Of course, nobody wants to obstruct the sharing of information relating to the investigation and prosecution of serious crimes or terrorist offences, but it would be useful to have more information and guarantees on how this regulation will be used. I would like a briefing from the Government clarifying that it will not become a mechanism used solely to screen or limit intra-EU migration but would only be used in an active situation whereby we are searching for persons who are a danger rather than screening people …

The Minister will have heard from all sides of the House our expectation that he will engage on and improve the Bill. In regard to the wider picture, he will recall that following the publication of the report of the mother and baby homes commission, points that had been made in the Seanad led to a slightly better approach to the access to records. As was outlined by others, however, that has not necessarily been followed through in practice. The delays are unacceptable and, as Senator Seery Kearney pointed out, ra…

I move amendment No. 22: In page 60, line 22, to delete “including” and substitute “and shall include”.

I will speak to the grouping.

Amendment No. 22 is a relatively minor amendment. It seeks to ensure a notice of a screening determination for the environmental impact assessment, EIA, would be published on the website of the Department, together with information on the procedure for seeking to have that decision judicially reviewed. The screening determination, which decides whether an EIA is needed, is something which can be, and sometimes rightly has been, challenged. I seek to ensure the notice is on the Department's website and it is clear t…

I thank the Minister of State for accepting and acknowledging that point regarding archaeological interest. It will be more in tune with later sections of the Bill, which recognise that broader scope – not just archaeological but historic, cultural and community that is spoken of later. Having that wider frame of "things" will be important. It will considerably strengthen the Bill and its legacy, impact and usability. I turn to the amendments. On amendment No. 22, as the Minister of State made it clear that he is l…

I move amendment No. 23: In page 61, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following: “(3) In respect of the Minister’s determination of a relevant application, the Minister shall demonstrate due regard to the results of the EIA.”.

I move amendment No. 25: In page 62, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(7) Nothing in subsection (6) shall be regarded as undermining the responsibilities of the applicant under the EIA Directive.”.

I move amendment No. 27: In page 69, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “(b) invite the public-participation network within the local authority in whose functional area the person proposes to carry out the relevant work to make (within such period as the Minister may specify) observations to the Minister in relation to the request,”.

I am seeking to insert a new paragraph in section 40(2) to provide that, where the Minister is making a determination on whether to grant an exemption from the requirements of sections 32 to 39, the Minister would, as well as seeking the views of the local authority concerned, engage or invite the public participation network, PPN, within the local authority in whose area the person proposes to carry out the relevant works to give its observations. This relates to the question of public participation and community …

I thank the Minister of State. That would be a welcome strengthening of section 167 in the context of the collective ownership by the public of national and local monuments. Referring to them and including them in the annexe would be positive. I recognise the Minister of State's intent to set out in the guidelines best practice for that local authority engagement. In that context, I will withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 28: In page 70, to delete line 39, and in page 71, to delete lines 1 to 7.

The amendment relates to language I was concerned about in section 41(2), which states, "A person shall not question the validity of ... an act done by the Minister under this Chapter in the performance or purported performance of a function under this Chapter for which an EIA or an AA is required, or ... a relevant licence granted in relation to a matter referred to in this Chapter that is a matter for which an EIA or an AA is required but only to the extent that the licence relates to that matter, otherwise than …

I welcome that the Minister of State has indicated he is willing to look at that. I knew the intent solely related to legal proceedings but as the question is wider than legal proceedings, the matter may need to be clarified. I suggest that, ideally, it would not be solely a verbal clarification by the Minister of State and that the text should make it clear. We do not want to have an inadvertent chilling effect where even those who read the legislation feel they are not allowed to comment or organisations feel the…

I move amendment No. 29: In page 71, line 28, to delete “, with all necessary modifications,”.

I move amendment No. 30: In page 93, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(3) Such licences described in subsection (1) and (2) may not be granted where the granting of such a licence is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a national monument.”.

Amendment No. 30 seeks to amend section 77 of the Bill by inserting a new subsection (3) which would specify matters about the licences described in subsections (1) and (2). This is about the issuing of licences on lands which contain a national monument. It states that such licences may not be granted "where the granting of such a licence is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a national monument." Amendment No. 31 is an alternative to amendment No. 30. It specifies the same po…

Section 75 is around maintenance, presentation and the active duties of relevant authorities in maintaining the various archaeological criteria and all of that, but the active duties they may have in that regard are slightly different from the protective pieces I am trying to insert. It is quite a reasonable bar. The bar outlined in my amendments includes the phrase "likely to lead". I am not looking for this provision in any case where there is a tiny responsibility that it might be but, rather, "is likely to lead…

I move amendment No. 31: In page 93, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following: “(3) Such licences described in subsection (1) and (2) may not be granted where the granting of such a licence is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical, historic or cultural integrity of a national monument.”

I move amendment No. 33: In page 102, after line 36, to insert the following: “(3) The Minister shall carry out such consultation with such persons or communities most affected by the decision of a Minister relating to property, situated in the State, that is included, or in respect of which the Minister is satisfied that it has the potential to become included, in the World Heritage List under Article 11 of the Convention.”