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

I thank Minister of State for his reply. I do not believe that because what is proposed is innovative we are finding it difficult to understand. This suggests that somehow innovation is something that the Opposition cannot comprehend. It is because this is incredibly complex. The legislation does not lend itself to easy understanding of its outworkings, particularly when large aspects of what we are talking about are not specified in the legislation. It is specified by way of powers for the Minister.

The concern that motivates us to have amendments around public participation is that upon reading section 18 I am not clear on who a competent authority may be, and I am not clear what the status of a public participation statement will be. I understand what the Minister of State is describing it as, which is a series of intentions, but my big concern is to be found when we get into section 18(2), which states: "The competent authority (M) shall take all reasonable steps to comply with the public participation statement (M)." To me, this seems very vague and open. While a very good Minister with very good officials with a good track record of public participation will use the provision in a very positive way, this does not necessarily require it under law.

The Minister of State said there may be events outside the control of the authority. I would like to know what kinds of events are considered. I am not being awkward, but I ask the Minister of State to be more explicit in explaining what those outside events are that may mean a competent authority does not feel it is fully able to comply with the statement. What would be reasonable steps and what would not be reasonable steps, and who decides? Where will this be set out?

Likewise, section 18(3) refers to where the competent authority "considers it necessary or expedient" to revise the statement. This means that the public participation statement does not have to be fully adhered to, depending on what events outside the control of the competent authority happened to intervene. It can be amended. Again, I could be interpreting this wrong, but it seems there is lots of scope and room for manoeuvre in good ways but also in bad ways. This strikes me as problematic.

My final point speaks to our amendments, which are trying to specify what the public participation consultation will be. I will slightly add to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's question for the Minister of State to tell us what a public participation statement will be. Clearly in the provisions for the regulation set out in section 18(4), the Minister of State or his officials must have some notion of what an appropriate time period for public consultation would be, what the arrangements would be for notifications and so on. Will the Minister of State give us some comfort as to what kind of public participation process it would be? What are the checks on the difficult aspects of sections 18(2) and 18(3), which I have outlined, that would prevent them from being properly used - I must choose my words very carefully - by a future Minister or future officials who are not as committed to public participation, as the Minister of State and his team have made the case here today?