Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

On the one hand, the Minister of State is saying that his more limited categorisation, the nine, and the inclusion of "includes, but is not limited to" is sufficient, and does not exclude anything. Our amendment also uses "includes, but is not limited to" but just expands beyond the nine, and the idea that it would somehow cause a difficulty just makes no sense. It is not a logical argument at all.

Likewise, both definitions do not in any way conflate archaeology with history. Archaeological history is a subset of the discipline of archaeology because archaeology is not just historical textbooks and the accounting of archaeological history. It is also physical archaeological work on sites, etc. Perhaps a good way of explaining that is how we talk about women's history. Obviously, that does not mean one is conflating the word "woman" with history, but rather one is talking about that aspect of historiography that relates to women.

I do not understand how the Minister of State can say that we can have nine categories with the caveat of "includes, but is not limited to", but one cannot have 12, 13, 14 or 15 categories with the same caveat. It does not make any sense. Given that I have been much lighter on the Minister of State this time than we would normally when we have him in front of us, I am going to press him for a better reason to reject the amendment than the one he has given me so far.