Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

A resolution of the European Parliament was sent to me which was agreed on 1 June 2021. It relates to the impact of offshore renewable energy on fishers and the marine environment. This resolution was adopted and recommended by the rapporteur. To cut a long story short, what it basically states is, notwithstanding the commitment of the European Union to develop its offshore renewable resources, it should not do so in such a way that would displace fishers or do things that could potentially damage the marine environment. It says that the precautionary principle should apply. In other words, where we are not sure what the impact might be, the precautionary principle should apply. This is right.

The commitment to developing our offshore renewable resources is clear in this resolution, as well as the priority and urgency of doing this, but it is equally clear in stipulating that doing so should not damage communities with a close connection to an area, where social or economic activities could be potentially damaged by a specific type of development. The resolution cites things such as the reef effect that can sometimes accompany the establishment of these offshore wind farms. There is potential in this regard for a reef effect. In other words, reefs are created as a result of putting these things in place. This can have significant and far-reaching impacts on marine life, on fish and so on, and consequently on those who make their livelihoods from fishing. Reference is also specifically made to the electromagnetic impact of cables, even cables buried underground, and how those cables can then impact on marine life.

The whole predication of this amendment is that developers can come along and say they are going to put forward a planning application, but that certain details of that planning application cannot be provided when the application is submitted and that what may eventually be developed may be different from what was applied for. The grounds given for this provision is the rapid advance of technology. When we consider the issues at stake here, however, that makes us even more worried. Pile driving is another process mentioned in respect of its potential impact on a specific marine environment. Regarding the rapid advance of technology, we have already established that it is precisely the advance of those types of technologies that could have all sorts of spin-off consequences in terms of their impact on marine life. Of course, the new technologies may have different effects from the old technologies. The new technologies may have more impact in respect of what type of pile driving is undertaken, for example, and the technology used to undertake that operation. Such new technologies may also create reefs or damage fish, in respect of the routes fish take and whether they will continue to inhabit a particular area.

In fact, when I talk to the fishers in the areas where many of these legacy and relevant projects are sited near the coastal area off the east coast, some of which will be as close as 8 km and 10 km, in places like the Kish Bank, the Codling Bank, and so on, which are spawning grounds for fish etc., those people are convinced, and this point is alluded to in the European Parliament resolution, that this type of activity is not compatible with the continuation of fishing in those areas at all and that they will be gone from those areas, which are their traditional fishing grounds.

That is bad enough as it is. If applications are openended, however, regarding what technologies may be used for the construction of these projects or the types of cables that can be used, for example, and their potential impact on marine environments and fish, and all the rest of it, the idea that such applications could be openended based on new technology is more worrying. Therefore, I am not convinced that this is necessary or justified. I am most certainly not convinced that there is any justification for it in respect of large-scale residential development on land. I do not see the need for that at all. That has definitely been lobbied for by someone.

I repeat what I said earlier about SHDs and the shambles they turned out to be. That SHD legislation was written by the developers. I have strong suspicions regarding this openended type of planning application, which can change further down the line, and therefore bypass potentially the proper stakeholder consultations, public participation and EIAs in respect of LRDs. I just do not see the justification for that.

I would like the Minister of State to explain the circumstances in which a developer might put in an application for an LRD without giving all the details of that development, only for things to change further down the line. I do not see the justification for that and, arguably, it breaches the environmental impact assessment directive and so on.

It is similarly very concerning in terms of offshore developments. An Taisce, which went to the trouble of writing to us this morning, is pretty clear in its view that this raises serious concerns around the environmental impact assessment and habitats directives, public participation etc. There are simpler, more legally compliant and more effective ways to address these challenges without creating the legal and procedural problems associated with the proposed approach. We need to discuss that, but we are not really going to because it will be a short-circuited discussion and the Bill will be rammed through. At whose behest and as a result of whose lobbying will this happen? Somebody requested that this be included and the Government has bowed to that lobbying. We do not know who the lobbyists are but it does not take much to guess that they are on-land and offshore developers.

I am deeply opposed to these amendments. They should, at the very least, be scrutinised seriously or withdrawn from the Bill. It is more sharp practice with potentially very damaging environmental, social, economic and cultural implications.

See this speech in context