Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is a bit disingenuous to state that we do not have specifics. We provided many detailed specifics in amendment No. 2, which related to interim protections. That amendment was ruled out of order because our dictating such matters to the Minister would constitute a charge on the State. We suggested a timeline of two months for beginning the review. The matter of how long such a review would last would have been the prerogative of the Minister. The Minister could state that it would be a six-month process if he or she so wished and he or she could give that certainty to coastal communities and others. While we outlined in amendment No. 2 what we considered might be the kind of interim measures that need to be considered, in amendment No. 30 we leave scope in that regard to the Minister and we are not overly prescriptive.

The big issue is the gap in interim measures. The Minister of State talked about the considerations. I will look back at what the marine environmental unit is saying between now and Report Stage, but I would like to see interim measures that do not just relate to the general process and system that are in place. Some things can be improved and given a fresh start and then they can be changed again. Protection, by its nature, needs to be done each minute, week, month or year in the interim period. I understand the considerations that will be feeding into the processes, but this amendment is loosely worded in order to give the Minister scope to put in place a plan for interim measures. It is designed to allow the Minister to set something out and not to simply say that we should trust the officials and their goodwill and intentions, the processes and so forth. The Minister of State should give us, as parliamentarians, an assurance that as we let this legislation through, there is a plan for interim measures. I would much prefer it if the Minister of State was bringing forward an amendment - maybe he will do so on Report Stage - indicating clearly that he recognises that this law is landing at a certain time when certain important decisions have not yet been made and that he understands that there is an interim period when particularly sensitivity might need to be applied, including the precautionary principle and so forth. That is where the gap lies.

We have a detailed proposal in amendment No. 2, which, unfortunately, cannot be debated, and we have a very loose proposal in amendment No. 30. The latter includes a proposal to give the timetable over to the Minister such that the process would commence in two months, would last for as long as the Minister would consider to be necessary and would involve such interim measures as the Minister might deem to be necessary. I agree that it is looser than we might like but it was seeking to strengthen the hands of the Minister, as well as seeking to strengthen our understanding and confidence as we vote for this legislation. If we are to vote for the Bill, we should know that the position regarding interim measures will be addressed.