I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen.
Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, before section 5, but in Chapter 2, to insert the following new section:
"5.—The Minister shall publish and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a strategic review of existing foreshore legislation and a new framework for foreshore licensing and development within six months of the enactment of the Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009.”.
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House and thank him for his constructive comments on Second Stage. The amendment arises from what has been at the kernel of the debate so far. The point has been made by a number of speakers on all sides of the House that the existing foreshore framework is inadequate and outdated. It is no longer able to cope with the changes that have taken place and the opportunities that have come to the fore — excuse the pun — in recent years. I refer to opportunities in sea fishing, aquaculture, wastewater treatment plants, commercial harbour developments, and wind, wave and tidal energy projects. The legislation governing these areas dates back to 1933. It is fair to say that, not surprisingly, that legislation was not drafted with these modern projects in mind. This is resulting in significant delays in processing applications for licences for aquaculture and renewable energy projects, both desirable fields of endeavour, which means there has not been adequate consideration of planning and development needs in the areas concerned.
It is appropriate that we are discussing the Bill immediately following statements on the devastation caused by flooding across the country because the latter demonstrates the importance of proper planning measures and procedures. We cannot afford to drag our feet any further. As the Minister of State is aware from queries to his Department, there are many instances of applications being put on hold indefinitely. First-time applicants or those renewing applications do not receive a response within an acceptable timeframe. This is largely due to the outdated system, one that could be said to be stifling progress and frustrating people. No doubt departmental officials find it difficult to deal with the cumbersome system in place.
On Second Stage the Minister of State promised a strategic review of the foreshore planning system was being considered. He indicated that a new framework would be drafted and put in place to expedite projects. The philosophy behind the amendment is to ensure the Minister of State's aspiration will become a reality, as will ours, and that we will not miss out on opportunities for investment in job creation and economic growth. We have delayed for long enough. Fine Gael suggests a target should be set to reform the system to avoid further delays and produce badly needed jobs across the various sectors. We believe the framework we have suggested would be adequate, given the extent of the work already done, in particular by the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. That committee, under the chairmanship of my party colleague, Deputy Barrett, has carried out investigations and done significant work, including the production of a draft Bill, which appears to have provided the Minister of State and his officials with a firm footing on which to begin a strategic review and bring forward much delayed and much needed legislation.
We heard on Second Stage that investments in the region of €16 billion, which is an enormous sum, are at our disposal in terms of potential investments in renewables and other energy generating projects. All of those projects are now in a queue, so to speak, awaiting approval to some degree or other.
The message from the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and from this debate is that we must capture that potential and reach our renewable energy 2020 targets and to do that we must push these projects forward. Our amendment is designed to help in that regard and I hope the Minister of State will give it consideration. I look forward to his observations on where we should move in regard to the thinking behind this amendment.
There is certain merit in Senator Bradford's amendment. He has rehearsed the arguments and I will not repeat them but the lack of a timescale is a concern. There is no limit as to the period by which a licence application must be granted. It has been a major problem. It is also a problem with the Bill currently before the other House and which we argued here. It would appear to be a sort of protection mechanism if there is no time limit by which a person can reasonably expect to have a foreshore licence granted, particularly in this area of foreshore licences where there is major exploration involving massive costs. The costs for ships that go out to do explorations are massive. There might only be three or four of them in the world and they must be booked well in advance. That is the reason time delays are critical.
Senator Bradford, in his Second Stage contribution, referred to the cost to this country's economy of allowing these delays to continue for years. There are many projects in the pipeline about which there is deep frustration which will be lost because we do not have a time line. The all-party committee on climate change examined this in the Bill we produced but it is important we have some form of recognition that matters need to be expedited in this area fairly quickly.
I should point out that the objective of the Bill is to transfer specific foreshore functions from this Department to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and to transfer the dumping at sea functions to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has already indicated his intention to reform significantly the foreshore legislation following the transfer. The amendment proposed by Senator Bradford properly belongs within the reform package envisaged by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, given the degree of consultation with stakeholders such a strategic review would require.
I am aware that officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government previously met with the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and that they are happy to come before the committee again to update it on developments. Along with the two Senators who have spoken, I agree with the principle of the amendment but my concern is that it would be inappropriate to include it in this kind of legislation, which is merely transferring functions, when what they are talking about, and what we all want to see achieved, is a different review and one that will be undertaken by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as soon as we complete this process and hand it over to him.
I welcome the fact the Minister does not appear to oppose the principle of what we are trying to put in place. His suggestion is that it would be more appropriately presented when the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government legislation is produced but our concern is the delay and the time factor. I welcome the words of support from Senator O'Malley because we are all trying to achieve the same target. We are all trying to ensure that blockages and delays are removed. We believe the insertion of this new section in the legislation would be more than an aspirational demand but rather put pressure on all of us and the various Government agencies and Departments, and the Government itself, to respond. Unfortunately, legislation can remain in the pipeline not just for months but for years and, in some cases, decades and if we are to bring about the situation we all desire, we must remove the blockages and the delays. That is the reason this section would put a demand on Government to react rather than simply kick to touch.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, subsection (1), after line 42, to insert the following:
"(c) regulation made under paragraph (b) shall be made within 30 days of the commencement of this section.”.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Minister outlines a timeframe for the submission of observations and applications for foreshore leases, licences etc. within 30 days of the commencement of this section of the Bill. It goes back to my submission on the first amendment that much of the difficulty arising in this area has to do with a general lack of progress in processing applications. They do not appear to be expedited at the rate people would desire.
We recognise there are serious environmental issues at stake and these matters of concern must be adequately considered during the consultation process but at the very least the Minister should make every effort to ensure the process is in some way defined and that an adequate but not unduly excessive timeframe is allowed for the submission of observations and presentations from the various bodies and groups interested in whatever applications are made.
We welcome the observations to be presented to the Minister's Department but some limit must be put in place to ensure we can deal with delays. If we want to move this legislation forward and making it work we must set the bar at a reasonable height for ourselves and 30 days would be a reasonable limit in that regard. It should not be so open-ended that it goes on forever. I ask the Minister to consider our request favourably.
I echo Senator Bradford's words for the same reason because if one knows there is a closing date by which submissions must be made matters can move on. There is merit in the amendment but I look forward to the Minister of State's reasoning as to whether he will accept it. He gave good cause for not accepting the previous amendment. I am glad Senator Bradford did not press it to a vote because the Minister gave a good reason it need not go that far. I am supportive, as I believe the Minister is, in that we are keen to get applications expedited as quickly as possible. There is merit in the amendment but I look forward to hearing the Minister's reasoning.
This section of the Bill gives the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, following consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, power to make regulations specifying the bodies which are to submit their observations and also the time period within which such observations are to be submitted to either Minister, or sometimes to both, in regard to foreshore consent applications. It is the intention of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to make these regulations as and when appropriate. Such a measure will be part of the reform proposals envisaged by the Minister to which I have already referred. It would not be possible or even desirable at this stage to have a 30 day time limit on the process. It is, however, fair to say section 12 achieves what both Senators have been talking about in terms of a time limit. What falls to be decided is when the Minister will be in a position to do this. There are considerations about projects that might come into play, particularly bodies which might be specified as bodies for consultation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(4) The making of submissions by a local authority under regulations under this section or under section 19A shall be a reserved function.".
This amendment speaks for itself. We are calling for the making of submissions by a local authority to be a reserved function in order that there would be a role for councillors.
The purpose of the Bill is merely to transfer the functions to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who has indicated his intention to undertake a significant reform of the foreshore legislation. The amendment would result in a substantial change to procedures and, therefore, must be considered in the context of the proposed reform package. For that reason, I cannot accept it in the context of the legislation we are dealing with.
In so many ways the Government appears to have little confidence in councillors and has engaged in a long campaign to deprive them of powers using a range of Bills. One small way to reverse that trend would be to provide that, when the local authority is consulted under this section, making submissions would be a matter for councillors, not the manager. I note, however, the Minister of State's remarks in the context of the Bill and will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, line 12, to delete "2005" and substitute "2009".
This is a technical amendment that updates the citation of the Harbours Act to reflect the recent Act. Our legal opinion has indicated that it would be possible for the Government to accept the amendment.
Initially I thought the amendment was appropriate but the citation in section 12 is appropriate in these circumstances because paragraph (d) deals with the term “harbour authority” which is defined in the Harbours Acts 1946 to 2005, not “harbour companies” which are dealt with in the Harbour (Amendment) Act 2009. That is why the reference is appropriate.
I defer to the Minister of State's legal advice on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, line 25, after "be" to insert "but not later than 30 days".
This amendment deals with the timeframe for the publication of notices in newspapers for the receipt of submissions on environmental impact statements. The purpose is to stipulate that a person who has submitted an EIA related to an application should place a notice in a newspaper within a specific timeframe to let other interested parties know it has happened and to ensure the process is not delayed by a lack of awareness or consultation. It would be preferable for it to happen earlier than 30 days but at least the timeframe should be introduced because the wording in the Bill is not definite and could act to delay the consultation process. It is a reasonable suggestion.
The subsection is an amendment of the European Communities Foreshore Regulations, SI 404 of 2009. The amendment, as proposed, would require the applicant to advertise public consultation in newspapers within 30 days of making the application. These applications which require an environmental impact assessment are very complex and will often take years to compile. The Department must first assess the completeness of the application and then arrange the logistics of making the application available in local Garda stations, libraries and other places. In addition, the applications are usually advertised in fishing and coastal newspapers and periodicals. The amendment would substantially reduce the access of local communities to the environmental impact statement and application, running counter to the State's obligation under the Aarhus Convention. For that reason, I cannot accept it. I understand the intent of the Senator but it would not be feasible in this instance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 14, line 14, after "time," to insert "but not less than twice a year".
This amendment relates to the publication of objections or representations made to the Minister with regard to applications for licences. We are trying to ensure a strong level of transparency in the application process in order that access to objections or representations made that may have an impact on a licensing decision would be available to the public and that the public would be aware of them. The section suggests the Minister may make such information available from time to time at his or her discretion. We want to ensure it would happen not less than twice a year at least. We consider this would encourage transparency and be of benefit to the overall process. "Transparency" and "accountability" have become buzzwords in recent years but we must ensure there is both. This amendment would help in that regard.
On line 14, page 14, there is a reference to the European Communities Foreshore Regulation 2009, SI 404 of 2009, which implements the EU public participation directive in respect of the foreshore Acts. This directive is a key component of the Aarhus Convention. These regulations concern the foreshore consents for large projects where an environmental impact assessment is required by regulation.
The words "from time to time" reflect the practice that, as environmental information is received by the Department when processing these applications under the foreshore regulations, the information is made available to the public on the Department's website within days of its receipt. The consequence of accepting the amendment would be that a view could be formed that this information would only need to be made available at designated intervals, as little as twice a year, which would not be in accordance with Ireland's obligations under the convention or the public participation directive and would run counter to the intention of the Senator's proposal.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will continue the practice of making environmental information available on a timely basis. The current practice is to put it on the website within days of it being received. I would not like to create a situation where people would be encouraged to hold the view that they need only do this twice a year.
Will the Minister of State clarify the wording of the section? It states the Minister may make information available in a manner determined by him or her "from time to time". Is that grammatically correct? Is the Minister making the information available from time to time or is he determining the manner from time to time?
The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has informed me that the import of the words "from time to time" reflects current practice to make the information available quickly on its receipt. One thing we must remember about these applications, particularly with regard to larger projects and sometimes to smaller ones, is that important pieces of information are received from time to time and are made available to the public as close to immediately as possible. That has been the practice heretofore. I would be very concerned if we were to indicate to the authority that in future it would be acceptable to put them up only twice a year. The current practice is more desirable from a transparency point of view and is certainly more desirable from a public information point of view.
I understand the Minister of State's point. Perhaps I did not present my argument correctly. It refers, literally, to the way the paragraph is written: "The appropriate Minister shall make available, in a manner determined by that Minister from time to time". Is it intended to read: "The appropriate Minister shall make available from time to time"? The sentence might be constructed differently but, as it stands, it states "in a manner determined by that Minister from time to time", as if the Minister can make one determination today and a different one some time later. It would be better if it read: "The appropriate Minister shall make available, from time to time, in a manner determined by that Minister", etc. That may be a minute point but the language needs to be corrected. Perhaps the other House can deal with such minor matters.
I suspect the point made by Senator Bradford could be dealt with if the comma were to come immediately after "Minister". Section 4 states: "The appropriate Minister shall make available, in a manner determined by that Minister". If the comma were inserted before "from time to time", any additional material would read better in grammatical terms. However, I have had the text examined by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and have an assurance from that office that, as presented, it has the effect of continuing the current practice. In general, that serves the interest of the public particularly well, whatever about the applicant.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 15, lines 8 and 9, to delete all words from and including "for" in line 8 down to and including "appropriate" in line 9.
This is my last effort to put my stamp on the legislation. The reason for this amendment goes back to my party's attempt to ensure greater levels of transparency surround the processing of applications and the decision-making methodology. I suggest the environmental impact statement and other documentation upon which a decision is based should be made available for an unlimited period in the same way that a planning decision may be queried and the paperwork surrounding same is available for an unlimited period.
This section deals with the consultation and information obligations in the context of public participation and directive regulations. The intention of the directive is to make information available during and shortly after the period within which a foreshore application is considered. It is appropriate that this will vary from application to application in accordance with the complexity and impact of the proposed development.
The availability of environmental information is covered, in the longer term, by the European Community's access to information on the environment regulation 2007; SI 133 2007, which ensures environmental information is always made available, regardless of a time period in which the application is processed. This amendment is not necessary, having regard to the fact the existing framework covers such matter adequately.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 15 agreed to.
Sections 16 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
Section 28 comes into Part 3. I raise the case of the missing amendment. I understand my party proposed an amendment on this matter on the basis that Part 3 does not have a subject matter or heading. That appears to be a mistake and without precedent. Our amendment was to insert a heading, namely, "Dumping at Sea".
Is Senator Ryan discussing section 28?
It is a general heading for the sections that commence with section 28.
It does not require a formal amendment.
It is accepted that it is an administrative amendment and will be included subsequently in the circulated copy of the Bill.
Will it be an administrative change?
We submitted it as an amendment but it seems this was not required.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 29 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank all Members who contributed on Second and Committee Stages.
I thank the Minister of State.
Question put and agreed to.