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

I also apologise for being late. It is one of those days when we are all running around trying to catch up with ourselves. I am sure if I had more time to catch a breath, I could have found a pithy remark at the start about co-existence between ourselves and the Minister of State but it is good to see he is accepting at least one of the amendments. It is not a small change of language but a significant change. Of course, co-existence is the language used in the directive and I thank the Minister for accepting it.

I am of the view, and I agree with the comments of Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, that the language of the directives is being weakened in the text of the Bill, more specifically with respect to the marine spatial plans. I will come to the DMAPs in a similar way shortly. Defining in legislation exactly what they are to be would be a much more helpful way of doing things and would potentially reduce the possibility of legal challenge in future. The concern some of us have, and to go back to the point we have been making from the start, is that we want to see a robust planning regime in the maritime area that facilitates multiple uses in this co-existence spirit, including offshore wind. If the legislative framework is not clear enough at the outset, it will be an open door to judicial review at a later stage, which we all want to avoid. Amendment No. 73 to section 13 is proposed to try to provide much greater clarity in terms of what a spatial plan is meant to do and contain. One of my concerns about some aspects of the language in the Bill is that it defines the process more than the detailed content and, crucially, the objectives.

I also want to reintroduce the issue we discussed previously, namely, the hierarchy and interrelationship between all of these layers of plan making, and I will come to it with regard to DMAPs shortly because there is still a lack of clarity. Amendment No. 74 is similar in the sense it is trying to set out the objectives for the marine spatial plan explicitly using the language of the directive, which I think is much more explicit and helpful.

The Minister of State is absolutely right that we are raising the issue of the inshore fisheries industry. There is a strong view in the Opposition that of all the sectors that have engaged in the public consultation on this to date, inshore fisheries is the sector that has been most left behind. None of us will apologise for continually raising the sector's concerns here. The Minister of State gave us a commitment on this the last time we discussed it.

We are urging the Minister to fully appreciate and understand the capacity deficit that may exist for small inshore fishermen and their businesses to fully engage in the technical complexities in front of us and, therefore, to find mechanisms to ensure their full participation in it.

Amendment No. 77 is about strengthening the language and making it more compliant with the directive.

As regards amendment No. 79, one of the concerns many members have, which we have expressed previously and will express again, is that these are not just spatial plans; they are temporal plans. That is why the issue of Article 6 of the maritime spatial planning, MSP, directive is so important. Although it is clear the framework plan as has been presented to date is spatial, that temporal issue is still very much missing.

The crucial issue in respect of amendment No. 81 is data and the need to ensure, as required under the directives, that we have the best-quality data and address the data gaps that exist. The amendment tries to specify some of those because it is crucial that once we get to the other side of the Bill, everything that flows from it is based on the most up-to-date, accurate and informed data. Unfortunately, as members are aware, Ireland is weak on that, particularly in the context of protected environments.

An issue on which I have not yet tabled an amendment but to which I may return on Report Stage is the definition of a protected site in section 13(1). I will wait and see whether that is an issue of sufficient concern for me to table an amendment on Report Stage. The issue relates to the whole interaction in terms of the time lag between protected areas mitigation measures that are put in at this stage and whether the definition of "protected site" in section 13(1) is adequate for those purposes. I am not necessarily looking to respond on this Stage, but it may be an issue we will return to on Report Stage.