Liz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

A long-term approach has certainly been adopted up to now, particularly in view of the fact that it has taken two years to transfer responsibility for this matter from one Department to another. Does the Minister not accept that the type of goodwill to which he refers already exists? I do not imagine that any Member would oppose the possibility of his again coming before the committee.

The problem in respect of this matter relates to the difficulties involved in modernising our legislation, which is a ministerial responsibility. Does the Minister not accept that he must set down certain timelines? Does he further accept that this will not be easy, particularly when it is not his Department but rather the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that has responsibility in this regard? That is the precise reason the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security produced legislation in which it is suggested that there be a one-stop shop and that the process be streamlined in order that it might deliver the goods.

It is fine to refer to the long term and I am sure this goes down well at EU meetings. However, that is not my primary concern nor, I am sure, that of Deputy Coveney. It would be possible for the Minister to indicate now, and to everyone's satisfaction, what will be the timeline in respect of when the legislation will be delivered.

What is the Minister's view on the ESRI report, which essentially indicates that we have enough potential in respect of producing onshore wind energy and it would not be necessary to move into the area of offshore production? That is quite a significant conclusion for an eminent body such as the ESRI to reach. Will the Minister comment on this matter and outline the Government's position in respect of it?

See this speech in context