Ms Rosemary Collier:

I will make a small summary. We have had a good opportunity to set out for members our thoughts on particular issues. To start, we welcome this Bill and the clarity that it will bring where there are overlapping provisions for the protection of monuments going forward. There will also be clarity about the role of the OPW and the Commissioners of Public Works. It is fully described now whereas there was a lack of clarity in the existing legislative framework. The legislation to enable Ireland to ratify key conventions is important as well.

We have talked through most of them, but just as a summary, under head 15, exemption of certain works to monuments" the proposal to exempt certain works for licensing processes is particularly welcome, as is head 17, exemption from EIA requirements. However, I accept Mr. Keaney's point about the clarity around where that intersects with the Planning and Development Act is critical. Again, we feel that an exemption would be welcome or should apply where there is a real risk to the health and safety of the public or where emergency works are needed to protect the integrity of a national monument. While I accept the point Mr. Keaney made on clarity, there might be valid reasons that provision would be most helpful.

On head 26, functions of the commissioners in respect of national monuments, there is just a small issue. We feel that it does not adequately describe the current role of the commissioners. We suggest a small amendment, which is about having regard to the Minister's policies and priorities, the ongoing, care, management, maintenance conservation and day-to-day operation. The words used in the head at the moment are quite flat regarding the day-to-day operation and, therefore, an amendment there might be useful for clarification.

There is also a little bit of an inconsistency between heads 25 and 26 regarding ministerial functions. Head 25 provides that the Minister is “to maintain the archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic and traditional interest of a registered monument of which he/she/it is owner or guardian" but, of course, the commissioners fulfil the function of maintenance. This is, again, about clarity, rather than us having a particular concern.

On the functions of the commissioners in respect of national monuments and by-laws"under head 26, again, we welcome this provision. We know that it requires further consideration. Again, the judicious implementation of it will be where we will most intersect with it downstream of the Bill. Head 29, enforcement of easements and covenants, is welcome but again will require further consideration as the Bill goes through the Houses. Under head 80, we made an observation to our colleagues on the "cost of prosecutions and civil proceedings and recovery of debts". We assume that this provision relates to all proceedings that might be taken under the legislation and that it is not limited to proceedings that might arise from an enforcement notice. Some clarity on the enforcement notices is needed, because local authorities do not seem to be identified under head 77 as one of the bodies with powers to issue these notices. Some clarity might be required on heads 77 to 80, inclusive. That is the summary of our observations. Again, we welcome the Bill. I will conclude by saying that we have a good working relationship with our colleagues in the Department in caring for our national monuments. We look forward to continuing to work with it in the future.