Timmy Dooley
Clare · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“I thank both Senators for the amendments they are putting forward and the sentiment behind them. I will deal with the points about the emergency. The Government made it very clear that a decision was taken, based on a decision taken by the previous Government in November 2024.”
“The State has taken a view, however, that is consistent with our desire and our commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, and onwards to 2040 and 2050, that this facility is strategic, as it says, that it is only for storage and that it is not meant to be a market play and cannot be a market play.”
“It is, but it is not an either-or situation. If €1 billion could sort it out with more batteries, wind or solar then that is the route we would be taking. We are investing very significant amounts of money in our electricity grid.”
“As the Senators know, the piece of kit – effectively the ship – will be leased in. There are a number of these around the world and they move on. First, we are not investing in the kind of infrastructure that had been a feature of discussions in the past.”
“All fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The Senator is right that methane has a much higher concentration and is more impactful by what is referred to as the carbon dioxide equivalence. It is much greater than carbon dioxide but it also has shorter life in the atmosphere. It dissipates over time whereas carbon dioxide does not.”
“If we were to do it, however, to get the private sector to pay for the security - I think it is accepted on all sides that there is a necessity for some security in terms of the gas supply - and if the Government were to say it would provide that through a market-led private consortium and initiate an auction to allow entities around the…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,042 lines we hold for Timmy Dooley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 21.
“I have seen quite a number of them. They do not fall within the scheme that is there. They are not owned directly by our Department yet the local authorities do not have the funding to address them. There is a bit of a gap there. We are trying to work on a solution that might involve a number of Departments which have line responsibility.”
“That is an issue right around the coastline. The funding we provide to local authorities is relatively small, and an input is required from them. It is really only suitable for minor upgrade works. I am conscious that there are others, including Cleggan and a number of others that Deputies from Deputy Farrell’s constituency and elsewhere have been in touch with me about . That scheme does not meet the needs. I am in discussions with a number of Departments, including the Departments of rural affairs and tourism, because there is a recognition that not everything relates to fishing. Leisure activities and the potential for some offshore renewable energy activity must also be taken into account. Over time, we need to develop a more comprehensive approach to addressing the deterioration in the quality of some of these facilities.”
“I am pleased to inform the Deputy of the large volume of project proposals submitted to my Department within the timeline. In fact, applications were submitted by every coastal local authority, including Galway County Council. Any applications for funding for capital works at piers in Connemara that may have been submitted by Galway County Council under the 2026 scheme will be given due consideration, taking into account the available funding and the terms of the scheme.”
“However, our Department, as part of its annual fishery harbour and coastal infrastructure development programme, does provide limited discretionary funding to coastal local authorities for the implementation of small-scale projects focused on the development and repair of piers, harbours and slipways under their ownership. Accordingly, on 16 February, I announced €4.3 million in funding under the local authority marine infrastructure scheme for 2026. Under this scheme, my Department will co-fund up to 75% of the eligible project costs, up to a maximum of €187,500 reimbursement where eligible, per project, with the local authority providing the balance. The deadline for local authorities to submit project proposals for funding under this scheme was 9 March.”
“The responsibility for the development and maintenance of local authority-owned piers, harbours and slipways rests with each local authority in the first instance and their parent Department, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage thereafter. Therefore, it is the responsibility of Galway County Council to progress any possible works in relation to piers in Connemara, of which Cleggan is somewhat an outlier, because our Department has some responsibility there in consultation with the local authority, which also has part ownership of the pier.”
“As the Deputy may be aware, our Department operates and maintains six designated State-owned fishery harbour centres, located at Castletownbere, Dingle, Dunmore East, Howth, Killybegs and Ros an Mhíl in her own constituency. Additionally, our Department has responsibility for the upkeep and maintenance of north harbour at Cape Clear, as well as the maintenance of a small number of specific piers, one of which is Cleggan in the Deputy's constituency, which may be what she has in mind here, as well as in relation to lights and beacons throughout Ireland, in accordance with the ex-congested district board piers, lights and beacons Act 1902.”
“The negotiations we have sought on sharing arrangements with third countries, from a European perspective, have not happened, notwithstanding the best efforts of the European Union to try to get a comprehensive sharing arrangement in place between us and those third countries whereby we would look to protect the stock and have, in effect, a level playing pitch for all fishers. That is where I think that malign influence is causing difficulties. Issues like that will be raised as part of any review of the CFP.”
“The issue is a little broader than what the Deputy has presented. There is a suggestion that somehow these corporations do better than us in quota negotiations but, in fact, they do not. Quotas are based on track record. If the quota goes down based on scientific advice, each country loses a share based on that species. I wanted to correct that point. Where there is an issue, and it speaks to the heart of what the Deputy is saying, is with the idea of playing both sides of the fence, being within the European Union and accepting its rules but also gaming it a little bit by having considerable interest in third countries.”
“I will try to keep to the time. I thank the Deputy for that clarification. I am fully aware of the concerns expressed by fishermen about the capacity of large corporations that have bought up quota from other member states that chose to privatise their quota. We have protected our quota in the interest of coastal communities. There is an ongoing evaluation of the CFP, which is expected to be published in May of this year. I expect it will lead to a review of the CFP, as part of which opportunities will arise in relation to what the next formation will be. We have a very significant interest in that in a context in which certain species are now entering Irish waters as a result of climate change, which could be of benefit to our fishers. We will be working hard to try to achieve quotas in those areas.”
“The result of this long-standing policy is that the Irish fishing fleet has retained a strong economic link with our coastal communities and has delivered economic activity, including vital employment, in those communities.”
“Ireland was successful in strongly opposing a mandatory ITQ system on the basis it would inevitably lead to a concentration of ownership in a small number of international fishing companies with few or no links to Ireland's fishing communities. From an Irish perspective, we were very clear that we did not want to see what happened in other jurisdictions happening here. There were differing views on this at European level but we were allowed to make a decision on it as a competency of the Irish State. In Ireland, fish quotas are a public resource owned by the State and made available to fishing vessels based on an overall policy framework that has been developed over the past 30 years.”
“In allocating fishing opportunities, the CFP requires member states to apply transparent and objective criteria, such as contribution to the local economy. A system of transferable fishing concessions allows for a member state's quota to be allocated to individual fishers or groups of fishers, with that quota then being available to them to transfer, lease or sell to other vessel owners. This is commonly known as an individual transferable quota, ITQ, system. The last reform of the CFP set out the option for member states to introduce ITQ systems for their fleets. The European Commission had proposed that such a system be mandatory for all member states.”
“As the Deputy knows, European beneficial ownership laws apply across economic sectors, including the seafood sector. I understand a package of new EU anti-money laundering rules, including rules in relation to beneficial ownership, was adopted as recently as 2024. The Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, basic regulation does not specify requirements regarding ownership of vessels, other than providing that a Union fishing vessel is one flying the flag of a member state and is registered in the Union. The Irish register of fishing boats is publicly available on my Department's website. As regards quota allocation, the CFP provides that it is a matter for each member state to decide how its fishing opportunities, which are not subject to a system of transferable fishing concessions, are allocated to the vessels in its fleet.”
“I have asked officials in our Department to examine the regulatory framework that is currently in place to ensure it is appropriate to adequately safeguard holders of traditional seaweed harvesting rights. I have asked for this work to be commenced immediately. It is my intention as the Minister of State to ensure clarity and certainty are brought to the matter. I would be pleased to keep the House updated as that work continues. As the Senator will appreciate, the system as it is currently understood is not meeting the needs and expectations of those he refers to. I am very anxious that we address that issue. From what I have seen, the traditional harvesters have a minimal to low impact on the stock of seaweed that is there. We must protect and preserve the rights of those people to the greatest extent possible.”
“I thank the Senator. As he has rightly identified, I am precluded from discussing or engaging with the functions that are the sole preserve of MARA. Having met with representatives such as the Senator and others, I am acutely aware of their concerns and particularly of those of the traditional harvesters, both those who have reference on their folios and those who do not but have a track record in the area. I am also very concerned about the issues that were rightly identified in those engagements. I would like to reassure those who I met and engaged with and who hold traditional rights to harvest seaweed that those rights will be protected - that is fundamentally important to me - regardless of how or where they are documented.”
“Before granting a licence, MARA shall have regard to any environmental impacts arising and any Government policies that may affect or relate to functions of MARA.”
“I am very aware of the complexities involved in relation to traditional seaweed harvesting, having recently met representatives of that industry - in fairness, the Senator was present at one of those meetings - and engaging with them. The Maritime Area Regulatory Authority has also engaged with representatives of the industry and is engaging with the Department on the existing regulatory framework. In that context, it is important to note that since the establishment of MARA, applicants may apply to the regulator for a licence to harvest seaweed in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Marine Area Planning Act 2021, which provides for maritime usage, and may be undertaken pursuant to the granting of a licence.”
“With regard to seaweed harvesting specifically, the draft MPPS contains a commitment that the marine planning system will "support the development of a regulatory framework for seaweed harvesting, formulating policies which enhance and safeguard key seaweed species and having regard to the important economic and social contribution seaweed makes to coastal communities." In this context, the development of a seaweed policy led by the most appropriate Government Department would require significant interdepartmental engagement and stakeholder consultation, given the range of social, economic and environmental factors that would need to be considered.”
“The enactment of the Marine Area Planning Act in 2021 subsequently provided a statutory framework for marine planning policy statements and, following a consultation on our draft statutory MPPS in 2025, the policy statement is being finalised and is expected to be brought before Government in April of this year.”
“The three objectives of the NMPF in relation to seaweed harvesting are as follows: support the sustainable harvesting of seaweed, having regard to the important economic and social contribution it makes to coastal communities; develop and maintain a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework that supports sustainable harvesting, ensures that key seaweed species which support multiple vital ecosystems are safeguarded and respects existing formal and informal rights to harvest; and support ongoing research to build on available data to support sustainable seaweed harvesting.”
“The NMPF brings together all marine-based human activities for the first time, outlining the Government's vision, objectives and marine planning policy for each marine activity. All public bodies and consenting authorities are required to have regard to the NMPF in the exercise of their statutory functions. This is intended to ensure consistent, precautionary and evidence-based decision-making across all Departments and agencies.”
“I thank Senator Kyne. I note his interest in this matter, which he has raised with me on a number of occasions. I am pleased to get an opportunity to discuss it in the House. Ireland's first non-statutory marine planning policy statement, MPPS, for all marine planning aspects was published in November 2019, pending the introduction of the national marine planning framework and the enactment of the Marine Area Planning Act 2021. In 2019, the MPPS outlined existing components of the marine planning system and its future vision. It set out the high-level priorities for the enactment of the marine planning system in Ireland. Ireland's national marine planning framework, NMPF, was subsequently adopted in May 2021.”
“The Deputy is right in terms of the allocation of resources at the end of the day, and based on the approach that the Government has taken, the supports and resources will be there to meet that demand.”
“We need to refine the legislation and we are doing that on this one but we are giving that flexibility in order that we do not end up having a hard deadline that forces going back all the way through the process. The point I reflected on earlier is industry and other licensees have some way to go to in understanding the new realities because heretofore, they had certain delays on their side; the clock stopped and in some cases, license applications were not validated until all the information was there. Again, that is very different. The planning application has been developed so well. It is the gold standard in terms of everybody understanding it. However, what we are trying to do on this one has the capacity to deliver and of course, if it does not, that has to be addressed.”
“We have been working hard on that body of legislation and the Senator contributed to that in his time as a Minister of State. It is now about getting decisions taken and getting it out. It is about resources and sweating the assets that are already there. I am confident that the Senator takes the overall statement of Government intent to deliver in respect of these large projects and large employers whereby they cannot be bound up forever and a day in relation to licences. The Senator is right that the issues are there. We have issues in MARA, ALAB, and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding issuance of aquacultural licensing. It is a process issue that has built up over time.”
“I have to second that. She is a dear friend and Mr. Percy Foster as well, who is also present. I do not know the other person; I apologise. I thank Senator Noonan for his understanding. He is right; it is down to resources. However, just putting in a deadline for those issues does not put compulsion on the Government or the agency to tool up to meet that. It just requires a decision. Sadly, while the decision is the right thing to do, it may not be the ultimate result. The work may not get done in the time and we will end up with a refusal, which will have further delays. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste made it very clear in the programme for Government that the next number of years are about delivery. We have plenty of legislation.”
“I understand where the Senator is coming from in drawing those parallels which are relevant. When starting from the position that we are, this seems to be based on the interaction between the parent Department and the EPA. I am conscious that it is a subset of the Department and there is a closer connection there than with the planning Act which covers the local authorities but they also have additional statutory functions. We believe there is a greater capacity to deliver on that. I am confident that we have the appropriate provisions in place here. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment but I understand what the Senator is seeking to achieve. I believe we have it covered already and time will tell how that works out. I again thank the Senator for his contribution.”
“We are trying to avoid that in this instance. Of course, if it is not working further down the road, we can look at the statutory instrument element of it. It is about creating that flexibility rather than providing an excuse to an agency not to get something done. Because of its length of time in existence and its establishment, the EPA's track record is good. We are trying to make it better in terms of the effectiveness of the delivery of the licence. On the other hand, with the capacity to provide licence extensions where a relatively small amount of activity needs to change, the legislation now provides a critical path to getting that done much more quickly. Rather than reviewing the entirety of the licence, it is only the piece that might be changing. Therefore, there is flexibility there.”
“It is about trying to bring everybody on a journey to get a result in as timely a manner as possible. Sometimes applicants are not in position to provide information because historically that was not the case. Based on my understanding of conversations with the EPA, the effort here is about having the flexibility so that it is not forced to refuse on a Friday because it has reached that hard deadline, thereby forcing the applicant to go back through that statutory process again, as happens with planning. Sometimes on some of the larger scale projects where a lot of information is required, an applicant reaches that deadline including extension of time for further information and the local authority is left with no choice but to refuse or the applicant must withdraw the application and start over again.”
“I understand where the Senator is coming from on this. The Senator and I would know certainly know this from a planning perspective through our time in this House and the other House. We are very familiar with the exacting timelines that exist from a planning perspective and they work well. The concern we have on this one is that if we have a very rigorous timeline, it may bring about a refusal at a point in time just to meet a deadline because all the information is not available to the agency in the first instance. Heretofore, in the provision of that information in the first instance, applicants have been used to a more iterative process. It happens with other licensing. I am dealing with it in relation to aquaculture on the other side of my brief.”
“This does not preclude a request by the Minister to the agency to provide such information which can be done at any time. On that basis, I am satisfied that the existing provisions in this regard are appropriate and therefore I do not propose to accept that amendment. However, I thank the Senators for raising these important issues. I sat in this House for two terms and we worked on legislation in a non-partisan way. It always contributes to the effectiveness of legislation even if amendments are not necessarily accepted by this side of the House. However, it adds to the value of the debate and the general understanding of the conditions that in this case, the Senators are trying to address on behalf of various sectors of society.”
“Regarding the proposed section 4, provision to prescribe such regulation is already provided for in the new section 90B(2)(c) of the EPA Act and at the new section 46B(2)(c) of the Waste Management Act, as provided for in the Bill. Regarding the proposed subsection (5), in its annual report, the agency already reports on the number of applications and the number of decisions or proposed determinations made in a given year. The current amendment to section 51 of the Act at section 9 of the Bill will oblige the agency to provide details of the number of proposed determinations made within the prescribed period. Therefore, there should be no requirement to detail the number of determinations made outside that period as that will be evident.”
“This order can only be made where there is an accident or an emergency associated with an application, and would be applied in very limited circumstances. An example would be where planning and an EIA are not required for the application in question, which would mean that the proposed change would be very minor but required in emergency circumstances. It simply enables the agency to make a decision on the licence application without having to issue a proposed determination or decision. There are already provisions to lay such orders before each House of the Oireachtas, as I mentioned earlier. Amendments Nos. 12 and 24, which are connected, propose ministerial regulation to be prescribed for timeframes for decision-making and reporting obligations of the agency. I have largely addressed that but I will go through it again.”
“These proposed amendments would go beyond the obligations as set out in Article 2.4, as I said earlier, and may not meet the objectives or the purpose of the emergency provision. Therefore, I am satisfied that the provision of section 88D at section 15 of the Bill and section 44B at section 26 of the Bill are appropriate as they stand. I am not proposing to accept those. On amendments Nos. 8 and 20, these proposals, as I said, like others, mirror that which are across the two Acts. These proposed amendments are intended to place a time limit on the emergency order under the new section 88E of the EPA Act and under the new section 44C of the Waste Management Act 1996, the WMA Act, and an obligation to lay such orders before each House. Unfortunately, I cannot accept these amendments for the following reasons.”
“Taken in isolation in this Bill and general conversation, I can see how the Senator might make those assertions but when they are taken in a holistic way, we have got to be careful that we are applying it in a uniform and co-ordinated way. The proposals in amendments Nos. 6 and 17 mirror each other, as I said previously. I have already set out why I cannot accept the proposed amendments Nos. 4 and 15, which are linked to these amendments, and the same logic applies here. The new sections 88D and 44B, as set out in the Bill, were drafted following detailed deliberation by the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that they were fully compliant with the requirements of the EIA directive and reflect similar-type provisions, as I said, in section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024.”
“An example given for exceptional circumstances is security of electricity supply. The provisions were drafted following careful deliberation with the Office of the Attorney General, as I said in the case of the previous one. It is transposing a provision of Article 2.4 of the environmental impact assessment directive and its text is based along the same principle of section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. On this basis, I am satisfied that the existing provision in the Bill regarding emergency applications is appropriate. Therefore, I am not proposing to accept the amendments. I understand where the Senator is coming from but, as I have set for her, in all of these there are the guiding principles of the European directives and some domestic legislation that we must be mindful of.”
“The provisions of the new section 88D and 44B do not change that. Therefore, I propose not to accept those amendments either. In addressing amendments Nos. 5 and 16, as outlined previously, these amendments propose a definition of "exceptional circumstances". The suggested text is not a definition deriving from the environmental impact assessment directive. The environmental impact assessment directive does not provide a definition for "exceptional circumstances" and specifying such a definition may be either too restrictive or, indeed, too broad. It is intended that each emergency will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and that any action taken would be in compliance with the EIA directive. The European Commission guidance notes that exemptions to general rules must be interpreted and applied restrictively.”
“5 and 15, which I am grouping for the purposes, as I said, in the earlier one, of the EPA Act and the Waste Management Act, these amendments would go beyond the obligation as set out under Article 2.4 of the EIA directive and may not meet the objectives or purpose of which the emergency provision is required. The new sections 88D and 44B were drafted following detailed deliberation with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure that they are fully compliant with the requirements of the EIA directive and reflect similar-type provisions contained in section 227 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. All applications for a licence, review of a licence or revised licence are currently placed on the website of the EPA for the public to make submissions within a period of 30 days to the agency. This process will continue.”
“If there needed to be a strict element, that could be provided for, as I said, in the statutory order and would not require coming back before these Houses, which has the capacity to respond more dynamically. The section 44C order made under the Waste Management Act 1996 simply removes the proposed determination stage of the licence process and could only be applied in limited circumstances. No EIA or planning is required and the proposed change would not be significant. Where an accident or an emergency is associated with a licence application, a time limit on such an order is not required. I hope the Senator will accept that in good faith. In relation to amendments Nos.”
“With regard to the proposal to place a time limit of six months on these orders, we believe that would not be appropriate. The new section 88 transposes Article 1.3 of the environmental impact assessment directive into the 1992 Act and reflects a similar type of provision under section 228 of the Planning and Development Act 2024. Where the activity is for the sole purpose of the defence of the State or responding to a civil emergency, it is considered that the appropriate place for a time limit on such an order, if required, would be within the order itself to which the emergency relates rather than to the face of the Act. We want to retain that flexibility in the primary legislation.”
“The thrust of this Bill is about getting decisions. The proposal in amendments Nos. 3 and No. 19 mirror each other regarding the EPA. Amendment No. 3 relates to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and amendment No. 19 refers to the Waste Management Act 1996, because we are effectively amending those two Acts to address the issue. They both concern the laying of orders made by the Minister under both Acts before the Houses and setting timelines of six months on such orders, as well as that new section 88C order under the EPA Act and a new section 44C in the Waste Management Act. Section 7 of the Act of 1992 and the new section 44C of the Waste Management Act 1996 already provide for the laying of any such orders before the Houses of the Oireachtas.”
“I have talked with the officials about this. While there is some flexibility, the flexibility is more about giving an opportunity to the EPA not to refuse a licence only because it has reached the end of the time and it may not have the information. It is about having some flexibility there rather than it giving an excuse to the agency not to get the work done and the engagement between the parent Department and the EPA is aligned here. It is about protecting the environment but it is also about getting decisions. While I take the Senator's point and I use that example from a planning perspective regularly in relation to other licensing matters that fall under my general responsibility, in this instance it is about that flexibility rather than it being a get-out-of-jail card for the agency.”
“As somebody from the west of Ireland, I much prefer to see things in plain language but I have learned over time that when legislation sets out the clear decision of a government to meet the needs and expectations of society, sometimes plain language can be misinterpreted in the courts because many of these Acts become the principles by which the Judiciary ultimately has to make decisions and sometimes the language has to be more technical than what the general public would like. I take the Senator's point. I am certainly not a solicitor but it is important that the language is precise and not left open to various interpretations so that it is as exact as we can be. I recognise, too, one of the issues the Senator raises is about the prescription of timelines, which we would be familiar with from a general planning perspective.”
“I will now go through the amendments one by one and set out the reasons, unfortunately, on behalf of the Government, I am not in a position to accept the amendments. I thank the Senators because I know they have put work into it and it is coming from a position of wanting to strengthen the legislation. I was taken to some extent by a number of the points that Senator Collins made about plain language.”
“I wish to emphasise too that the protection of the environment remains, as I said, paramount in this legislation and we are only introducing a more efficient and proportionate licensing regime. In September 2025, the Government published its action plan on competitiveness and productivity and one of the key priorities of this plan is to expedite this Bill, to put in place statutory timelines for EPA decisions and to enable partial licence reviews in limited circumstances. As a miscellaneous provisions Bill, it also has provisions relating to green public procurement, the circular economy fund and the Litter Pollution Act 1997, and furthermore, provides for a more modernised approach for the selection and appointment of directors and the director general of the EPA. I thank the Senators for their engagement to date.”
“In addition, before changes that affect emissions to an existing site are made, the operator is required to apply to amend to an existing EPA licence before such changes are made. This Bill aims to provide more certainty on the timeframe for those decisions on applications for EPA licences and reviews of licences for these sectors that will complement the statutory timelines being introduced under the Planning and Development Act 2024. The Bill is about striking a balance between improving, as I said, the competitiveness through providing more certainty for investment decisions that will lead to sustainable economic activity while also ensuring the continued protection of our environment, which has to be paramount. Everybody gets that.”
“We always have to get that right, but it needs to be done in a timely way and we must look at the role in terms of what the activity is, the positive benefits of that activity and what it means to our competitiveness, our job creation and the sustainability of our economy. There are over 900 EPA licences in operation in Ireland, regulating large installations in sectors such as energy, waste, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, intensive agricultural issues – meaning poultry and pigs – food and drink production and cement production. These are important parts of our economy. It cannot be that we do not regulate but we have to regulate in a more timely way. Installations carrying out the above activities are required to have an EPA licence, integrated pollution control or waste licence in place before they operate.”
“As Members well know, the main thrust of the Bill is to streamline the Environmental Protection Agency licensing system by providing the power to prescribe under regulation timeframes for EPA licensing decisions and more options for the agency to efficiently regulate lower risk activities and minor changes to licences. That is very much part of a Government agenda about delivery and getting things done in a timely manner. We believe that what has been put together here is a proportionate response to the system that is already there and it is about improving and making it better while at the same time recognising that we are looking at ensuring competitiveness across the economy and that where there is an important regulatory function of the government, it is not just about the regulation.”
“I too welcome the distinguished guests to Leinster House. There is a group from Liscarroll, which is in Cork. I think at some stage I was down there with my daughter, who was playing handball. I cannot remember if it was terribly successful from our perspective or not but it was an enjoyable time. I thank the Senators for the work they have done on this Bill. They contributed to Second Stage last week and I see that a number of well thought-out amendments have been proposed for this debate. Senators Noonan, Cosgrove, Harmon, Stephenson, Collins, Murphy, McCormack, Tully, Ryan and Andrews have already contributed. The Bill gives effect to the Government-approved general scheme of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024.”
“There are six of the inshore guys represented on that. We have to look at that separately. There are a lot individuals, small communities and small boats involved. We have to look for a medium- and longer-term support structure for them too.”