Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unusually, I find myself agreeing with the Minister of State on this amendment. With regard to the central argument and thought behind it, I do not in any way concede, but the amendment, as currently drafted, is casting its net a bit too wide, to use a maritime metaphor. As long we do not keep using the same metaphors over and over again, it is all right. The amendment would prohibit practices that are entirely legitimate and uncontroversial within the foreshore area. With regard to minor activities being licensed, there is not a problem. I would be genuinely interested in hearing the Minister of State's thinking on this matter but we reserve the right to, and very likely will, table amendments seeking to have a requirement on the minimum distance from the shore of large-scale, industrial-style developments. I am simply pointing out, in defence of this position, that the average distance from the shore of these kinds of developments in Europe is forever increasing. We are contemplating a process to grant consents for developments that are much closer to the shore than is generally allowed elsewhere in Europe. The Minister of State should say why we should do that. There are reasons for what I describe. People are trying to get a win–win because we need to develop offshore wind capacity but we can do that while at the same time protecting coastal amenities and the sensitive marine ecosystems and biology that often exist in what used to be called the foreshore area.