Dáil debates

Thursday, 7 July 2016

Topical Issue Debate

Foreshore Licence Applications

7:50 pm

Photo of Catherine ConnollyCatherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the extension of the time for a public consultation until 1 August. However, my request is for the Minister to ensure a public meeting is held within that time. There was one public meeting on a Tuesday night, of which residents were aware. Some turned up and expressed their complete dissatisfaction at the time limit whereby submissions had to be in by the Friday of that week, three days later. Since then they have contacted all Deputies in the area, something of which the Minister will be aware. I ask the Minister to ensure a public information meeting is held because of our obligations under the Aarhus Convention, which we have signed and ratified and whose three pillars are access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice. There has not been compliance with that convention in terms of access to information or full participation in the decision making process. I met with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Denis Naughten, recently on the subject of renewable energy, and I support the concept as I think it is the way forward in Ireland. However, we cannot do this without consultation with the people and without having them on board. We need real consultation, not just a meeting.

The first lease was just for ten years but the current application is for a 35-year lease. The original ten-year lease was an application for a foreshore lease for the construction and operation of a demonstration offshore electricity generation station. That has now changed into an application for a foreshore lease to construct an offshore electricity generating station. It has changed from wave energy to include wind energy and windmills. The fact that one application gave a 60 m height for the wind turbine but the revised application by Foras na Mara had lower heights has not helped the process of trust. In these circumstances, the minimum requirement is that a public meeting be held to give out the maximum information and so that we can explain to the public what is involved and hear their views. It will also enable us to comply with our obligations under the Aarhus Convention.

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was in Galway on Friday, where this issue was raised with me. In March 2006, the Marine Institute was granted a foreshore lease for a period of ten years for the purpose of developing and operating a national quarter-scale test facility in Galway Bay, which I went out to see by boat, for the testing of wave energy devices in accordance with plans and drawings submitted at that time. That lease expired in March 2016 but, to ensure the test site continued to meet key objectives set out in the offshore renewable energy development plan, Harnessing our Ocean Wealth, the then Minister consented to a lease extension of 12 months, bringing the expiry date to March 2017.

The test site is required to underpin the Government's stated objective of producing 50 gigawatts of energy from the ocean by 2050. It provides a test facility where wave energy converters can demonstrate their survivability in harsh ocean conditions. This testing is a necessary phase before commercial-scale ocean energy development can proceed. The consent to extend the lease allows the Marine Institute to operate and utilise the test facility to the extent permitted under the original lease only until such time as a new application to extend the scope and nature of the facility has been determined or until March 2017, whichever is the earlier.

In March 2016, my Department received a fresh application for a lease under section 2 of the Foreshore Act 1933 from the Marine Institute in respect of the project. The application for a new lease is for the purpose of testing prototype wind, wave and tidal energy devices and does not relate to a commercial site, whereas the current lease permits the testing of wave energy devices only. The application was originally put out to public consultation on 19 May 2016 with a closing date of 17 June, a period of 21 working days. Where a foreshore application is not accompanied by an environmental impact statement, EIS, or an EIS is not required, the standard duration of the public consultation period is 21 working days. However, following representations, including from the Deputy, in respect of the public consultation deadline, I decided to extend the deadline to 2 August 2016, which is more in line with the consultation period required in EIS cases. Notices in both Irish and English advising the public about the extended consultation period were placed by the applicant in several newspapers, which I have given in my written answer. All application documents continue to be made available to the public in paper form at Salthill Garda station, Spiddal public library and other places.

This is about increasing the capacity for test projects, on a site that was purely for wave energy, to include wave, tidal and wind, but it is only a test facility. It is not about building full-scale commercial projects on that site. I take the Deputy's point about public consultation, but the point of extending the deadline was to allow an opportunity for people to ask questions about the project and to hear from the Marine Institute what it is all about, which hopefully will allay concerns and fears. The research that has been taking place in Galway Bay relating to quarter-scale wave energy test models is very exciting and I would like to see Galway Bay continuing as a test bed into the future. However, I will not make any comments on the specific application, though I will read and listen to any objections that come into the Department about the site and we will take them seriously. We will make a balanced and reasonable decision on the foreshore application in due course.

Photo of Catherine ConnollyCatherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very disappointed with the Minister's answer. My specific question related to a public information meeting as the most basic requirement in a consultation process. The Minister has not answered that, so I ask him again to confirm that it will happen.

There are serious concerns in the area about a number of matters and, while the documents may well be available now, they were certainly not available in totality before this. Nor were they available in Irish, although this is a Gaeltacht area. There are serious concerns that certain structures have gone up without a licence. Finally, there are serious concerns that project splitting is taking place. Galway Bay has many areas of special designation and there is also an application for an extensive development of the docks. I am reluctant to use the word "mess," but that is what has been made of the consultation process. Can the Minister at least confirm to the Dáil tonight that a public information meeting will take place? This should happen even if it is for no other reason than to rectify the damage that has been done to public confidence in this process and in the project generally.

The changes and extensions were given because Deputies exerted pressure. I thanked the Minister for the extension, but the pressure came from the people in the area, who are seriously concerned at what is going on. It is necessary so that we can go forward and so that people can bind into this project. I do not know why a 35-year lease is necessary, as it is a big jump from ten years. A public meeting in our official language in the Gaeltacht is the least we require at this point, so I ask the Minister to confirm that this will be held.

8:00 pm

Photo of Simon CoveneySimon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

8 o’clock

It is important to say to the Deputy that I am not the applicant. An applicant for a foreshore licence has the responsibility to ensure that proper public consultation takes place and that if meetings are appropriate, they also take place. I am the person who has to make a decision on the application so I cannot become involved in determining what is and is not appropriate in terms of trying to assist the process of getting the application done. My role is to ensure that a process is followed, that an appropriate decision is made at the end of that and that I take account, using the expertise available to me in my Department, of people's concerns, objections and observations. If the applicant fails in terms of its responsibilities regarding notice, consultation and so on, that has to be factored in when we make decisions. However, it is not my decision as to whether they apply for ten years or 35 years. That is up to the applicant - the Marine Institute - to make that decision. If I was to be involved in that choice, I would be accused of trying to manage a process and have an outcome determined before the application was considered. As the person who must make the decision on whether the application should be granted, I need to stay separate from the process.

The Deputy is right that people must have their say. There is a need for reassurance here. The test site has been in that location for some years and I am sure many of the questions people have can be answered and reassurance given, but that is a matter for the applicant. My job is to ensure that the law is enforced in terms of the role I have as an independent decision maker on the basis of an application. The Marine Institute, which is State-owned, is making the application but that is all the more reason I do not try to micromanage this.

I take the point the Deputy is making. I expect the Marine Institute will be listening to this debate and will respond to it but it would be dangerous for me to start getting involved in telling it what it should do in respect of an application on which I have to make a decision. I hope the Deputy understands where I am coming from on this.

Deputy Connolly rose.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, Deputy Connolly, but we must move on to the next business.