Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 25 proposes to specify specific categories of the public, whose public consultation representation shall be taken into account when determining the boundaries of a coastal planning authority, CPA, nearshore area. While noting the positive intention of the proposal, it is not necessary to itemise any particular category of the public, as well as all captured the broad term “members of the public” in subsection 4(b). While fishing representative bodies and coastal community groups are commonly understood terms, neither is defined for the purposes of this Bill. Throughout the four-year consultation period on the National Marine Planning Framework, we were always mindful of respecting equally all members of the maritime community. That is right and proper. We must be careful in this legislation not to state that one category of the public is more important than another. This would only lead to exclusion. In public consultations such as this, the procedure must be neutral. There must be equality of opportunity for all to contribute and to be heard.

Amendment No. 39 proposes additional considerations in the development of the statement that appeared to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of the statement as a high-level expression of Government policy. This amendment requires a level of detailed consideration more appropriate to a marine spatial plan itself or, indeed, project-level assessment. It also suffers from the same imbalance as present in earlier proposed amendments.

The statement will, in line with existing obligations and practices, have regard to the regulatory framework, including the birds and habitats directive, which to note, are two separate instruments and not a single directive, as referenced.

Amendment No. 44 proposes to extend the appropriate assessment requirements of section 31 to this statement. The public consultation procedure set out in proposed amendments Nos. 31, 36, 37 and 46 will ensure that any submissions from any interested parties or groups will be considered. As before, the amendment proposed here places certain groups, which have not yet been defined, above all others in terms of submissions or observations. This is highly inequitable. I will not be supporting this amendment.