Results 5,981-6,000 of 26,842 for speaker:Richard Boyd Barrett
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: What time do we finish?
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: In that case, we will press the amendments at this stage.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: I move amendment No. 44: In page 96, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “Locus Standiin environmental MAC cases and in proceedings to which Part 2 applies 110.For the avoidance of doubt where the applicant for judicial review under this Chapter, or under Part 2, is- (a) a body or organisation (other than a State authority, a public authority or governmental body or...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: I move amendment No. 42: In page 95, line 33, to delete “damages.” and substitute “damages, but such undertakings shall not be prohibitively expensive.” The Bill does not treat a maritime area consent, MAC, as being environmental in the same way as a development consent. We are concerned about that. As I said on our earlier amendment, if one does not...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: Trying to keep up with this is difficult, but it is important. That is the problem: there is a lot to deal with in a very short time. I particularly want to draw attention to amendment No. 44 and the application for judicial review by a body or organisation the aims or objectives of which relate to the promotion of environmental protection. Such NGOs and so on which have knowledge and...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: This is all about access to justice and the right of concerned parties and particularly NGOs which would have a particular concern about the potential impact of human activity or development in the marine area if consents are given and decisions are made which they think could be detrimental to that part of the marine environment. That access to justice is important. I do not really buy the...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: What is the difference between "prescribed" and "specified"?
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: Would the Minister of State care to elaborate?
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: That was very enlightening.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: We oppose this amendment. Section 96(6)(a) of the Bill, as it stands, provides that within six months of being granted the development permission, a MAC holder must produce a rehabilitation schedule and thereby put a place a plan to restore the area when the work has finished. This amendment, as we read it, will mean that the MAC holder will only have to produce the rehabilitation schedule...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: Our concern is that this amendment will facilitate the practice I have just outlined. This is a loophole that could potentially be exploited by the big developers. We could get a phenomenon at sea that we see very frequently on land. In the way this amendment is framed, there is a loophole that developers could potentially exploit.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: I am not entirely happy with that.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: Deputy Nash asked where the threshold of more than five turbines and a total output of more than 5 MW comes from. It comes from Schedule 10 to the Bill. That is a threshold in the Government's Bill for classes of development specified for the purposes of Chapter 3 of Part XXI, the numbering of which gives you some idea of the complexity of this Bill's cross-referencing with the Planning and...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: That is an assertion; it is not an answer.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: The Minister of State and his officials will be familiar with the Marine Institute’s Real Map of Ireland, but I do not know whether the public is that familiar with it. It begs the point. While I realise the Minister of State said that, in the context of the NMPF, there was public consultation, this was all new to those at the public meeting held in my area, the Save Our Seafront...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: Have we discussed this amendment? I wanted to say something about it.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: I move amendment No. 37a: In page 68, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Activities for which an application for a MAC shall not be considered 77.A MAC shall not be granted for any development of the maritime area where such development consists of: (a) an installation for the production of energy by harnessing the power of the wind, within 12 nautical miles of...
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: The wording proposed in amendment No. 21 is a little bit gender-specific. There is a little bit of a problem with it. There are other gender identities which this binary gender description does not take into account when setting out the balance required on the board. I ask the Minister of State to consider that. The provision is very binary in that regard.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: I am not sure the Minister of State has answered my point.
- Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages (1 Dec 2021)
Richard Boyd Barrett: Perhaps the Minister of State should consider withdrawing it then because it is quite binary. Rather than having an excessively binary requirement, it may be better not to include the provision. We get the point. We want gender balance but we have to take all gender identities into account. I do not know how that issue can be resolved but, if the Minister of State recognises this as a...