Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Again, I thank Deputies for bringing these matters to my attention. On amendment No. 35, I am of the view that the term “relevant thing” is a key definition used in the Bill and the repurposing of the term for the purposes of section 173 - matters that relate to the supply of machinery or vehicles for use in the commission of an offence under the enacted Bill - may lead to some confusion. I ask the Deputies to withdraw this proposed amendment so that I can ask my officials to engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to propose the introduction of new terminology into section 173 so that “relevant thing” has only one meaning and the term as used in section 173 is replaced with an appropriate substitute. We can come back to this on Report Stage, if that is acceptable.

On amendment No. 37, the purpose of the definition of “relevant thing” is to set out things which may either come within classes of prescribed monuments and so have automatic legal protection, or be entered in the register of monuments. Therefore, to define a relevant thing by reference to it having been delineated is, quite simply, to put the cart before the horse and would undermine the structure and purpose of the definition of “relevant thing”. Leaving drafting difficulties aside, I am satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are more than adequate to ensure that wider areas can, where appropriate, be protected. I would refer here to the provisions of section 14 enabling surrounding areas to be included in entries in the register of monuments and for entries in the register to comprise two or more relevant things. On that basis, I am not in a position to support amendment No. 37.

On amendment No. 38, the definition of a “relevant thing” is a crucial part of the Bill. Certain aspects of this amendment are already captured adequately under the definition of “relevant interest” which, among other things, means that a “relevant thing” is of known or potential historic interest.

However, I can see potential within the definition of "relevant thing" to expand upon sites where an historic event took place, to include, as Deputies suggest, those sites that may be associated with such historic events.

I would like the officials to explore this matter in further detail and to consult the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel so as to consider what options may be available from a drafting perspective. I ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment and, subject to consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, I will aim to bring forward a corresponding proposal on Report Stage.