Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

During the very lengthy Committee Stage hearings we had on this legislation, one of the points I made regularly was that our party, and in fact everybody on the committee, urgently wants us to be able to get up and running with the planning regime for the marine in order that we can progress our renewable wind energy projects to meet those crucial targets, not only as part of the Government's climate action plan but also to meet our commitments under international and European agreements. The concern many of us had through the course of the passage of the Bill was that, while we are doing that work on the planning regime, we also have to make sure we fully protect marine biodiversity and the marine. I know that is very close to the Minister of State's heart. The officials who were dealing with this legislation were, justifiably, not in a position to update us on what is happening with the marine protected areas but yesterday, thankfully, officials working directly with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, on the marine protected areas gave us a comprehensive briefing over three hours on progress in that regard. The concern I had about the Maritime Area Planning Bill is probably greater now, on foot of that briefing, than it was at the start and this amendment speaks directly to some of those concerns. The officials told us yesterday that we are not likely to get a general scheme of the marine protected areas legislation until the third quarter of next year. Obviously, that will have to go through important pre-legislative scrutiny and then through the Dáil, so realistically the passage and enactment of that legislation is likely not to happen until 2023.

International best practice, particularly from jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Scotland, argues that these two things should absolutely be done in parallel. If they are done in parallel, you get better quality planning outcomes and greater protection of marine biodiversity and you are less likely to be subject to legal challenge. We thought there might have been a delay of a year or so but realistically we are now looking at three to four years because, once the legislation on marine protected areas is through, it will take the relevant officials two to three years to get through those designations.

The officials also made some interesting comments on the fact that the extent to which the area of the marine one mile out from the shoreline currently protected, albeit not through legally prescribed protected areas, is about 60%. Yet we know - again, the Minister of State will have more intimate knowledge of this than I do - that while an area can be designated, it is another thing enforcing that designation and ensuring that it is properly protected and, where infringements of the protection in place occur, properly remediated. The challenge many of us face now is that we want the wind energy and we want the planning process to be able to deliver offshore wind as quickly and as efficiently as possible, yet the time lag between the setting up and the progressing of the seven legacy projects off the east coast of the island and the establishment of the marine protected areas is far greater than we had originally envisaged. In addition, the Minister of State can correct me if I have misinterpreted this, but I came away from yesterday's meeting with his officials unclear as to whether any interim measures will be put in place, particularly in those areas of the marine where the seven legacy projects are due to be progressed, through both ministerial maritime area consents and applications to An Bord Pleanála before the creation of the new maritime agency. Therefore, the big question many of us have is to what extent we, both the Oireachtas and the wider public, can be confident that the very significant challenges to key aspects of marine biodiversity will be adequately captured through the round of marine area consents, MACs, and planning decisions of the Minister and the board between now and when we eventually get the marine protected areas. That is a real challenge.

The purpose of this amendment, therefore, as Deputy Boyd Barrett said, is, first, to try to fast-track a review of the marine planning framework because that would at least allow us to deal with some of these outstanding issues but, also, not just to have the review because, as the Minister of State will notice, the amendment is quite long. The officials are quite adept at reading long amendments from us on this and giving the Minister pithy notes to respond to them. The review needs to do a number of key things. First, it needs to ensure full compliance with a range of legal obligations that Deputy Boyd Barrett outlined. It also needs to outline very clearly who needs to be consulted as a matter of urgency. There are other issues that need to be broadly addressed. Probably one of the most important points of amendment No. 10 is subsection (3): "Notwithstanding anything else in this Act no Maritime Area Consent, or Development Consent can be granted pending the conclusion of the review under subsection (2)." It is not like we are trying to delay any consents or planning permission. We are trying to get the Government to accelerate that bit of the process that is now three years behind schedule in real terms to ensure we can do two things which are absolutely crucial to meeting our climate change challenge. One is renewable energy and the other is protection of biodiversity, particularly marine biodiversity.

I do not expect the Minister of State to support the amendment. We know the view of the officials and the line Minister of State, Deputy Burke, because we went through this in quite some detail. In addition to reading out the note to explain why he is not going to accept this amendment, I would like to hear the view of the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, because it is the first time we have got to question him with respect to the marine protected areas in the context of the Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021. How are we going to manage those two key things? The scale of the technology that is required to meet the renewable energy challenge that we are going to need between now and 2030 is so great that it is clearly going to have an impact on the marine area and marine biodiversity. What mitigating measures are we going to put in place to ensure the maximum protection so that the coexistence we talked about in the earlier amendments is able to happen in a way that does not mean we sacrifice marine biodiversity to meet our much-needed renewable energy targets?

Obviously, the Minister of State will read out his reply, but I would like him, beyond that, to reflect directly on that wider issue because it is one that is directly within his responsibility as he will be stewarding through the marine protected areas legislation next year.

See this speech in context