Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

This amendment effectively seeks to restrict significantly the scope of activities that can be considered for a maritime area consent, MAC, in a specific zone and, in so doing, to control development in the maritime area. It is important to remember a MAC is merely a right to occupy a part of the maritime area, conditional on securing other necessary approvals. It is not a permission to undertake works, development or activities provided for under the Planning Acts or in licensing, and it is not a development control tool.

The proposed amendment would unduly limit the potential of the maritime area to deliver renewable energy and, in so doing, limit the State’s ability to meet our climate action targets.

The planning process is the appropriate place to determine the suitability of development in accordance with the objectives of the NMPF. This goes for wind farms, minerals exploration and installations for the storage of gasses or minerals.

This amendment, it must be said, is singular in its intent but far-reaching in its impact. It treats all parts of the maritime area as one singular, homogenous entity and has little or no regard for local marine geomorphological conditions. The impacts of this amendment on the west coast, in particular, are of great concern given the changes in ocean depth beyond 12 nautical miles in parts. I am not convinced that any consideration has been given to the impact of this proposal on our renewable energy targets.

The Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is carrying out a review of the security of Ireland’s energy supply, which is focusing on the period to 2030 in the context of ensuring a sustainable pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050. This review will consider how the Government’s increased ambition in renewable energy and the development of new indigenous clean energy sources will reduce fossil energy use. Can the Deputy assure this House that this proposal will not negatively affect our ambitions in this regard?

On mining and mineral exploration, Chapter 17 of the NMPF points out that future exploration and mining for scheduled minerals in the marine area is not anticipated at this point and that any potential activity in this area will depend on future exploration and mining technologies and national policy on mineral exploration and mining. Indeed, the Government’s draft policy statement on mineral exploration and mining, published in July of this year, proposes that mineral exploration and mining activity should not take place offshore or on the Irish seabed until such time as sufficient data are available to assess adequately the impacts of any such potential mining activity. This is not an immediate concern.

The NMPF also notes the security of energy supply cannot be examined in isolation from sustainability. It also states natural gas storage installations and activities could have potential adverse ecological and environmental impacts, which would need to be identified, analysed and mitigated against as part of the planning and development management stages of marine planning. In short, natural gas storage may be looked at in the round in the future during proper policy development, but we will not curtail options in this Bill.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by the Deputies in this amendment. However, I do not consider that primary legislation should be used to control future development. The legislation provides for a robust planning system, which will assess development in accordance with Government policy and ensure the environment is adequately protected. We use evidence to inform policy, and the policies inform the decision. Development control in primary legislation is simply not appropriate, particularly where it is aimed at frustrating the attainment of our energy security and climate action objectives. I cannot accept this amendment.

See this speech in context