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

In relation to amendment No. 15, I see no good reason to delete the definition of "Church Temporalities Commission", which has been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel. Reference to that commission and its report must be made in the Bill, given that Chapter 13 of Part 2 addresses the legal standing of certain historic burial grounds, which were once in the ownership of that commission. The definition in Part 2 allows for a somewhat less lengthy title to be used in the Bill when referring to the commission than the legal title it had under the relevant 19th century legislation, thereby aiding readers of the Bill. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

In relation to amendment No. 191, Chapter 12 of Part 2 of the Bill contains transitional provisions that have been introduced specifically for burial grounds, the existence of which has always been known, these having been burial grounds title to which was held by the then Established Church prior to its disestablishment in 1869, and after which title devolved through a complex chain or was otherwise left unclear. The purpose of these provisions is to simplify the chain of title with a view to facilitating effective management and protection under the new legislation for the long term. The proposed amendment relates to the defined term a “relevant burial ground” that is used in section 66. Section 66 contains technical provisions to supplement sections 64 and 65, and provides that where the fee simple in a relevant burial ground is vested in the Minister or local authority and that burial ground is a registered monument, the burial ground shall be a registered monument in the ownership of the Minister or local authority for the purposes of the Bill. Newly discovered burial grounds are to be dealt with by the usual provisions relating to monuments and there is no need to attempt to provide for them within this Chapter. For these reasons, I ask the Deputies to withdraw this amendment.

On amendment No. 229, although it may appear peculiar at first, there is no doubt that the option to dispose of an archaeological object by destroying it is required. Situations could arise where an archaeological object, perhaps only recently discovered, is adjudged to be a danger to the health and safety of members of the public, such as, for example, undetonated munitions or toxic material located in marine environments. I would urge committee members to consider these types of provisions in light of operational necessity and not with a view to enable the willful destruction of archaeological objects without good reason. If the Deputies consider the provision in that context, having regard to real-world practicalities, they might be disposed to withdraw it. In any event, I am unable to accept this amendment.