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

I will go through the amendments in sequence. Where required, and when consulting on matters to be entered in the register of monuments or issuing notices where changes to the register have taken place, my Department will seek to ensure such consultations or notifications reach a wide and relevant audience. This will be done by making the necessary information available on my Department’s website and also at a site within the relevant geographical area, such as a library, post office, Garda station or local authority office. A notice will also be published in a national newspaper directing members of the public to the website and the relevant physical site.

What the Deputies propose by way of amendment No. 30 is not considered workable. If accepted, it would mean that each and every time a consultation or notification was to take place - they should bear in mind there are expected to be in excess of 180,000 entries in the register of monuments - proof would need to be supplied that the newspaper chosen for the consultation or notification was among the five most-read newspapers at the time that consultation or notification took place. This is not a reasonable burden to place on the administration of the register and could in fact be detrimental to the register’s establishment and maintenance. I can assure the Deputies that efforts will be taken to ensure that consultations with, and notifications to, members of the public are carried out effectively. Regrettably, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

It is my hope that when enacted, this Bill will continue to be in effect for many years to come. Unfortunately, and Deputy O’Callaghan alluded to this point, given the volatility in the printed media sector, it is not possible to say that in several years, or perhaps we should even be thinking in terms of decades, national newspapers will always be available in hard copy. The proposed amendment requiring both hard and electronic forms of national newspapers, while well-intentioned, may limit the functionality and effectiveness of the consultation and notification requirements as regards entries and amendments to the register of monuments. For this reason, ultimately, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

With regard to amendment No. 100, unfortunately, this amendment is not considered workable. Once again, I would like to draw committee members’ attention to the anticipated size of the register of monuments and the already comprehensive administrative procedures provided under the Bill. We need to make sure that what is in the Bill is workable and not only aspirational. There are practicalities that need to be taken into consideration when it comes to the implementation of the Bill and we cannot have a situation where perfection becomes the enemy of good.

The Bill ensures ample consultation requirements prior to entering, amending or deleting particulars in the register of monuments and further notification procedures once a register action is carried out. Notice may be given directly to the owner of the land on which a relevant monument is situated, that is, a specific notice, or by publishing a notice in a national newspaper regarding the availability of further information relating to a register action, that is, a general list notice. The information referred to will be available on the Department’s website and at a relevant site, such as a library, a local authority office or a Garda Station. Where special protection is to be applied to a monument, notice of the corresponding registered action must be by way of specific notice directly to a landowner.

It is considered that this approach strikes a workable balance between ensuring that owners are, to the fullest extent possible, made aware of the legal protection applicable to registered monuments but without running the risk that important sites are left unprotected due to administrative difficulties, such as issues concerning the identity or whereabouts of landowners. This will help to ensure that the register of monuments can be established, while not precluding further work regarding notification to landowners by way of specific notice. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

In regard to amendment No. 101, expanding the notification of a register action to include local media may be possible but further consideration is needed to explore the practicalities of what is proposed and whether this is going to be workable. I would like my officials to explore this suggestion in further detail and to consult with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on this matter. I ask the Deputies to withdraw this amendment to give us time to bring forward a corresponding proposal on Report Stage, if this is considered feasible.

With regard to Deputy O’Callaghan’s amendment No. 59, when examining the policy intent of the proposed subsection (1), all will agree that the ideal to be worked towards is, indeed, that specific notice be given to every relevant landowner. However, apart from the problem that it may sometimes be the case that the whereabouts and identity of an owner can be very difficult to establish, despite extensive investigation, and that land may have multiple persons claiming interests in it, and such persons may sometimes be in dispute with each other, it would be very prejudicial to the protection of monuments to impose an absolute requirement that all entries in the register would have to be either proceeded or followed by specific personal notice to owners. Implementing this could result in major long-term delays to the establishment of the register or even, as occurred with the register of historic monuments under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1987, result in it failing to be established in any real sense.

I believe the package contained in the Bill strikes a reasonable and proportionate balance, taking into account the levels of protection resulting from general protection and special protection, and bearing in mind that prescribed monuments will automatically have general protection without entry in the register so that very many entries in the register, at least of the initial entries, will not be significantly changing the already existing protection assigned to the monument under the Bill. Where special protection is being imposed, then specific notice will be required. Where only general protection is being imposed as a result of entry in the register, then notice by way of widely circulated and publicised general notices will be permitted, though with the option of specific notice also, an option which it would be my aim to work towards becoming the commonly used one, subject to the necessary resources and technology being available.

As to the proposed subsection (2), I have considered such an approach but have been advised that it could present significant legal issues. However, I can offer to the Deputy that I will consult once again with Parliamentary Counsel in advance of Report Stage and offer a more conclusive view on the matter at that point.

In regard to the proposed subsection (3), I refer the Deputy to subsection (3) of section 8, which was amended following pre-legislative scrutiny. It provides as follows: “For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the destruction, whether in whole or in part and by whatever means, of a monument to which general protection or special protection applies shall not prejudice the continuation of such protection to the remainder (if any) of the monument, including the site, surrounding area and immediate surroundings of the monument”. This achieves what the proposed amendment appears to intend without the need for additional administrative procedures to be gone through, thus saving resources and ensuring there is no delay arising from the need for such procedures to be gone through. Continued legal protection will apply automatically as a matter of law. I believe that what I have done by way of section 8(3) addresses any possible concerns the committee might have.

I must, therefore, oppose this amendment, although I note again my willingness to engage further with Parliamentary Counsel regarding the proposed subsection (2).

I would add that Tailte Éireann will also receive notice of the monuments for its registry, so that is an added layer of notification with regard to the Land Registry.