Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. This is a large body of work and complex legislation, as he outlined. I took the time in recent days to look back over the Dáil debates in preparation of some amendments. One might ask why someone would consider amendments before he had heard the Minister speak but the great advantage is we can read the report of the debates in the Dáil and read the various amendments that were proposed. I followed the trajectory of those amendments and saw that most of them were rejected, but listening to the debates and the engagement was an important exercise for me.

I live near Dún Laoghaire Harbour, one of the finest harbours in Europe, and the Minister lives in Malahide, where there is a wonderful marina. Senator Cummins lives in Waterford, where there is great potential around the coast. I recognise the enormous potential of the marine, the water base and the fact we live on an island. As someone who sat on the board of a harbour company for two terms, I recognise the great difficulties we had in bringing people with us and developing the fantastic resource of Dún Laoghaire Harbour. There are now no ferry operations in it and it has, effectively, been wound down. There has been so much leisure, recreation and energy, with the dichotomy and the challenges between planning on land and planning at sea and what comes between the two.

I recall a major dispute over drilling near Dalkey Island that amassed thousands of people coming to public meetings. The issue was rallied around and taken advantage of by certain political activists in the community. I am, therefore, cognisant of the fact we have to bring people with us. People are precious, certainly along the coast. I can speak only of the east coast, because I have more experience of it, but we value this beautiful part of the world, as I am sure the people on the west coast value theirs. There is a great attachment to the sea and to the potential of it, but it is done in a sensitive way.

The only people who have contacted me with concerns about this are the Irish Environmental Network and An Taisce. People involved in the environmental area are very supportive of alternative energy such as wind energy. We need to consider that as well as ensure there will be adequate public consultation and participation, as required by the Aarhus Convention. Everybody seems to be roaring about the Aarhus Convention but when they are asked what it is, they do not seem to know any more than the fact it sounds good. In fairness to these organisations, they have a genuine concern about engagement, the strategic environmental assessment directive and the obligations of the Aarhus Convention, of which we are signatories.

The Bill needs to provide for reviews of the MAC, which the Minister touched on, and emphasise and ensure the public consultation. That is important and we need to be mindful of it. I will not go over what he said about the new scheme and the four key pillars, which he set out well. It is important we have regard to that. He referred to the introduction of public participation statements, a wholly new development that will go some way to address that issue.

Two issues have been brought to my attention by the Irish Environmental Network and An Taisce. They relate to the issue of judicial review. I have always said, including last week in the Chamber in the context of something else related to planning, that judicial review should be the last resort for anybody. It is prolonged and expensive and, at the end of the day, it does not always serve the engagement in the way in which it should. Nevertheless, it is a right and an exercise people should be entitled to pursue. As the Minister will know from his neck of the woods in Fingal and as I know from mine, in many cases judicial reviews have been successful and have delivered the necessary result. Sometimes they have delayed developments. I am not in the business of supporting judicial reviews all the time, standing in the way or in any way seeking to frustrate proper, sustainable development, which is important to our economy, but people have a right to have a say and to engage. The earlier we can get people into the public consultation process about planning, whether at sea, on land or in between, the better.

It was put to me, in the context of judicial review and MACs, which is covered in Part 4, Chapter 13, that the Government contended throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny and in recent Dáil Stages of the Bill that the consent is not an environmental decision.It therefore does not attract cross protection under the Aarhus Convention from prohibitively expensive costs if litigants lose in court and the automatic right of standing to pursue judicial review for environmental non-government organisations, ENGOs. The ENGO sector is very concerned here as this also flows from the Aarhus Convention. I am advised that the Bill has only provided for standard judicial review loser-pays rules for maritime area consent decisions on the Bill with no automatic local standing for ENGOs. Can the Minister please tease this point out, not necessarily here and now, but perhaps someone might drop me a note as I would like to have some clarification? These ENGOs have asked me about it and I undertook to raise that issue.

They also say that there is a major lacuna in the Bill in respect of providing for the type of key characteristics required by the Aarhus Convention for judicial review of a range of decisions and actions under the Bill. Given the implications of recent rulings in the national courts, there is a risk of uncertainty on costs protection and for those who may seek to challenge such decisions and actions. When they do challenge such decisions, the court cases will be made more complex as, on top of the basic issues in the case, there will be additional layers of argument around costs and protections. This is all around the issue of potential judicial reviews and their protection. I know from the Minister’s political party, from the Green Party and others that many people involved in this environmental sector became politicised and joined political groupings because they were activists about their environment, their community and about participation in the first place. That is a legitimate right to engage.

On the whole I support the legislation. We have an amazing resource out here. It is greatly underdeveloped. I have been to ports all over the world and have seen what can be done, not only in developing amenities but also residential development along this wonderful resource. There is a need for the protection of the environment and it is a win-win situation if we get it right and bring people with us.

I have some concerns on two issues. We had 29 recommendations in our pre-legislative report. I noted in the response of the Department and the Minister to Deputy Ó Broin’s concerns, they said they had endeavoured to incorporate some of them into the legislation. It would be helpful if we can see a graph of the 29 recommendations from the committee and which or how many of those were incorporated into the Bill. The Minister has acknowledged the important work done by the committee on this legislation and I thank the Minister as one of its members. I know there are other members present. I ask that the Minister might do that in the next day or two as it would be helpful.

On resources, we have planning authorities which are currently struggling, at best, to fulfil their obligations. Many of them do not have the depth, breadth, experience or expertise in maritime engineering issues. We are going to have to tap into and have a pool of resources that planning authorities on the fringes of the coast could utilise. This may not be the case for every local authority. I thank the Minister.