Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for that information. I thank the officials for yesterday's briefing, which I found helpful. I also found Deputy Boyd Barrett's questions at that briefing helpful.

I wish to address amendment No. 33. It is a very good amendment. I am biased, of course, as I submitted it and a number of others, but it would create a considerable amount of structure around marine planning policy statements. If this amendment was inserted into the Bill now or, if the Minister of State is minded to improve the section and give more structure to it, on Report Stage, I would have much more confidence in this section. Reading the current section, it does not give much information about marine planning policy statements. It states that they will be there and they shall have regard to a few matters, but it does not provide a proper structure. We do not know from the Bill when marine planning policy statements will be revoked and how they can be amended. That is not clear. If a new Minister makes a new statement, will that mean that the previous statements are then out of date? If a Minister does something through a marine policy planning statement that is contrary to the majority wishes of the Oireachtas, will the Oireachtas have any ability to amend or revoke it or make an input into it? What is the process in that regard? As legislators, we must think about these questions in light of who the Minister might be. The current Minister is one who has a keen interest in marine biodiversity, but what happens if there is a Minister who has no interest in the marine environment whatsoever and starts inserting all sorts of stuff into marine policy statements? Could a Minister, through marine policy statements, create a large amount of damage to the marine environment by opening up avenues for mining activity or sand and gravel extraction, which have major implications for climate change?

I would welcome it if the Minister of State explained exactly where marine planning policy statements fit in with the rest of the Bill's architecture. Where in the Bill is clarity provided in this regard? What is the hierarchy? Why not accept our amendment to ensure that the Minister must act explicitly in accordance with the objectives of the birds directive and Article 2 of the habitats directive? Why not write that into the Bill in terms of marine planning policy statements just to make those aspects stronger and clearer? Hearing the Minister of State's response would be useful.