Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will read the scripted response and then try to address some of the concerns, although quite a few of them have been addressed by my colleague, Deputy Matthews.

Amendment No. 10 proposes that a review of the NMPF be commenced within one month of enactment of this legislation. It is similar to amendment No. 83 on Committee Stage, which proposed that the recently-made NMPF be reviewed within one year of the first publication, although that was voted against. We are now at one month post-enactment of this Bill. Indeed, this proposed amendment contains many of the same deficiencies as earlier proposed amendments of the NMPF, including providing for particular pillars of sustainable development and sectors to the exclusion of others, thus upsetting the neutrality of the legislation by requiring compliance with very specific and selected provisions of directives other than the maritime spatial planning, MSP, directive, some of which are already covered elsewhere in the Bill, such as the birds and habitats directives and other matters outside the requirements of the MSP directive, to which this Bill is giving effect.

These points have been discussed in detail on Committee Stage. The intention to up-end a plan that has only just been adopted and has yet to properly bed in is simply unacceptable to the Government. I understand the Deputies are not happy with the NMPF but it is Ireland's national marine plan, the first of a series of interconnected and related spatial plans for the maritime area, and we will simply not go back four years to the beginning, holding off everything else just to keep a small number of Opposition Deputies happy in this regard. The Government takes marine management seriously, we take decarbonisation seriously and we take the protection of our maritime area very seriously. We must move forward and we are moving forward.

As stated on Committee Stage, the requirement of section 17 is that the review will be carried out within six years but it is our intention that we will carry out this review sooner, particularly for the first national maritime spatial plan. However, we must focus our resources on getting the system up and running and I am happy that the existing NMPF underpins the system appropriately in its current form.

To touch on some of the details of the proposed amendment, it has the effect that no maritime area consents or development consents can be granted pending the conclusion of the aforementioned review. This would simply have the effect of rendering significant parts of this Bill inoperable for a period of time, thus undermining the purpose of the legislation. This proposal is, of itself, extremely concerning as it would also mean that where one is currently permitted to obtain planning permission on the foreshore under Part 15 of the Planning Act, this right would effectively be removed by the proposed subsection (2). To be clear, under this amendment, no harbours could be expanded, no boat houses constructed and no recreational jetties or pontoons erected pending a review of a national plan that is just six months old. Moreover, this subsection runs counter to another amendment proposed by some of the Deputies where planning permission can in fact be granted provided, strangely, and in a first for the State, that An Bord Pleanála carries out a review of the NMPF. Amendment No. 55 also refers.

In regard to the bodies that should be consulted during the proposed review, many of these bodies were already central to the production of the NMPF and sat on the marine advisory group for the four years that the plan was being prepared. The NMPF has, I should note for the record, been broadly and widely welcomed by members of the advisory group and further afield. I appreciate the Deputies’ intention to ensure participation of certain organisations and that is why public participation, including the input of relevant organisations, is stitched into the very formulation of the maritime spatial plans, ensuring that relevant views are taken into account throughout the entire process. Prescribing certain organisations in primary legislation for consultation is actually a lesser form of participation than the one the Bill envisages. I would be concerned that any attempt at prescription in this regard runs the risk of inadvertently excluding organisations that may have valuable input to offer. The spirit of the proposal is, therefore, already incorporated in a more effective way into the Bill. In fact, the advisory group involved in the preparation of the NMPF was far more comprehensive but did include some of the reference groups such as An Taisce and the Sustainable Water Network Ireland, or SWAN.

The proposed amendment also provides for a list of provisions of the MSP directive to be taken into account in the review of the NMPF. I point out to the Deputies that sections 16 and 17 of the Bill already ensure compliance with the MSP directive for the purpose of maritime spatial planning. We clearly disagree on this but I am happy with the text we have produced. I must say I find it challenging to understand why Deputies are insisting on compliance with the recitals of the directive in addition to specified articles which are to be completed in any event, but this is an aside. Our approach was discussed in detail on Committee Stage.

The amendment also refers to matters relating to marine protected areas, MPAs. As I have previously indicated, this Bill simply does not legislate for this as marine protected areas are subject to separate legislation and there is no requirement to conflate the MSP directive with the marine strategy framework directive in one piece of enabling legislation. Indeed, the latest MSP global international guide on maritime spatial planning prepared by UNESCO and the European Commission, published this year, reinforces the distinction between the two maritime governance tools. I can, however, assure members that any review of the NMPF will be undertaken in the context of the prevailing regulatory environment.

To return to the substance of the amendment, I am happy with the current NMPF and it forms the basis for all future plans and projects in the maritime area. I will not be ripping it up after just a year and starting again. I am happy that the legislation as set before this House is robust and in compliance with the directives that should be complied with. Accordingly, I will be opposing this amendment.

In the time I have left, I will try to address some of the points raised, in particular those raised by Deputies Eoin Ó Broin and Cian O'Callaghan. It is certainly the case, and I had hoped that the committee session yesterday would have reassured the Deputies, that the MPA process and the maritime area planning are interconnected pieces of work and that significant work has already been undertaken. While the legislation is being drafted, it will probably be mid-year next year before we see a legalised definition of MPAs in an Irish context. As Mr. Richard Cronin and Dr. Oliver Ó Cadhla pointed out yesterday, significant work has been undertaken around the features we want to protect, looking at migratory species and a lot of the other interconnected elements of that, on which incredible work has been done. The resources we are putting in are quite significant at this stage.

We talked about interim measures. We could certainly see significant progression on the 10% target that we missed for 2020 being achieved towards the end of 2022 and into 2023. There is a good alignment of what we are trying to achieve. Certainly, we will have to present to COP15 in Kunming next year and, again, we will be able to update all of these elements around our biodiversity targets.

Deputy Michael Collins raised issues with regard to fisheries. There was significant consultation, particularly on the MPAs, and we travelled coastal areas and met with fisher communities. They all want the same thing. Everybody wants marine protected areas and everybody wants a good regulatory environment to support this. I think we are making significant progress. I hope that, following yesterday’s meeting, Deputies will be reassured that the processes are in tandem with each other.

See this speech in context