That is fine. I note that this may be one of the areas of law that we will need to open up in respect of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 10, line 32, after “the” where it firstly occurs to insert “restoration,”.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 11, line 6, to delete “and” and substitute “or”. My first few amendments are concerned with interpretation, and it may be the same issue throughout. The wording of the section is due to the language being mapped from the convention. However, the convention dates back to the 1980s and we have had a body of interpretation on same. That is why I want to be very clear about the Irish Government's interpretation of the convention. My amendment relates to places where the section mentions …

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 scientifi…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 11, line 6, after "the" where it secondly occurs to insert "living or". I realise that in all of this we are constrained by the mirroring of the language of the convention. All of these amendments seek to adjust the language. Conventions are living documents and we can add layers to them. We certainly should not be failing to achieve our goals under these conventions but we should look to apply and build a body of best practice of interpretation in this. My concern is where the langu…

Some but not all of the areas of marine life I refer to would be captured under the Sea-Fisheries Acts. This does not simply relate to fisheries. I recognise that section 14 of the Bill has scope to address some of these matters relating to protection and preservation of the marine environment but we do not have enough detail of how that would be done. This is all in the context of the kind of limbo we are in, where many of the planning measures are pushing ahead in the marine planning framework. Perhaps we should …

I move amendment No. 9: In page 11, line 18, to delete "and" and substitute "or".

I move amendment No. 10: In page 11, line 18, after "the" where it secondly occurs to insert "living or".

I move amendment No. 11: In page 12, line 16, after "of" to insert "restoration, protection or conservation of marine biodiversity or for". Again, this relates to the rights and jurisdiction of a state in a designated area. There are two intersecting pieces, including the rights and jurisdiction of the State in a designated area. That is jurisdiction in the very widest sense. That includes regulation and the power to determine what sovereign rights are and to exercise not solely whole but service rights and the rig…

I understand the constraint on the Minister of State in respect of the convention. That is why wherever there is an interpretative approach, I am happy to look at that. I would like it if the Minister of State could indicate what the Department's timeline is for the review of this legislation so that it would mirror, for example, the marine protected areas or the convention on biodiversity. There will be new requirements on biodiversity coming through. That is likely in November. Is it foreseen that those other obl…

No. I will press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 12, line 16, after “of” to insert “the restoration, protection or conservation of the geology of the continental shelf or for”.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 12, line 30, after “State” to insert “or other operator”. This is on submarine pipelines. It states that we should have jurisdiction if another state is laying a pipeline but that we should also have jurisdiction if another body that is not a state is laying a pipeline. That is extremely appropriate in the context. The Minister of State might clarify if we have that jurisdiction if we have private actors that would seek to lay pipelines in the State's jurisdiction.

That clarifies the issue for me so I will happily withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 12, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “Rights and jurisdiction of State in respect of the Continental shelf 19. Notwithstanding, section 18, in respect of the Continental Shelf, the State has— (a) sovereign rights— (i) for the purpose of the exploration, exploitation, restoration, protection, conservation and management of the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and (ii) with rega…

It would be appropriate and useful to others who may be taking these issues up in the Dáil to clarify where the responsibility for these issues on the continental shelf lie. There is a clear need that there would be jurisdictional or regulatory vindication of this. It is not just the case that we have rights. We also have responsibilities to vindicate international laws and practices. In order to avoid a limbo in this area it might be useful if before we have the Dáil debate, the State would indicate where these ki…

No. I will press the amendment.

I move amendment No. 15: In page 13, line 8, to delete “and” and substitute “or”.

I move amendment No. 16: In page 13, line 8, after “the” where it secondly occurs to insert “living or”.

I move amendment No. 17: In page 13, line 19, to delete “and” and substitute “or”.