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

Amendment No. 190 seeks to prohibit the granting of any licence for any of the activities set out in Schedule 7 within 22 km of the coastline. The Deputies may not fully understand the purposes of the licensing provisions in the Bill. The purpose of the licensing provisions is to provide a regulatory regime for maritime usages that are of relatively low-scale or of a temporary duration. The creation of this regime would mean that the planning system is not overburdened by the authorisation of the activities set out in Schedule 7. The Deputies are apparently proposing that no dredging can take place to keep ports clear, and that scientific research be prohibited. The amendment would see local seaweed harvesting banned on the coastline, the placement of navigation markers prohibited or boat moorings being inaccessible to most recreational boaters, something, I am sure, Deputy Boyd Barrett would not be happy with.

The amendment would make Part 5 mostly redundant, as most maritime usages to be licensed under this Part will be within 22 km of the coastline. Perhaps the Deputies are attempting to ensure that no marine surveys can take place within 22 km to support specific planning applications, but there is a very significant consequence to the amendment proposed on all other maritime users, including local coastal communities, harbour and transport infrastructure and, indeed, the scientific research community.

When granting a maritime usage licence, the MARA is bound to consider all the things set out in the relevant provisions of the Bill, including the national planning framework and any appropriate assessment findings. Licensing will take place in a well-managed and holistic system which, as previously discussed, balances the needs of all maritime users and the environment. I am sure that the Deputies will appreciate why I must oppose the amendment.

Amendment No. 191 provides that a licence cannot be granted without a heritage survey. While I find this proposition somewhat vague, as I think I understand the intention, let me clarify a number of points in respect of the granting of licences.

Under section 116(3), MARA cannot grant a licence unless the licence is consistent with the national marine planning framework, NMPF. Part 7.3 of the framework, on heritage assets, requires that proposals consider the potential impact of their application on heritage sites from the earliest stages of project development, and states that expert advice will be required at all stages. Moreover, MARA can specify what information must accompany a licence application before a decision to license a maritime usage can be made. Section 113(3) pertains in this regard. This could include a particular assessment or report relating to heritage if and when such a survey is warranted, having regard to both the characteristics of the local receiving environment and the nature and scale of the usage proposed. MARA can simply determine that all licence applications in any area will require some form of support in respect of the assessment of heritage impacts. Therefore, this amendment is not required and has a greater impact than is warranted regarding what it is trying to achieve. It requires a "heritage survey" to be carried out for all licence applications, with no measure of professional judgment allowed to be applied or no proportionality regarding what is being proposed. For example, do all applications for temporary moorings in all areas require such a survey? Alternatively, is it only in areas where there is likely to be an impact on natural or cultural heritage?

It should be noted that the spatial data tool, as previously referred to, will be used to record the location of heritage sites and will be informed by existing and ongoing surveys. This is the tool that MARA and the public can use to establish whether there is potential for any heritage impacts of any proposal.

On a technical point, "heritage survey" has not been adequately defined here, and, as such, this provision would be extremely difficult to enforce. What would this survey entail? What are the qualifications of those who are to carry it out? What heritage assets should it examine, and in what areas? Are the areas to be cultural, historical, social or ecological? What is the extent of the survey area required for any particular licence application? Moreover, the amendment simply requires that the survey be carried out. It is silent on what should occur in the event of any significant impacts being identified. In any event, it would simply not be appropriate for all types of licensable maritime usages to require any such report in support of an application in all areas – that is why we normally prescribe these things in regulation or in policy. On the basis of my response, I hope the members understand why I have to oppose both amendments.