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

Amendment No. 238 seeks to provide in section 293(2)(a) that, subject to section 293(2)(b), the board shall not grant a permission under this section that would materially contravene a city or county development plan in addition to the national marine planning framework. There are fundamental technical issues surrounding this amendment. First, the purpose of section 293(2) is to ensure that the board must not materially contravene the national marine planning framework except in very specific circumstances. This ensures a level of consistency in decision-making across the entire maritime area and ensures that decisions in respect of the State's maritime area are made in accordance with a plan passed by the Oireachtas. Given the conversations we had on Parts 1 and 2, where every policy or plan was to be approved by the Oireachtas, the Deputies' approach here surprises us somewhat.

The amendment, even if it were worded appropriately, would place a county development plan at the same level in the plan hierarchy as the national marine planning framework. This would be entirely inappropriate from a policy perspective, not only because the framework is a national plan but also because the development plan is a land-based plan. The national marine planning framework was subject to a significant development and consultation process, as set out in the document itself. In the amendment as worded, however, the Deputies have not referred to the particular plan that should have this effect in what particular area.

For instance, the development plan for an inland county could be binding on the board in respect of a site 100 km off the west coast. Notwithstanding this, as the Deputies are no doubt aware, section 308 of the Bill, as proposed, in effect limits the jurisdiction of development plans to land above the high-water mark. Development plans have no jurisdiction in the maritime area.

However, section 293(3)(e) obliges the board to have regard to any relevant development plans of coastal local authorities. These circumstances would include development on coastal sites that may be adjacent to land that is subject to special local objectives and in that respect, local democracy has its role in this process. Moreover, the DMAP provisions, as discussed, can be used as an effective tool for local plans in the maritime area in the nearshores of coastal local authorities, as we have discussed in previous hearings. DMAPs will, of course, form part of the national marine planning framework having regard to section 2 of this Bill.

Amendment No. 239 seeks to provide that the board can attach a condition or conditions to a permission for development under this section in respect of construction and operation requiring local employment benefits and positive impact on the local economy.

While I acknowledge the Deputies’ intentions here, there are some fundamental technical issues with the amendment as it is worded. First, there is no definition of “local economy”. Therefore, for instance would a condition be applied to a development that is located a significant distance from the coast? These limitations are important in primary legislation if it is to be robust and defensible. What would be defined as being a positive impact on the local economy? What are local employment benefits? We should avoid value judgments in technical drafting as a rule, yet both these phrases imply an element of judgment, meaning that any such condition would be open to challenge.

Second, many of the technologies employed in the construction of larger offshore installations are highly specialised and can only be sourced internationally, meaning that the skills and labour may not be available locally. This makes a condition such as this difficult to apply in all circumstances, however well-intentioned. Indeed, it is questionable whether such conditions should be applied in all circumstances; rather they should be applied where the circumstances warrant it.

We appreciate the intention to provide for community gain and we have sought, in a manner consistent with the existing SID provisions, to provide for a broader provision in section 293(7)(n). In addition to this, in respect of offshore energy production, all onshore and offshore projects supported via RESS are required to contribute €2 per MWh of energy produced to community benefit funds and these funds are activated several years prior to project energisation, offsetting disturbance during the construction stages.

Furthermore, the use of local employment clauses in construction contracts can be appropriately channelled through environmental impact assessment reports, EIARs, and mitigation proposed therein. This has been the approach taken on SID applications in the past. What could actively promote the use of such clauses would be to explore how they can be targeted at particular types of developments in particular areas through the development and application of the guidelines being proposed under this Bill. This would ensure that such clauses are considered from the outset rather than attached as an ad hoccondition at the end of the application process. Indeed, one could envisage that it might even be a mandatory policy requirement of those guidelines that the applicant puts forward for consideration by the board appropriate local employment benefit proposals for any areas on land affected by a particular aspect of a development. These things need to be looked at closely and I would invite the Deputies to get involved in that.

In essence, I am saying that the idea being promoted by the Deputies is laudable and we understand the intention. I am supportive of the overarching objective but there is more than one way to achieve what they desire here.