Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not doubt that there are conversations about how this planning legislation will intersect with marine protected areas. The question is which fits into which. Will it be the case that marine protected areas will fit into a planning framework? I do not necessarily take comfort from the fact that there will be consideration of how these things overlap, because I think there needs to be clear prioritisation. We have talked about different EU directives and legislative obligations, as Senator Boyhan has done. There is also the core EU precautionary principle, which is what the interim measures idea, of doing no harm, is trying to get at. It is not really enough to say that we will look at these two matters and how they intersect. If, for example, a maritime area consent, MAC, is granted for an area and it turns out to be of deep importance to cetaceans and is an area which environmental scientists and others say should be a marine protected area, what happens to the maritime area consent and to planning and development that may have been given the go-ahead in a recognised area? This is what I mean about the two things intersecting.

It is also an issue of predictability for business. The technical document produced by the Climate Change Advisory Council refers to the importance of this legislation, of wind energy, and so on, but it also clearly talks about the importance of things being sited correctly, in the right locations and with clarity about the impact on biodiversity and other matters. I do not doubt that the two matters are in conversation with each other. There is no way that they would not be. There is still a question of which takes precedence. The interim measures were a chance to create space if that conversation has not already happened, so we are not then talking about accommodating marine protected areas in marine planning legislation that may already have been commenced.I do not know whether the Minister of State can answer that.