Ms Laura Brien:

I will answer to the best of my ability because some of the aspects of the questions are a little beyond the remit of MARA.

In terms of proximity and other countries, it really depends on seabed topography and legislation. Historically, jurisdiction was out to 12 nautical miles, so there are a lot of wind farms in other countries, such as in the Netherlands, that are located well within 12 nautical miles because that was what their legislation allowed them to do. The introduction of the Maritime Area Planning Act, known as the MAP Act, and regulatory jurisdiction moving out to 200 nautical miles to the edge of the EEZ opened up that additional space to be available for development in a regulated manner. The future will differ from the past, given how everything along the east coast or, indeed, Sceirde Rocks, which was one of the six phase 1 projects, were all within 12 nautical miles because that was what the legislation allowed them to do. Other countries have gone different distances.

The second piece is that it really does depend on the seabed topography and the wind and wave conditions as to what makes something commercially viable. One has to trade off a lot of things that range from the legislation, the commercial viability, the wind strengths and what the seabed looks like. There is probably no single answer anywhere across Europe.

The Cathaoirleach mentioned floating wind farms in Norway. The interesting thing, if I have got this right, is that the seabed in Norway is actually really deep close to the coast and shallower farther off. Norway's closer-in or cheaper-to-develop sites are in deeper waters because it has a trench close offshore. That is why Norway has opted for floating technology. From the viewpoint of cost effectiveness and distance from shore, it is cheaper for Norway to put floating in rather than fixed technology. It really does depend.

I want to pick up on one of the questions asked of Mr. Moran. Within the ORESS community benefit fund, one of the actions of the future framework for offshore renewable energy's policy statement was moving the host of that community benefit fund from the ORESS, which was the support scheme, into the marine area consent, MAC, which is authorised by MARA. The reason for that is that, over time, the expectation is that not all plants that are developed will be supported through an ORESS. Indeed, two of the first phase 1 projects do not have an ORESS and, therefore, do not have an obligation to provide a community benefit fund. All projects will have a MAC because a MAC is needed in order to occupy the space. The intent of the future framework was to include the community benefit fund provisions in the MACs rather than the ORESS. That action is scheduled. There is a plan for it and I think it will need some legislation change.