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

In response to amendments Nos. 46 and 47, the primary purpose of section 3 is to provide for a set of broad principles that mirror those found within the Valletta and Granada Conventions. While I acknowledge the ambition, statements such as the ones proposed here are not considered appropriate for a legal document, given the legal consequences that such statements relating to ownership and access may have. Amendment No. 46 is a well-worded statement but it is just that. It is, in itself, a good statement.

In respect of amendment No. 46, many elements of Irish historic heritage are not in the ownership of the State but may have been acquired lawfully and with an intent to preserve and protect such heritage. It is not possible to provide blanket ownership of all Irish historic heritage in the manner proposed. Extensive provisions already exist in the Bill relating to the acquisition and ownership of monuments and archaeological objects. Provisions already exist in the planning and development Acts with regard to the creation of public rights of way over privately owned land, either by agreement or compulsorily. Section 89 of the Bill provides for the enforcement of an easement that provides public access to a national monument, which is a monument in the ownership of the Minister or local authority.

Under section 75, the Office of Public Works, OPW, or relevant local authority, will have powers to provide visitor access and facilities at national monuments where it is considered appropriate to do so. For those reasons, I am not able to accept these amendments.

In respect of proposed amendment No. 50, while I have the greatest regard for the joint committee, as the Deputy knows-----