Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a number of follow-up questions. With respect to Mr. Woolley's answer in regard to Article 8.1 of the directive that in response to consultation feedback there was less a focus in the revised draft on the spatial and temporal aspects of it, surely, Article 8.1 is legally binding and, therefore, whatever about people's views of the detail there is a requirement under the directive to have that detail in it. I ask Mr. Woolley to respond on that issue. It is important we do not have a planning regime and framework that falls foul of a legal obligation under the relevant EU law.

With regard to the marine planning framework, when will the environmental assessment and an appropriate assessment and public consultation around that be undertaken? My understanding is that this is also a legal requirement in the process. I am confused as to the relationship between the strategic maritime activity zones - I am finding the acronyms tricky to deal with - and the marine planning framework in terms of how we ensure consistency and public consultation in regard to the zones. I ask one of the witnesses to talk me through that process.

I asked the following very specific question in the first round but it was not answered. Has the Attorney General provided advice that the consent regime is compliant with the EIA directive and the Aarhus Convention in terms of not having an EIA requirement and public consultation? I want to return to the point raised by Deputy O'Callaghan, which I also raised, in regard to the marine areas of protection. I am genuinely concerned that the lag here is going to cause a difficulty. While we are rightly pushing ahead on the need to have a planning regime for renewable energies, we are potentially doing it to the detriment of biodiversity and, again, the requirement under Article 1 of the directive for sustainability. How can the witnesses reassure us that notwithstanding there is a different timeframe for the publication of the Crowe report and the necessary legislation for the marine protected areas, we are not going to end up with that lag and we will not be in a situation where planning applications, for example, for wind farms are being carried out in the absence of having the marine areas of protection fully in place?

I ask the witnesses to also explain the differences between the two general schemes. I am still unsure as to whether the general scheme that is on the website of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is identical to the one that was published last year or whether there have been amendments to it. If there have been amendments, can the witnesses tell us what they are? If not, can they tell us what went to Cabinet in the memo that was agreed?

I support Senator Fitzpatrick's suggestion that a statement be sought from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I appreciate this is not within Mr. McCabe's area of responsibility but it would be remiss of us not to fully interrogate that issue as part of the planning regime.

I would certainly like to see that.

Finally, Mr. McCabe may not want to answer this but I presume it is the view of the Department that it would be better if aquaculture was included so that there would be a comprehensive regime and that is why it has included the option of bringing it in at a later stage.