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

I thank Mr. Cronin and the team for coming in. Like the Chair, I welcome the publication of the general scheme. Our view is this is important and the sooner it progresses in the right direction, the better for all of us. The legislation is much delayed and many of us were of the view that it would have been better had this been introduced in parallel with the offshore planning regime, but we are where we are and we will work with the timelines in front of us. Many of us will probably have even more questions for the Department after we have gone through the three sessions. It might be helpful if a private briefing with the officials at the latter end of pre-legislative scrutiny is facilitated, just for us to go through more technical aspects. I have a long list of questions that I will rattle very quickly. Unfortunately, I have to leave for oral questions with the Minister but I will come back. If the questions I ask are not dealt with, it would be great if written replies could be given to the committee at some stage.

With regard to the "Expert Body" in heads 5 and 16, it is not clear from the general scheme who is likely to be on this body; what exactly it will be doing; what the process of selection will be or why such wide discretion appears to be given in the general scheme to the Minister in setting it up and giving its direction. Will the witnesses give us more information on the who, what and when of the "Expert Body"?

I have questions about head 6 with regard to the ocean environmental policy statement. Who will develop it and over what period? With whom will it be developed in consultation? How will it relate to the other policy statements we are getting under the maritime area plan and the framework that was agreed by the Oireachtas previously? The language in head 6(4) with regard to the 10% and 30% is exceptionally weak. My understanding is we were meant to hit 10% in 2010. That is not an option. It is an obligation under EU law and we have missed that. Likewise, my understanding is the 30% by 2030 is an obligation. With regard to reaching 10% "as soon as practicable" and 30% "by 2030", why is that softer language than is required under EU law? What would be the consequences of us missing the 30% designation by 2030 in the context of EU enforcement actions, etc?

Will the witnesses give us as much information as they can with regard to designation in head 11, about what the timeframe will be and what will happen while the designation process is under way? There is no discussion of pending or interim designations, which I understand have been used in other jurisdictions. I am keen on that.

One of the subheads I am most concerned about is head 14(5)(a), which deals with existing authorisations. There seems to be a suggestion that where an existing authorisation or consent is in place and even if after the designation process takes place, the activity that is authorised under licence or consent does not comply with the conservation objectives in the designation order, the Minister can allow those activities to continue. The circumstances are set out in heads 14(5)(a)(i) and 14(5)(a)(ii). Will the witnesses confirm this means that there is a provision if, for example, the designation process concludes, on the basis of scientific evidence, that the location of head 14(5)(a) should not have certain types of activity or those activities would damage marine biodiversity, where Government decides, as per heads 14(5)(a) and 14(5)(b), that there is an overriding economic interest by such meeting our wind energy targets, the latter will trump the former and we could be in a situation where marine biodiversity could be sacrificed in the interest of meeting our energy efficiency targets? That is essentially what the provision is as I read it. Will they confirm whether that is the case?

Will they give us more information about enforcement authorities in head 15, especially the navy and the extent to which it has the capacity and the ability to deal with environmental and biodiversity enforcement?

Clearly, it can be enforced regarding people infringing on areas where they should not be, but there is a lot more to enforcement than that. Why is there no role, in conjunction with the Naval Service, for the Marine Institute, for example, to do all of that?

I am confused about the management authorities and I want to clarify what they are going to do and why. On monitoring, there is a whole series of issues around this, for example, what is to be monitored and how often; is it the network or is it individual marine protected areas; and who will do it and what are the resources for that? Heads 21 and 22 refer to authorised persons. I do not understand this so perhaps Mr. Cronin can provide clarity. I do not see mention of restoration. As we go through the designation process, what about those parts of our marine area that have been badly damaged by existing activities and is there a mechanism or process by which restoration can be introduced in the designation process?