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

I thank the guests for their presentations. I thank them in particular for the written submissions because I know they are all very busy. The submissions are genuinely very helpful to us. We read them and they form our understanding of the Bill. I acknowledge the written submissions received from An Taisce, the Office of the Planning Regulator, Wind Energy Ireland and the Marine Renewables Industry Association. They will all help us to consider this issue.

On the foreshore, we now have a dilemma because in the space of 40 minutes, we have been told by the Department that there is really no change but just a clarification of what was already there. A submission from Wind Energy Ireland and a legal opinion from Arthur Cox submitted with it, states that neither the water column nor the airspace is currently covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, things like non-invasive surveys, sonars and aerial surveys would not currently require a licence. They are arguing that this will now be disruptive both for people who currently have licence applications pending and for new licences coming in. I am sure the people Ms Dubsky spoke to are very experienced, given the background of her own organisation, and they are saying that the water column is included but there is ambiguity around it. That is a pretty complicated picture. It seems to me there is a value in clarifying it legislatively so I take that point. Rather than the legalities of it, I am interested to hear what the concerns could be around Ms Dubsky's point. I would have thought if there was any ambiguity it would be better to have things captured by a licensing regime. The first question I have is why she is concerned or what types of unintended consequences might there be? I will hold that question and ask the others before Ms Dubsky comes in.

I have two questions for Ms Uí Bhroin. First, the argument around the skill set is very well made and there is an indication from officials that might be resolved on foot of her submissions. That will probably get broad support among us. Is there an argument also to say that whatever the number of board members, there should be a provision in the Bill to ensure that at any one time there is a good distribution of those skill sets? How does she think that could be achieved?

I share her concern about the issue around the panel or the committee. Could a solution to that be that the legislation stipulates the organisations that nominate onto the committee and many of those organisations that are currently panels would effectively be committee members? In other words, regularise the panel system into the committee system with, for example, the Irish Environmental Network, the Irish Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland or whomever else listed in the legislation so the Department gets the transparency it wants but we also we get the full involvement of civic society, which I think is what we want. I would be interested in her view on that.

I would be interested in Mr. Lawlor’s view on the same because in his submission, he stated, “The IPI recommends that the regulations on this committee are published quickly so that the appointment of the board members is not delayed." The difficulty is regulations are never published quickly, as he and I both know. Therefore, should we not, as a belt and brace, make sure there is greater clarity in the legislation with respect to that? On his issue around the number of members being limited to cases, I presume that is not an issue in terms of increases in board members, it is more if there is a reduction in board members. Would it solve the problem if the chair of the board, for example, says that the caseload is increasing exponentially, the Minister can then increase the size, but not have a provision to decrease? Does that fix the problem?

Perhaps the questions could be taken in the order they were asked, if possible.