Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025: Committee Stage
Seanad Éireann — 2026-02-25
============================================================

Timmy Dooley (FF), Clare

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.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-02-25/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:41+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-02-25