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

I appreciate that this is a complex matter. We can break it down further with a mapping process, although that would not take away from the significant complexity of what we are trying to do.

I will address the technical aspects first and then make a few comments. The marine planning policy framework is a high-level expression of Government policy prepared by the Minister and agreed across the Government by the Cabinet. This is a ministerial function.

The statement is intended to do the following: describe the existing components of Ireland's marine planning system; outline a vision for the future development of our marine planning system; set out the overarching policies and principles that the Government expects marine planning bodies and other public bodies that engage with the marine planning system to observe, for example, public engagement, transparency, governance, environmental assessment, climate action, and social and economic benefit; and set out high-level priorities for the enhancement of the marine planning system in Ireland. This grouping of amendments proposes instead to establish a mechanism going far beyond oversight and democratic approval, effectively resulting in an Oireachtas marine planning policy statement, MPPS. The Oireachtas would be acting, in part, as a quasi-marine planning body. With all due respect to the various competencies and experience of my Oireachtas colleagues, that is not an appropriate role for a national legislature.

The amendments proposed appear to confuse the marine policy statement with a maritime spatial plan through the inclusion of considerations and matters that can only be properly expressed in a detailed plan. They are not appropriate for a high-level statement. Further to this, the amendments proposed contain technical deficiencies that would create inherent impracticalities, legal issues and severe limitations. The net effect would be to establish procedures that were simply inoperable.

Amendment No. 30 proposes to include an Oireachtas approval of the MPPS. This is a Cabinet function. Amendment No. 32 repeats the Oireachtas approval requirement in respect of the first MPPS. Again, this is a Cabinet function. Amendment No. 33 revises the considerations for the development of the MPPS. The proposed subsection (3)(a) would require the Minister to "act consistently with" a number of matters. "Have regard to" is the standard phrasing used and is well understood by the public, practitioners and the courts. Such a novel departure would inevitably require interpretation and clarification by the courts, perhaps over multiple cases and years. We cannot introduce such a risk.

Marine spatial planning is based upon balancing the three pillars of sustainable development: environmental, economic and social. The proposed subsection (3)(a), while expansive on a single pillar of marine spatial planning, is silent on the other two. This creates an imbalance and severely limits the scope of the statement to the point of inoperability.

The proposed subsection (3)(b)(ii) is technically deficient. The use of the word "it" is ambiguous and may be construed as a statement or that this provision is cumulative with the proposed subsection (3)(b)(i), which refers to the NMPF.

The proposed section 3(b)(iii) appears to require the Minister to have regard to future maritime spatial plans not yet developed. Section 3(b)(iv) and (v) would require a level of detail appropriate to a detailed maritime spatial plan, not a policy statement. The proposed section 3(c) explicitly limits consultation to two Ministers and Ministers of State, in stark contrast to the ministerial consultation on the first MPPS that engaged all Ministers, particularly those with maritime functions. I see no justification for such a limit and am surprised because it goes against the ethos of all our consultation to date.

Amendment No. 34 proposes to replace "have regard to" with "must comply with" for ministerial considerations in section 6(3). This phrasing stands in contrast to the Deputies' use of "have regard to" in amendment No. 33. It is important we remain consistent with the terms we use around planning. As previously mentioned, the term "have regard to" is used throughout planning and it works.

Amendment No. 38 requires the Minister to have regard to interim measures to protect areas of marine environment as agreed by the Government. I acknowledge the positive intentions of the amendment but it is not currently functional. "Interim measures" has no legal meaning. However, as detailed by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, in the Second Stage debate, we have undertaken to examine the possibility of using designated maritime area plans provisions of this Bill as an interim measure in advance of the MPA legislation. Should this prove to be operable, there will be no need to refer to them as they are already fall under the definition of the national marine planning framework in section 2.

Amendment No. 42 proposes to establish Oireachtas engagement and public consultation procedures. The Oireachtas procedure is unprecedented in scope and places something akin to a planning function on the Oireachtas. I have proposed consultation procedures under amendments Nos. 31, 36, 37 and 46. The public and Oireachtas Members and committees will be able to provide input into the development of the MPPS through this procedure.

Amendment No. 43 sets out further detail in relation to Oireachtas engagement procedure and relies upon section 6(3). As detailed above, it is legally inoperable and contains multiple deficiencies. Amendment No. 45 is a technical amendment relating to Oireachtas approval. I oppose these amendments.

I support amendments No. 31, 36 and 37. Ministerial amendment No. 31 is a technical amendment, necessary to facilitate additional provisions of amendment No. 46. Ministerial amendment No. 36 is a technical amendment necessary to facilitate amendment No. 37. Ministerial amendment No. 37 requires the Minister to have regard to representations made in public consultation.

In relation to the high level policy statement, I draw members' attention to page 27 of the Bill, where they will see detailed the requirements and those the planning policy statement has to have regard to. It is also in terms of consultation, as I referenced in the amendments from No. 46. Like our current planning policy, this is a high level expression statement at the top overarching our policy and it requires approval by the Cabinet.

I appreciate how complex this is. It is the same for me as I try to grapple with all these terms and engagements. I acknowledge the good faith being displayed by members in putting forward their amendments and I am willing to work with them on as many as I can. I hope I demonstrated this from the start of the proceedings this afternoon.

The way I have broken it down for myself is that what we are doing involves three pillars. There is forward planning, including the policy statement sitting on top, the national marine planning framework underneath it and the guidelines and directions that follow suit from that, as well as DMAPS, akin to local area plans in the current 31 local authority structure. That will give a reflection of what it is like inland or an alternative snapshot. The second pillar is development management, which is concerned with consents, giving licence to development and deciding whether it goes through An Bord Pleanála or the local authority, depending on where it is located or what environmental assessment is needed. Enforcement is the last pillar and MARA will take a lead role in that. Those are three pillars into which we have tried to break it down but I acknowledge it is a sizable and technical Bill.