I am grateful to the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the need for the Minister for the Environment to make regulations to ensure that the system of environmental impact assessments complies with European law.
My concerns relate to two matters. First, the fact that the EC Commission has formally complained to the Government that the existing regulations do not comply with European standards. This complaint could lead to an action against the Government in the EC Court of Justice unless the Government clarify the regulations to the satisfaction of the Commission. Second, since the Commission took steps to initiate infringement proceedings the Government have introduced further legislation that may constitute a further breach of European law on environmental impact assessments, EIA.
The background to the Government's difficulties lies in the EC Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment which was introduced in 1985. That directive required that all planning projects likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as their nature, size or location had to be subjected to a procedure that would assess their effects on the environment. This procedure involves a detailed statement from the developer, which statement is called an environmental impact statement, EIS, and comments from prescribed bodies and the public generally and, in certain circumstances, other EC member states.
The EIA has proved to be an extremely valuable tool in the planning process and has helped to clarify the environmental effects of several controversial projects, ranging from various interpretative centres to more major projects such as those proposed by Sandoz and Merrell Dow. That is not to say, of course, that the EIA system could not be improved. One of the concerns of the Labour Party has been that the preparation of an environmental impact statement should be done by an independent, objective expert, rather than by the developer.
The EC Commission has, I understand, complained about several aspects of the Irish regulations which implemented the EIA Directive. Would the Minister confirm to the House that a formal letter under Article 169 of the Treaty of Rome has been received by the Government, when it was received and what the precise complaints made by the Commission were? Could the Minister tell the House the nature of the reply made by the Government and outline whether the Commission has been satisfied with the response?
My information is that the Commission has a number of worries. The first is that the directive was implemented late. It should have been implemented by 3 July 1988. In fact, the Government's regulations did not come into force until 1 February 1990. Delay in implementing directives seems to be something of a habit of the Government, as there are several other environmental directives that have not been implemented.
The second worry is that the regulations were to vague in a number of respects. Too much discretion was given to local authorities, An Bord Pleanála and the Minister for the Environment regarding various stages of the process, such as whether an EIS should be submitted and what it should contain. The duties under the directive were not spelt out with sufficient clarity.
The third worry was that public access to the process of EIA was inhibited by the imposition of fees for making submissions to An Bord Pleanála. However, since receiving the complaint, the Government have increased fees by a massive 100 per cent from 17 February 1992. An applicant who appeals a decision on a commercial development and an air and water licence, and who requests oral hearings on each, now has to pay a massive £422. Even those who wish to submit a short comment on an appeal must pay £30.
The fourth worry concerns the use of section 4 motions. The Commission asked how those could affect or by-pass the EIA procedures.
Of course, the Government have failed to implement fully the recommendations of the Barrington Committee on this issue, the expert advisory committee on local government reorganisation and reform. The Barrington Committee recommended that section 4 should be removed from the planning process. Instead, section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1991, requires a three-quarters majority of councillors for that purpose. That leaves open a possible use of section 4 to conflict with the requirements of the EIA Directive, although the possibilities in that regard would be limited, given the restrictions of section 44 of the Local Government Act. For some councils it can be a problem to have three-quarters of the council present.
These matters are of great concern to the Labour Party who share several of the Commission's worries in relation to the Government's regulations. I therefore ask the Minister to amend the EIA regulations in order to meet the points raised by the Commission.
My second concern is with recent legislation. Article 12 (2) of the Directive obliges the Government to send to the Commission the text of all legislation relevant to the Directive. Could the Minister give the House a list of the legislation notified under that provision? In particular, have the Government informed the Commission, or do they intend to inform the Commission of the legislation, such as the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, which was passed by both Houses last Thursday?
The Labour Party welcome the general principle of ensuring a speedy and efficient planning system, which is enshrined in that legislation. However, I am concerned that the legislation gives too little opportunity to comment on projects and that that may be in conflict with the EIA Directive. The Directive keynote is consultation and exchange of environmental information. However, the legislation interferes with that by providing that neither a developer nor a person who makes submissions can have a chance to respond to points subsequently made by other parties. For instance, a developer does not have the right to rebut inaccurate information submitted by an objector. An Bord Pleanála can allow a reply in very exceptional and limited circumstances, but that is completely inadequate for cases in general.
The Labour Party proposed amendments to the legislation in this House on 24 June 1992. The amendments would have addressed the problem but, unfortunately, they were not accepted.
The Roads Bill, 1991, has been languishing in the legislative backlog for more than a year. My difficulty with the Bill is that the sections of it dealing with EIA for roads and motorways, sections 48 and 49, largely repeat the existing regulations about which the Commission have complained. These sections are extremely flawed because they do not spell out the details of what must be included in an EIS. The information is contained in Annex 3 of the Directive and it is nowhere reflected in either the current regulations or the Bill. If the Minister does not take the appropriate steps to deal with the matter I shall propose an amendment on that issue if and when the Bill reaches this House.
The Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, a legislation to which, as the Minister will recall, the Labour Party made an extensive contribution in both Houses, provides for some amendments to the EIA process. I should like to know when the provisions of the Act relating to EIA will be brought into force. Will it happen in the lifetime of this Government?
The Local Government (Planning and Development) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations, 1992, (S.I. No. 3 of 1992), impose a massive increase in fees for anybody who wishes to be involved in the EIA process.
