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

Amendment No. 80, which relates to public participation, seeks to insert Article 9. That Article states member states shall establish means of public participation by informing all interested parties, consulting relevant stakeholders, authorities and the public concerned at an early stage in the development of maritime spatial plans in accordance with relevant provisions establishing legislation. It will also ensure relevant stakeholders, authorities and the public will have access to plans once they have been finalised. This is very important to ensure there will be proper compliance with the maritime spatial planning directive when a maritime spatial plan is being compiled.

On amendment No. 87, the Bill, as it stands, includes quite a complex system for public participation on maritime spatial plans, but the reason for this complexity is not clear. The amendment will provide that the consultation period will exclude public holidays and that it will both be online and use traditional methods to ensure inclusion. That is important to ensure no one will be disenfranchised in the context of the digital divide. It will provide also that there will be no charge for submissions or for inspecting materials made available online. They are all useful steps to take in regard to public participation being written into the legislation.

Amendment No. 88 will require a statement on public participation to be published after the Bill has been enacted to ensure compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

Amendment No. 89 seeks to delete the lines, "The competent authority ... shall take all reasonable steps to comply with the public participation statement". That wording would give the competent authority discretion not to comply with its own public participation statement. It is unclear what would constitute "reasonable steps" and the wording is arbitrary. It is not defined in the legislation and there could be difficulties in that regard. It is not a good wording to have in the Bill and it weakens it. In fact, an issue I have with much of the Bill relates to parts whose language weakens provisions unnecessarily. It reflects some of what is in the directives but it chooses wording that would allow for get-out clauses or weaker implementation.

Amendment Nos. 92 and 93 are similar to amendment No. 87. Amendment No. 95 sets out additional details on what should be classed as relevant documentation for this section. It includes reviews of and changes to the existing NMPF, MSPs and DMAPs, whereas the Bill includes only the draft MSP.

That is important in terms of this legislation.