There are no amendments proposed to section 7 but it has some worrying aspects. The Minister is being given the power to require the board to give further information which is not contained in the EIS. Will that be in response to submissions made under section 6 (3) that the EIS is inadequate? Is it at that stage that the submissions come into play? In other words, can one make a submission to the Minister under section 6 that he should exercise his powers under section 7?
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I am advised that one will be able to make a submission under section 6 and the Minister will have to consider it in relation to section 7. Any submission the Minister receives under section 6 must be fully considered by the Minister and in practice will be applied at whatever point of the process the submission covers. The Deputy's question can be answered in the affirmative.
Under section 7 (2), must the Minister notify the public that he has made this requirement for additional information, which will have to go on display at the same time as the plan?
Yes.
Does it follow from that the Minister must rapidly make his mind up on section 7 (1), because if it must be on display with the other material it must be done as a preliminary step?
That is correct.
Has the Minister an approximate timeframe for that being done?
There is an overall time-table under which the Minister would like to see progress on this so that there would not be undue delay at any stage. I hesitate to suggest a timeframe at this stage but there will be no delay.
As I understand it, section 7 provides that if the Minister considers it necessary he may require CIE to furnish him with additional information about the effects on the environment. Why does he conclude that he can get that information only from CIE? Why should it not be obtained from an independent evaluation of the effect on the environment? What additional environmental effects are CIE likely to uncover at this stage of the development?
CIE is the body which will require the light rail order and will employ the consultants to do the environmental impact assessment of the route which will be required at that stage. If the Minister is not satisfied on any count he will require more information from the body which applied for the light rail order.
Is there a case for a more independent assessment of further effects on the environment? Having made the application for the light rail order, CIE is unlikely to come up with another possible effect on the environment which it will make known to the Minister. It is childish to suggest CIE is likely to come forward with additional factors which may hold up the project.
This requirement is standard in all major capital works and road works legislation. It is the procedure for anything that requires an EIS. It gives the Minister the possibility, if he is not satisfied with the EIS, to require more information or further study. I would have thought Deputies would be pleased to note that the Minister reserves the right to request more information.
The Minister has no problem getting information from CIE.
It is the consultants who do the EIS.
Section 7 is helpful in reassuring us that in the event the EIS is not as complete as we may wish, there is a further opportunity for the Minister to seek additional information. In section 7(3) and (4) the public will be allowed to inspect that further information and to make submissions to the Minister in relation to it. This provides a second chance if the EIS is not comprehensive initially.
Question put and agreed to.