Vol. 655 No. 3
93 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he has taken to introduce legislation that will apply the polluter pays principle to businesses and operators that damage the environment through their actions or failure to act in order that they would be made legally and financially accountable for the environmental damage they cause; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20788/08]
121 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding the publishing of the Screening, Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Options for Transposing the Environmental Liability Directive; if there were submissions from the public; the timescale for publishing draft legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20790/08]
125 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government when it is planned to bring in legislation that will ensure that if damage is caused to the environment by an oil spill from a ship, a leak from a chemical plant or damage from genetically modified organisms, those responsible for the environmental damage can be held legally and financially accountable; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20789/08]
130 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the warnings or opinions Ireland has received from the European Commission on its failure to transpose the environmental liability directive; the steps that have been taken to respond to the European Commission; when the directive will be transposed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20787/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 93, 121, 125 and 130 together.
My Department has prepared a screening regulatory impact analysis on the options for transposing the EU environmental liability directive. This document is available on my Department's website, www.environ.ie. The views of interested parties were sought on it, and 29 responses were received from a varied group of respondents. These views have now been assessed. A summary of the views submitted will be published as part of the further consultation on the transposition of the directive.
Preparatory work on drafting the legal instrument for transposing the directive is under way in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. I will publish the draft instrument for public consultation as soon as possible.
My Department has received, from the European Commission, a letter of formal notice and a reasoned opinion under Article 226 of the EU treaty about the transposition of the environmental liability directive. Responses to this correspondence issued to the Commission on 26 July 2007 and 31 March 2008, respectively. There has been no further correspondence from the Commission.
I thank the Minister for his reply and congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, on his appointment. The questions I put to the Minister relate to the need to transpose the environmental liability directive into Irish law. I have asked about this previously, most recently in December. At that stage, the Minister said he was preparing the screening referred to, that it was on his website, he was awaiting replies and preparatory work was already being done on the draft legislation. He has said more or less the same in his reply today, but has added that he has received 29 responses, will have further consultation and will then publish draft legislation as soon as possible.
We had three years from 2004 to transpose this legislation. The deadline for transposition was April 2007. A year ago we received a formal notice or first warning from the European Commission for not having met the deadline and transposed the law. The Minister responded to that notice on 26 July and this year received a reasoned opinion from the Commission, basically a preliminary to the Commission referring us to the European Court of Justice for our failure to transpose the legislation.
It is now almost four years since the directive was put in place. We missed the three-year deadline and now another year has passed. The Minister has been a year in the job and no progress has been made. If he was not in Government, this is the sort of delay the Minister would have said was a black mark against Ireland. The issue should be treated as urgent.
Why do we need this directive implemented? For example, if we had an oil spill off the coast — we have 1,600 km of coastline — like the one that occurred off the coast of France in 1999 when the ship Erica sank resulting in catastrophic damage to 400 km of the French coast and causing the death of tens of thousands of birds, we would have nothing in law to ensure the protection of our environment or to ensure that those responsible would be held legally and financially accountable. We need the directive implemented in order to deter operators of ships, incinerators and other facilities from causing damage to the environment. If it were implemented, they would know they would be held legally and financially accountable.
Why does the Minister not give more priority to this sort of issue? He is a Green Party Minister and the directive is about protecting the environment. The Minister could make his mark with this. He could put on the Statute Book something that would be there for good and protect the environment. However, he is just doing fiddly little things on climate change awareness and similar issues. Transposing the directive would be a concrete and significant move for the Minister. If he does not do it, he leaves us vulnerable as our environment may not be properly protected. What will he do about the situation?
Speaking about fiddly little moves, I noticed the Deputy had an interesting press release yesterday on the issue of clothes lines. The directive will be transposed by a combination of primary and secondary legislation. The timescale is dependent on the drafting and passage of the legislation, but I intend it will be completed before the end of 2008. As I said earlier, we will see what the Deputy has to say when it is completed. I wonder whether she will be complimentary then or whether she will find some other reason to criticise us, which I suspect will happen.
It is interesting that neither Deputy Tuffy nor Deputy Wall, who also submitted a question on this issue, made any submission on the regulatory impact analysis.
When we are in office, we will do that.
The Deputy seems to have misunderstood the situation relating to the directive. She gave an example of an oil spill from a ship. The environmental liability directive, ELD, precludes its application to environmental damage or to an imminent threat of such damage arising from an incident in respect of which liability or compensation falls within the scope of a number of conventions which are in force in the member states concerned.
Let me give a specific example. For Ireland, this includes the International Convention of 27 November 1992 on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and the International Convention of 27 November 1992 on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. Where the damage to the environment is not covered by these conventions and is assessed by the competent authority as environmental damage within the meaning of the ELD, the operator of the ship concerned will be subject to the liability provisions of the ELD. Therefore, the scenario outlined by the Deputy is already covered.
It should be noted that under the ELD, water damage only concerns specific waters, including the territorial seas, which extend approximately 12 nautical miles out from the coast, while damage to protected species and natural habitats under the ELD extends to the exclusive economic zones, the 200 mile exclusive fishery limit.
The issues referred to by the Deputy are already covered. We are undertaking a thorough process to deal with the directive. We will complete the legislation and it will be a combination of both primary and secondary legislation.
The directive was spurred on by the sinking of the Erica, which is why I gave it as an example. There are obviously specifics in the directive about exemptions and defences. If there was an oil spill or damage was caused to our coast or our waters or if our land was contaminated or operators of facilities with an IPCC licence damaged the environment, the legislation would mean they could be held financially responsible for the damage. Therefore, the Government could recover the costs, if for example there was a threat to wildlife. The Government launched a report a few weeks ago about the threats to many species in protected areas. What if environmental damage was caused to habitats in protected areas? The legislation needs to be in place to ensure the safety of such habitats. It can help prevent damage by acting as an incentive not to cause damage, but if necessary it can help to recover costs and hold those who cause the damage to account.
The Minister said he hopes to have the legislation in place by end-2008. While long overdue, it will be welcome then. The Minister has been in office a year and has not got it done yet. As far as I know, it is not on the Bills list, although it should be if it is to be introduced in 2008. I do not understand why the Government must have so many consultations about straightforward legislation. The consultation on this legislation has already been done. We have had the three years plus another year for it.
This is a European directive which must be transposed into Irish law, which should not be difficult to do. We do not need loads of consultations and submissions. The Labour Party does not see the need for all of that. That is playing for time. The Minister needs to get the legislation in place now. When exactly in 2008 will he do that?
The delay in the transposition has been due to the complexities of the directive and its interface with existing national environmental legislation. As the Deputy may know, 15 other member states, including the United Kingdom, are in a similar position to Ireland in not having transposed the ELD. I intend to do so and have spoken to the Commissioner on the issue. I have assured the Commissioner that it is my intention and top priority to ensure EU environmental directives are transposed. That and the question of infringements are most important. The Deputy is correct that I published a report on the habitats directive. It was a warts-and-all report which spelled out in much detail that there is some way to go in the protection of some sensitive species such as the freshwater pearl mussel which is on the brink of extinction. I outlined in detail the steps I am taking to ensure this does not happen.
While the Deputy claims we have been in government for 11 months but have not yet transposed any directives, we have given extra funding, an increase of 42%, to the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Parks and Wildlife Service so they have the means of protecting our habitats and species.
This is one of three directives, according to the Minister's reply, that is outstanding for transposition into environmental law. It is one of 29 infringements about which the Commission has been in contact with the Department. There is a strong possibility that Ireland may be referred to the European Court of Justice this year and fined if the legislation is not given priority. When does the Minister expect to hear from the Commission on this matter?
So far no steps have been taken to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice. Next week, I will meet the Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, in Luxembourg. We have met frequently to discuss this issue. On taking office I made it clear that my first priority was to meet the Commissioner to assure him that this Minister puts the transposition of EU directives at the top of his agenda. Without that legislation coming from Europe, this country would not have the environment it has. We are dependent on it and it is one more reason people should vote "Yes" to the Lisbon treaty.
I am afraid I will have to stop the Minister there as this is Question Time and not a platform for other matters.
94 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, following the requirement on all planning authorities to develop or update their policy on taking in charge of estates by the end of June 2008, there is a requirement to report progress to his Department. [20774/08]
108 Deputy Kieran O’Donnell asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will amend the planning Acts to clarify the taking in charge of estates sections to stop confusion over what should be taken in charge by a council instead of a management company, or to increase the responsibilities of councils to take in charge further sections of developments instead of requiring a management company to shoulder the burden; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20881/08]
119 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number, following the requirement on all planning authorities to develop or update their policy on taking in charge of estates by the end of June 2008, of local authorities that have complied with this requirement to date. [20775/08]
140 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the new service indicators for the taking in charge of estates being introduced in 2008; and the data they will return. [20776/08]
456 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he is taking to ensure existing housing developments are taken in charge by local authorities. [16177/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 94, 108, 119, 140 and 456 together.
Section 180 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 sets out the legal requirements for planning authorities for the taking in charge of residential estates where certain conditions have been met. Updated policy guidance on this matter in the form of circular letter PD 1/08 was issued to all planning authorities by my Department in February 2008.
Facilities required to be taken in charge are set out in the policy guidance. They include public roads and footpaths, unallocated surface parking areas, public lighting, public water supply, foul and storm water drainage and public open spaces. The guidance also sets out the limited circumstances in which planning authorities should attach conditions to planning permissions for management companies or other management arrangements.
Each planning authority was asked to develop or update, as appropriate, its policy on taking in charge by the end of June 2008 on the basis of the updated policy guidance, and to ensure its revised policy be made available to the public, published on its website and continue to be reported on to the elected members on a regular basis.
The new service indicator for the taking in charge of estates will provide benchmark data from 2009 onwards for monitoring the taking in charge process and, in particular, the priority being accorded by individual planning authorities to the taking in charge of unfinished or legacy estates. The information to be reported will include the number of estates taken in charge in the year in question, the total number of dwellings in these estates and the number of estates in respect of which enforcement action was taken.
Since I was elected, I have noted the Minister invites ideas from across the floor of the House. May I suggest regarding the nuclear test ban Bill that he removes the provision that allows only for imprisonment for 12 months or a fine of €5,000 for the detonation of a nuclear device in Ireland?
Will the Department record the information from the local authorities when it is collected by the end of June? How many local authorities have complied with the guidance requirements to date? The recently issued circular from the Minister states what local authorities should have been doing already. There are few new requirements in it with no major breakthrough in the planning area. Ultimately, it is a matter of enforcement. Should the circular allow local authorities to carry out enforcement to ensure developments can be taken in charge? Often local authorities find when taking in charge of an estate that the developer is broke or no longer in business. Should we ensure the costs for taking in charge are kept to a minimum rather than local authorities having to make up the shortfall to get estates to standard and taken in charge?
The developer of a residential estate is statutorily required to complete the development in accordance with the terms of the planning permission. A development which has not been completed in accordance with the planning permission is an unauthorised development. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, planning authorities have substantial enforcement powers. A planning authority may issue an enforcement notice on a development requiring such steps as it may specific to be taken within a specified period. A planning authority may also apply to the High Court or the Circuit Court for an order requiring any person to do or not do anything that the court considers necessary to ensure the development is carried out in conformity with the planning permission.
I want to strengthen the enforcement powers available to planning authorities. The section 35 amendment introduced in the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 allows a planning authority to refuse planning permission without recourse to the High Court to a developer who is in substantial non-compliance with the terms of a previous permission.
The implementation of the new policy in this area will require the commitment of additional resources by planning authorities, particularly with pre-application consultations and the inspection of construction. There may also be a cost for additional remedial works that may be required before older estates can be taken in charge.
Record levels of general purposes grants have been provided this year for local authorities from the local government fund, amounting to approximately €1 billion. I am confident the level of funding made available is adequate to meet ongoing local authority needs.
The Department has also completed a review of planning application fees which the local authorities requested. These were last increased in 1998. A public consultation process on the matter has been completed and I am expecting a report on the outcome of that consultation presently.
Speaking on this topic a month ago I put two questions to the Minister concerning the number of local authorities that have compiled this information. When the deadline of 28 June as detailed in the circular arrives, will local authorities be required to report to the Department that they have drawn up the guidelines as set out in the circular? Is it the case that these guidelines from the Department do not add anything further to what is being enforced or is in place under legislation? Local authorities have plenty of guidelines and circulars; the difficulty is with enforcement.
I am conscious that there is very little time remaining and four Deputies wish to speak. I ask the Minister to be brief in his reply.
In reply to Deputy Ciarán's Lynch's question, no local authority has reported but the deadline is the end of June. As I stated in my previous reply, I am of the view that they have the necessary resources. The Department is issuing circular letters to the local authorities to say that this is important work which must be done. It is not just a question of allowing them to issue guidelines; this matter is very important and the Department will be following it up. I have no doubt that the Deputy will also be following up on it.
I suggest that we take two questions at a time because four Deputies have indicated.
Can the Minister confirm that all local authorities have discontinued the practice of putting in conditions that management companies be set up when granting permissions for housing estates? I know the Minister is taking this matter seriously but he is up against developers and the local authorities. I know from replies received to parliamentary questions in 2006 and 2007 that in the past circulars were sent to local authorities. How many local authorities replied to those circulars? What happens in the case of an estate where one side is left undeveloped so the estate is not complete? A builder may have built 300 or 400 houses, a management company is set up and one side of the estate is left vacant. What happens in that case? Has the local authority any authority to take over that estate or must the management company continue despite the efforts of the householders?
I appreciate the Minister's response with regard to the circular setting out what local authorities should and should not take in charge. The key issue concerns timeframes and bonds. The problem concerns the situations where estates are not being taken in charge for between seven and 13 years. The solution is quite simple. Guidelines should set out much higher bonds which developers must pay, bonds which are worth losing. If an estate is not completed to the satisfaction of the local authority after, for example, an interval of five years, the developer would lose the entirety of that bond. This must be a bond worth losing because currently it is only about €10,000 or €11,000. If it is a bond worth losing then the local authority could use that money to finish the job. This is the key reform that needs to be put in place.
I am conscious of the time.
My questions covered the same areas as the previous questions——
So the Deputy has no questions.
I agree that the bonds need to be much higher because the developers and builders are walking away from these housing estates without finishing them because it is not worth their while having to finish them. Will the Minister issue a directive to ensure the housing estates are taken in charge within two years? We need a timeframe.
Will the Minister assure the House that he will take whatever powers are necessary to ensure that areas of land which were designated in original planning permissions as open space will remain in public ownership? This is a scandal in Dublin where the local authorities did not formally take these open spaces in charge and they are now being sold on with people applying for planning permission.
New service indicators are now in place. Planning authorities will be asked each year to provide the following information in respect of the previous year — the number of residential estates for which the planning permission has expired in respect of which formal written requests for taking in charge were made either by residents or developers; the number of estates taken in charge in the year in question; the total number of dwellings in these estates; the number of estates not completed to the satisfaction of the planning authority in line with the planning permission, in respect of which requests were received; the number of such estates in respect of which enforcement action was taken in the year in question and-or whether the bond was called in; and the number of such estates in respect of which works were undertaken by the authority to bring the estate to a taking in charge standard. Those are the main elements of the new service indicators and they will definitely have an effect.
I take on board the comments made by Deputy Varadkar about bonds. Deputies have asked about direction. The main elements of the policy guidance will be incorporated into the new sustainable residential development guidelines which are currently available for public consultation. They will be issued later this year under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Planning authorities are obliged to have regard to such guidelines in the exercise of their functions under the Planning Acts.
The question posed by Deputy Barrett is also important. The preservation of green space must be a priority. One of the things I noticed on taking office is that we do not have either a landscape or a parks policy. I would regard such policies as being essential components to enhancing people's quality of life or to preserving existing quality of life which would deteriorate if there was a shortage of green space. I know that in the case of green space which is supposed to be protected, this can be gradually eroded. The Deputy's point is valid and I will make this a priority.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
