Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I understand where the Deputies are coming from on the interim measures. We all want to ensure that as we develop in a maritime area, we have protections in place for that fragile environment. We are all aware of that. However, the wording of the amendment does not deal in specifics, although I understand the Deputy's point from his comments. He spoke about relevant projects but the wording would place unsureness in the planning system for everything we want to do both in the near shore and offshore. This could have an effect on recreation and tourism.

I fully understand and accept where the Deputy is coming from regarding interim measures but the amendment has not been drafted in a way that would create sureness in a system. It would, in contrast, bring unsureness to the system and it might create further difficulties for environmental protection. If we go for planning consent and we have undefined interim measures in place, it could create further confusion, which might result in actions we do not want. We are trying to put in place a fit-for-purpose planning regime that caters for the protection of a fragile environment and gives sureness for those who wish to develop in the maritime area. We are not just talking about the offshore renewable industry in this respect but recreational development, including piers, marinas and all of that fantastic coastal recreation opportunity we have around the country. It will also include fishers.

We must be careful in writing legislation as we are making the law. It is not a policy document that would allow us to go further and describe interim measures. I have learned a valuable lesson about drafting amendments, which is that we must draft amendments in a specific way so they can be legally enforceable without creating further confusion. They should create sureness in the planning system rather than more confusion. We want a sure planning system.

We know we will develop the offshore area and the potential that exists not just in the seven relevant projects but in our programme for Government, which provides for 30 GW of offshore floating development. That will happen off the west coast at some point as well. The technology is not quite there yet but I can see over the next five to ten years this technology improving so we can harness the fantastic wind speed we have out there. We have some of the best wind speeds in Europe. When writing the legislation, we want to provide sureness for such development rather than include measures that may create uncertainty, confusion and perhaps bring decisions in the planning process before the courts because "interim measure" has not been defined, for example. We have not even defined what is a "marine protected area". These must be clearly defined, along with the intention of creating the areas, how we will manage and monitor them and how we will make changes as necessary when power moves on.

We want to have good environmental protection across the board and any development, whether on land or at sea, in certain sensitive areas and all these maritime areas, will require an environmental impact assessment. That will provide data to ensure we can protect the marine environment. We have heard that we are short much scientific data and much of the detail we need for those environments. That is so we can be sure the protections we are putting in place are suitable for what is in the environment, which is critical. We know why we create special areas of conservation or special protected areas under EU directives and the wildlife Acts. It is because of the habitats and species that exist in them. We must work the same way with marine protected areas when we are crafting legislation for planning at sea.

See this speech in context