Vol. 172 No. 6
I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, to the House. Before we commence, I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.
As there is no one here from the Labour Party group, amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, will not be moved.
I apologise for being late.
We were making tremendous progress before the Senator arrived. However, in the circumstances, I will give her an opportunity to move the amendments.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 34, after "2000" to insert ", provided that an environmental impact statement for the purposes of this Act shall be carried out by a person who does not benefit financially from the approval of the project to which it relates".
As the amendment was discussed on Committee Stage, I do not propose to delay the House. Its purpose is to make clear that environmental impact statements will only be valid for the purposes of the Bill when carried out by an independent person. An environmental impact statement carried out by a person who stands to gain from a project is of considerably less value than an independent study.
Considering that environmental impact statements have been an important feature of the planning process for a number of years, it is extremely important that they be held in good standing. The amendment is specifically designed to meet this requirement. I have encountered cases – echoed by my colleagues – in which people believe the environmental impact statement is of insufficient standing. The object of the amendment is to ensure they are carried out by independent persons and are accepted by everyone involved in the process.
I second the amendment. It is important we protect the independence of environmental impact statements. They are requested by ordinary individuals and frequently address issues which affect human health. I support the amendment.
The amendment seeks to ensure that a person or company carrying out an environmental impact statement which is associated with a planning application for which an IPPC licence is required has no financial interest in the project in question. Senator Ryan spoke on the amendment on Committee Stage and highlighted what he regards as the way in which an environmental impact statement may be nuanced in favour of the applicant, given that it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit an EIS. Notwithstanding his arguments and those made today by Senator O'Meara, I remain of my original view and, therefore, decline to accept the amendment.
As I mentioned on Committee Stage, the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 dealing with environmental impact statements are based on the requirement in European Union Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended. The directive is clear on the point that the developer should supply the relevant information to the consent authority. If the amendment were to be accepted, we could find ourselves in a position where a company with the in-house technical expertise required to prepare a satisfactory EIS would find itself forced to employ outside consultants, as it could be argued the in-house team, as with all employees, would benefit financially if approval were granted. This appears unreasonable.
I remain of the view that testing the adequacy of the environmental impact statement and taking the appropriate action should remain the responsibility of the relevant local authority, An Bord Pleanála and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the decision-making process will be open to public scrutiny. The substantive legislative provisions on environmental impact statements are found in the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Senator Ryan's proposal would not apply exclusively to the environmental impact statement requirements with regard to the IPPC licence applications, but would have general application. If the matter is to be pursued, it should be done in the context of planning legislation.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are cognate and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 15, line 4, after "section" to insert "3B or".
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would have a similar effect. As it stands, section 3B would allow the Minister to amend the Act in certain circumstances. The language used in the section confers considerable power on the Minister. The amendment proposes that the approval of the Oireachtas be required before he or she exerts such power. All that is currently required is that the Oireachtas be informed. Given the wide-ranging nature of the Bill, this provision is not sufficient and needs to be strengthened.
I second the amendment.
The new section 3B reflects the direct link between the Schedule and the IPPC directive. It is impossible to anticipate the changes, if any, the European Union may make in the licensing annex of the directive. What is certain, however, is that if the EU imposes more strict controls than those set out in the Schedule, Ireland must follow suit. Section 3B will give the Minister the flexibility to amend the Schedule by way of regulation should the Community require this to be done. It also allows for the making of purely technical amendments to the Schedule. Otherwise, the Oireachtas retains its current rights as set out in section 7 of the 1992 Act, which would mean that any other amendment in the Schedule would require a positive resolution of both Houses.
I reiterate the point I made on Committee Stage that an Act adopted by the European Union requiring changes in the Schedule under section 3B would be subject to the new Oireachtas scrutiny arrangements. Also, I am advised by the Attorney General's office that the proposed section does not involve an unauthorised delegation of power to a Minister but gives a reasonable level of flexibility. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept the amendments.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 34, lines 42 and 43, to delete "shall have an absolute discretion to" and substitute "may".
This amendment is self-explanatory. The section confers considerable powers on the Minister. It is not suitable to use the words "absolute discretion" in that regard, nor is it suitable in terms of the Environmental Protection Agency. Putting the concept of absolute discretion into legislation does not appear to be a good precedent or practice.
We would have sympathy for the EPA's position in this part of the legislation, and that was set out on Committee Stage by my colleagues, but the principle that it should not have absolute discretion in that regard is an important one.
I second the amendment.
With all due respect to the Senator, this amendment achieves nothing in a legal sense. It seeks to change a permissive power for the EPA to hold an oral hearing, "shall have", to another permissive power, "may". I maintain the view expressed on Committee Stage that using the word "may" instead of "absolute discretion" makes no material difference.
I also repeat my view about maintaining consistency, which is an even more important point, between the IPPC and the waste codes. The absolute discretion construction in the Bill mirrors exactly the provision in section 42(11) of the Waste Management Act 1996 in respect of a decision on the holding of an oral hearing on a waste licence. I want to maintain that consistency. The legal advice is that the amendment does not make any difference and, therefore, I do not accept it.
Without reference to the Oxford English Dictionary, I would have thought there is considerable difference between "shall" and "may", particularly in the context of legislation. On more than one occasion in this House I have heard long discussions on Committee and Report Stages about the difference between "shall" and "may". I accept the Minister has the Attorney General's advice in that regard but there is a considerable difference between "shall" and "may".
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are Government amendments which have also been tabled by the Labour Party. Is it agreed to discuss amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together? Agreed.
On Committee Stage we discussed the question of including the words "or affirmation" after "oath" in the relevant parts of the new section 88 dealing with the EPA oral hearings. The advice to me at the time from the Attorney General's office was that this was not necessary as a reference to an oath includes an affirmation, and that remains legally the case. However, in the light of comments made by Senators on Committee Stage, and in keeping with my approach of trying to encompass as many views as possible in the legislation, and precedents already established in this regard and in other legislation, I propose that we formally provide for affirmation in the Bill, something on which Senator O'Meara was keen.
I thank the Minister for his positive response on this issue. Those who are familiar with Labour Party amendments to legislation will be aware that this issue comes up frequently. It is almost a standard amendment on our part and I cannot think of any Minister who has not accepted the principle of it. I ask the Minister to say to his colleagues that this principle should be adopted on a broad level. Perhaps the Attorney General should take it on board because it is a non-contentious issue at this stage. It has been accepted by all the Minister's colleagues and it would save us all some time if it were taken on board at the correct level. I thank the Minister and appreciate his response.
This is a correction to the syntax of the text. There is no change in substance. It is a technical amendment.
We now move to amendment No. 8. Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 are cognate. Amendment No. 12 is consequential on amendment No. 8 and amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 14 are alternatives to amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 13. Is it agreed that we discuss amendments Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive, together? Agreed.
I undertook on Committee Stage to consider the implications of proposals to extend the provisions of section 99(h) to give jurisdiction to the Circuit Court as well as the High Court in relation to matters set out in the section. As a result, I am now bringing forward amendments for consideration by the House.
Apart from including references to the Circuit Court in a number of places, the main change proposed is to include a new subsection (3), which details the role of the Circuit Court in relation to applications under the section. It provides as follows: first, the applications are to be made to the judge of the Circuit Court in which the relevant activity is being carried on; second, the Circuit Court may hear cases appropriate to its jurisdiction and on considering this the factors it will take into account will include the nature and extent of any environmental pollution being caused and the estimated cost of complying with the court order sought; and, third, the Circuit Court may transfer the more serious cases to the High Court. These amendments introduce additional flexibility to the proposed section and to the enforcement provisions available under the IPPC licensing regime. The amendments respond well to the constructive comments made by the Senators on Committee Stage, which I welcome.
I thank the Minister for his response to what he called genuine concerns raised on Committee Stage. The object of our amendments was to keep legal costs down by giving the Circuit Court a jurisdiction in cases of unlicensed activity. From the point of view of groups which would take it upon themselves to go to court in the event of unlicensed activity or in the event of concerns they might have about something that has happened in their community, it would be important that they be of the view that the courts are accessible to them, particularly in terms of costs. Given the Circuit Court jurisdiction in that regard, this amendment is extremely important and broadens the accessibility of the legislation. I commend the Minister on his response to the points raised on Committee Stage in that regard, which enhances the legislation considerably.
I welcome the Minister's response to this issue. On Committee Stage we raised the question of access and flexibility and I am glad the Minister has included the Circuit Court also, for which I thank him.
I, too, welcome the amendments. There is a difference in cost in bringing a matter to the Circuit Court or to the High Court. It is important that members of the general public, organisations and other bodies are given access to the courts and that this provision is included in the legislation.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 62, to delete lines 29 to 33.
This amendment returns to the thorny issue of bin charges and the refusal by councils to collect refuse from people whose charges are overdue. The response to that problem in the Bill borders on the draconian. The council should be limited. We are not saying it should not have power to take action against someone who refuses to pay the charges but giving the councils power to refuse to collect household waste is going too far. The amendment seeks to dilute the power given in the Bill, limiting it to the council being able to pursue an individual in the courts for the amount due.
I second the amendment.
It is not right to require a local authority to continue to collect household waste from a person if that person fails to pay relevant waste charges, nor is it right that people who comply with the law and pay the charges should subsidise neighbours who refuse to comply and that is what the Senator proposes in this amendment. The polluter pays principle underpins this legislation and it is wrong to say to people that there is a way around this when there is not. Would we tell people not to pay their gas or electricity bills or their television licence? It is the same category and we must see this issue in the context of the examples I gave because waste charges belong in that category. They are a legitimate component of the costs for the services we receive and that is how it should be seen. The public is prepared to accept this and we should move on from this issue.
If the position was the same throughout the State the Minister's argument would hold up, but there are differences between local authority areas where waste collection has been tendered to private companies and those that are still collecting waste. The principle remains the same but different circumstances are involved. In some parts of Dublin there have been non-payment campaigns.
I want to arrive at a situation where waste is charged for by weight because that will overcome the differences. We are moving towards that and it will be a major step forward because everyone will pay the same by weight and it will encourage people to recycle, minimise and compost. I take the Senator's point but we are moving in the right direction.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 73, line 14, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This deals with the waivers. Section 35(3) of the Bill allows the local authority, if it is satisfied it is appropriate on the grounds of personal hardship, to waive all or a portion of a charge made by it. That is fine where the local authority is the waste collection agency, but there might not be a power of waiver if collection has been tendered out to a private contractor. There are increasing numbers of hardship cases where people cannot afford to maintain a wheeled bin or pay the costs of waste collection because of the escalating costs of collection and landfill. There is a relationship between that and illegal dumping.
In my own area there has been an increase in the number of wheeled bins being given back to waste collection companies. Despite the fact that competition has lowered costs, the increases this year have been so high that they have caused problems for the elderly and single parent households. Waivers are very important.
The amendment would replace "may" with "shall" because local authorities would then have to put a waiver scheme in place for hardship cases. Otherwise any waiver scheme is at the discretion of the county manager.
I second this amendment. We have seen enough powers transferred from elected members to county managers in the Bill and provisions for waivers should be supported.
We discussed this at some length on Committee Stage and I do not propose to accept an amendment that would compel any local authority to provide a mandatory system of waivers in respect of all or part of waste charges. I am maintaining the status quo that works extremely well across the State. The local authorities are not currently under an obligation to provide for waivers in respect of waste charges and it will remain a matter, as it is currently, for each manager in the local authority to determine whether to provide for a waiver of waste charges and to decide the parameters of such a scheme. In practice, I would expect local authority managers, when they exercise the proposed new power, to continue to address the need for waivers for low income householders in a sensitive and sympathetic manner.
I see no merit in a mandatory requirement regarding waivers where the letter of any such legal requirement could be fulfilled without providing meaningful relief to the waiver recipients. From what I have heard from colleagues in all parties and councillors from across the State, this works in a harmonious way. If it is not broken I am not going to fix it.
Senator O'Meara might be right about people giving back wheeled bins but there are smaller bins and special bags that can be bought. People are putting out less refuse because there is more concern about recycling. In Galway there was a debate on this. Landfill sites will last longer, now that there is more recycling and smaller bins are being used.
I was referring to people telling me they were returning their wheeled bins because they could not afford them. At the same time, many people are genuinely attempting to reduce the amount of household waste generated, not only because of the costs involved, but also for environmental reasons. I prefer to see a positive incentive towards reducing household waste and one which does not encourage illegal dumping. I believe the Minister wants to achieve this, but I do not agree with his approach. We all want to achieve a positive environment for reducing and recycling household waste, composting and reducing packaging. When shopping, I have noted the large amounts of packaging with purchases and it is something we can do without.
The Minister said that if it is not broken, why fix it. That is fine in the current context, but this legislation will change that context considerably by increasing the powers of the manager regarding the setting of charges and so on. I am of the view that this amendment is necessary.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 74, line 25, after "not" to insert "save by the express permission of the planning authority".
I am a strong advocate of local democracy and there is a role for the local authority in this area. This is a planning issue and there are provisions in all county development plans concerning planning matters, waste disposal and fly-postering. As a director of elections in the past, I know how quickly local authorities take action regarding the removal of election posters after elections. We should incorporate the local authorities in this area because they are at the forefront in implementing policy. Local government is being undermined. There are local issues that a local authority might be more aware of and it is important to include them.
Senator O'Meara referred to the fact that people may be forced to return their wheeled bins because of inability to pay. Can we get the Minister's viewpoint on this? We do not want to see the countryside, the highways and byways covered in litter. Some scheme should be available for people who cannot afford to pay for waste collection services. These people must be facilitated to ensure the environment is not damaged by illegal dumping.
I second the amendment.
The exhibition of advertisements and articles is already subject to development and control under section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. They already require planning permission. The amendment, as drafted, would have the effect of removing planning controls from advertisements as these would now be subject to the exemption in section 19 of the 1997 Act, in respect of articles and advertisements authorised in advance by property owners or occupiers. Like other categories of development there are certain exemptions, in particular certain advertisements are exempt if they fall within the cases of exempted developments set out in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 and comply with the conditions and limitations described therein.
These regulations, as the Senator knows, were recently considered by both Houses and were approved by way of positive resolutions in December 2001. Accordingly, both Houses have had the opportunity to consider the content of these regulations, including the different classes provided for exempted advertising developments. I have no proposals to change these regulations.
Turning to controls on advertisements in the litter code, under section 19 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997, an exhibition on property of articles or advertisements that are not exempted development under planning law requires the prior written authority of the owner, occupier or person in charge of the property. We are tightening these controls in the proposed new section 19(1) by requiring that advertisements or articles carry the name and address of the person on whose behalf they are being exhibited. This was welcomed by all sides of the House.
Local authorities have broad powers under section 20 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997 to require the removal of any article or advertisement and that other specified steps be taken regarding the advertisement or article. This power applies irrespective of whether the article or advertisement is exempted development under the planning system. Local authorities may exercise these powers in the interest of an amenity or the local government.
I am satisfied that adequate legal provision exists to enable local authorities effectively to control litter arising from the exhibition of articles and advertisements. Notwithstanding the good intentions of Senator Bannon, we have covered all the different areas by agreed position of both Houses. I welcome the fact that the amendment was put down to make that clear in the House.
I move amendment 18:
In page 76, line 25, after "wash" to insert ", clean and brush down".
"Wash" can be taken to mean just a splashing of water. It is important to note that there are certain facilities that require more than this type of wash. Materials, such as a dye, require cleansing agents and the assistance of a brush to remove them from amenities and facilities. The amendment is simply to clarify the definition of this term.
I second the amendment. Senator Bannon mentioned this on Committee Stage. He has stated very clearly how these words should be properly defined. I support the amendment.
I support Senator Bannon's amendment. It may seem innocuous but it is also a useful one.
I am happy to accept Senator Bannon's amendment. It is a worthwhile improvement to the Bill. If I am presented with a good idea, I am always happy to accept it.
I thank the Minister for recognising that this will be a good, if simple, addition to the Bill. I thank colleagues on all sides of the House for their support in respect of it.
This technical amendment makes a drafting change to clarify that the obligations on owners or managers under the by-laws made by local authorities under the section can be met by their arranging for the exterior of their premises to be washed and cleaned in the manner required in the by-laws.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 82, line 20, to delete "650" and substitute "750".
The scale threshold in the integrated pollution prevention and control directive states that 750 pig rearing units should be allowed, while the Minister has made provision for 650 places for sows in breeding units. One could get the impression that the only farmers affected by the Environmental Protection Agency Act are those engaged in licensable activities. Section 6.2 of the EU directive chart allows for 750 to 2000 places in respect of pig rearing activities, but the Minister has come inside those guidelines in terms of what he proposes.
Members of the agricultural community, particularly those involved in intensive production, are very concerned and believe this is a considerable clawback. The countryside is designated for agriculture and agricultural activities should be allowed to continue in the manner in which they have done heretofore. In many cases one is dealing with ordinary farm manure, which has been used on the land for generations and contains nothing that would create a problem. These rules are limiting agricultural production. I hope the Minister will consider increasing the number from 650 to 750, as allowed under the EU directive.
I second the amendment.
I am surprised at Senator O'Meara's seconding the amendment. I do not believe that it follows the Labour Party approach. The Senator's colleague, Deputy Gilmore, might be aghast. I will take it that the Senator has seconded the amendment on a purely technical basis to get the discussion going as it is not primary Labour Party policy.
Senator Bannon's amendment touches on issues that have been raised by farming interests and have been the subject of extensive discussions with them. Those discussions have been productive and resulted in a number of positive outcomes. For example, in the Schedule we are clarifying interpretation issues that arose from the 1992 Act. We are bringing into Irish law the concession in the directive which allows practical considerations to be taken into account in the licensing of intensive agriculture. This is done in section 86(2) and we have also changed the definition of sow in paragraph 6.62 of the Schedule. That paragraph includes the directive's limit of 2000 places for production pigs. There are, however, two other types of pig producers: breeding only, for which the limit in the directive is 750 places; and integrated breeding and production, for which no limit or provision is specified in the directive. We must be fair to all types of producers, taking account of their impact on the environment.
Our experience in relation to licensing pig numbers indicates that the directive limit of 750 breeding sows is too high and would result in breeding units being treated more leniently than production units. The technical advice available to me is that the phosphorus loading from slurry produced by 650 breeding sows is similar to that produced by 2000 production pigs. The Bill provides accordingly in order to ensure that licensing takes effect at a similar point in terms of the environmental impact, whatever the type of intensive pig rearing operation. This is the most equitable approach for everyone involved in that business.
On the Senator's proposal to delete the reference in line 21 to 270 sows in an integrated unit, the House should note that most intensive pig rearing in Ireland is carried on in integrated units. The Senator's proposal would ensure that there would effectively be no reference in the Bill to integrated operations – the major feature of intensive pig rearing. This would not be satisfactory.
The 1992 Act requires licensing of integrated units with 300 or more breeding sows. Due to the fact that 2000 production pigs would be equivalent to approximately 400 sows in an integrated unit, the amendment would represent a major retreat on the requirements of the 1992 Act. I do not believe that we want to take a backward step, a view that is generally accepted by farming representatives. The provision in the Bill that an integrated unit with 275 places for sows be licensed maintains broad consistency with those requirements and ensures equity between integrated pig farmers and those who concentrate on either fattening or breeding. In light of the statistics I outlined in respect of phosphorous loadings from 2,000 production pigs, breeding operations with 650 sows and integrated units with 275 places for sows, I believe the proposal is equitable and balanced.
When the Bill was first presented there was a great deal of public disquiet in the agricultural community. Farmers claimed that when they seek licences, a great deal of information is sought about their activities, the quantity and quality of farm land they possess, etc. They believed that their freedom to farm their land was threatened and undermined by the amount of red tape, etc., involved in getting an enterprise off the ground. Macra na Feirme and young farmer organisations have expressed this opinion forcibly. There is a disincentive for young farmers to take over the family farm and develop another enterprise. Those involved feel that the amount of red tape is pushing them off their farms.
That is an agricultural issue.
That is not an environmental issue.
It is relevant.
The Senator should confine himself to environmental issues.
Young farmers feel it is not justified. They are not going into farming because of the environmental restrictions.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 82, to delete line 21.
I second the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are related and may be discuss together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 86, line 13, after "(including landfill)" to insert "without benefit to agriculture".
There is a difference of opinion as to whether the use of manure on farm land constitutes fertilising or a waste disposal activity. Assistance could possibly be provided by the addition of the words "without benefit to agriculture" at the end of item 1 in the new Third Schedule to be inserted in the 1996 Act. Perhaps the Minister would comment on the amendment which, I believe, will build in safeguards for the agriculture sector.
I second the amendment.
The purpose of the Third Schedule to the Waste Management Act 1996 is to transpose the provisions of Annex IIA of Council Directive 75/442/EEC – the framework waste directive – which specifies waste disposal activities for the purposes of the directive. Similarly, the Fourth Schedule to the 1996 Act is intended to reflect waste recovery activities specified in Annex IIB of the directive. Minor changes to these annexes were made by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996. These amendments were carried into the 1996 Act by means of the European Communities (Amendment of Waste Management Act 1996) Regulations 1998. The opportunity is now being taken to confirm the amendments to the two Schedules by means of a statutory provision. As these annexes are fundamental to the application of the directive, it is essential to ensure their precise transposition into national legislation. The European Commission could consider a departure from its substance a breach of the directive which no doubt would lead to legal proceedings. For the reason outlined, I cannot accept the amendments.
Farmyard manure is used on farmland as a fertiliser. It is not a waste recovery activity. It is important that farmers can use it in the traditional manner. Nowadays there is not that much of it coming from the calf shed. We are all used to spreading it on land. There is a fear, however, among the farming community that this practice may be discontinued. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this. Fertilisation and intensive farming have been reduced somewhat with CAP reform changes and targets, etc. There is an element built into the REPS to reduce intensive farming.
The recent Fischler proposals involve lower inputs and the use of less energy in farming. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this because there is a genuine fear—
I will not get into the Fischler proposals with the Senator.
There is a genuine fear among farmers that they will not be allowed continue to farm in the manner in which their fathers and forefathers farmed. The restrictions are impinging on areas designated for agricultural development. There are those who want to build a nice house in a rural area and then object to farming practices. A person who lives in an area designated for agricultural development does so by choice and should not come in and disrupt the nature of activities in the area. Sadly, in many cases there has been such disruption, not always by Irish people but by foreigners. While they are very welcome – we are all citizens of the European Union – they can have an effect on farming activities in an area by objecting to a development and spending considerable amounts of cash in getting their objections through. As a result, farmers are inhibited from farming in the manner in which they have done for several generations. I want to ensure they are not inhibited from farming. Up until a few years ago, it was the main industry in Ireland and a much respected one.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 87, to delete lines 21 and 22.
I second the amendment.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the considerable amount of work that has gone into this legislation. It contains much technical detail which is obviously of huge importance to many people, as Senator Bannon pointed out. The commitment of the Minister in this regard is not questioned. Certainly, his openness to good ideas is not in question either.
I certainly hope our position on control of the amount of waste we are producing and the manner in which we produce it is moving in a positive direction. We certainly are having problems. I hope the relationship between local authorities and the people they serve can be improved in that regard.
My party does not approve of the framework which the Minister is putting in place in response to problems which have arisen around the country. It remains to be seen, therefore, how it will work in practice. We still have a long road to travel in reaching our recycling targets, reducing waste, managing landfill sites and putting in place alternative strategies. I look forward to working with the Minister to that end with this and future legislation.
I, too, thank the Minister for coming into the House for the various Stages of the Bill. As we all know, local democracy is an essential element in any democratic state and the machinery by which important services are provided. Such legislation is important to ensure a healthier environment. As I said, I hope there are not too many obstacles put in the way of development in the agricultural community.
Farmers are not major polluters, despite what has been said. They are sometimes blamed unfairly. I am a farmer. Any farming activity I see shows respect for the rural community and the rural way of life. It is those involved in farming who are the greatest advocates of preserving rural life. I hope they will always be facilitated by Government. They are an important asset to the maintenance of rural life and long may it be so.
Unfortunately, matters progress. As we have become part of a greater European Union, it has become common to adopt many European practices. Perhaps that is not in our best interests. It is important that we maintain our heritage and culture and what is best of rural life. No matter where one travels in Europe or the world one meets people who have visited Ireland who like the Irish set-up, the way we manage our affairs, the rural environment, the by-roads, etc. There is something unique about our country which should be preserved. It is important that in any legislation coming before us we take genuine Irishness into account at all times.
I, too, thank the Minister for his attendance for the various Stages of the Bill. While it mostly deals with the licensing provisions, we discussed many other environmental issues. I thank the Minister, in particular, for his support for the Tidy Towns competition to which I referred and also for the fact that so many schools are involved in the green flag programme. I was recently at a function at which the 19th school in County Galway received a green flag. I am told there will be a lot more green flags in Galway before this year is out – and that is just one county. Much credit is due to An Taisce for its work on this project. I am glad we have got this far with the Bill. No doubt we will be returning to these issues in the months and years ahead.
I thank the Senators for their remarks. This is a very important Bill, which makes a substantive contribution to Ireland's environmental legislation. I hope that it signals my determination, which has been recognised on all sides of the House, to keep environmental issues at the top of the agenda. We disagree on various issues from time to time, but that is the business we are in.
I hope Senators on all sides recognise that I try to embrace any good ideas that are introduced in the Seanad – I am glad the Leader is present to hear this. That is why I try to spend time in the Seanad through all the Stages of a Bill. I have never been involved in a Bill that has not been improved in this House. The debate that takes place here is very important. As a Minister, I try, within reason, to stay for the entire debate and I must say I learn a lot. The quality of the debate is very helpful to me. I have found this throughout my political life.
I am delighted to have introduced this Bill into the Seanad. It is a much improved Bill that goes forward to the Dáil. I thank my officials and all involved for their help and assistance to me in preparing this legislation and I thank everybody for their contributions.
I propose an adjournment until 6.15 p.m., when the Minister will be available.
