What?

I move amendment No. 18: In page 37, to delete lines 16 to 23 and substitute the following: “(3) Where the Minister ascertains an inconsistency referred to in subsection (2), he or she shall— (a) make a recommendation in writing to the competent authority (D) to amend the draft DMAP to address the inconsistency, or (b) in relation only to an inconsistency in respect of paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (2) give notice in writing to the competent authority (D) of the inconsistency and in that notice state that the…

The wording proposed in amendment No. 21 is a little bit gender-specific. There is a little bit of a problem with it. There are other gender identities which this binary gender description does not take into account when setting out the balance required on the board. I ask the Minister of State to consider that. The provision is very binary in that regard.

I am not sure the Minister of State has answered my point.

Perhaps the Minister of State should consider withdrawing it then because it is quite binary. Rather than having an excessively binary requirement, it may be better not to include the provision. We get the point. We want gender balance but we have to take all gender identities into account. I do not know how that issue can be resolved but, if the Minister of State recognises this as a problem, he should consider what he is going to do about it.

Is this amendment No. 21?

I am sorry; I am trying to keep up.

Yes. Fair play to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle but she could not go slow enough for the amount of stuff we have to deal with here.

Have we discussed this amendment? I wanted to say something about it.

I move amendment No. 37a: In page 68, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “Activities for which an application for a MAC shall not be considered 77. A MAC shall not be granted for any development of the maritime area where such development consists of: (a) an installation for the production of energy by harnessing the power of the wind, within 12 nautical miles of the nearest point of the high water mark, that has— (i) more than 5 turbines, or (ii) a total output of more than 5 megawatts; (b) a develo…

The Minister of State and his officials will be familiar with the Marine Institute’s Real Map of Ireland, but I do not know whether the public is that familiar with it. It begs the point. While I realise the Minister of State said that, in the context of the NMPF, there was public consultation, this was all new to those at the public meeting held in my area, the Save Our Seafront meeting. There are still many people who have not been reached regarding significant changes, plans and objectives for the development of…

Deputy Nash asked where the threshold of more than five turbines and a total output of more than 5 MW comes from. It comes from Schedule 10 to the Bill. That is a threshold in the Government's Bill for classes of development specified for the purposes of Chapter 3 of Part XXI, the numbering of which gives you some idea of the complexity of this Bill's cross-referencing with the Planning and Development Act. The Minister of State raises interesting points, but I return to my original point, which is that there are m…

That is an assertion; it is not an answer.

What is the difference between "prescribed" and "specified"?

Would the Minister of State care to elaborate?

That was very enlightening.

We oppose this amendment. Section 96(6)(a) of the Bill, as it stands, provides that within six months of being granted the development permission, a MAC holder must produce a rehabilitation schedule and thereby put a place a plan to restore the area when the work has finished. This amendment, as we read it, will mean that the MAC holder will only have to produce the rehabilitation schedule three months before undertaking development. This could allow for sea hoarding and sea flipping, as happens with land developme…

Our concern is that this amendment will facilitate the practice I have just outlined. This is a loophole that could potentially be exploited by the big developers. We could get a phenomenon at sea that we see very frequently on land. In the way this amendment is framed, there is a loophole that developers could potentially exploit.

I am not entirely happy with that.

I move amendment No. 42: In page 95, line 33, to delete “damages.” and substitute “damages, but such undertakings shall not be prohibitively expensive.” The Bill does not treat a maritime area consent, MAC, as being environmental in the same way as a development consent. We are concerned about that. As I said on our earlier amendment, if one does not have a MAC, one cannot do anything. One thing leads on to another. The Government and the officials will say that a MAC only gives a right to occupy. It is, however, a…