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

Amendment No. 164 proposes to remove section 80(2), which provides that a MAC cannot be renewed. This provision serves an important function in protecting the State’s long-term interests in the property subject of the MAC. A new application would enable a new assessment in the context of the performance of the holder under the existing MAC and allow MARA the opportunity to update the terms and conditions of the occupation which may be for durations of many decades.

Some flexibility is built into the system as the duration of the MAC could be extended by way of an application to materially amend the MAC under section 83. However, that would have to be considered in the particular circumstances of the case and it would not be appropriate, in this instance, to double the lifespan of a MAC by way of amendment. I must, therefore, oppose the amendment and I hope that the member may wish to withdraw his amendment following the explanation.

Amendment No. 165 proposes to include a new provision for MARA to grant a leasehold interest where a MAC is granted for exclusive use. I must oppose this amendment for two reasons.

First, leases are property interests that arise from ownership. The State only owns to the outer limit of the territorial seas, which is the current foreshore area. Leaseholds cannot be granted beyond that limit. To do so would result in two different terms of occupation depending on location. The MAC is intended to be operable over the entire maritime area.

Second, leases as granted under the Foreshore Act create a specific relationship between the granter and holder with obligations on both sides. This makes enforcement of terms more challenging as it is viewed by the courts through the prism of a contract dispute. The obligations of MACs rest exclusively with the holder and are enforceable through the provisions of Part 6 of this Bill. MARA should not be constrained in the exercise of those powers. I trust that Deputy McAuliffe understands why I cannot accept this amendment considering the aforementioned.

Amendment No. 168 seeks to restructure section 82 procedure in respect of assignments so that the terms and conditions are set out by way of regulation. The assignment provisions under section 82 provide for a joint application by the prospective assignor and assignee to be considered by MARA in the context of normal MAC assessment criteria under Schedule 5. I acknowledge that this procedure may be somewhat cumbersome for MAC holders. However, it is an important protection for the State’s interests to ensure that any new holder is able to fulfil the obligations of a MAC and is held to the same standard. MARA must have the full opportunity to undertake proper due diligence and revise the terms and conditions of occupation, if appropriate. Control of assignments is in the hands of MARA. Therefore, considering the aforementioned, I must also oppose this amendment.