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

In response to Deputy O'Callaghan, we will try to get a briefing for members as soon as possible. It will be early next week, if that is okay.

In response to amendment No. 44, I am proposing an amendment to section 3 on the Valletta Convention that I hope Deputies will consider appropriate enough for them to withdraw their corresponding amendments. As I stated in Seanad Éireann, the Valletta Convention is intrinsically enshrined in the Bill. Certainly, nothing in this Bill conflicts in any way with the convention. I refer to the document that my Department has provided to committee members. I am sure committee members got the document that aligns the Valletta objectives with the Bill. It covers, article by article, how each provision of the Valletta Convention is implemented in Irish law. This is achieved through the Bill and by other legislation, such as the Planning and Development Act. Certain matters in the convention do not actually require legislation to be introduced and they can be provided for by administrative means instead.

The alternative amendment I intend to propose will require adherence to the Valletta Convention or any other treaty aimed at promoting or securing the protection of archaeological, architectural or other historic heritage by a person in their performance or functions under the Bill. This will include a specific reference to section 168 which relates to the co-ordination and development of public policy on historic heritage.

As I mentioned in the Seanad previously, section 151(3)(b) of the Bill includes an important provision stating that authorities exercising any licence functions under the Bill must have regard to relevant international conventions. Regarding the third paragraph of the Deputy's proposal, I do not believe anything in the Bill conflicts with the Valletta Convention, so the need to make regulations to address such a conflict is not considered necessary.

I ask members of the committee to consider the extent and scope of the Bill and the different types of interest it provides for, whether archaeological, architectural or historic, and the wide-ranging powers to protect not only sites and structures but also sites where it is reasonable to believe that monuments may be located. Not only will the Bill provide for the Valletta Convention, it will go far beyond what the Valletta Convention provides for. In light of this, I ask Deputies to possibly consider withdrawing this proposed amendment.

In response to Deputy O'Callaghan's amendment No. 64, it is our view that this is not workable. Paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 12(2) are factors the Minister of the day may use in setting out classes of relevant things as prescribed monuments. They do not themselves impose legal protection. I cannot see how the proposed paragraph fits in here. In policy terms, I have already set out my view that the existing provisions relating to the register of monuments are more than adequate to give full effect to the provisions of the Valletta Convention on archaeological reserves. Again, I must oppose this amendment.

I will move amendment No. 48. Section 3 outlines the principles that anyone performing any function under the Bill must acknowledge and consider.

As mentioned previously, this amendment acknowledges the significance of, and will require an adherence to, the Valletta Convention or any other treaty aimed at promoting or securing the protection of the archaeological, architectural or other historic heritage by a person in the performance of their functions under the Bill. It will include a specific reference in section 168 which relates to the co-ordination and development of public policy on historic heritage. I made a commitment when the Bill was on Report Stage in the Seanad to make additional references to the Valletta Convention in key parts of the Bill. I believe I have honoured that commitment through this proposed amendment.