I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, to the Chamber and thank him for being here.

Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Senators Collins, Murphy, McCormack, Tully, Ryan and Andrews. It has been ruled out of order as it is in conflict with the principles of the Bill.

Amendment No. 2 is in the names of Senators Collins, Murphy, McCormack, Tully, Ryan and Andrews. It has been ruled out of order as it is in conflict with the principles of the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 8, inclusive, 12, 15 to 20, inclusive, and 24 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 13, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:

“(4) The Minister shall cause a copy of any order made under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and the order shall lapse 6 months after the date it is made unless earlier revoked or expressly continued by a resolution of both Houses.”.

I am going to be quick and give a synopsis of each amendment as they have been grouped. They are about oversight. Clear language is what we need and public participation is all we are trying to get through with these amendments. There is nothing too technical about them.

Amendment No. 3 introduces the requirement that ministerial orders be laid before the Houses and lapse after six months if not renewed. It is basically putting a sunset clause in to get out of jail free. If it is not working, we will start over.

Amendment No. 4 provides for public notice and consultation where an exemption from environmental assessment is requested. This would ensure transparency and require the agency to consider and respond to submissions received. Again, it is to keep the public informed and to keep up their participation. If we do not have their trust, it just leads to legal cases down the line and costs both sides money.

Amendment No. 5 is to ensure we can define what "exceptional circumstances" are. It sets clear statutory criteria for granting those exemptions, requires a high evidential threshold, proportionality and confirmation that no reasonable alternative exists. Again, it is just putting in clear language to ensure there are safeguards when it comes to an exemption.

Amendment No. 6 strengthens procedural transparency by requiring publication of the proposed exemption submissions received and for the agency to respond to the conclusions prior to the decision being made.

Amendment No. 7 ensures information published under the section is accessible and understandable, including through plain language and non-technical summaries. Not everybody reading these things is a solicitor, so it is for the general public to be able to understand what is going on.

Amendment No. 8 requires ministerial orders to specify a maximum duration, be strictly limited to what is necessary and be subject to Oireachtas scrutiny under the existing laying provisions.

Amendment No. 12 allows for time periods to be prescribed by regulation while strengthening accountability through mandatory reporting on delays, the reasons for the delays and the corrective actions in the agency's annual report.

Amendment No. 15 introduces public notice and consultation requirements for exemption requests under this section, including a minimum submission period and a reasoned report addressing the issues raised.

Amendment No. 16 defines "exceptional circumstances", which is important so that we will have clear boundaries for what falls into that category. It also sets strict conditions for granting these exemptions to ensure decisions are evidence-based, proportionate and limited to what is strictly necessary.

Amendment No. 17 requires the publication of exemption details, submissions received and the conclusions of determination made to strengthen transparency and accountability. Transparency, accountability and safeguards are key to ensuring the public is brought along with all this.

Amendment No. 18 ensures the information published under the section is accessible in plain language and includes the non-technical summaries.

Amendment No. 19 provides for Oireachtas oversight of ministerial orders and introduces a six-month sunset clause.

Amendment No. 20 requires that ministerial orders specify a maximum duration, be strictly limited in scope and be laid before both Houses in accordance with the oversight provisions.

Amendment No. 24 permits the setting of statutory time periods by regulation and enhances transparency. Members are hearing "transparency" an awful lot but it is key to any of these Bills that the public can see exactly what we are looking to do. There are good sides and bad sides to every Bill and it is about being transparent and upfront about them.

I thank the Senator. Before I ask the Minister of State to respond, I welcome Liscarroll Women's Association, who are guests of Deputy John Paul O'Shea, and the Shamrock Men's Shed, guests of the Ceann Comhairle. You are very welcome and I hope you have a lovely day.

I too welcome the distinguished guests to Leinster House. There is a group from Liscarroll, which is in Cork. I think at some stage I was down there with my daughter, who was playing handball. I cannot remember if it was terribly successful from our perspective or not but it was an enjoyable time.

I thank the Senators for the work they have done on this Bill. They contributed to Second Stage last week and I see that a number of well thought-out amendments have been proposed for this debate. Senators Noonan, Cosgrove, Harmon, Stephenson, Collins, Murphy, McCormack, Tully, Ryan and Andrews have already contributed.

The Bill gives effect to the Government-approved general scheme of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024. As Members well know, the main thrust of the Bill is to streamline the Environmental Protection Agency licensing system by providing the power to prescribe under regulation timeframes for EPA licensing decisions and more options for the agency to efficiently regulate lower risk activities and minor changes to licences. That is very much part of a Government agenda about delivery and getting things done in a timely manner. We believe that what has been put together here is a proportionate response to the system that is already there and it is about improving and making it better while at the same time recognising that we are looking at ensuring competitiveness across the economy and that where there is an important regulatory function of the government, it is not just about the regulation. We always have to get that right, but it needs to be done in a timely way and we must look at the role in terms of what the activity is, the positive benefits of that activity and what it means to our competitiveness, our job creation and the sustainability of our economy.

There are over 900 EPA licences in operation in Ireland, regulating large installations in sectors such as energy, waste, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, intensive agricultural issues – meaning poultry and pigs – food and drink production and cement production. These are important parts of our economy. It cannot be that we do not regulate but we have to regulate in a more timely way. Installations carrying out the above activities are required to have an EPA licence, integrated pollution control or waste licence in place before they operate. In addition, before changes that affect emissions to an existing site are made, the operator is required to apply to amend to an existing EPA licence before such changes are made. This Bill aims to provide more certainty on the timeframe for those decisions on applications for EPA licences and reviews of licences for these sectors that will complement the statutory timelines being introduced under the Planning and Development Act 2024.

The Bill is about striking a balance between improving, as I said, the competitiveness through providing more certainty for investment decisions that will lead to sustainable economic activity while also ensuring the continued protection of our environment, which has to be paramount. Everybody gets that. I wish to emphasise too that the protection of the environment remains, as I said, paramount in this legislation and we are only introducing a more efficient and proportionate licensing regime.

In September 2025, the Government published its action plan on competitiveness and productivity and one of the key priorities of this plan is to expedite this Bill, to put in place statutory timelines for EPA decisions and to enable partial licence reviews in limited circumstances. As a miscellaneous provisions Bill, it also has provisions relating to green public procurement, the circular economy fund and the Litter Pollution Act 1997, and furthermore, provides for a more modernised approach for the selection and appointment of directors and the director general of the EPA.

I thank the Senators for their engagement to date. I will now go through the amendments one by one and set out the reasons, unfortunately, on behalf of the Government, I am not in a position to accept the amendments.

I thank the Senators because I know they have put work into it and it is coming from a position of wanting to strengthen the legislation. I was taken to some extent by a number of the points that Senator Collins made about plain language. As somebody from the west of Ireland, I much prefer to see things in plain language but I have learned over time that when legislation sets out the clear decision of a government to meet the needs and expectations of society, sometimes plain language can be misinterpreted in the courts because many of these Acts become the principles by which the Judiciary ultimately has to make decisions and sometimes the language has to be more technical than what the general public would like. I take the Senator's point. I am certainly not a solicitor but it is important that the language is precise and not left open to various interpretations so that it is as exact as we can be.

I recognise, too, one of the issues the Senator raises is about the prescription of timelines, which we would be familiar with from a general planning perspective. I have talked with the officials about this. While there is some flexibility, the flexibility is more about giving an opportunity to the EPA not to refuse a licence only because it has reached the end of the time and it may not have the information. It is about having some flexibility there rather than it giving an excuse to the agency not to get the work done and the engagement between the parent Department and the EPA is aligned here. It is about protecting the environment but it is also about getting decisions. While I take the Senator's point and I use that example from a planning perspective regularly in relation to other licensing matters that fall under my general responsibility, in this instance it is about that flexibility rather than it being a get-out-of-jail card for the agency. The thrust of this Bill is about getting decisions.

The proposal in amendments Nos. 3 and No. 19 mirror each other regarding the EPA. Amendment No. 3 relates to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and amendment No. 19 refers to the Waste Management Act 1996, because we are effectively amending those two Acts to address the issue. They both concern the laying of orders made by the Minister under both Acts before the Houses and setting timelines of six months on such orders, as well as that new section 88C order under the EPA Act and a new section 44C in the Waste Management Act. Section 7 of the Act of 1992 and the new section 44C of the Waste Management Act 1996 already provide for the laying of any such orders before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

With regard to the proposal to place a time limit of six months on these orders, we believe that would not be appropriate. The new section 88 transposes Article 1.3 of the environmental impact assessment directive into the 1992 Act and reflects a similar type of provision under section 228 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Where the activity is for the sole purpose of the defence of the State or responding to a civil emergency, it is considered that the appropriate place for a time limit on such an order, if required, would be within the order itself to which the emergency relates rather than to the face of the Act. We want to retain that flexibility in the primary legislation. If there needed to be a strict element, that could be provided for, as I said, in the statutory order and would not require coming back before these Houses, which has the capacity to respond more dynamically.

The section 44C order made under the Waste Management Act 1996 simply removes the proposed determination stage of the licence process and could only be applied in limited circumstances. No EIA or planning is required and the proposed change would not be significant. Where an accident or an emergency is associated with a licence application, a time limit on such an order is not required. I hope the Senator will accept that in good faith.

In relation to amendments Nos. 5 and 15, which I am grouping for the purposes, as I said, in the earlier one, of the EPA Act and the Waste Management Act, these amendments would go beyond the obligation as set out under Article 2.4 of the EIA directive and may not meet the objectives or purpose of which the emergency provision is required. The new sections 88D and 44B were drafted following detailed deliberation with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that they are fully compliant with the requirements of the EIA directive and reflect similar-type provisions contained in section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. All applications for a licence, review of a licence or revised licence are currently placed on the website of the EPA for the public to make submissions within a period of 30 days to the agency. This process will continue. The provisions of the new section 88D and 44B do not change that. Therefore, I propose not to accept those amendments either.

In addressing amendments Nos. 5 and 16, as outlined previously, these amendments propose a definition of "exceptional circumstances". The suggested text is not a definition deriving from the environmental impact assessment directive. The environmental impact assessment directive does not provide a definition for "exceptional circumstances" and specifying such a definition may be either too restrictive or, indeed, too broad. It is intended that each emergency will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that any action taken would be in compliance with the EIA directive. The European Commission guidance notes that exemptions to general rules must be interpreted and applied restrictively. An example given for exceptional circumstances is security of electricity supply. The provisions were drafted following careful deliberation with the Office of the Attorney General, as I said in the case of the previous one. It is transposing a provision of Article 2.4 of the environmental impact assessment directive and its text is based along the same principle of section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. On this basis, I am satisfied that the existing provision in the Bill regarding emergency applications is appropriate. Therefore, I am not proposing to accept the amendments.

I understand where the Senator is coming from but, as I have set for her, in all of these there are the guiding principles of the European directives and some domestic legislation that we must be mindful of. Taken in isolation in this Bill and general conversation, I can see how the Senator might make those assertions but when they are taken in a holistic way, we have got to be careful that we are applying it in a uniform and co-ordinated way.

The proposals in amendments Nos. 6 and 17 mirror each other, as I said previously. I have already set out why I cannot accept the proposed amendments Nos. 4 and 15, which are linked to these amendments, and the same logic applies here. The new sections 88D and 44B, as set out in the Bill, were drafted following detailed deliberation by the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that they were fully compliant with the requirements of the EIA directive and reflect similar-type provisions, as I said, in section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. These proposed amendments would go beyond the obligations as set out in Article 2.4, as I said earlier, and may not meet the objectives or the purpose of the emergency provision. Therefore, I am satisfied that the provision of section 88D at section 15 of the Bill and section 44B at section 26 of the Bill are appropriate as they stand. I am not proposing to accept those.

On amendments Nos. 8 and 20, these proposals, as I said, like others, mirror that which are across the two Acts. These proposed amendments are intended to place a time limit on the emergency order under the new section 88E of the EPA Act and under the new section 44C of the Waste Management Act 1996, the WMA Act, and an obligation to lay such orders before each House. Unfortunately, I cannot accept these amendments for the following reasons. This order can only be made where there is an accident or an emergency associated with an application, and would be applied in very limited circumstances. An example would be where planning and an EIA are not required for the application in question, which would mean that the proposed change would be very minor but required in emergency circumstances.

It simply enables the agency to make a decision on the licence application without having to issue a proposed determination or decision. There are already provisions to lay such orders before each House of the Oireachtas, as I mentioned earlier.

Amendments Nos. 12 and 24, which are connected, propose ministerial regulation to be prescribed for timeframes for decision-making and reporting obligations of the agency. I have largely addressed that but I will go through it again. Regarding the proposed section 4, provision to prescribe such regulation is already provided for in the new section 90B(2)(c) of the EPA Act and at the new section 46B(2)(c) of the Waste Management Act, as provided for in the Bill.

Regarding the proposed subsection (5), in its annual report, the agency already reports on the number of applications and the number of decisions or proposed determinations made in a given year. The current amendment to section 51 of the Act at section 9 of the Bill will oblige the agency to provide details of the number of proposed determinations made within the prescribed period. Therefore, there should be no requirement to detail the number of determinations made outside that period as that will be evident. This does not preclude a request by the Minister to the agency to provide such information which can be done at any time.

On that basis, I am satisfied that the existing provisions in this regard are appropriate and therefore I do not propose to accept that amendment. However, I thank the Senators for raising these important issues. I sat in this House for two terms and we worked on legislation in a non-partisan way. It always contributes to the effectiveness of legislation even if amendments are not necessarily accepted by this side of the House. However, it adds to the value of the debate and the general understanding of the conditions that in this case, the Senators are trying to address on behalf of various sectors of society.

I thank the Minister of State.

Before I call the Senator, I welcome to the Gallery some girls from Scoil Mhuire in Ballincollig, County Cork, who are here as guests of Senator Kelleher. In particular I welcome Mary, Kadija and Mrs. O'Brien. As is the tradition in this House, on the next day they are due to have homework, they officially have it off. They can remind Mrs. O'Brien that they have homework off the next time. I hope they enjoy the day.

Does Senator Collins wish to respond?

No. I am happy.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 14, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(d) publish a notice of the request for an exemption, accompanied by the information provided under subsection (1), on a website maintained by it or on its behalf and in a national newspaper, inviting submissions from the public within a period of not less than 30 days,

(e) consider all submissions or observations received under paragraph (d) and publish a reasoned report addressing the material issues raised.”.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 14, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“(4A) In this section, ‘exceptional circumstances’ means circumstances that—

(a) arise from a unique and unforeseeable event, or a specific and demonstrable public necessity,

(b) cannot reasonably be addressed by compliance with the requirements of the EIA Directive within the timeframe necessary to avert serious risk to human health, safety, the environment or essential public services, and

(c) are strictly limited in scope, duration and geographic extent.

(4B) The Agency shall not grant an exemption unless, having regard to subsection (4A), it is satisfied on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that—

(a) the exemption is proportionate to the risk or necessity identified, and

(b) no reasonable alternative exists that would allow compliance with the EIA Directive.

(4C) An exemption granted under this section shall specify:

(a) the reasons and evidence relied upon;

(b) the alternative assessment method and minimum content requirements;

(c) a maximum duration;

(d) any conditions, monitoring and reporting obligations necessary to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset significant adverse effects.

(4D) An exemption which has expired under paragraph (c) of subsection (4C) may be renewed.”.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 14, to delete lines 31 to 34 and substitute the following:

“(b) publish, prior to deciding the application to which the exemption relates, a notice of the exemption, any requirements referred to in paragraph (a), a summary of public and authority submissions, and the Agency’s reasoned conclusions on the main issues raised—

(i) on a website maintained by it or on its behalf, and

(ii) in a national newspaper,”.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(d) ensure that information published under this section is accessible, written in plain language, and includes non-technical summaries of likely significant effects and mitigation measures.”.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 16, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(4) An order under subsection (1) shall specify a maximum duration and shall be strictly limited to what is necessary, and shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas in accordance with section 88C.”.

Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, and 21 to 23, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 18, line 21, to delete “endeavour to”.

This is a very simple amendment to change the words "shall endeavour to" to "shall". So, it is removing the words "endeavour to". This amendment is to oblige the EPA to make decisions within the timeline specified by the regulations. This is how the Planning and Development Act 2024 was written. I know because I have flashbacks to that time. The Bill has been written so that the EPA can continue to endeavour to make timely decisions but never have to actually comply with deadlines. Based on the Minister of State's contribution, this is contrary to what we are trying to achieve here. This is an oversight by the drafters. When the Minister of State, Deputy Dillon, was here on Second Stage, he clearly said that it is his intention to get the EPA to make decisions in a predictable and fixed period in the same way that An Coimisiún Pleanála now makes decisions. It is about delivery, which is what the Minister of State said at the opening. Certainly, this ambiguity does not help that delivery. It certainly will not fix the problem with decision-making. I ask him to accept this amendment.

I understand where the Senator is coming from on this. The Senator and I would know certainly know this from a planning perspective through our time in this House and the other House. We are very familiar with the exacting timelines that exist from a planning perspective and they work well. The concern we have on this one is that if we have a very rigorous timeline, it may bring about a refusal at a point in time just to meet a deadline because all the information is not available to the agency in the first instance. Heretofore, in the provision of that information in the first instance, applicants have been used to a more iterative process. It happens with other licensing. I am dealing with it in relation to aquaculture on the other side of my brief. It is about trying to bring everybody on a journey to get a result in as timely a manner as possible.

Sometimes applicants are not in position to provide information because historically that was not the case. Based on my understanding of conversations with the EPA, the effort here is about having the flexibility so that it is not forced to refuse on a Friday because it has reached that hard deadline, thereby forcing the applicant to go back through that statutory process again, as happens with planning. Sometimes on some of the larger scale projects where a lot of information is required, an applicant reaches that deadline including extension of time for further information and the local authority is left with no choice but to refuse or the applicant must withdraw the application and start over again. We are trying to avoid that in this instance. Of course, if it is not working further down the road, we can look at the statutory instrument element of it. It is about creating that flexibility rather than providing an excuse to an agency not to get something done. Because of its length of time in existence and its establishment, the EPA's track record is good. We are trying to make it better in terms of the effectiveness of the delivery of the licence.

On the other hand, with the capacity to provide licence extensions where a relatively small amount of activity needs to change, the legislation now provides a critical path to getting that done much more quickly. Rather than reviewing the entirety of the licence, it is only the piece that might be changing. Therefore, there is flexibility there. I understand where the Senator is coming from in drawing those parallels which are relevant. When starting from the position that we are, this seems to be based on the interaction between the parent Department and the EPA. I am conscious that it is a subset of the Department and there is a closer connection there than with the planning Act which covers the local authorities but they also have additional statutory functions. We believe there is a greater capacity to deliver on that. I am confident that we have the appropriate provisions in place here. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment but I understand what the Senator is seeking to achieve. I believe we have it covered already and time will tell how that works out. I again thank the Senator for his contribution.

I remind the Senator and the Minister of State that there are six amendments in this group being discussed together, namely, amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, and 21 to 23, inclusive.

Does the Senator wish to respond?

I do, quickly. I will not delay the proceedings. I absolutely appreciate that. I have had engagement with IBEC on this. Certainty is really important and by leaving the "shall endeavour to", it leaves it very open-ended. Many of the challenges we are having with licensing and with planning are not because of judicial reviews necessarily or environmental objections. They are actually because of resources across various agencies of the State such as the EPA, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and so on. By having a very definite "shall", instead of "shall endeavour to", it certainly puts an onus on the State and focuses minds on addressing that resource issue. We all have deadlines to meet in various projects, etc., but when the deadline is there, we know it is looming and that in itself should be a driver in pushing for the resources required in various agencies to get the job done. I accept the Minister of State’s bona fides on this and the fact he would go back and revisit it were it not working but the time to strengthen this legislation is here, today. I ask that the Minister of State to give consideration to accepting these amendments.

Before the Minister of State responds, I welcome the former Tánaiste to Parliament, along with her guests.

I have to second that. She is a dear friend and Mr. Percy Foster as well, who is also present. I do not know the other person; I apologise.

I thank Senator Noonan for his understanding. He is right; it is down to resources. However, just putting in a deadline for those issues does not put compulsion on the Government or the agency to tool up to meet that. It just requires a decision. Sadly, while the decision is the right thing to do, it may not be the ultimate result. The work may not get done in the time and we will end up with a refusal, which will have further delays.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste made it very clear in the programme for Government that the next number of years are about delivery. We have plenty of legislation. We have been working hard on that body of legislation and the Senator contributed to that in his time as a Minister of State. It is now about getting decisions taken and getting it out. It is about resources and sweating the assets that are already there.

I am confident that the Senator takes the overall statement of Government intent to deliver in respect of these large projects and large employers whereby they cannot be bound up forever and a day in relation to licences. The Senator is right that the issues are there. We have issues in MARA, ALAB, and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding issuance of aquacultural licensing. It is a process issue that has built up over time. We need to refine the legislation and we are doing that on this one but we are giving that flexibility in order that we do not end up having a hard deadline that forces going back all the way through the process. The point I reflected on earlier is industry and other licensees have some way to go to in understanding the new realities because heretofore, they had certain delays on their side; the clock stopped and in some cases, license applications were not validated until all the information was there. Again, that is very different. The planning application has been developed so well. It is the gold standard in terms of everybody understanding it. However, what we are trying to do on this one has the capacity to deliver and of course, if it does not, that has to be addressed. The Deputy is right in terms of the allocation of resources at the end of the day, and based on the approach that the Government has taken, the supports and resources will be there to meet that demand.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 18, line 29, to delete “endeavour to”.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 19, line 1, to delete “endeavour to”.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 19, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(4) The Minister may by regulations prescribe periods under subsection (2), having consulted the Agency, and may prescribe different periods for different classes of activity.

(5) The Agency shall include in its annual report under section 51(3) the number of cases in which the period under this section was exceeded, the reasons, and corrective actions taken.”.”.

Amendment No. 13 is ruled out of order as being not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Amendment No. 14 is ruled out of order as being in conflict with the principles of the Bill.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 23, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

“(d) publish a notice of the request for an exemption, accompanied by the information provided under subsection (1), on a website maintained by it or on its behalf and in a national newspaper, inviting submissions from the public within a period of not less than 30 days, and

(e) consider all submissions or observations received under paragraph (d) and publish a reasoned report addressing the material issues raised.”

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 23, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

“(4A) In this section, ‘exceptional circumstances’ means circumstances that—

(a) arise from a unique and unforeseeable event, or a specific and demonstrable public necessity,

(b) cannot reasonably be addressed by compliance with the requirements of the EIA Directive within the timeframe necessary to avert serious risk to human health, safety, the environment or essential public services, and

(c) are strictly limited in scope, duration and geographic extent.

(4B) The Agency shall not grant an exemption unless, having regard to subsection (4A), it is satisfied on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that—

(a) the exemption is proportionate to the risk or necessity identified,

(b) no reasonable alternative exists that would allow compliance with the EIA Directive.

(4C) An exemption granted under this section shall specify:

(a) the reasons and evidence relied upon;

(b) the alternative assessment method and minimum content requirements;

(c) a maximum duration;

(d) any conditions, monitoring and reporting obligations necessary to avoid, prevent, reduce or offset significant adverse effects.”.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 24, to delete lines 4 to 7 and substitute the following:

“(b) publish, prior to deciding the application to which the exemption relates, a notice of the exemption, any requirements referred to in paragraph (a), a summary of public and authority submissions, and the Agency’s reasoned conclusions on the main issues raised—

(i) on a website maintained by it or on its behalf, and

(ii) in a national newspaper,”.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 24, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:

“(d) ensure that information published under this section is accessible, written in plain language, and includes non-technical summaries of likely significant effects and mitigation measures.”.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 26, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“(4) The Minister shall cause a copy of any order made under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and the order shall lapse 6 months after the date it is made unless earlier revoked or expressly continued by a resolution of both Houses.”

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 26, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

“(4) An order under subsection (1) shall specify a maximum duration and shall be strictly limited to what is necessary, and shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas in accordance with section 88C.”.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 27, line 16, to delete “endeavour to”.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 27, line 23, to delete “endeavour to”.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 27, line 40, to delete “endeavour to”.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 28, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:

“(4) The Minister may by regulations prescribe periods under subsection (2), having consulted the Agency, and may prescribe different periods for different classes of activity.

(5) The Agency shall include in its annual report under section 51(3) the number of cases in which the period under this section was exceeded, the reasons, and corrective actions taken.”.”

Amendment No. 25 is ruled out of order as a potential charge on the people and not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, inclusive, ruled out of order as potential charges on the people and not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

When is it proposed to take the next Stage?

Next Tuesday.