Ulick Burke (Galway East, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on this Bill. The background to all of this and the difficulties that have arisen with the Bill stem from a major failure of Government. Following the general election in 2007, the Government decided to transfer responsibility for the sea fisheries, aquaculture, marine engineering and research, foreshore licensing for all aquacultural developments and foreshore licensing for certain activities, other than those identified in the Bill, to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Some two years on, we are now transferring these functions, with the exception of those relating to agriculture, back to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That must indicate to everybody who has an interest in the foreshore and its potential that the Government has no policy for its future. When these changes occur and the areas of responsibility are moved from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will the personnel associated with these areas of responsibility within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food move with them? If they do not, the delays that are now so obvious with regard to licensing of certain projects will continue. Only one person has responsibility for aquaculture licensing and he is dealing with 300 applications. The Minister is well aware of that. That person, coincidentally, was transferred under another Government scheme from another Department to that responsibility. There is no real determination on the part of any Minister in the Government to respond in a meaningful way to the obvious needs in this area. Potential is being lost due to ongoing delay.

The intention was to provide a modern, effective, integrated legal framework for the management of the State's foreshore. I can see nothing in this Bill that will change the failure, delay and incompetence in dealing with simple issues. Now, the huge potential for development will be strangled. I can offer the Minister an example. It is an application the Minister is familiar with because representations were made to him about it many years ago. Among the responses that were received with regard to the application was one from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department to which we are now transferring all this responsibility.

The Department stated that the proposed development would occur within Galway Bay complex, candidate special area of conservation under the EU habitats directive, and the inner Galway Bay special protected area under the EU birds directive. The birds and habitats sites are collectively known as Natura 2000 sites. The Department refers to the requirements under Article 6.3 of the EU habitats directive, that appropriate assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on the conservation objectives of these areas be carried out before the Department would be in a position to comment. It is asking for an appropriate assessment when there are no personnel to carry it out. Regardless of the embargo on the recruitment and appointment of personnel to these very important positions, the reality is that there is one person, who does not have a background in this area, dealing with those applications and there will be no appropriate assessment. How could any important project be progressed when one is obliged to go through a network of birds directives and so forth?

The original application I have referred to was withdrawn because the site chosen in Kinvara Bay was so polluted with raw sewage the applicants were told by the Department to transfer elsewhere. Another site of half an acre was found in a more suitable area by the local people who knew the area inside out, not by somebody in Clonakilty who would not even know Kinvara Bay or any of its small inlets. However, there it came under the other network where appropriate assessment was required under all of the headings of the birds directive. The person concerned has been traditionally involved in aquaculture. When he was out in the bay this afternoon he said there were several hundred Brent Geese in the habitat. They were within a stone's throw of the activities taking place in his aquaculture site and there was no interference. The people who put these requirements on paper have no regard for the reality of what is happening on the ground. The two activities I mentioned can take place without the huge impact suggested by the contents of the birds and habitats directives.

If this legislation is to succeed there must be a realisation that this network of directives must be dismantled to realistic levels to respond to the protection of the environment. If not, there will be delay after delay. The person I mentioned has huge personal savings invested in this application but there is nobody in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to respond in a positive way or to realise the investment people put into these projects, only to be turned down and delayed. There are 300 others around the Irish coastline in a similar situation.

We are confronted with yet another legislative measure. It will only further compound the entanglement that currently exists to prevent development. One does not have to travel far to see headlines about the difficulties for major projects. There is the gas coming in from the coast of Mayo. What has happened there? There have been years of turmoil. Consider the capacity and potential for wind power development and the projects that are at pre-planning and planning stage. Approximately 1,900 MW await development. When will these be developed? Everybody is aware of the needs at present.

The Bill would be welcome if there was appropriate parallel realisation on the part of outside agencies of the confines and restrictions that are imposed. Unless they are settled this legislation will be on a shelf gathering dust because nobody will invest due to the waste of time and the prohibitions that exist against reasonable development.

See this speech in context