Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The fact, which has been very well articulated, is that the Aarhus Convention requires that there be appropriate time to the scale of the decision and, again, this is not a small environmental decision in terms of marine planning policies. That is a very substantial aspect of environmental decision-making. I believe the timeframe is disproportionately short. The Minister of State may not wish to embrace my 16 weeks but I certainly suggest that a further amount would be considered. I urge the Minister of State to consider that.

As I said, we know Ireland is often reviewed under the Aarhus Convention as falling a little bit short and it has been challenged on that matter. Therefore, simply in terms of best practice of the precautionary principle, the Minister of State would be advised to try to ensure it ends up that we have a week too long because that is less of a problem than if it turns out we have a week too short in the timeframes that are required.It is important that we have an adequate timeframe.

There have been references to consultations with non-governmental organisations, civil society and all of that. However, it has happened in an amorphous way. All of those groups have been part of a large process to come up with the Bill. We are looking to the processes under the Bill. Those are the process that will come next. We are not talking about how this legislation was arrived at but about what happens on an ongoing basis. Some relevant organisations were not mentioned as prescribed bodies, as we discussed earlier. I do not see where those organisations will be included. Perhaps there will be supplemental legislation and statutory instruments in which those bodies will be named. However, I do not know if those bodies will be anywhere near any of the rooms where anything is being decided.

As Senator Cummins articulately put it, all of these organisations which have a key voice and are key environmental actors are not a substitute for the public. Each individual member of the public should have a say. That includes somebody who may never have thought about marine planning but who knows a section of coast and has a view on a particular species, who cares about birds, for example, or some other specific aspect of biodiversity and knows that the place of such a species might be affected by a shift or change in its circumstances or by a particular marine planning policy statement. Such people may have an important input. They may wish to talk to their neighbours. They may then wish to gather. It will not only be organisations that already exist that will wish to have an input, although the input of such organisations is important because they comprise a depth of expertise. It is also important that each individual has adequate time to engage with the process on an equal footing.

I know the Minister of State has referred to that idea and I am sure he is committed to it. However, the timeframe does not allow for it. Four weeks is too little. It is hard enough to submit an opinion about a specific building within four weeks. Four weeks to engage around an entire marine planning policy is a very tight window of time. If the Minister of State will not accept our amendments, I encourage him to consider coming back to us on Report Stage with an adjustment to that time period. I do not know whether he can be flexible when a period of four weeks is written in the legislation. I do not know what can be done about that. However, if there is any scope for the Minister of State to extend or supplement that period within other aspects of the legislation, even through pre-consultation or other means, I encourage him to do so. I worry that the timeframe is inadequate.