I move amendment No. 21: In page 27, to delete lines 27 to 36. I am open to clarification on this. I had a concern that, where approvals were granted for applications before new subsections were in place, some such approvals may have been granted under previous regimes which did not have many of the considerations we are putting into place in this regime. I understand there is a desire to maintain that but I worry that inappropriate approvals may have been granted and may effectively continue under this carve-out. …

I will not press the amendment but suggest it is important there might need to be a review of some of them. I appreciate we do not want approvals falling off a cliff but we also might need to ensure, as part of that engagement with local authorities we have discussed at other points, that there is a review. Something that might have responded to a need identified by a local authority now has to be considered with regard to its intersection with multiple other needs. The issue can be teased out and I do not want to …

I move amendment No. 22: In page 29, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(b) to contribute to the preservation, protection and improvement of the environment, including resilience to climate change impacts,”. There is a real omission here. I do not really understand why these factors are not reflected in the objectives of marine spatial plans. I propose to insert that a key goal of our marine spatial plans is "to contribute to the preservation, protection and improvement of the environment, including r…

Again, I would note the subtle difference between maritime activities and maritime usages. The Minister of State read from the directive itself and maritime activity is a bit different from maritime usages. I appreciate his engagement on this and his good faith on the matter but I will press this amendment because it is important to put down a marker. Again, I thank the Minister of State for referencing those points of concern to me, including the sustainable development goals. Indeed, that is something I would hav…

I move amendment No. 25: In page 29, line 34, after “Articles” to insert “7, 8, 9,” Again, I was just trying things down with regard to Articles 7, 8 and 9 of the maritime spatial planning directive but we have had a good engagement on that matter and in that context, I will withdraw amendment No. 25.

This is the question of the review which we discussed earlier. Six years is too far away for a review. The Minister of State indicated, and maybe he will confirm, that his intention is to have a review within two years. This amendment is saying that, ideally, it should be sooner than two years and it should be as soon as possible. This is the precautionary principle and the idea that while a full review should ideally be commenced and carried out within the immediate period, there are a couple of key areas of high …

I am not going to move amendments Nos. 27 or 28.

They are grouped.

I will address a couple of the other amendments so. In terms of the amendment which the Minister of State has replied to, there is one aspect which I neglected to mention and which it would be useful to get a response to. There has been a concern about whether there was adequate and robust sensitivity mapping in the development of the current NMPF. If I was satisfied that that had been adequate these concerns would not arise but the opportunity was missed in that development for doing more sensitivity mapping. One …

I appreciate that these will be part of the marine protected areas but my concern is about the marine planning framework, especially with regard to annual or biannual migration patterns. They will not wait for the marine protected areas to be declared. Migration patterns cannot be damaged or disrupted. It is one of those areas where that kind of interim measure of protection is a concern. While it is fine that this issue might come under the marine protected areas, is the Minister of State confident that, until we …

I thank the Minister of State. I look forward to engaging with him on that matter.

I move amendment No. 29: In page 30, line 2, after “thereof” to insert “in accordance with subsection (3) ”.

Amendment No. 2 probably has better wording in respect of this but, unfortunately, was not deemed to be in order. I know there are imperfections in the wording of amendment No. 30 but I think the principle is really important, namely, that there would be a process to provide for interim protections. This is all about what happens in between. Simply stating that we are happy with this process and will be happy with the next process regarding the marine protected areas is fine but the space is that space in between. …

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 …

It could be a four-month process.

I move amendment No. 34: In page 30, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “18. (1) The arrangements for public participation on the review, preparation and amendment of a new MSP developed under this Act, and a review and amendment or replacement or revocation of the NMPF in place on enactment, and other relevant documents, shall be consistent with the requirements of Article 9 of the MSP Directive, relevant provisions in European Union legislation referred to therein, and the Aarhus Convention which i…

I move amendment No. 35: In page 34, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(c) 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 move amendment No. 36: In page 34, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(c) the requirement of the MSP Directive to address marine spatial planning whilst ensuring Good Environmental Status the objective of 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) and where Good Environmental Status is as defined therein,”.

I move amendment No. 37: In page 35, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “(c) as appropriate the species and or habitats or ecosystem features or characteristics of the area of the marine the subject of the DMAP which are to be protected,” I understand Senator Warfield will move amendment No. 39 in the same grouping. Amendment No. 37 provides that the draft DMAP specify species or habitats and ecosystem features and characteristics of the area in the DMAP that is to be protected. The draft DMAP would pr…

I will press it.