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

I do consider the Deputy to be a reasonable person and it is a reasonable proposal. In each case, the proposed amendment appears to be based on a failure to appreciate that prescribed monuments and archaeological objects are legally protected automatically and not by way of entry in any register. It is already clear under sections 184 and 185 that the defence is not available where the prescribed monument in question has become a registered monument through being entered in the register of monuments.

The introduction of a system of automatic protection for discoveries of archaeological sites and structures, and possibly other classes of relevant things, which is modelled on the existing system of automatic protection of finds of archaeological objects, is a major strengthening of the law.

However, the legal advice I have is that it must be balanced by the provision of a defence that a reasonable person would not have recognised the existence of the prescribed monument or archaeological object. "Reasonable person" is a standard legal term and it is up to the courts to judge it when it comes to prosecution. It is necessary to ensure public support for the legislation. I emphasise again that the defences are not available in respect of prescribed monuments entered in the register or where a person has otherwise been made aware of the existence of the monument or object. I must therefore oppose these amendments.