I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, lines 3 to 6, to delete "or at the site of, a monument referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 1987 or in or at either of the areas referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (ii) or (iii) of the Act of 1987" and substitute the following:
"at the site of, or in the vicinity of, a monument referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (i) or (iv) (inserted by the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1994) of the Act of 1987, or found in, or in the vicinity of, the areas referred to in section 2 (1) (a) (ii) or (iii) of the Act of 1987".
Amendments Nos. 3, 18, 20 and 21 are in my name. They are grouped with amendments Nos. 19 and 22 in the name of Deputy Creed and are related. The purpose of the amendments in my name is to address an issue raised by Deputy Creed on Committee Stage which is reflected in his amendment No. 22 relating to the presumption of guilt provisions of section 2 (6) of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987. Deputies will recall that I had some sympathy with the spirit of Deputy Creed's amendment but I was concerned that to accept it would weaken the State's ability to protect the heritage of the people. Nevertheless, I undertook to give the matter further consideration between Committee Stage and today. My four amendments are designed to achieve an acceptable balance in this regard.
In relation to detection devices, amendment No. 3 extends the seizure provisions of section 7 of the Bill to sites recorded under section 12. Amendment No. 20 extends the prohibition on the possession of detectional devices contained in section 2 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1987, to sites so recorded. With these added precautions I am sufficiently reassured to delete the presumption of guilt provisions of section 2 (6) of the 1987 Act. I hope Deputy Creed and other Deputies see this as a satisfactory compromise which meets the concerns expressed in amendment No. 22. As a consequence of amendments Nos. 3, 20 and 21 there is no longer a need for section 12 (5). Amendment No. 18 deletes that proposal.
A further consequence of acceptance of amendment No. 18 is that Deputy Creed's amendment No. 19 regarding the exemption of detection devices on agricultural machinery would fall. I sought specific advice on the interpretation of detection devices which I gave on Committee Stage and this has confirmed my interpretation that a detection device attached to a machine such as a combine harvester, the primary purpose of which is to protect the machine, would not come within the scope of the Bill.