Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The concerns are greatly exacerbated now. I have huge respect for the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, and we have engaged constructively on other issues but in this regard, this feels like we have had a good-cop, bad-cop piece because we had a Committee Stage debate during which we were reassured that environment, marine planning and protection and such factors were so deeply integrated into this that we did not have to be concerned. They were at the heart of the process and had been there in the thinking and development. Yet here we have a clear and concerning message that the Minister of State does not think MAC is concerned with the environment. This is just contract law, it seems then. It is about owning and controlling consent. It is estate management. We talk about the State owning and controlling all the waters but the State has responsibility for all the waters. That is another way to think about it. The State has responsibility for our marine and its protection. If marine and environmental protection is nowhere in this process, it is a travesty that the Government would go ahead with this process, giving grants, trades, estate managements, allowing for the occupation and effectively treating it like a bunch of property to be divided up, allowing people to occupy it and carry out different activities as if it is an asset, rather than the part of the planet and the oceans we are responsible for. It is a worrying frame. Many attempts in the early debates were made to tell us not to worry, these were kind of parallel and would be working together. It is clear now. We are told the estate management part of giving consents for things to happen - I am not saying I am talking about development but permissions for occupation - is coming ahead of marine protection and the designation of marine protection areas.

People say get the legislation right so it is consistent with the law, including European law. When people say there is a danger that this is not as consistent as it should be with European law, that is a legitimate thing to point out, much as in a judicial review. The way to avoid judicial reviews is to get the process right in the first place, rather than by curtailing such reviews. If we want to be honest, we need to be responsible about the fact that avoiding environmental considerations early in any process creates problems.

I am also concerned that the Minister of State is creating hostages to fortune. We look at the Energy Charter Treaty, which half of Europe actively wants to leave. I know that treaty was there in the considerations on the climate Bill because in the Bill it was discussed why exemptions had to be given to those who had done exploration in relation to fossil fuels. They could not be excluded from extraction because of their expectations. The Minister of State has described here how the maritime area consent will encourage them to start preparing their planning. Will they say that is a reasonable expectation? Have we put in a measure to protect the State against that? I do not want us down the line to get legal advice from the Attorney General that we cannot interfere with yet another terrible project because of legal concerns created by maritime area consent without proper environmental consideration.

I fundamentally disagree with the Minister of State on this. I agree that section 79(5) is a real problem. It is one thing if he will not do the proper environmental considerations; it is another if we constrain those who try to do that good environmental work when the State falls short. Unfortunately, this does both so I need to press the amendment.