Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 16, to delete line 5 and substitute the following:

"(6) The following limitations apply to the discretion of the Minister to commence by order the operation of provisions of this Act—

(a) Chapters 1and 3of Part 9shall come into operation on the establishment day,

(b) Section 79shall be excluded from any commencement order—

(i) until the Minister has conducted and completed the review required of the existing NMPF under section 17 (2), and

(ii) where a MSP to replace the existing NMPF has been prepared in accordance with section 17(2)(a).

(7) The Minister shall exclude from any commencement order section 101for a relevant maritime usage as defined in section 100, of the class defined under paragraphs (a)and (b)of relevant maritime usage—

(i) until the Minister has conducted and completed the review required of the existing NMPF under section 17(2), and

(ii) where a MSP to replace the existing NMPF has been prepared in accordance with section 17(2)(a).".

This amendment relates to the commencement of the Act.My amendment reads: "Chapters 1 and 3 of Part 9 shall come into operation on the establishment day".

Section 79 concerns the issuing of a maritime area consent. My amendment continues:

(b) Section 79 shall be excluded from any commencement order— (i) until the Minister has conducted and completed the review required of the existing NMPF under section 17 (2), and

(ii) where a MSP to replace the existing NMPF has been prepared in accordance with section 17(2)(a).

I reserve the right to table further amendments on the designation of marine protected areas. That is another area that should be a factor that results in a delay in the issuing of maritime area consents.

My amendment continues that: "(7) The Minister shall exclude from any commencement order section 101 for a relevant maritime usage as defined in section 100, of the class defined under paragraphs (a)and (b)" until a proper review is conducted.

The context here is that one cannot develop without a maritime area consent, MAC, in many instances. It is important to understand the Bill allows the Minister to determine the requirement for review up to six years after the publication of the existing NMPF and even then the Minister might determine that there is no action required under section 17(2)(b). This amendment effectively makes sure that one does not have problematic relevant projects that are just announced and may have been put into the NMPF's spatial plan without making sure that the methodology and the standards being set out in the marine spatial plan, MSP, directive are properly reflected and to ensure that any of the relevant projects that may be set forward or any proposed MACs are consistent with the delivery of sustainable development activity and ensure good environmental status in the marine environment.

Last week, the Department told a committee of stakeholders that a review would take place within two years. Again, if that is the intention then this delay in commencement is not unduly onerous. It would simply ensure that if the review was done, as is planned and proposed within two years, that we would then be in a position to ensure there is a better quality of consideration in terms of the issuing of MACs. There may or may not be an upgrade. We cannot assume what will happen with a review but at least it would leave us in a position to ensure that those might be reflected.

I refer to a separate issue that I may bring in at a later stage, that is, increasing knowledge that we have and new research emerging all of the time. For example, an area of research that has been very significant in recent years is the impacts of seismic and sonar activity in the marine environment. I am sure that the Minister of State is aware of the Informar research on the automated cetacean acoustics project and the study done by the Maritime Institute of Ireland. That would allow factors like that to have been considered, be part of the review and be reflected. There are issues that are not simply affected by actual development and planning but can be affected by maritime use and the kinds of things that might get consents under section 79. Again, the kinds of MACs under section 79 are the kinds of relevant maritime usages under section 100.

I hope the Minister of State will address these concerns. Perhaps he will recommit to the review and commit to solely delaying these sections of the Act until the review has been conducted.