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

I believe that the proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 143 would likely be counterproductive. This is because the text proposed to be inserted could be construed as limiting the circumstances in which non-compliance with a previous licence could warrant refusal of a further licence. It might be argued that it was necessary to demonstrate destruction or significant alteration of an archaeological object or monument before refusal was warranted. Serious non-compliance with a licence could take a range of forms and could pose significant risk to historic heritage, without it being possible to demonstrate actual damage. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept this amendment.

Regarding the proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 144, the introduction of a provision to enable the Minister of the day to consult with heritage protection authorities in other states before issuing a licence under the Bill is an innovative measure that gives express and real recognition to the transboundary nature which historic heritage can have.

I was pleased to take on board the views expressed in the Dáil that provision should be made for transboundary consultation, and I believe that Dáil amendment No. 144 will provide a clear basis for this in the future. However, to change the provision from a discretionary one to a mandatory one, which is what the amendment put forward by the Senators would do, would create significant dangers. As a mandatory obligation, decisions as to whether or not to consult under the provision would very likely be open to legal challenge, with such challenges potentially delaying important licensing decisions, which in truth did not really merit transboundary consultation. This could put pressure on the Minister of the day and her or his officials to err on the side of caution by doing an excessive amount of transboundary consultation, giving rise to unjustified administrative burdens and pressure on available resources, without any guarantee that such consultations would even be responded to by the relevant authorities in other jurisdictions. I cannot, therefore, accept the proposed amendment.