Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The key point is that it is not a matter of banning scientific research but rather of making it clear that if, in the course of scientific research, an offence is committed, it should constitute an offence. That would be reasonable and people would expect it in that regard. I am somewhat more concerned by the narrow framing of the interpretation. When the Minister of State brings this to the Dáil to look at the case law to see how this has panned out rather than a text from the 1980s. For example, we know scientific research has been conducted that has at a later point been sold to companies because it is beneficial to them. It would not necessarily have been commissioned by a company directly.

We also know of cases where investigation and exploration have damaged a habitat. This goes back to the point that an area may become so damaged it would no longer have an environmental benefit or value etc. We have seen that as well. This is not to say parties cannot explore or even exploit but rather that offences committed during the course of those actions should be prosecuted by the State. Offences committed during the course of exploration should be prosecutable by the State. The amendments are grouped and cover this area and the section relating to the continental shelf.

I urge the Minister of State to look to that interpretation. I imagine Members of the Dáil would like clarity around the interpretation and why such a narrow interpretation has been chosen by the State in respect of this.