I move amendment No. 165a:
In page 48, subsection (1), line 11, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
I will not say much because the Minister will have his own legal interpretation on this matter. I want to register my concern that the phrase "the Minister may by regulation provide" does not sound certain. We could be entering troubled waters if regulations were not produced promptly to deal with this section. There is great potential for harm in it.
The subsection contains the words "shall or may make regulations for all or any". I would like the discretion to make the determination on this matter. We are talking about the supervision and control of the movement of waste within, in and out of the State. The manner in which it is phrased allows more comprehensive flexibility. The use of the word "shall" would mean that I would have to provide in specific terms for every eventuality rather than having the flexibility to make provision as the need arises.
Amendments Nos. 165b and 165c are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 165b:
In page 49, subsection (2), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(i) the publication and making available for inspection, or loan, or purchase by members of the public of authorisations on the movement of waste, or of any application to review an application or of any submissions, plans, documents or other information (including where appropriate, an environmental impact statement and any supplementary information relating thereto) or any extract therefrom, that relates to such an application;
(j) the publishing of a decision given by the Agency in respect of an application made to it for the grant of an authorisation on the movement of waste or in consequence of a review conducted by it of an authorisation, and the reasons therefor, and of any specified documents or other information in relation to the decision;".
Does the Minister wish to comment on the amendment?
The amendment proposes to insert two new subparagraphs into section 36 (2) which deals with regulations to provide for controls on the movement of waste. The amendment deals in part with issues which are not appropriate to this section or are dealt with under other legislation and I am advised that it is defective from a legal perspective. The amendment refers to public access to applications for and authorisations of the movement of waste under the section and related information. This kind of information is already subject to the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations, 1993. I do not want to unnecessarily duplicate provisions of existing legislation or conflicting sets of regulations. The import of the amendment is already covered by statutory instrument 133 of 1993.
The amendment also refers to the review of applications and public access to environmental impact statements among other information. However, the concept of reviewing applications and notifications does not arise under this section. Equally, the concept of an environmental impact statement does not arise in relation to the movement of consignments of waste from one place to another. As the Deputy is aware, EIS relates to a proposed fixed physical development rather than the concept of movement.
Finally, from a practical viewpoint it would be unreasonable to impose upon local authorities a requirement to publish details of every waste consignment notified and authorised under this section. Some local authorities authorise a huge number of waste movements annually. For all those reasons I ask the Deputy not to press his amendment.
It is good to hear the Minister identifying the freedom of information legislation as covering my concern. However, I am not sure he can say that the public cannot see licences or permits for the movement of waste on the basis that they are too numerous.
We are not publishing them on the basis that they are too numerous.
But they are available for inspection.
Yes, they are.
