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

I move amendment No. 150:

In page 66, line 6, after “the” where it fourthly occurs to insert the following: “occupation of the part of the maritime area the subject of the application for the purposes of the undertaking of the”.

Amendments Nos. 150 and 155 are similar amendments that propose to ensure there is a consistency of language throughout the Bill. They ensure further clarity in the legislation about the purpose and function of the MAC, which consents to the occupation and not the usage itself.

Amendment No. 151 allows for additional information in regard to a MAC application to be provided by means other than just by affidavit by substituting "by affidavit" with "by affidavit or otherwise". This is a necessary practical change.

Amendment No. 152 proposes to make it clear that the range of potential MAC applicants will include such groups as rowing clubs, charities, community organisations etc. Section 76(4), as initiated, was inadvertently too limiting and would have excluded these groups.

Amendments Nos. 157, 158 and 160 add "in the opinion of the Minister" to avoid any doubt as to where the interpretation of such matters resides. This is standard wording from the Statute Book and does not change the substance of the regulation-making powers under this section.

Amendment No. 161 is a technical amendment to define clearly the intention of the sentence and does not change the substance of the subsection.

I will now address members' amendments. Amendment No. 156 proposes to provide a public and prescribed bodies consultation process in the MAC application procedure. I appreciate and understand the intentions behind the proposal, but I will be opposing this amendment. After my explanation, I hope members will understand the reasons.

In planning permission, the first time people normally hear of a proposal is in the set-piece public consultation on a planning permission or foreshore application. Under this regime, that set-piece consultation will be undertaken on any planning permission application. However, that will not be the start of the participation process. A key MAC assessment criterion set out in Schedule 5 is, “The extent and nature of stakeholder engagement undertaken by the applicant in respect of the proposed maritime usage.” This provision places an obligation on the developer to engage substantively and seriously with the public, to the satisfaction of MARA, before it has applied for a MAC. Failure to do so will result in a refusal.

Likewise, the prospective developer will need to engage substantively with stakeholders such as NGOs and State agencies. The intention of this provision is to help ensure issues raised at the earliest possible stage inform the very design of a project proposal. To augment this approach further, amendment No. 281 proposes to include a condition requiring the MAC holder to prepare, maintain and adhere to a public engagement plan for the period from the grant of the MAC to the submission of the planning application. This will enable continued public participation during the period where the detailed plans of a particular proposal are developed and evolved before a planning application is finalised and submitted. Put simply, the days of a prospective maritime developer avoiding those whom the development might impact are ending with this legislation.

The intention of these provisions is to help ensure participation begins early, that issues are raised and can be addressed or incorporated into project design, leading ultimately to better planning applications. This is an innovative approach that is hoped will shape good developer practices and change radically the nature and effectiveness of public participation. I believe this is a far better approach than a single set-piece consultation on the MAC that would, by its nature, be limited to MAC assessment criteria. I trust members understand why I oppose this amendment for these reasons.

Amendment No. 162 proposes to insert additional text limiting the operation of subsection (7)(b) relating to procedural fairness provisions to one particular ground of refusal: inadequate level of public participation and consultation. On a purely logical level, it would not be appropriate to include an unfair limitation on a procedural fairness provision. This amendment also relies upon amendment No. 156 that intends to include a public consultation procedure, which is also opposed. For those reasons, I also oppose this amendment.