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

-----we are so keen to get them here. I have a follow-up question for Mr. Cronin on the legacy projects. If I heard what he said correctly, the aim is to have good environmental status everywhere all of the time. That is fine, but designating an MPA has a meaning above and beyond that. While I am very clear that an MPA does not automatically exclude other activities, having that designation would clearly impact on how An Bord Pleanála, for example, would assess an application for a large offshore wind project. We want as much offshore wind energy as we can get as soon as possible, but the query many of us have relates to making sure that it is not done at the expense of our marine biodiversity.

The worry is, therefore, that because it will take us until 2023, as Mr. Cronin told us, before we have the legislation, and another one to two years before we start advancing the MPAs closer to 30%, what will happen to those legacy projects that are active and live now? Those running the projects are doing some of their testing and exploration. Once this legislation is through, they will get their MACs from the Minister and will then go to planning. Is there a weakness in not having the MPA decisions as to whether any of those parts of the marine would be covered? In the absence of that decision, what mitigation measures, or additional or temporary protections, can be put in place to make sure that we have the most informed planning decisions on those legacy projects, with an eye not only to protecting existing marine biodiversity but recovering some of the biodiversity loss of recent times, in addition to ensuring we get the offshore wind we want? I am particularly keen to know about that.

I am also keen to know how much ongoing engagement happened between Mr. Cronin's team and his counterparts who have been responsible for the Maritime Area Planning Bill. Clearly, those two areas of work are integrated and it would be very important to get some reassurance that officials are not so busy dealing with their respective areas that they do not have time for exchange. Any information he can give us on that crossover will be helpful.

Mr. Cronin seems very convinced and, if I may say, optimistic about achieving that good environmental status everywhere all of the time. Members of many organisations that have talked to us during this set of discussions on the maritime area, both on the maritime area plan and the planning Bill, take a much more concerned view that there have been very significant levels of biodiversity loss and maritime degradation. They are, therefore, concerned that achieving that high level of good environmental status, even pre-marine protected areas, is a challenge. Will Mr. Cronin respond to some of those concerns?

To be clear, I had always assumed, and please correct me if I am wrong, that 30% is a spatial designation. There may be other qualifications within that, but is Mr. Cronin suggesting that it is not automatically a spatial designation or that it is but there are other factors to take into account whether those are about species and such like?