Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for indicating that, if there are areas of concern relating to the Valletta Convention, he is willing to consider them. Some of the later amendments relate to areas where the Bill falls short of the convention in specific ways. I hope we will have a chance to follow through on the promise of engagement.

In one way, this amendment is simple. It changes the section that gives the Minister the power to prescribe monuments to read "there shall be prescribed ... a class of relevant things" instead of "there may be prescribed ... a class of relevant things".It states that there "shall" be prescribed, rather than there "may" be prescribed a class of relevant things. On a simple level, it is an amendment to ensure that the powers will be used. We know that certain powers tend to get used and others lie in abeyance. For example, there is the issue of rights of way, which are constantly abolished and very rarely instated at a local authority level. Similarly, this is to ensure that it becomes an act of duty and part of the work programme of any Minister that they shall actively engage in the work of identifying, recognising, designating and prescribing classes of relevant things as prescribed monuments.

It becomes a bit more significant as an amendment and it is not simply the usual thing of where I often try to move "mays" into "shalls" to make things actually happen, and that relates to section 12(1)(a). Section 12(1)(b), however, is a little concerning and my next set of amendments, amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, will address that. Section 12(1)(b) uses stronger language for the Minister not using the power. In section 12(1)(a), there may be prescribed certain monuments while section (12)(1)(b) puts a brake on the Minister using that power, stating that he or she "... shall not exercise his or her power ... unless he or she is of the opinion [then it goes into various things] that the relevant things fall within classes...". Again, those initial tests, which are the potential brake on the Minister exercising all of the different powers under this whole chapter, effectively, and those initial brakes are too narrow. The window through which the Minister must pass before starting it has the very strong language "shall not" rather than "may not" attached and also the criteria are too narrow at that point in section 12(1)(b).

It is a two-part one. I would like there to be strong language around designation and I am concerned about weak language around designation set alongside very strong language blocking the Minister from using the powers. That is the rationale behind amendment No. 2. As I said, I will come to some of the concerns I have regarding section 12(1)(b) in the next set of amendments we are going to discuss, amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive. They work together as a concern.