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

Before I come back in specifically on amendment No. 2, if it would be of use to Senators, we could circulate a document in tabular form outlining the measures in the Bill and how it adheres to the objectives in the Valletta Convention. It may be useful in light of the genuine concerns of Senators. We can prepare that and send it to Senators. I think that would be of help.

Specifically regarding amendment No. 2, the use of the word “may” is intentional and is considered necessary from a drafting point of view. Using the word “shall” could jeopardise the proposed system of prescribed monuments by way of an interpretation that all possible classes of relevant things must be prescribed. This could lead to legal challenges to the regulations made on the basis that the Minister had not gone far enough in terms of the classes prescribed. The concept of prescribed monuments is a fundamental element of the Bill and provides a major strengthening of the legal protection afforded to archaeological sites, whereby such sites are protected without the need for formal designation or registration. It would not be possible to commence Part 2 of the Bill without introducing regulations for prescribed monuments. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is both unnecessary and inappropriate and I am not in a position to accept it.