Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I do not accept the Minister of State's response to our amendment and he has not addressed the substantial point, even if he does not agree technically with the amendment. He has not addressed the substantial point. It seems there is agreement that there will be an interregnum in which we will not have done what we should for marine protected areas with respect to these relevant projects. What is the answer to the question? What happens if we discover later that they should have been designated as protected areas? We are asking for interim measures to be put in place quickly.

If this happened and we assessed whether sites should be protected, consents could be issued afterwards. There is an existing regime for foreshore licences and all the rest of it. I do not buy the argument that nothing else can happen. In any case, we are asking for this to be done quickly. We are not suggesting this should go on and on for ages but rather that there be particular interim measures directed at those areas with legacy projects to ensure damage is not done. The Minister of State has not addressed the substantial point but is arguing on a technicality about the amendment.

By the way, we are dealing with an absolute glut of legislation, so arguing on a technicality is not really fair. We are meant to be downstairs right now in a committee room dealing with another Bill while this happens in the Dáil Chamber. That is what we are dealing with. A technical sort of argument is not acceptable.

See this speech in context