Amendment No. 188a is consequential on amendments Nos. 188b and 189a and all may be discussed together.
SECTION 49.
I move amendment No. 188a:
In page 70, subsection (1), lines 3 to 5, to delete "or, as may be appropriate, the period referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2)".
My amendment is motivated by the fear that there could be financial speculation about the abuse of a licence by a licence holder. Amendment No. 188b states:
The Agency shall, given all reasonable technical evidence, set a maximum life span on the operational life of the activity at the specified location, providing that this life span is no more than 1 year if the risk of environmental pollution is probable, 5 years if the risk is possible and 10 years if the risk is remote.
This is based on information I gleaned from people working in The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland and how it defines "probable", "possible" and "remote". Many people live on broken promises because an operation, which is mentioned in terms of a limited life span, is often extended without any reference to the previous commitments given. This amendment seeks to build confidence in communities so that they will believe what licence holders say because up to now they have not kept their word.
These amendments go against what I want to achieve, that is, the greatest degree of flexibility for the expert body, the agency. We should not set up an expert agency, staff it, look for the best resources for it and then try to do its job. Amendment No. 188a seeks to make the specified three year time limit inflexible. A licence should lapse if it has not been used in three years. However, I want to protect the save clause which the Deputy wants to delete. In exceptional circumstances, such as a large facility which requires construction, I would like the agency to have the scope to determine that issue. An exhaustive elaborate licensing procedure may need to be followed and it may not be possible to have the facility in place in the rigid three year time frame outlined. I ask for flexibility in this regard. If we want to set up the agency we should give it the wherewithal to do its job without trying to circumscribe it and to look into our crystal ball to see what might arise in the future in every set of circumstances.
The same applies to amendment No. 188b. The Deputy proposes to substitute a new subsection for the existing subsection 49 (2) and to limit the duration of all licensed waste activities to maximum periods of between one and ten years at the specified locations based on likely environmental risks. This amendment is arbitrary. The agency is empowered under section 41, where it considers it appropriate, to limit the scale and duration of a waste activity. It should be allowed to decide that in specific circumstances. We should not place it in a straitjacket which will make it impossible to operate.
Amendment No. 189a proposes to delete subparagraph (v) of section 50 (1) (b) which refers to the extension of the three year period under section 49. I do not propose to accept that amendment for the reasons I outlined. These amendments seek to place the agency in a straitjacket which is not appropriate.
I love the Minister's interpretation of these amendments. That is not the interpretation taken by people who must live with the consequences of past mistakes.
That is not fair. An activity which seeks a licence could involve an elaborate licensing procedure, followed by an elaborate and difficult planning procedure and, perhaps, an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. As a result, it might not be possible to have everything in place in three years. I cannot envisage such a situation but we should give the agency the flexibility to make the determination.
Flexibility is a nervous word for people who have been affected by past mistakes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 188b not moved.
Section 49 agreed to.