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

I am delighted there was some good news at the end of the Minister of State's contribution. Perhaps he could have expanded on it. I apologise for being late. I came straight from making a short contribution in the Dáil. I want to make a few points on amendments Nos. 73 to 77, inclusive, 79 and 81. I will also comment on several points the Minister of State has just made.

The idea of these amendments is to provide an alternative definition and objective for the marine spatial plans, with a stronger focus on environmental and social requirements. These amendments seek to bring the objectives in line with the EU directives. What is encompassed by maritime spatial planning needs to be clearly set out in the Bill. It is very important that we do this to ensure the Bill is as robust as possible. Why is this important? I noted at the weekend there was coverage from people in the renewable wind energy sector that if they do not get the type of robust planning system they need, the consequent uncertainty could lead to judicial reviews and impact on investment. I do not favour the model of developing renewable energy being pursued by the Government. I would much prefer a much more public role in it. I accept that the model being pursued is reliant on private investment so it is very important, even from the point of view of getting investment into the sector, that we have robust legislation and that there are not grounds for judicial review. This is very important. These are complex environmental considerations and they must take into account spatial planning. This is not a discretionary matter that we can pick and choose.

With regard to the response of the Minister of State, I want to make several points. With regard to syntax and grammar, from my point of view if syntax and grammar need to be fixed in any amendment I table, there will be no issue with doing so. I will be happy to accommodate the Minister of State and the Department in that regard. It should not be an obstacle to any amendment we are tabling. It can be fixed as part of the process.

On amendment No. 74, the Minister of State said it is silent on Article 5 of the directive and on the uses being specified. I will read out a section of amendment No. 74. The new wording proposed in section 16(2)(b) states "by applying an ecosystem-based approach, and which promote the co-existence of relevant activities and uses, as required by Article 1 and Article 5(1) of the MSP Directive". Article 5 is specifically written in and the uses are specifically referenced. I do not accept the comments of the Minister of State that it is silent on Article 5. I ask him to expand on why he takes this view when we specifically have it written into the amendment.