Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for appearing before the committee. I welcome this Bill. It is hugely important. I agree with Senator Boyhan about the four-week period for public consultation. By the time members of the public know the consultation is open and running, which takes a bit of time, the four weeks may be finished. It is four weeks on paper but it does not give people an opportunity at all. That will create problems. I strongly urge the Department to extend it to give sufficient time for public engagement, which is important for confidence in the process, transparency, buy-in and the information that can be picked up by that process. For these designations to work, public participation is important. Any designations or protections and their enforcement rely on input from the public.

I have concerns regarding the heads about the lack of timelines, too much discretion, lack of detail, lack of obligations when marine protected areas are designated and a lack of remedies for habitats that were destroyed or damaged prior to marine protected area designations. When will the marine protected areas come into existence? Will there be provision in the Bill to give timelines and specifics on that? Head 6 is very non-committal, as was said before. It should be strengthened to something like a commitment to 30% by 2030, not up to 30% by 2030. The weaker language is in conflict with EU obligations and the commitment in the programme for Government.

The heads provide complete discretion regarding commencement and provisions. Can that be changed? Concerning detail for a conservation site or designated site, what will this mean? Can detail be given in the Bill on that?

Points have been made about enforcement. Not only does the Irish Naval Service not have the resources for this particular type of enforcement, it has been incredibly poorly resourced for its existing duties to the point of being in crisis concerning resources for the past number of years.

It is critically important it is resourced properly. It is not equipped now, for example, to monitor marine noise. Is this going to happen? Will there be a role for the Marine Institute in supporting the enforcement work of the Naval Service? It needs to be better resourced as well and would be able to assist in terms of the data end of enforcement.

Turning to areas not mentioned in the Bill, I can see no references concerning the EU marine legislation directive, the marine strategy framework directive, the marine spatial plan directive or the birds directive. Are these aspects mentioned and, if so, where? I ask because I did not spot it. If they are not included, should they not be to ensure there is this architecture that the Bill sits within? Regarding monitoring, and others have mentioned this issue, there is no obligation on the Minister in head 11(4)(iii) to appoint anyone to monitor. This provision simply allows for this to happen. Should this be changed so there is an obligation for someone to be appointed in the context of monitoring? Monitoring is very important. It is a key aspect of the habitats directive, for example. If there is no monitoring, therefore, then we have a serious issue. How would this work without monitoring? Surely not having an obligation to monitor is a weakness in the heads of this Bill.

We need an acoustic network around Ireland to protect cetaceans, including whales and dolphins. Will this legislation support this objective? Mention was made in the opening statement of an MPA network but there is no mention of it in the Bill. Surely having a network of MPAs and an acoustic network as part of that is important. Should this not be considered?

Equally, carbon-rich habitats are not mentioned in the Bill. These are significant sources of carbon dioxide emissions, especially when they are disturbed by activities such as bottom trawling. Should these habitats not be recognised in the Bill?

Turning to the issue of a licence being granted for marine activities in error and, subsequently, more data emerge to show this situation, I can see no provision in this proposed Bill that would allow for such a licence to be revoked. Should some provision not be made in this proposed legislation or these types of situations and scenarios?

Moving on to access to justice, should there not be a mechanism for the public to express and raise concerns, including around enforcement, similar to section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended?