Dáil debates

Thursday, 3 December 2009

Foreshore and Dumping at Sea (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Second Stage

 

Photo of Jim O'KeeffeJim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

This Bill is a major missed opportunity. Foreshore is one of the greatest resources of this State. Not alone has this resource not been exploited by the State, but we have down through the years constructed an almost incomprehensible regulatory regime that has all but blocked every effort by people wishing to promote any type of enterprise or development on, in or under this resource. As of now, the people of this country are on their knees not praying, but beaten down by economic circumstance. The main way forward will be through enterprise and jobs. This is a resource that should be considered in the context of promoting both. However, the State has not done so over the years and, unfortunately, the Bill will do nothing to encourage enterprise or jobs in terms of that resource.

This resource is vast and includes more than half the land mass of the State. In the past, anything up to 12 nautical miles away was considered to be water. We now know this resource has major potential. This Bill will do nothing to help exploit it. We inherited this resource from the Crown and have regulated and controlled it, and above all ensured that over the years, if at all possible, nothing constructive happened in this regard. This has been the effect of the regulatory regime in place. We have piled regulation upon regulation and have had complexity compounding complexity. Now we have a tangled series of regulatory efforts which involve leases, licences, consents, approvals and environmental impact statements, EIS, from different bodies and Departments. We are out of our minds to be using this resource in this fashion.

It is no harm to mention what barrister Mr. Stephen Dodd had to say following enactment of the Planning and Development Act 2000:

The 2000 Act provides another regulatory step in the already entangled and over-complicated area of the foreshore. The requirement to obtain planning permission for development within the foreshore is a significant jurisdiction for planning authorities. However, the co-ordination of the foreshore licensing regime and the planning code in addition to over-regulatory codes is, perhaps, in need of greater simplification.

That was, perhaps, a bit of an under-statement because what it did was to apply one additional regulatory system. I am not suggesting there is no need for regulation but, if we must have it, let us have sensible, streamlined regulation in terms of this resource.

The Bill, in the main, is okay - I agree with some of the comments made by Deputy Creed - but it does nothing to address the main problem. The history of this legislation is even worse. In 2007, the decision was taken to have a complete review of the legislation. That review, which was carried out by consultants - I do not understand the reason Ministers and their assistants, advisers and top officials in the Departments cannot carry out these reviews - could have led to progress and identified areas where change was required and led to some type of strategic vision in terms of their development. It was supposed to take account of what was happening in other countries in terms of advances, of which there have been many if one cared to bother looking at them. What happened? A decision was taken, in principle, to divide the functions as per this Bill following which nothing else happened.

The effect of the decision to introduce this Bill two and a half years ago is that all other activity stopped. In the meantime, applications piled upon applications. There are now hundreds of applications awaiting decision but nobody is dealing with them. It will be somebody else's child tomorrow, next year and so on. This is an utter disgrace and a detrimental side effect of this Bill.

The Department does not know the number of applications awaiting decision. In June 2008, I tabled a question in regard to the number of foreshore applications for marina developments - a small aspect - made in the past ten years, the number of applications granted and refused and the general reason given for refusal. I was told in response that the information required was not immediately available and when compiled would be communicated to me without delay. Of course, I never received it. In June 2009, I tabled the same question, the response to which was that the information requested by me was not readily available and would be compiled and made available to me as soon as possible. I am still waiting for it. That is an example of how this whole area is treated.

The only area in respect of which I made any progress was in regard to a couple of community applications, one involving a rowing club and the other involving a marina in a village, which had been held up owing to an inability to obtain a foreshore licence. While there was goodwill, another body, the Valuation Office, was also involved and it would not release the figures required. Following a great deal of haranguing and pestering, I got a decision that private valuations could be used, thus enabling us to get the applications concerned through. The attitude is one of control, regulate and above all not to do anything in case a mistake is made.

Everybody is aware of the potential of this resource. We have dealt over the years with the potential of the fishing industry. However, the fishing industry is in decline and we must consider other ways of developing our coastal communities. We must diversify if we are to create jobs. I am not speaking of anything new in terms of potential. We are all aware of the potential of oil, gas, windfarms, tidal energy, aquaculture and leisure facilities - I referred earlier to the marina development - and the possibilities in this regard for tourism. When speaking about matters relating to the sea, I cannot let pass the opportunity to speak about tourism and the need to support the Cork-Swansea ferry campaign which could assist in bringing people to our coastal communities. In every respect, these resources are not being encouraged to the extent they should be.

Regarding the future, I am not too encouraged by the attitude of the Government. In February 2008, I tabled a question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about the plans in respect of the co-ordination of foreshore licensing and the planning code. The reply I received concerned me. It referred to the provisions in this Bill and stated:

The transfer provides my Department with an opportunity to review existing foreshore legislation and my officials have been examining the interface between the planning code and foreshore licensing with a view, over the medium term, to ensuring rigorous environmental controls in relation to foreshore licensing arrangements and maximum coherence between foreshore licensing and existing land use development consent procedures.

On the face of it, this is no harm. It is the attitude behind that approach that causes concern. It has all to do with regulation, control and ensuring damn all happens unless it actually squeezes through the tight regulatory regime. This is the wrong attitude and wrong approach. For a country that needs the enterprise available from the exploitation of this resource, this is the reverse of what we should be doing.

I accept we need a regulatory regime, to take a streamlined approach, to be transparent, accountable and to ensure consultation, in particular for local communities, but this process must result in decisions. Our approach in regard to foreshore should be to regulate to the extent necessary, but to encourage enterprise to the extent possible. This Bill does not take that approach. What is contained within it is unexceptional. However, let this be the beginning of a journey to achieving the objectives I have outlined; otherwise, we are wasting our time.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.