03 May 2006
Acting Chairman (Dr. Henry): Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, 8, 12, 14 to 19, inclusive, 21, 28 to 32, inclusive, 39, 40, 42, 46, 41 to 55, inclusive-----
Mr. Bannon: Is it possible to treat amendments Nos. 17 and 53 separately?
Mr. Roche: I have no problem dealing with them separately but I will give the same general response.
Acting Chairman: Is it agreed to deal with the amendments separately? Agreed. To recap, amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, 8, 12, 14 to 16, inclusive, 18, 19, 21, 28 to 32, inclusive, 39, 40, 42, 46, 41 to 52, inclusive, 54, 55, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 76 to 83, inclusive, 93, 94, 104, 128, 129 and 132 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
…
Acting Chairman: Is amendment No. 5 being pressed?
Mr. Bannon: I cannot understand the reason the Minister had a difficulty in accepting this amendment, which proposes to delete the word "serves" and substitute it with the words "shall serve". I feel the same about amendment No. 6.
Acting Chairman: These amendments have been discussed with amendment No. 3 and I can only ask the Senator if he wishes to press them.
Mr. Bannon: No.
Amendments No. 5 and 6 not moved.
…
Mr. Bannon: I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, line 40, after "that" to insert "either".
The board may refuse permission on the basis of the application or the environmental impact statement.
Mr. McCarthy: On a point of order, this amendment is grouped with the amendments taken with amendment No. 3.
Acting Chairman: Senator Bannon asked specifically for amendments Nos. 17 and 53 to be removed from that grouping.
Mr. McCarthy: Yes, I understand.
Mr. Bannon: The insertion of the word "either" in this subsection would bring greater clarity to it. It is important to insert the word "either" after the word "that", as permission can be refused on the basis of either the application or the environmental impact statement.
Mr. Roche: When the Senator suggested we should take this point aside and examine it, I was interested, but there is not a cogent argument for doing what the Senator proposes. If we were to insert the word "either" in this subsection, we would have to redraft the text elsewhere in this section and insert another word "either", which would not add greatly to the text.
If one includes the word "either" after the word "that" on line 40 of page 8, as Senator Bannon is proposing, one will subsequently have to insert the same word elsewhere in this section. It is a question of the stylistics of drafting.
The insertion or omission of the word "either" would not have a significant impact on the Bill. The proposed section 37E is clear without the inclusion of the word "either". If one makes such a change, one will have to examine the consequential text, which would complicate matters unnecessarily. I do not think the inclusion of the word "either" would bring any additional clarity to the situation. The text, as it stands, is clear enough on the issue of when a board may refuse to deal with an application. The proposed additional word would probably add nothing to the legislation. If I accept the amendment, I will have to consider the need for further redrafting. Therefore, I am not disposed to accepting it.
Mr. Bannon: I do not agree with the Minister. I propose that section 37E should state that "the board may refuse to deal with any application made to it under this section where it considers that either the application for permission or the environmental impact statement is inadequate or incomplete, having regard in particular to the permission regulations and any regulations made under section 177 or to any consultations held under section 37B." The inclusion of the word "either" in that way would make more sense and give greater clarity. It should be emphasised that the board can refuse to deal with an application on the basis of problems with either of the documents.
…
Acting Chairman: We will now move on to amendment No. 20. As amendment No. 68, the amendment to amendment No. 86 and amendment No. 110 are cognate, and amendment No. 124 is related, we will take the amendments together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. McCarthy: I move amendment No. 20:
In page 9, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(ii) specifying the website at which the text of the environmental impact assessment is available free of charge,".
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Roche, to the House. I hope his comments about not wishing to be negative, which will be tested by these amendments, are true. The amendments seek to oblige developers to make the details of environmental impact assessments available on the Internet, free of charge. Such a small measure would help to inform public opinion. It is important that information should be communicated to the discerning public free of charge.
Mr. Bannon: I support Senator McCarthy's amendment, which seeks to improve the services offered to customers. This customer-friendly amendment should be accepted.
Mr. Roche: That we are talking about websites in the context of legislation is a sign that we have come a long way. The amendments before the House seek the specific inclusion in the Bill of a provision that would require the publication in a newspaper of the name of a website on which an environmental impact assessment can be downloaded or viewed free of charge.
I agree with Senator McCarthy that it is critical that the planning system should use the Internet as much as possible. I said in another context over the past two days that we should use the Internet more frequently. Section 248 of the legislation already takes account of the possibility of publishing such information on websites.
The Bill will amend section 146 of the principal Act, which ensures that where the board is required to supply any information, it may do so by electronic means, as long as it notifies the relevant parties that the information will be made available electronically. If such information is posted on a website, it is available free of charge as a matter of course. Therefore, no added value is offered by the specific inclusion of the phrase "free of charge", as suggested by Senator McCarthy. I do not propose to accept this amendment for that reason.
The substance of the Senator's amendment, which is his desire that information about these matters be freely available, is dealt with in the body of the Act itself. I share the Senator's view that we should make this information as freely available as possible. That is the effect of the other sections of the Act that I have mentioned.
Mr. McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is important that he has made a statement about the need for more use of e-technology. That websites are being mentioned in legislation is a reflection of the progress we have made in the information age in recent times, especially as not too long ago, many people did not know what they were used for.
E-technology needs to be used in the future and the principle I have outlined needs to be applied. I remember the Minister making a statement in the House approximately a year ago about the need to ensure that applications for planning permission can be lodged to local authorities on-line. I do not think there is any difficulty with that. One can tax one's car on-line without any problems at present. The good principle of communicating information free of charge, while encompassing e-technology, needs to be affirmed in legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Bannon: I move amendment No. 21:
In page 9, to delete lines 10 to 19 and substitute the following:
"(ii) specifying---
(I) the times and places at which, and the period (not being less than 6 weeks) during which, a copy of the application and the environmental impact statement may be inspected,
(II) that a copy of the application and the environmental impact statement may be inspected free of charge or purchased on payment of a specified fee (which fee shall not exceed the reasonable cost of making such copy), and".
I am proposing a different definition. I do not think the Minister has clarified this issue. I would like him to tidy up and clarify this section of the Bill.
Acting Chairman: This amendment has already been discussed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Acting Chairman: As amendments Nos. 22 to 27, inclusive, 70 to 72, inclusive, and 74 form a composite proposal, they may be discussed together, with the agreement of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Mr. Bannon: I move amendment No. 22:
In page 9, lines 23 and 24, to delete "of the proposed development".
This amendment is being taken with amendment No. 23, which proposes the deletion of the same words, and amendments Nos. 24 and 25, which propose the insertion of the words "the proposed development were". These technical amendments, particularly amendment No. 25, would give greater clarity to the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will also examine amendment No. 26, which I have tabled to correct a grammatical error. Amendment No. 27 proposes the deletion of the words "in relation to a proposed development to the Board" in lines 13 and 14 of page 10 of the Bill.
Is the Minister considering a report in this regard?
Again, amendment No. 28 is a technical amendment, proposing on page 10, line 16, to delete "the views of the members" and substitute "their views". This would bring greater clarity to the Bill. It is probably just a matter of definitions and perhaps the Minister can take some or all of them on board.
Mr. Roche: Again I thank Senator Bannon. This is really a stylistic issue. He is actually proposing in the main here to remove the words "proposed development". If one goes back to the spoken language the words "proposed development" would not be used time and again in different sections which are clearly related. We are not talking about the spoken language, however, but a legal text and the advice is to leave those words in.
Mr. Bannon: It is just complicating matters.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech
