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

I apologise for having to step out; I was launching some legislation. Whatever I might have missed, I will catch in the transcript. I have some follow-up questions for Ms Uí Bhroin and her colleagues, and then some questions for Mr. Goodwin.

On head 14(2), we had a significant exchange with departmental officials on the legacy projects or the first series of offshore wind applications and the MACs that are in the process of being issued. Head 14(2) states that the designation of the MPAs shall be without prejudice to existing rights. How wide is that to be interpreted? Does that mean MPAs could have no bearing on those existing consents? The departmental officials gave us the impression that work was under way. Professor Tasman Crowe talked about the sensitivity mapping, etc. Is Ms Uí Bhroin concerned if that section of the Bill ends up being too vague or too broad?

Head 13 deals with climate adaptation. It is important that the climate-related elements of the Bill, particularly when it comes to protecting and restoring marine diversity are as strong as possible. I ask Ms Uí Bhroin for her observations on that.

I can cluster enforcement and architecture together. There is the legislative architecture and also the institutional architecture of how this process with its monitoring enforcement fits in with everything else that is happening offshore. I would like to hear the thoughts on that.

I have much sympathy for some of the key recommendations the IEN. Regarding head 16, expert groups and the involvement of sectors, it made a very generous case that it would not just be its sector but also others. I am not sure that is the correct approach and I would be interested to hear the rationale. I like the idea of an expert group being made up of people who are fully independent of any of the activities happening in the marine and which is without prejudice to the benefits of that activity. It should be purely data-driven and science-driven. On housing, we often have major political rows about data when the people who are also involved in implementing the policy whether on the public or private side are involved in the management and production of the expert science underpinning it. I am not sure about that, especially if we adopt the kind of co-creation approach that Professor Crowe mentioned and picking up on the argument that was made earlier about the localised nature of the designation. If there is adequate co-creation from the start where all the players are not just involved after a map line is drawn but actually involved from the start as was identified in Spain and other jurisdictions, that would be a better way to get all the potential actors involved and keep the science and data free of any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. I am keen to get the witnesses’ thoughts on that.

I have a question for those in the industry. One consent has been issued and other consents are coming. We all wanted this legislation and the designation process to happen in parallel, which has not happened but that is not the fault of anybody in this room. What challenges will that present for industry, particularly as the science develops? We might start to realise that economic activity in X area off the east coast might not make any sense in terms of our conservation objectives and our requirements under the various directives and national laws.

Ms Uí Bhroin might answer first and then Mr. Goodwin.