Apologies have been received from Deputy Malcolm Byrne.

The purpose of the meeting is to consider Committee Stage of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025. I welcome the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, who is accompanied by officials from his Department.

Members are all familiar with the requirement to be present and the issue around parliamentary practice as regards what they say, so we are not going to go through that again. A total of 38 amendments have been tabled. The grouping list has been provided to members.

Before we commence our consideration, does the Minister wish to make any opening remarks?

Yes, briefly, if that is okay. I wish members a good afternoon. Today, we have seen the publication of the accelerated infrastructure action plan, which aims to fast-track the delivery of critical infrastructure in Ireland. The Bill before us for debate is very much part of that delivery plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, plays a really important and pivotal role to protect, improve and restore the environment through regulation, scientific knowledge and working with others. The agency has a wide environmental remit and its responsibilities include the authorisation of activities that have an impact on the environment or on human health. There are approximately 900 EPA licences in operation in Ireland, which regulate large industrial installations in sectors such as waste, pharmaceuticals, chemical, intensive agriculture, energy, food and drink production and cement production. Such installations are licensed under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996. Installations carrying out these activities are required to have an EPA licence in place before they can operate.

The Bill will address four problematic areas that have been identified in the current legislation governing licensing. First, there is no definitive timeframe within which decisions on licences are made. It is taking too long; I think we all agree with that. It takes two years or more for decisions to be made. Even minor proposed amendments to an installation require a full licence review, meaning that the full licence is reviewed and examined. The civil emergency and exceptional circumstances provisions of the environmental impact assessment directive have not been transposed into national law to allow the agency to avail of these provisions in future emergency circumstances.

This legislation also seeks to facilitate the timely development of critical infrastructure in the energy sector, which will facilitate the transition to renewables, the accelerated transition to renewables and the potential need for future emergency generation, as well as the delivery of the national biomethane strategy. Through providing shorter and predictable timeframes for decisions, this legislation aims to improve our competitiveness and remove barriers to investment in infrastructure. Its provisions align with the Government action plan published today.

I thank Deputies Daly, Crowe and Ahern for their engagement in proposing the amendments, and Deputies Heneghan and Ó Cearúil as well. I intend to address the amendments as they have been tabled. I thank the commitment for its time and I look forward to our discussion and debate.

We will now consider the Bill and each of the amendments in turn. I ask members to bear with me. As Cathaoirleach, it is my first time to take Committee Stage of a Bill so I appreciate their forbearance. Members have the tabulated list of amendments in front of them.

Amendments Nos. 1, 8 and 24 form a composite proposal. They have been ruled out of order by the Bills Office because they are in conflict with the principles of the Bill under Standing Order 194(1).

There is not much I can do about the amendments being ruled out of order, other than to ask if there will be any clarity given.

No.

We were trying to propose that the EPA be properly resourced to carry out the new functions provided in the Bill because, over the years, we have experienced the impact of the failure to resource State and semi-State bodies. An announcement of all these new plans or functions is not worth much unless they can actually be carried out. That is why we asked for a resourcing plan to be put in place. The Minister is, of course, free to agree to do it in any event but I anticipate that might not be forthcoming.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, 22 and 36 to 38, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 9 and 10 to insert the following:

“Repeals and revocations

3.(1) The following provisions of the Act of 1992 are repealed:

(a) subsections (1) to (5) and (7) to (11) of section 21;

(b) subsections (1) to (7) of section 24;

(c) paragraph (ab) of section 87(2);

(d) subsections (3), (3A) and (3B) of section 87;

(e) paragraph (f) of section 89(2).

(2) The following provisions of the Act of 2022 are repealed:

(a) section 19;

(b) section 35.

(3) The Environmental Protection Agency (Selection Procedures) Regulations 2004 (S.I. No. 127 of 2004) are revoked.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and subsection (3), subsections (1) to (5) and subsections (7), (8) and (11) of section 21 of the Act of 1992, subsections (1) to (4) and subsection (7) of section 24 of the Act of 1992 and the Environmental Protection Agency (Selection Procedures) Regulations 2004 shall continue to apply and have effect in relation to a selection process commenced but not completed under that section 21 or 24 before the repeal effected by paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) or the revocation effected by subsection (3).

(5) Where, in the case of a selection process referred to in subsection (4), the Government decides not to appoint a person to be the Director General or a director of the Environmental Protection Agency under section 21(9) or 24(5) of the Act of 1992 or the committee (within the meaning of the Act of 1992) is unable to select any suitable candidate under section 21(10) or 24(6) of the Act of 1992, sections 20A and 23A of the Act of 1992 inserted by sections 5 and 7 shall apply.”.

I will speak to all the amendments in the grouping, if that is okay. Amendment No. 2 proposes to amend section 3 of the Bill and covers repeals and revocations consequential to amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, 22 and 36 to 38, inclusive. These amendments comprise repeals to include subsections (1) to (5), inclusive, and (7) to (11), inclusive, of section 21; subsections (1) to (7), inclusive, of section 24; and a revocation of the Environmental Protection Agency (Selection Procedures) Regulations 2004, SI 127 of 2004. These repeals and revocations are consequential to the new provisions proposed regarding the appointment and selection process for the director general and directors of the EPA.

Section 3 is further amended by the repeal of sections 19 and 35 of the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022. Section 19 is now proposed for repeal and it is not proposed to introduce additional fixed payment notices at this time under the Waste Management Act 1996.

Regarding to the repeal of section 35 of the Act of 2022, this amendment is a new proposal to that in the Bill, as initiated. Given that it is proposed to make offences under the Litter Pollution Act 1997 subject to summary conviction only, section 35 of the Circular Economy and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2022 is now superfluous and deals with criminal proceedings. It is now proposed that this section be repealed.

I will address the other amendments now in order that we can deal with them in the round. I will now address the introduction of the new appointment and selection process in order to give some more detail. That is addressed in amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive. The appointment and selection process for the EPA director general and directors is set out in sections 21 and 24 of the EPA Act, as amended. These appointment and selection processes have now been in place for over 30 years. The amendments update these provisions to bring them in line with more modern and streamlined appointment and selection processes.

The draft amendments for the selection progress will mean that the Public Appointments Service, PAS, will replace the role of the current statutory selection committee in selecting nominees. The Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for public expenditure, will consider, if satisfied, and will appoint such nominees to the role of director general and director rather than the Government making such appointments.

Amendment No. 3 proposes a new section, which is section 20A, to be inserted in the EPA Act regarding the appointment process for the director general. This amendment will ensure that the post of director general of the EPA will be appointed by the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation rather than by the Government as is currently the case. This amendment allows the Minister to request the Public Appointments Service to undertake a selection process for the purpose of identifying and recommending to the Minister persons who are suitable for appointment. Other than in cases of reappointment, the Minister shall not appoint a person as director general unless the person is recommended by PAS.

In relation to amendment No. 4, it proposes that section 21 of the EPA Act 1992 is amended to ensure that the reappointment of the position of director general is made by the Ministers for Climate, Energy and the Environment and public expenditure instead of by the Government. This is in line with other such processes with other similar regulatory bodies, such as the governing board members of An Coimisiún Pleanála. In addition, the amendment provides that, going forward, the director general may be removed from office by the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment rather than by the Government, as is currently the case.

Amendment No. 5 proposes to insert a new section, which is section 23A, with provisions regarding the appointment of directors. This amendment will ensure that directors of the EPA will be appointed by the Ministers for climate and public expenditure rather than by the Government. Again, it is the same proposition. Furthermore, the amendment allows the Minister to request PAS to undertake a selection process for the purpose of identifying and recommending to the Minister a person who is suitable for appointment. Other than in the case of reappointment, the Minister will not be permitted to appoint someone as a director unless they are recommended by PAS.

Amendment No. 6 amends the EPA Act to ensure that the reappointment to the position of director is made by the Minister for climate with the consent of the Minister for public expenditure. That is in line with such processes that I have mentioned already in respect of, for example, the governing body and members of An Coimisiún Pleanála. It provides that, going forward, directors may be removed from office by the Minister as opposed to by the Government as such need may arise in the future.

The amendments will not affect any current selection or appointment processes being undertaken at the time of the commencement of the Bill. My Department has engaged with all relevant stakeholders, including PAS, the current statutory selection committee, the Departments of public expenditure and housing, and the EPA. While some questions were raised regarding the move away from the Government's appointment of directors and director general, it is my clear view that the revised process of appointment by the Minister, with the consent the Minister for public expenditure, following a selection process carried out by PAS is the best approach and aligns with similar appointment procedures in other State bodies.

Amendment No. 22 inserts a new provision into the Bill to amend section 99H of the EPA Act. The amendment proposes to enable any person, including the agency, to apply to the High Court for an injunction on the activity that has been, is being or is likely to be carried out in contravention of the EPA Act. The amendment is in line with similar texts in section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and section 351 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. This will give powers to the agencies similar to the powers under the planning legislation to take action where activity has occurred and to stop an activity that the agency determines is about to happen.

Amendment No. 36 relates to the Litter Pollution Act 1997. The Government is proposing to provide for fixed-payment notices - on-the-spot fines, effectively - that may apply to alleged offences under the Litter Pollution Act and that offences under that Act be punishable on summary conviction only and not punishable on indictment. More serious dumping offences will be prosecuted under the Waste Management Act.

Amendment Nos. 37 and 38 relate to the Title. The Long Title of the Bill will be amended to describe the proposed Dáil Committee Stage amendments, which will provide the new procedures for the selection and appointment of the director general and directors of the EPA, the ability to apply injunctions in respect of past or possible future activity carried out in contravention of the EPA Act, and the amendment to the Litter Pollution Act, which provides for offences that may be prescribed summarily. I have covered each of these amendments individually, hence the requirement to amend the Title of the Bill.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Appointment of Director General of Agency

5. The Act of 1992 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 20:

“20A.(1)The Director General of the Agency shall be appointed by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, in accordance with this section.

(2) The Minister shall, as required, request the Public Appointments Service to undertake a selection process for the purpose of identifying and recommending to the Minister persons who are suitable for appointment under subsection (1).

(3) Where the Public Appointments Service receives a request from the Minister, it shall undertake a selection process and recommend to the Minister, from among the persons who participated in the process, a maximum of 3 persons whom it is satisfied are suitable for appointment under subsection (1).

(4) The Minister may agree with the Public Appointments Service or may, following consultation with the Public Appointments Service, prescribe the selection criteria that are to apply to the selection process.

(5) The Minister shall, in performing the functions under subsection (4), have regard to the general suitability, and the special knowledge, experience and qualifications, required of a person in order to ensure the functions of the Director General are performed effectively.

(6) The Public Appointments Service shall provide the Minister with particulars of the suitability, relevant knowledge, experience and qualifications, of each person whom it recommends under subsection (3).

(7) Other than in the case of reappointment under section 21(13), the Minister shall not appoint a person to be the Director General unless the person is recommended by the Public Appointments Service in accordance with a request under this section.

(8) The Minister may make regulations to provide for—

(a) procedures relating to the application and selection process,

(b) selection criteria, in accordance with subsection (4), and

(c) such other matter as the Minister considers incidental, supplementary or consequential to the purposes of this section.”.”.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 21 of Act of 1992

6.(1) Section 21 of the Act of 1992 is amended—

(a) in subsection (13)(b), by the substitution of “the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation,” for “the Government”, and

(b) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (16):

“(16) The Director General may be removed from office by the Minister if, in the Minister’s opinion, the Director General has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing the duties of the office, or for stated misbehaviour, or if the removal appears to the Minister to be necessary or desirable for the effective performance by the Agency of its functions.”.

(2) The amendment effected by subsection (1)(b) shall only apply in relation to a Director General of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed or reappointed after the coming into operation of that subsection.”.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Appointment of director of Agency

7.The Act of 1992 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 23:

“23A.(1)The directors of the Agency shall be appointed by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, in accordance with this section.

(2) The Minister may consult with the Director General (where a Director General is in office) or, if there is no Director General in office, the Deputy Director General (where a Deputy Director General is in office), in relation to the qualifications required for all posts as a director of the Agency or any particular post of director of the Agency.

(3) The Minister shall, as required, request the Public Appointments Service to undertake a selection process for the purpose of identifying and recommending to the Minister persons who are suitable for appointment under subsection (1).

(4) Where the Public Appointments Service receives a request from the Minister, it shall undertake a selection process and recommend to the Minister, from among the persons who participated in the process, a maximum of 5 persons whom it is satisfied are suitable for appointment as a director of the Agency under subsection (1).

(5) The Minister may agree with the Public Appointments Service or may, following consultation with the Public Appointments Service, prescribe the selection criteria that are to apply to the selection process.

(6) The Minister shall, in performing the functions under subsection (5), have regard to the general suitability, and the special knowledge, experience and qualifications, required of a person in order to ensure the functions of a director are performed effectively.

(7) The Public Appointments Service shall provide the Minister with particulars of the suitability, relevant knowledge, experience and qualifications, of each person whom it recommends under subsection (4).

(8) Other than in the case of reappointment under section 24(9), the Minister shall not appoint a person to be a director unless the person is recommended by the Public Appointments Service in accordance with a request under this section.

(9) The Minister may make regulations to provide for—

(a) procedures relating to the application and selection process,

(b) selection criteria, in accordance with subsection (5), and

(c) such other matter as the Minister considers incidental, supplementary or consequential to the purposes of this section.”.”.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 24 of Act of 1992

8.(1) Section 24 of the Act of 1992 is amended—

(a) in subsection (9), by the substitution of “the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation,” for “the Government” in both places where it occurs, and

(b) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (12):

“(12) A director may be removed from office by the Minister if, in the Minister’s opinion, the director has become incapable through ill-health of effectively performing the duties of the office, or for stated misbehaviour, or if the removal appears to the Minister to be necessary or desirable for the effective performance by the Agency of its functions.”.

(2) The amendment effected by subsection (1)(b) shall only apply in relation to a director of the Environmental Protection Agency appointed or reappointed after the coming into operation of that subsection.”.

Amendment No. 8 has been ruled out of order, as it is in conflict with the principles of the Bill and has a potential charge on the revenue under Standing Order 219.

Deputy Ahern is not here. Amendment No. 9 falls.

Amendment Nos. 10, 13, 15 to 18, inclusive, 20 and 28 to 34, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, between lines 8 and 9, 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.”.

Like our amendment that was ruled out of order, this amendment concerns Oireachtas oversight.

I will go through the various amendments. Amendment No. 13 has a view towards transparency, accountability and ensuring the public are made aware of any exemptions that are made.

It proposes that the agency: "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". It further proposes that the EPA consider all observations or submissions received and publish a reasoned report.

On Second Stage, we raised concerns about the definition of "exceptional circumstances". Amendment No. 15 proposes the following criteria:

(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 EAI 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.

The amendment further proposes that an exemption shall not be granted by the agency unless, having regard to subsection (4A), it is satisfied that the exemption is "proportionate to the risk or necessity identified" and "no reasonable alternative exists that would allow compliance with the EIA Directive". That is the gist of it. The intention is to ensure transparency and accountability and that the public is made aware of exemptions that are made.

Amendments Nos. 16 to 18, inclusive, are all intended, again, to ensure transparency and accountability and that the public is made aware of exemptions. Amendment No. 20 is along the same lines.

There is similar thinking behind amendments Nos. 28 to 34, inclusive, their purpose being to ensure transparency and accountability arising from what we have seen in the past. Amendment No. 32 relates to increased Oireachtas oversight. It proposes that a copy of any order made be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Amendment No. 33 provides that an order shall have a maximum duration, be strictly limited to what is necessary and, again, shall be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for more oversight and accountability.

Amendment No. 34 proposes to insert the following provision: "The Minister may by regulations prescribe periods under subsection (2), having consulted the Agency, and may prescribe different periods for different classes of activity." It further provides that 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" and the reasons for same. This is an important provision to ensure there is a public record such that communities can be made aware of exemptions that are made.

I thank Deputy Daly for introducing his amendments, some of which deal with issues we discussed at length on Second Stage. I will briefly address each of them individually. As he mentioned, there is some crossover between the Waste Management Act and the Environmental Protection Agency Act. Some of the amendments are identical but apply to the other Act.

Amendment No. 10 proposes to place a time limit of six months on an order under section 88C of the 1992 Act, as inserted by the Bill, and an obligation to lay the order before the Houses. Section 7 of the Act provides for the laying of an order made by the Minister under the Act, other than under sections 2, 19(2) or 32(1), before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This obligation will not change and will apply to a section 88C order. With regard to the proposal to place a time limit of six months on an order under section 88C, this section transposes Article 1.3 of the environmental impact assessment directive into the 1992 Act and was constructed following careful consideration by the Office of the Attorney General to reflect a similar type of provision under section 288 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Where the activity is for the sole purpose of, one, the defence of the State or, two, 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, depending on what the emergency might be. On that basis, I am satisfied the provisions of the Bill regarding orders under section 88C are appropriate. Therefore, I cannot accept amendment No. 10.

Amendment No. 13 relates to public submissions on emergency orders. Section 88D of the 1992 Act, as inserted by the Bill, transposes Article 2.4 of the EIA directive into the Act and was constructed to reflect a similar type of provision under the Planning and Development Act 2024. The amendment proposes that there be a period of 30 days before the agency can make a decision as to whether the applicant is one of exceptional circumstances under Article 2.4 of the directive. This provision would go way beyond the obligations set out under Article 2 4 and may not meet the objectives of the purpose for which the emergency provision is required. It might delay the making of a decision where an emergency measure is needed. That might not be the intended consequence of the amendment but it could well be an unintended consequence.

All applications for a licence or review of a licence or revised licence are currently placed on the website of the EPA for the public to make submissions to it within a period of 30 days. It is intended that this process will continue. There is no intent at all to change it under the Bill. Under section 89 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, I am empowered to prescribe for the processing of applications under sections 83 and 90. Procedures relating to an application for licensing that may have a section 88D order associated with it will be provided for and will ensure the current submission period of 30 days regarding applications for a licence remains absolutely intact. This will ensure compliance with an obligation under the Aarhus Convention. The only difference for emergency applications under the Bill is that the second period for public consultation on the proposed determinations will not apply. On that basis, I am satisfied the provisions of the Bill regarding the current processes, particularly relating to public submissions, are appropriate. Therefore, I regretfully cannot accept the amendment proposed by the Deputies.

Amendment No. 15 proposes a definition of "exceptional circumstances" that does not derive from the EIA directive. The latter does not provide a definition of "exceptional circumstances" and specifying such a definition may be either too restrictive or too broad. We should not tie our hands in this regard. It is intended that each emergency be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I assure the Deputy this will not be taken lightly. Any action taken would be in extremis and would have to be in compliance with the EIA directive. The European Commission guidance, which I mentioned previously, notes that exemptions to general rules must be interpreted and applied restrictively. We absolutely will ensure that is at the heart of any decisions made and that they are compliant in that regard. An example I gave on Second Stage is a circumstance relating to electricity supply. The current provisions were drafted by the Office of the Attorney General. The text is based on the same principle as set out in section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. I am satisfied the existing provisions of the Bill regarding emergency applications are absolutely appropriate. As such, I regretfully cannot accept the amendment.

Section 88D, to be inserted in the 1992 Act by the Bill, was drafted following detailed deliberation with the Attorney General to ensure it is fully compliant with the requirements of the EIA directive. It is so compliant and, therefore, amendment No. 16 is not required and I cannot accept it. Amendment No. 17 is a similar provision. I refer, as before, to section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Again, I am satisfied with the provisions of section 88D.

Amendment No. 18 proposes to place a time limit on an emergency order under section 88E of the Environmental Protection Agency Act, as inserted by the Bill, and an obligation to lay the order before each House of the Oireachtas.

The amendment appears to wrongly refer to section 88C provisions of the EPA Act rather than the order under section 88E of the EPA Act as inserted in the Bill. I cannot accept this amendment for the following reasons. Limiting the duration of exemption to what is necessary to deal with an emergency would be overly prescriptive. I do not know whether that was an error in the amendment. It could well have been but we do not believe that would be appropriate. The order can only be made where there is an accident or emergency and simply enables the agency to make a decision on a licence application without having to issue a proposed determination. There is already a provision to lay such an order before each House of the Oireachtas and that is provided under section 7 of the EPA Act of 1992. I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 18.

Amendment No. 20 proposes ministerial regulations to be prescribed and reporting obligations on the agency. Regarding the proposed subsection (4), it is a provision to prescribe such regulations as already provided for at section 90B(2) of this Bill and the proposed subsection (5) provides that the annual report of the agency will report on the number of applications and the number of decisions and proposed determinations made in any given year. The current amendment to section 51 will oblige the agency to provide details of the number of proposed determinations made within a prescribed period. Therefore, there should be no need to detail the number of determinations made outside that period as that will be evident. This does not preclude the agency from a request to provide such information. That can be done at any time. On this basis, I am not in a position to accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 28 proposes a public consultation period for emergency applications in exceptional circumstances. I go back to section 227 of the Planning and Development Act. It is basically transposing the environmental impact assessment directive into the Act and was constructed to reflect that same provision. The amendment proposes that there be a period of 30 days before the agency can make a decision as to whether an application comprises exceptional circumstances. I think I have covered that because we have already explained the rationale for not accepting that amendment.

Regarding amendment No. 29, it is the same as amendment No. 15 so I have already explained that. It is the same as amendment No. 15 on the Waste Management Act. Amendment No. 30 is the same as amendment No. 16. I have given the rationale there too so I do not propose to accept that amendment. Amendment No. 31 is the same as amendment No. 17. I have given the rationale as to why I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 32 is similar but relates to a different Act. That is the same as amendment No. 10. I have given the rationale for not accepting that amendment. Amendment No. 33 is the same as amendment No. 18. I cannot accept that amendment. Amendment No. 34 is the same as amendment No. 20 so I am not in a position to accept that amendment either but I have put forward on the record here the rationale for not accepting those amendments. That rationale applies to those similar amendments to a different Act.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 26 are related and may be discussed by agreement.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 10, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(4) For the purposes of this section, the fact that an activity is for protecting—

(a) the security of the State, or

(b) the economic well-being of the State,

does not of itself constitute it an activity for the sole purpose of the defence of the State.”.

This is where we are talking about not having well-defined criteria for what the defence of the State means. We are trying to put some structure around that. We sometimes talk about LNG terminals or things like that as being in defence of the State. We do not necessarily agree that it would be. It is just trying to put some parameters around the definition of what it means to protect the security of the State.

I laid out the rationale for this. We have to be fully compliant with the environmental impact assessment directive and we will be. In response to a previous amendment that was similar to this, I said that we cannot be too narrow or broad regarding what constitutes a civil emergency or defence of the State. This would be used in extremis. There are still guard-rails around it. There might be a typographical error on the last line of the amendment. It contains the words "does not of itself constitute it an activity for the sole purpose of the defence of the State". This is not necessarily a defence of the State mechanism but we would be able to bring forward an emergency process in that regard in emergency circumstances. It still has guard-rails. It still has to be compliant with the environmental impact assessment directive and it will be. We are more than happy that the provisions in place are proportionate. It is based on text in section 228 of the Planning and Development Act 2024 so I am more than satisfied the provisions regarding emergency applications are appropriate. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

Does the same go for amendment No. 26?

Yes.

I will not press the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 27 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 10, between lines 9 and 9, to insert the following:

“(4) The Agency shall carry out or cause to be carried out such inspection, auditing or monitoring of any activity in relation to which an order was made under this section as it considers necessary or expedient, and shall prepare and public a report on the environmental impact of that activity.”.

This amendment is related. It is more about monitoring the activity. It states that the agency shall carry out or cause to be carried out such inspection, auditing or monitoring of any activity in relation to which an order was made under this section and so on. It is just another check and balance on a Minister's discretion. That is really it. It is just another check and balance. There is another typo in it. I apologise for that. It should read "prepare and publish a report on the environmental impact of that activity". Amendments Nos. 14 and 27 are basically the same.

As the Deputy said, the amendments are the same so the same response will be given. I cannot accept amendments Nos. 12, 14 and 27. Amendment No 12 proposes that the agency carry out dedicated inspections, auditing and monitoring with regard to the order. The agency is already obliged under section 90 of the Act of 1992 to carry out periodic reviews of a licence or revised licence. It is not proposed to change the obligations for a licence for which a section 88C order was made. Similarly under section 99J of the Act of 1992, the agency is already required to prepare an environmental inspection plan with regard to the inspection of industrial emissions installations and regularly draw up a programme for routine environmental inspections for different types of installations.

Section 81A of the Act provides regulatory powers to the Minister in relation to the organisation and carrying out of inspections. In making its annual inspection plan the agency ranks each licensed installation according to category and priority and each one will be visited at least annually, every two years, or every three years. If a section 88C licensed site requires more frequent inspections this will be done as necessary, for example, where there is a record of non-compliance or environmental pollution having been caused. Again, we believe the provisions we have included in the Bill are appropriate and, in that regard, I do not propose to accept amendment No. 12. The same rationale goes for amendments Nos. 14 and 27.

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 10, between lines 30 and 31, 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. 14:

In page 10, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

“(4) The Agency shall carry out or cause to be carried out such inspection, auditing or monitoring of any activity in relation to which an order was made under this section as it considers necessary or expedient, and shall prepare and publish a report on the environmental impact of that activity.”.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 11, between lines 2 and 3, 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 may be renewed.”.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 11, to delete lines 15 to 18 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. 17:

In page 11, between lines 27 and 28, 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. 18:

In page 13, between lines 12 and 13, 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. 19:

In page 14, after line 39, to insert the following:

“(5) For the purposes of subsection (3), the Agency shall deem the change proposed to be made to a revised licence to constitute a substantial change if that change and changes already made to the licence would, taken together, constitute a substantial change.”.

This is about the cumulative impact of screening for minor changes. The Bill enables partial licence reviews where a non-substantial change is being made to a development or a facility. The concern here would be that over time a few minor changes could constitute a substantial overall change, and the development would never have got the full environmental impact assessment. This is about trying to cover a series of smaller changes that might ultimately become substantial.

This has been a real issue. One of the reasons for this legislation is to try to rationalise and reform the regulatory regime that is there without undermining standards and without undermining any of our environmental obligations, and that is critical to it. However, as I mentioned at the outset - in fairness Deputy Ahern could not be here for that - we have more than 900 different licenses. The big issue with small modifications to existing licences is that you get a full review of it. That is one of the principles and one of the core reasons for this legislation. The Deputy's amendment concerns the cumulative effect, and he has outlined that. Section 12 of the Bill inserts a new section 90A into the EPA Act to enable the agency to carry out a partial review of a licence, but that is in limited circumstances. Circumstances are set out under subsection (2) of section 90A. Where the change proposed is below the threshold requiring an EIA and in the case of activities under the industrial emissions directive, the change proposed must be below the threshold of substantial change as defined in subsection (3). When assessing a proposal for a limited licence the EPA will consider changes made since the last licence review. That would deal with the cumulative effect of many of what would be deemed minor changes. If applicable, an EIA would take place and may take the view that a series of changes, if they had been taken together would constitute a project that requires an EIA. They have the ability to do that. Section 90A was drafted in conjunction with the attorney and the definition of substantial change in section 90A(3) mirrors the definition of substantial change in Article 3 of the industrial emissions directive. A partially revised licence granted by the EPA would be no less protective of the environment than a fully revised licence. Whether conducting a full or partial licence review, the EPA would be required to ensure the requirements of section 83(5) of the Act are met in full under the conditions of the whole licence. I am satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as they stand, and I am not in a position to accept amendment No. 19.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 15, between lines 39 and 40, 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.”.”.

Amendments Nos. 21 and 35 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 15, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

“(4) Where the Agency—

(a) does not give notice of a proposed determination within the period prescribed under subsection (2), it shall notify the applicant thereof as soon as may be, stating why it has not been possible to make a decision within that period,

(b) does not give notice of a proposed determination within such further period as may be prescribed under subsection (2) for the purposes of this paragraph, it shall repay to the applicant all fees paid to the Agency by the applicant in respect of the application.”.

This is the reporting and enforcement of statutory timelines on EPA licensing decisions. The Bill introduces statutory timelines for EPA licensing decisions, but they do not seem to have a lot of teeth. The EPA seems to just have to report when the timelines are missed. I am not sure what enforcement mechanisms would be appropriate, but this is an attempt at that.

I will address both amendments together. Amendment No. 21 relates to introducing the provisions the Deputy has outlined to repay to applicants all fees paid to the agency where the agency fails to make the proposed determination in the time period as may be prescribed. The use of fines applicable to the agency for failure to make a determination within the requisite period of time as may be prescribed was given full consideration during the drafting of the Bill. The aim is to avoid a situation where the agency would be obliged to simply issue a decision to refuse an application based on insufficient information provided by the applicant. For that reason, I am considering a "stop the clock" mechanism where there is insufficient information provided, thus avoiding a situation where the agency would be pressurised by threat of a fine to refuse the application in order to meet the prescribed timeframe. What we will do is that if there is insufficient information we would look at effectively stopping the clock. This will be considered during the further deliberation of regulations in consultation with the agency. The point the Deputy has raised is a valid one. We just have to figure out how that would be dealt with through regulation. I am satisfied with the provisions of the Bill as they are, but it is a matter that would have to be looked at in more detail.

The Deputy also spoke to amendment No. 35, which is basically the same.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 16, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 99H of Act of 1992

15.Section 99H of the Act of 1992 is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “has been, is being or is likely to be carried on or continued” for “is being carried on”, and

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) in paragraph (a), by the substitution of “has been, is being or is likely to be carried on or continued” for “is being carried on”, and

(ii) in paragraph (b)(i), by the substitution of “has been, is being or is likely to be” for “is being”.”.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 16, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“(2) An order under section 44A shall continue in operation for a period of 12 months (the “relevant period”) and that period of operation may be extended for such further period or periods, each not exceeding 6 months, as is specified in a resolution passed by each House of the Oireachtas—

(a) in the case of the first period of extension, before the expiry of the relevant period, or

(b) where the relevant period stands extended or further extended by a resolution under this subsection, before the expiry, in accordance with the resolution, of the relevant period as so extended or further extended.”.

This is a sort of sunset clause on the amendment.

We have suggested that an order continue in existence for 12 months, unless renewed or continued by resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas. As we are giving additional powers, it is just to have checks and balances around that.

I fully understand the intent. It is why we discussed this at some length, but section 44A transposes the relevant articles of the environmental impact assessment directive into the 1996 Act. Again, it was carefully constructed to reflect the provisions in section 228 of the Planning and Development Act. For activities "for the sole purpose of ... the defence of the State, or ... responding to a civil emergency", it is considered the appropriate place for a time limit of such an order, if required, would be in the order itself because these would not be standard decisions that would be made. On the basis of whatever emergency we are responding to, or trying to respond in advance of for civil protection or defence purposes, and I used the example of electricity supply, a timeframe could be prescribed in the order itself. The 1996 Act also provides for revoking of orders made under the Act. They only last for a period. On that basis, I am satisfied with the provisions under section 44A of the Act. They are appropriate and adequate. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 24 has been ruled out of order because it is in conflict with the principles of the Bill.

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 18, to delete lines 30 to 34 and substitute the following:

“(c) the Minister is satisfied—

(i) in relation to a civil emergency, that it is of such a nature as to pose a serious and genuine, present or imminent threat to life, property or the environment, and a response that would not require the making of such an order would be inadequate or would not in all the circumstances be reasonably practicable,

(ii) in relation to either the defence of the State or a response to a civil emergency, that applying the EIA Directive and paragraphs (b) to (bi) and (c) of section 83(2A) to the consideration of the application would have an adverse effect on the purpose referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii) of paragraph (b).”.

This is to try to provide some statutory criteria for exemptions granted by ministerial order under a civil emergency. It is an attempt to put some structure on what constitutes a civil emergency.

The Deputy will not be surprised to learn that I cannot accept the amendment. The definition in the amendment is not one that derives from the environmental impact assessment directive. As I mentioned, specifying such a definition may either be too restrictive or too broad. It is intended that each emergency should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and any action taken be in compliance with the EIA directive. I am content with the current provisions and satisfied the provisions in the Bill regarding emergency applications are appropriate. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 24, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“PART 4

AMENDMENT TO LITTER POLLUTION ACT 1997

Punishment for offences

24.The Litter Pollution Act 1997 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 24:

“24.(1) A person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000.

(2) If the contravention in respect of which a person is convicted of an offence under this Act is continued after the conviction, the person shall be guilty of a further offence on every day on which the contravention continues and for each such offence he or she shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €600.”.”.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 5, line 16, after “circumstances;” to insert the following:

“to make provision in relation to the appointment of the Director General and directors of the Environmental Protection Agency; to make provision in relation to powers of the High Court or Circuit Court in relation to activities in contravention of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992; ”.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 5, line 18, after “1996;” to insert the following:

“to make provision in relation to offences relating to litter and for that purpose to amend the Litter Pollution Act 1997; ”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 194(3), the clerk will report specially to the Dáil that the committee has amended the Title.

I thank the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, an Teachta Darragh O'Brien, and his officials for attending and for the considerable work that has been done on this matter. Do members wish to raise any other item of business? No.