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

Part 2 as initiated, augmented with a number of technical amendments that I have proposed, provides the following: definitions and requirements of maritime spatial planning in sections 15, 16, and 17; comprehensive subnational planning through designated maritime area plans in chapter 3; extensive public participation in marine spatial planning processes through the statutory public participation statements in sections 18 and 23 for maritime spatial plans, MSPs, and designated marine area plans, DMAPs, respectively; provisions to facilitate Oireachtas engagement with future national marine planning framework, NMPF, and DMAP development processes in sections 18(6) and 23(6); ministerial oversight of the DMAPs in section 24; democratic approval of the marine spatial plans and DMAPs by the Oireachtas and, in the case of localised DMAPs, the relevant local authorities in sections 25 and 27, respectively; compliance provisions for public bodies under section 29 and ministerial direction-making powers under section 30 necessary as an enforcement mechanism to ensure such compliance if required under section 31 strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and appropriate assessment, AA, requirements for marine planning policy statements, MPPS, guidelines, section 7 guidelines, section 8 directives, the MSP and DMAPS.

In chapter 8, there is a new public database to centralise information on all maritime consents issued by different bodies. This Part of the Bill is a restatement and augmenting of Part 5 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2018 whose provisions have already successfully delivered Ireland's first marine spatial plan. We can deal further with the detail of each element in the discussions on later amendments.

I will turn now to the grouping of proposed amendments that deals with definitions and MSP requirements. Unfortunately, they contain many of the same technical issues evident with earlier amendments and, if accepted, would not provide operable procedures. I apologise to Deputies for having to present such a critique. I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments have been put forward, but it is important to record why the amendments cannot be accepted.

Amendment No. 73 purports to define maritime spatial planning. Maritime spatial planning is defined in the EU directive. Section 13(2) of the initiated text ensures that the term has the same meaning in this Bill as in the directive. Deviating substantially from that definition, as proposed in this amendment, attracts significant legal risk of incorrect transposition that could imperil any plan made under this legislation. That is especially the case in this amendment where the syntax and structure of the proposed definition contain a number of technical deficiencies that render it inoperable or would have unintended consequences.

"Seas and oceans" is not a precisely defined term and not necessarily limited to Ireland's maritime area, as defined in the Bill. The proposal to "develop coordinated, coherent and transparent decision making in relation to the maritime sectors" is not a requirement of the directive and extends far beyond the scope of preparing a maritime spatial plan. This proposal could be construed as placing an obligation on the competent authority to reform decision-making procedures that are the responsibility of a range of Ministers and bodies under a range of regulatory and legislative regimes. Maritime spatial planning provides the context in which decisions are made but does not direct the form of decision-making procedures. Any reform of those procedures will have to be undertaken in the context of their respective legislative codes.

The syntax of the proposed measures in paragraphs (c) and (d) of the amendment are problematic, in that the terms "have due regard" and "may include" do not match the chapeau of "maritime spatial planning means".

Further and more fundamentally, these are matters that should be taken into account in the development of a plan and cannot form part of the definition.

The proposed paragraph (d) also limits applicable policies to those approved by the Oireachtas, which would be an unprecedented and inordinate constraint on any regulatory system. This would severely limit the scope of any plan made under this amendment and potentially conflicts with the requirements of the directive.

Amendment No. 74 proposes alternative objectives of a maritime spatial plan. These objectives are silent on key elements of Article 5(2) of the directive, namely, the sustainable development of energy sectors at sea, maritime transport and the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, and the preservation, protection and improvement of the environment, including resilience to climate change impacts. This legislation and any plan made under this amendment would be vulnerable to legal challenge. Section 16(4) of the initiated text captures all the required objectives.

Amendment No. 76 specifies the promotion of sustainable opportunities for the local fishing industry. As has been a recurring theme in these sessions, a single sector has been specified in amendments to the exclusion of others. We must retain neutrality in the legislation and the statutory procedures.

Amendment No. 77 is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects. The syntax and grammar of the proposed paragraphs (a) and (d) are not sufficiently clear and are not coherent provisions. The proposed paragraph (b) is based on a misreading of paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the directive, which provides that the member states, through the instrument of marine spatial plans, shall contribute to the matters set out in the paragraph. This amendment would make the competent authority the instrument of such contribution. Section 16(5) of the initiated text already provides for the matters set out in Article 8(1) of the directive making the proposed paragraph (d) redundant.

Acceptance of amendment No. 79 would also duplicate elements of section 17, leading to potential confusion and unacceptable risk.

Amendment No. 81 is expansive on a single pillar of sustainable development to the exclusion of the other two. The legislation and procedures must be neutral in this regard to allow for the right balance of the pillars to emerge from the development process and not be directed from the top down. I fully appreciate the importance of these environmental factors and considerations. Where relevant, they will be taken into account as a matter of course, in particular in the development of DMAPs covering specified locations where specific impacts on identified species and habitats can be identified and provided for. I draw attention to the proposals in section 21(2) for DMAPs, in particular paragraphs (c) to (f). These are broad enough to encompass the considerations raised in this amendment but may not be necessary for every single DMAP. I oppose this amendment

Amendment No. 75 proposes to replace the word "colocation" with the word "co-existence". This formulation is more consistent with the directive than the initiated text and I thank the Deputies for proposing it and bringing it to our attention. I will accept this amendment.