Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Professor Crowe. I have read a bit about him and clearly he has considerable experience in this. I know he was chair of the expert advisory group whose report was very interesting. I looked at the 60 recommendations and I will touch on them in a few moments. We read the submission he made to the committee and I wish to take up some of the issues. At point 3 he stated that, of the key provisions, the single most important is the stakeholder consultation. He places strong emphasis on that point. In some of the published work from the advisory group, every emphasis on consultation is positive. I am delighted to hear Professor Crowe say that also. The people I know who were involved in this said it was a very meaningful engagement. It is about a broad group of consultees and there is that word "flexibility". However, flexibility only goes to a certain point. It then breaks and does not do what it is meant to do. We need to be careful when we use words such as flexibility and we are trying to accommodate everyone. We simply cannot accommodate everyone.

Touching on what the Cathaoirleach already said, are there particular areas of international best practice we should be following? I might ask all my questions first and Professor Crowe might take a note of them and then answer them if he can. At point 8 in his submission, he refers to the transboundary considerations. He rightly said that maritime life does not respect international boundaries or waters. We need to have some joined-up thinking with our neighbours. While we all know what he means, regarding our immediate neighbours, is there something of particular concern across the border, within the United Kingdom or whatever? Our nearest neighbour, including the islands around it, form an important issue. Are there any specific issues Professor Crowe wants to bring to the attention of the committee?

Point 3 relates to the principles enshrined in the Bill forming the basis for the group's recommendations. We have heard a lot about the citizens' assembly on biodiversity in recent days. Does anything there stand out that we have missed? The legislation was clearly published before the group had completed its work.

The MPA advisory group, which Professor Crowe chaired, started in 2019. As he said, the purpose of the review was to deal with the scientific, economic, legal and social aspects of expanding the network of MPAs. There were 60 recommendations and some of them have clearly been included. We have moved on from some of it. Does Professor Crowe feel any are not adequately covered in the proposed legislation? Without overanalysing it, as the former chair of the expert advisory group which made 60 recommendations, is he disappointed at any specific ones not included?

I want to talk about engagement on the pillars, particularly the environmental pillar and the Aarhus Convention. We know the significance of the Aarhus Convention in terms of public participation in decision-making and access to environmental matters. It is very important and is an issue that keeps coming up at this and other committees. How does this proposed legislation square up with our obligations under the Aarhus Convention?