I move amendment No. 4: In page 18, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following: " "Marine Strategy Framework Directive” means Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive);". I do not see any reason the Minister of State could not accept amendment No. 4. It is a technical amendment to provide that when referencing the marine strategy framework dir…

I move amendment No. 5: In page 19, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “ “prescribed bodies” as referred to in this Act for the purposes of consultation, shall include at least the following: (a) Fáilte Ireland; (b) the Marine Institute; (c) the Environmental Protection Agency; (d) the National Parks and Wildlife Service; (e) the Heritage Council; (f) An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland; (g) Inland Fisheries; and (h) such other bodies concerned with environmental protection as the Minister cons…

I am afraid I will have to ask the Minister of State to give a further reply. His response is not accurate in the sense that this amendment does not preclude the addition of further measures. I note that it is quite specific in stating "shall include at least the following". It does not close the list and it is very clear. I was not going to belabour it, but the amendment sets out Fáilte Ireland, the Marine Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Heritage Council…

Coastwatch Ireland would not be excluded by the text of the amendment. That text simply says "shall include". It does not say it shall not include any others.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 20, line 3, after “record” to insert the following: “, but a record shall not be confused with information held, particularly for the purposes of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC or the Freedom of Information Act 2014”.

The Minister of State will be aware there is consideration regarding the issues of rights of way and the foreshore. That area will be considered by another Department next year. I want to signal the issue of the nearshore and how it relates to access to the foreshore, which is a key consideration under the review of conveyancing legislation under the question of prescriptive and other rights of way. That area might require some consideration. It is an important area of overlap in terms of complementary review and l…

I wish to support amendments Nos. 7 and 8. They are extremely constructive. Integrated coastal zone management is missing. The national heritage plan is very relevant when we are talking about our natural and other types of heritage. The marine heritage intersects a little with those points. I refer to the question around the role of community because that is part of heritage as well. My amendment No. 9 is also in this group of amendments and it attempts to highlight the question of interim measures. We have heard …

I do not doubt that there are conversations about how this planning legislation will intersect with marine protected areas. The question is which fits into which. Will it be the case that marine protected areas will fit into a planning framework? I do not necessarily take comfort from the fact that there will be consideration of how these things overlap, because I think there needs to be clear prioritisation. We have talked about different EU directives and legislative obligations, as Senator Boyhan has done. There…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 24, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following: “(j) any interim measures to protect areas of the marine environment as agreed by Government.”.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 24, after line 38, to insert the following: “(10) Subsections (2), (3), (5), (6), (7)(a) shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to an amendment made to or a revocation of a Marine Planning Policy Statement issued under this section as those subsections apply to a marine planning policy statement issued under this section.”. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are very similar. Amendment No. 10 is probably the preferential framing but I always try to provide options. This amendment add…

The Minister said these are high-level principles. Surely if high-level principles are revoked or modified, it merits the same kind of process and scrutiny given that Ministers change. We do not want to have lots of debate and discussion around what those high-level principles should be in terms of marine policy planning, be it the precautionary principle, and then for that policy statement to change without due scrutiny and engagement. Ministers and priorities change, which is why we have a process of parliamentar…

What about the Oireachtas?

As I understand it, the approval of the Oireachtas is required regarding a marine planning policy statement so, again, there is a difference between being able to give a submission as a member of the public and having that agreement between the Parliament and the Executive. Could the Minister of State provide some clarification? I believe it is the case that the approval of the Oireachtas is required regarding the initial marine planning policy statement. Again, it is around ensuring that same consistency. Could th…

My amendment No. 13 has been grouped with amendment No. 12. I agree with everything Senator Boyhan said with the slight exception that I do not believe six weeks is adequate and I do not believe the four weeks that is currently stipulated in the Bill is adequate. Let us bear in mind that a marine planning policy statement, MPPS, as the Minister of State said, has high-level principles. It is quite wide-ranging and has significant implications. There may well be a requirement for a strategic environmental assessment…

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 co…

I do not know if I will be able to jog Senator Cummins's memory. I would say that if we are being honest, we must be honest and factual about what has delayed this process. The failure to get the process right and deliver it properly has often contributed to delays. In the area of forestry, we know the issue was that Ireland was found not to have done proper environmental impact assessments and used other environmental tools. Those tools and obligations were there but Ireland did not use those tools or meet those o…

I move amendment No. 13: In page 25, line 9, to delete “four weeks” and substitute “sixteen weeks”.

I move amendment No. 18: In page 25, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following: “(9) Subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to an amendment made to or a revocation of a Ministerial Guidelines issued under this section as those subsections apply to Ministerial Guidelines issued under this section.”.

I move amendment No. 19: In page 26, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall ensure any new policy directives, or revocation or amendment of policy directives made under this section, shall first be subject to a screening determination for both Strategic Environmental Assessment and Appropriate Assessment, and such assessments shall be conducted where the screening concludes they are required.”. This amendment ensures that where there are amendments and revocations of original policy…

I will withdraw it but may follow up with the Minister of State directly on the matter.