control to integrated pollution prevention and control. This is the fundamental difference between IPC and IPPC. It is not just a new set of words or letters. On the contrary, it reflects the increasing emphasis we are placing on the prevention and minimisation of environmental problems at source rather than on controlling them after they have arisen.
The key changes to the operation of the licensing system are contained in chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill. This contains a single section, section 12, which replaces, in full, Part IV of the 1992 Act. The former sections 82 to 99 of the 1992 Act are being repealed and re-enacted with amendments in revised sections 82 to 99H – these 26 sections will constitute the core of the new IPPC code.
The new section 83(5) changes the technical basis of the licensing system from best available technology not entailing excessive costs, BATNEEC, to best available techniques, BAT. Under section 7 of the Bill, BAT is defined as in the directive. The concept of BAT seeks to secure an appropriate balance between necessary environmental protection requirements and what is economically and technically feasible. It represents a process of continuous improvement in environmental performance and, as such, builds on BATNEEC, which was the cornerstone of the licensing requirements in the original 1992 Act.
Section 83(5) also explicitly requires the efficient use of energy in the carrying on of licensable activities. This is common sense, both for industry in terms of working for the most cost efficient production practices and for the environment as we seek to reduce the adverse impacts of energy use. Section 86 relates to conditions to be attached by EPA to licences. Subsection (1)(a) makes it mandatory to include in licences conditions concerning key issues such as emission limit values; the minimisation of pollution; protection of soil and ground water; and what happens on the ceasing of the activity. While many of these issues are already addressed by the EPA in IPC licences, the Bill copperfastens this practice and, reflecting the terms of the directive, requires the inclusion of such conditions in licences.
Deputies will wish to note that the inclusion of greenhouse gases in the definition of "emission" in section 5 will, in conjunction with subsection (1)(b) of section 86, enable the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in licence conditions. This is a useful additional measure to assist in meeting Ireland's obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The start-up of emissions trading from 2005 will influence the longer-term use of this provision.
Section 15 and Schedule 1 to the Bill extend the scope of licensing in light of the directive. While the 1992 Act sought to anticipate the details of the activities to be covered by the licensing regime, the directive as adopted contained some differences. The general approach I have taken in the Bill is to include the activities and thresholds specified in the directive or those already included in the 1992 Act, whichever yields the more demanding standard. I am determined – I am sure the House will agree – that we should retain what is best from the controls the Oireachtas put in place ten years ago, which have secured major benefits for the environment, and build on to them further improvements arising from the directive. Areas where the directive brings more activities into the licensing regime include poultry rearing, the treatment and processing of milk, the slaughtering of cattle, the production of food from animal or vegetable raw materials and the production of paper or board.
There are a number of transitional provisions in the Bill. The new section 82 of the 1992 Act, as inserted by section 12 of the Bill, proposes the following in relation to activities newly licensable by virtue of the directive: new activities will be licensable from the date that the section is commenced; activities which started in the period from 30 October 1999 to the commencement of the section will require to be licensed within six months of commencement or have a licence application submitted within that period – that date in 1999 is the operative one for the purposes of the directive; and activities which were already in operation on 29 October 1999 will be licensable in the period up to 2007, as provided for in the directive. Licences in force under the 1992 Act will remain in force and will be examined by the EPA for compliance with the directive. The agency will take appropriate action to ensure full compliance, again by 2007. This action can include the carrying out of a review of the licence, amending its conditions or declaring in writing that no further action is required.
In addition to requirements arising from the IPPC directive, the second main focus of the Bill is to modernise the integrated licensing regime in light of nearly a decade of experience with it. In particular, amendments are proposed which facilitate better implementation and enforcement.
Section 10 updates the level of penalties available to the courts. The maximum fine on summary conviction is increased from just under €1,300 to €3,000. I was urged to further increase this in the Seanad but the advice available to me from the Attorney General's office was that €3,000 is the highest level to which it can safely go. However, I accepted amendments in the Seanad to increase the daily fine for a continuing offence on summary conviction to €1,000 and the maximum fine for conviction on indictment to €15 million.
The new section 83(5) introduces a requirement on an applicant for an IPPC licence to be a "fit and proper person". This includes being free of a conviction in relation to non-compliance with the IPPC and waste codes, and having the necessary skills and financial resources to carry on the activity in relation to which a licence is sought. I draw the attention of the House to the new sections 94 and 95, which introduce detailed controls in relation to the transfer and surrender of licences.
In a further provision, the new section 97 allows the EPA to revoke or suspend IPPC licences where the "fit and proper person" requirements are no longer met and this occurs in such serious circumstances as to warrant this action. Section 99H enables any person to take Circuit Court or High Court proceedings where an activity is being carried on in contravention of the Act. The inclusion of the Circuit Court in the section emerged from the debate on the Bill in the Seanad. In cases under the section, the courts can make such orders as they consider appropriate.
Taken together, these measures represent a considerable strengthening and modernising of the powers available to the EPA in relation to implementation and enforcement of integrated licensing.
Turning to the waste elements in Part 3 of the Bill, I am proposing, in addition to requirements arising from the IPPC directive, a number of other important amendments to the Waste Management Acts. Despite the obligation under the 1996 Act to make waste management plans, it was not until the Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 was enacted, that proposed regional waste management plans were finally adopted. It provided that making such plans would be an executive function and that the variation and replacement of plans would remain a reserved function, subject to the consent of the relevant city or county manager over an interim period of four years.
