Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on what others have called once-in-a-generation legislation that will define all planning applications for an area seven times the size of the State's landmass. I know the relevant committee has spent a lot of time getting into the details of the 245 pages and 181 sections of the Bill. I wish to focus on just a number of key areas I am concerned about.

First and foremost is the progression of the Bill while we do not have legislation on protected areas. Sinn Féin has always argued - some would say "moaned"; it is called the democratic process - that legislation should have been done in parallel with this legislation. We cannot have a situation in which our marine habitats and biodiversity are left with the scraps after the offshore wind projects. I have seen presentations and heard commentary outside of this House by environmental organisations and people who are interested in wind about how Ireland could be exporting wind at a level that would see us as the Saudi Arabia of wind generation. While I absolutely want Ireland to be ambitious with our renewable energy targets, we also cannot forget that there is a hierarchy when it comes to climate action. At the top of that is to reduce the demand for energy in the first place. We cannot continue to grow exponentially in a finite world, and it is essential we address both crises at the same time, that is, the biodiversity crisis alongside the climate crisis. Biodiversity should not be the sacrificial lamb to climate action.

In addition, as Senator Moynihan said, some of the most important carbon sinks we have are in our marine environment. Apart from them warranting protection in their own right as species that share this planet with us, cetaceans, especially whales like baleen whales and sperm whales are enormous stores of carbon and a fundamental part of the marine ecosystem, and we know that exploration for offshore wind impacts on those species. In addition, 40% of all CO2 produced is absorbed by marine phytoplankton. That is four times what the Amazon does.

Section 21 addresses protected marine sites but only the existing sites, which are a minuscule part of what needs to be designated in Ireland's marine. I would like to hear from the Minister what interim protections there are in the Bill.Could we not include at least the proposed protected areas also?

I want to raise concerns regarding section 6 and the marine planning policy statement. It seems this will happen without any public participation from sectoral organisations, academic experts or the wider public. I question whether it is in compliance with the Constitution and the Aarhus Convention. I am sure the Minister does not need reminding of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention. It includes the right to participate in certain environmental decisions and the right to challenge certain environmental decisions. My concerns regarding the Bill's compliance with the Aarhus Convention are not limited to section 6 but also section 7 and the references to judicial review in sections 105 and 107 to 109, inclusive, of the Bill.

Access to justice is a core pillar of any democracy. We are seeing an increasing narrative that people are seeking judicial review from a vexatious point of view. Let us not beat around the bush. A total of 68% of judicial reviews are rejected. This means 32% are accepted by the courts as having merit to be heard. While the courts are not the best place to be making complex planning decisions, people's access to justice should not be restricted. We are on dangerous ground if we are questioning those accepted for judicial review. It strays into the grounds of questioning the independence of the Judiciary. The best way to reduce challenges and delays is to transpose EU directives correctly and to be in full compliance with the Aarhus Convention. All the evidence shows that if we involve the greatest possible participation of public and sectoral interest at the earliest point in the process, we will speed up delivery and encourage people to feel they have ownership and are part of the process. What is the Minister's rationale for a six-year interim review? International best practice is to have a review after one year.