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

In relation to amendment No. 218, section 92 already provides comprehensive provisions for consultation in relation to world heritage property and property that has the potential to become world heritage property. My previous amendment has made it clear that consultation will take place on all matters relating to world heritage property.

With regard to amendment No. 219, while synergies exist between the different UNESCO cultural conventions, the interchanging of provisions between conventions in the manner proposed here brings confusion as to the Bill's scope and purpose. As the Bill provides for tangible cultural heritage, it is not considered appropriate to make any reference to the convention for the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. For the purposes of clarity and the information for the House, I will read out the provisions of article 15 of that convention:

Within the framework of its safeguarding activities of the intangible cultural heritage, each State Party shall endeavour to ensure the widest possible participation of communities, groups and, where appropriate, individuals that create, maintain and transmit such heritage, and to involve them actively in its management.

Deputies will note that the provision is directed at activities relating to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage. Therefore, to tie this provision into legislation relating to the protection of clearly tangible heritage in the form of monuments, archaeological objects and wrecks is clearly inappropriate and unworkable and would likely result in substantial lack of clarity and confusion as to what the provision meant, and how and in what way the Minister was to comply with it. In any event, provisions of an international convention such as this cannot safely, or with any legal certainty, be given legal effect within Irish domestic law by merely stating that a particular authority is to comply with them. It would fall to the Oireachtas to set out clearly how they were to be complied with and provide the Minister or other statutory bodies with the necessary legal powers so as to comply with them. In that regard, for reasons which should be evident from my response to a number of proposed amendments, I believe the Bill already contains extensive provision for public engagement and consultation with relevant parties. In light of what I have said on the inappropriateness and unworkability of the proposed amendment, I hope the Deputy will withdraw it. In any event, I will be opposing it.

On amendment No. 220, the approach being taken here is entirely inappropriate and runs contrary to the bottom-up approach recommended by World Heritage Convention guidelines, and by my Department's policy on the world heritage property nomination process. This proposal is a retrograde step. It neither provides for appropriate community involvement in developing sustainable proposals for world heritage nominations, nor provides for proper scrutiny by national and international experts as to whether a suitable level of outstanding universal value can be applied to the properties listed in the amendment. Its implementation would create local controversy and likely undermine support for world heritage status at sites that might well merit a nomination. This would result in the exclusion of the involvement of local communities in formulating world heritage nominations, something which is core to the contemporary approaches of world heritage management. I could not in any way support such a retrograde approach which, if adopted, could undo much of the good work carried out by my Department in formulating an inclusive world heritage strategy and building community support. At an international level, it could result in difficulty and embarrassment for the State by forcing the Minister to submit nominations for world heritage status prematurely and potentially cause an application to fail, which it might if the necessary preparation, including local community engagement, has not been done.

I note that two of the sites referred to, Brú na Bóinne and Sceilig Mhichíl, are already, on a long-standing basis, constituted as world heritage properties. Again, for these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.