Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Before I deal with the amendments, I think it would be really useful if before the Minister of State responds to our questions about the amendments, he gives the committee a plain English explanation of what the marine planning policy statement is, its function and role. I am particularly interested because we have a national marine planning framework and will have marine protected areas, designations and a variety of other plans. Where does the policy statement fit into that overarching legal and policy architecture. What is it going to do, what is its added value and, crucially, how does it relate to all of those?

As will become clear as we go through later Stages of the Bill, there is real concern, and I echo Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's remarks. I presume this is a statement of some significance, particularly given the length of time it is due to run for. I would not in any way question the Minister's intentions but giving the Minister the power to introduce such a significant statement without adequate public consultation and access to strategic environmental assessments or appropriate assessments, particularly in the absence of an adequate designation of Natura 2000 sites, has implications for any real functional role for the Oireachtas. There was very extensive consultation when the national planning framework - the terrestrial planning framework - was being done in the previous Oireachtas and Department officials worked very hard. However, there was no formal role outside of briefings and informal engagements on and off the record. There was no formal role. In fact, there was some controversy at the end because despite the fact that the former Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, who introduced the legislation, said that it was always his intention for there to be a vote of the Oireachtas, the subsequent Government and Minister interpreted the legislation differently and said there would be no vote. That became a large bone of contention.

Could the Minister of State outline his general thoughts on those? My arguments regarding the amendments are similar to those of Deputy Cian O'Callaghan. Something of this significance should get Oireachtas approval. If the Minister of the day is satisfied that he or she has done his or her work properly, he or she should be able to easily get it through an Oireachtas vote. I also think there should be a mechanism for Oireachtas amendments - I took the same position with the terrestrial planning framework - but also for the revocation of any such policy statement, particularly in the context of a change of Government.

Amendment No. 32 speaks to the issue of a timeframe. In so many other areas of legislation, particularly in planning, the production of policy statements or guidelines can take far longer than they could or should. I do not want to mention the war of the rural planning guidelines, which were much delayed both before the Minister of State was in office and are still delayed, but that is just one example of how very complex issues can end up taking far longer than they need to. This creates planning uncertainty, which is not good for anyone.

I will fall over backwards if the Minister of State considers accepting Amendment No. 33 because it completely rewrites this section of the Bill. What I and others are trying to do with this amendment is set out a more comprehensive primary legislative basis for what that policy statement should be but also respecting the primacy of a number of key EU directives also highlighting what happens if at a later stage, there is a conflict between, for example, the revised marine planning framework and the marine spatial planning directive. Where does that conflict play itself out? By putting down these baskets of obligations in my amendment involving section 3(a), (b) and (c), I am trying to give clarity to that and detail who should be consulted in all of those.

Likewise, amendment No. 34 is a small amendment but it strengthens the need for compliance with the relevant sections rather than "have regard to". We all know the difficulties involved in the difference between "comply with" and "have regard to" when it comes to An Bord Pleanála regarding SDZs, something we are trying to remove from terrestrial planning legislation. It would be good not to have that same weakness in this Bill. This group of amendments goes up to amendment No. 38 and also includes amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 45.