Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join others in welcoming the Minister of State to the House and regretting we have not had pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill because it is very important. There is nothing technical about this. It consolidates a large amount of legislation. In the Minister of State's speech, we heard a lot about the 1980s legislation and various elements being brought together from it. We are in a different moment now and my concern is that some of the responsibilities we have for the marine are not properly reflected in the Bill as it stands.

The Bill is not simply about rights and sovereign rights. These are important and there are places where we need to strengthen them but it is also about the responsibilities that come with this. There are elements I do not see reflected in the Bill. For example, there is a reference to clean energy but nothing with regard to the reality of where we are now with climate and biodiversity. For example, Ireland negotiated the sustainable development goals and I know the Minister of State is a supporter of them. The sustainable development goal on life below water places responsibilities on the State. By 2025, we are meant to be preventing and significantly reducing maritime pollution of all kinds. These are specific goals we have signed up to. By 2020, we were meant to be sustainably managing marine and coastal ecosystems. By last year, we were also meant to have designated 10% of our coastal areas as protected areas. Alongside these is the European obligation to declare 30% of our marine areas as protected.

I am very concerned there is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. We are pushing through the planning framework and legislation to streamline the planning - I was very concerned to hear the Minister of State say that - yet we do not have our marine protected areas in place. There is a disjoint here. We speak about bringing things together and I hope we are able to join this up.

I have tabled a number of amendments, as the Minister of State is aware. They do not deal with every issue but they deal with some issues, for example, the prosecution for offences on a foreign ship. We have the Sea Fisheries Act and the Sea Pollution Act but we do not list the EU directives, which we are also responsible for enforcing if foreign ships are breaching EU law and damaging habitats or birds. This is also part of our responsibility to enforce. Section 19 speaks about offences regarding the exploitation of non-living resources.What about living resources? These are areas that must be looked at.

Around the section regarding the continental shelf, I suggest an entire new section be inserted that captures the full scope of what we need to do. We have sovereign rights being asserted in a very narrow way in language designed almost for the oil platforms of the past, which I hope must be and should be in the past. The language does not include an assertion of sovereign rights in the management of all the other kinds of marine activity we can expect in the future. It is not in section 18. Section 19 speaks to civil governance and deals with offences, so I wonder where that space is around the regulation of best practice and setting forward how things should be done and not just what is an offence. There is the question of seismic activity underwater, which is incredibly important. An area of the future may be cultural activity in and on our waters.

There is much scope in the Bill and some of the framing is very narrow. It seems like a slight updating of energy facets, where we imagine windmills on top of gas drilling. It is not capturing the scope of what we must do if we are to fulfil our responsibilities.

I have another very small suggestion that would help. With section 21 we could amend the Wildlife Act to not just cover the State's territories and seabed but the sea above that seabed. That would increase the usability of this Bill when it comes to elements like marine protected areas, which are so important. I concur with those who have spoken about the need for greater resources in this area. I know wonderful people have left the navy because of pay, conditions and the lack of opportunities for progression, but there is also the question of the meaningful mandate. I know many people were heartbroken when we stopped doing search and rescue in the Mediterranean. I know people who left the navy after that time. There is a role for our navy to do meaningful and good work again if it is resourced and rewarded. This mandate would be interesting and engaging for people who might enter the navy.

I also note it is not good enough that we are getting a baseline for maritime research from the UK. It is not good enough that maritime research is all being done by private companies feeding back. We know from hearings of the climate committee that we should have much stronger public maritime research so that it is public data that are being used to make decisions. We need huge resources in that regard.

There are concerns around Rockall and the Minister of State is aware of the actions in January 2021. We had an agreement and it is not as clear now that it is understood by all. I will bring forward other recommendations but the wider concern is the amount of power given to the Minister with regard to the jurisdiction of the State. We must be very careful that the Oireachtas would have a key role here. The Minister of State knows that previous court rulings have required that we do not overly cede powers to the Minister. Will the Minister of State reassure us on how this has been examined from the perspective of constitutional balance?