Yes, my attention has been drawn to this because, during the summer, I met the company that was experiencing difficulties in this regard and I then contacted the Department and the EPA to discuss this. Article 28 of the European Communities (Waste Directive) Regulations, S.I. No. 126 of 2011, sets out the grounds by which a material which is recovered or recycled from waste can be deemed to be no longer a waste. As the designated competent authority, decisions regarding applications for end-of-waste are the respons…

For a start, no company should ever have to wait years for a decision from the Government on anything, and that stands to reason. The EPA tells me that it has only ever received 68 end of waste applications. Of these, 13 have been delivered, with a further 13 applications deemed to be abandoned or withdrawn. Of the remaining 42 applications on hand, which is more than the number the Deputy stated, 21 applications are considered as under active assessment, while a further 21 will be allocated and assessed in due cou…

One of the issues is that the EPA has no legislative or strategy requirement to come to a determination in any timeframe. I think that, generally, there should be some limit on how long it takes to reach a decision. Specifically, what we can do is to make sure the EPA is sufficiently staffed and that it has the resources it needs to do it, that we monitor the length of its applications stream, even though the rules will probably change within a few months, and that we make sure the EPA addresses those that have bee…

Again, I refer the Deputy to the meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications with National Broadband Ireland, NBI, yesterday, where some of these issues were discussed, certainly from the point of view of NBI on the acceleration of the roll-out. The programme for Government states that the Government will attempt to compress the length of time for the roll-out from seven years to five years. In other words, to brings years six and seven into years four and five. At the same time, because of the p…

Not everybody in Mayo will be connected at the same time. The connections will start at the exchanges and move outwards. There will be different deployment areas and some areas will come on stream before others. I have asked NBI to provide the most detailed information that it can, and it has provided more. I want it to be realistic with people and state that they are, at present, five years or whatever away so that people would see and be able to make decisions based on that. In the meantime, we can connect broadb…

For a start, in response to Deputy Dillon, the management of the NBI contract is very important at this point. It is important, for example, that all penalty clauses are applied where they are legally due. I have told my project team not to show any kindness towards the contractor and to let it know that we will be setting a standard that all penalty clauses are applied where they are due. In terms of managing it, etc., I visited Monaghan to see NBI installing some of the cable with the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, …

I thank all of the Members who have contributed to this debate this evening. It has highlighted the timeliness of the review of FOI legislation my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, began in June 2021. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will undertake a comprehensive and careful review of the Freedom of Information Act. The approach to this review is being finalised and a report will be published shortly setting out the process. Collaboration and input from stakeholders across the public …

I thank all the Senators for being here and for having me in their Chamber. The point was made that many people are seen wearing the badge of sustainable development goals - they are talking the talk but are they walking the walk? Senator Higgins proposes two amendments in this regard. The sustainable development goals are not directly referenced, that is true, within the climate Bill. However, they are addressed through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, and the Paris Agreement, whi…

I thank the Senator for making her points so well. The SDGs are, as she said, not legally binding but the Paris Agreement is and it refers to them. The Paris Agreement is directly referred to in this legislation. We should also bear in mind the SDGs are time-bound to 2030 whereas this is legislation focused on 2050 and as such it goes beyond that date. The SDGs will be referred to in the climate action plan and there will be an SDG implementation plan later this year. The SDGs should be referred to throughout all o…

I thank Senators for their contributions. These amendments are grouped because they all seek to add to the list of concepts to which the Minister and the Government must have regard when they are making national, long-term climate action strategy, sector emissions ceilings, preparing climate plans and so on. There are 18 concepts listed. That list was the result of recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny report and a hierarchy was formed with the other concepts listed in section 4(8). These four amendment…

I thank Senator Higgins for tabling these amendments. What the amendments are trying to achieve is to avoid the pitfall or difficulty to which the 2015 Act gave rise in the context of how it was interpreted in court. The Senator believes that the same language is used in this Bill and that it will be affected by the same problems as a result. I was listening to the Senator's argument but I am not sure how changing "Government" to "Government of Ireland" will fix anything or make anything materially different. It is…

I thought we were changing "Government". It is "Minister of Government" and "Government of Ireland". To address the fear that the Bill will have the same wording problem that arose in court with the 2015 legislation, it is worth saying that the new 2021 legislation is very different and has substantially different requirements and obligations that are much more onerous on the Minister and Government. Section 3(3), as substituted in the Bill, states that the Minister and Government are now bound to carry out their r…

This is not just about section 3(3). It also involves section 4(8) and the 18 matters listed therein. It would be duplication and it is not necessary to include it because it is already covered.

I thanks Senator Boyhan for his contribution. I know that he is on the Agricultural Panel and takes a keen interest in the role of agriculture in all of this. As he pointed out, I represent him as a Deputy in the Dáil and he represents me, so we have that strange relationship.

We have discussed this already but I will go back into it again. I thank Senator Boylan for making her points. The role of Government throughout the climate Bill is central to the operation of the Bill. There are great changes between this Bill and the previous Bill. The overall target is set in the legislation and this is something of which the Government will need to have clear consideration. A statutory obligation is being created, one that is almost certainly justiciable. That is by design. Even without any bro…

Briefly, making sure the legislation is justiciable is an important tool. Taking legal action against a Government to try to force it to do things is a reasonable thing to do but it is insufficient. My fear is that in the past decade, having legal obligations and even fines was not enough to make change happen. We also need a focus on the actions, the monitoring and the yearly continuation and constant management of our climate budgets and targets. I am reminded of how John Gormley brought in climate budgets a deca…

I welcome Senator Higgins’s concern that the 51% reduction target could somehow be missed. The relevant subsection is (5). The Senator thinks there is a loophole in it and it is possible for a 51% reduction not to be made in the first two carbon budgets, which will cover the period up to December 2030. The subsection states "The first two carbon budgets proposed by the Advisory Council shall provide for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions such that the total amount of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the year…

To clarify, is it section 6D, dealing with the revision of carbon budgets, that the Senator is concerned with, or is it more about the amendment of the budgets?

I am sure Senator Higgins knows it is possible to go beyond 51% and the Bill provides two reasons for that.

The Senator is arguing that the advisory council should be allowed to go to 60% or 55% if it wants to choose an ambition that is higher than 51%.