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

I really mean it. I welcome and support the committee's ongoing interest in the heritage brief. I must say that, because the committee has shown enormous interest in that work. I know the committee has a very heavy workload but the heritage side of the portfolio has not been forgotten. However, I have no option other than to oppose the amendments conferring statutory decision-making or supervisory functions on the joint committee. There are several reason I must do so.

While I do not wish to respond to proposed amendments by being overly legalistic or delving too deeply into constitutional theory, I would note the relevant provisions of Article 28 of the Constitution. Article 28.4.1° states, "The Government shall be responsible to Dáil Éireann." Article 28.4.2° states, "The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government."

I assure the Deputies that I and my Department will be continuing to engage constructively and positively with the joint committee. I am also confident that the committee, like other committees, is now firmly embedded in the structures of our governmental system for the future. However, without engaging in detailed constitutional law arguments and review, I would be very concerned about attempting to place a Minister and his or her Department under a supervisory power statutorily conferred on a body other than Dáil Éireann.

No one who saw the constructive way in which I listened to the debate on this Bill in Seanad Éireann, when I brought forward amendments to address many of the points raised, could doubt that I have anything but the greatest of respect and regard for the House. To involve either House of the Oireachtas directly in Executive decision-making in the form of particular administrative decisions under the Act, as opposed to the review of secondary legislation in the form of ministerial regulations or bylaws, seems to me at the very least to run counter to the principle of the separation of powers - legislative, executive and judicial - so central to the structure of our democratic state and so clearly and comprehensively provided for under our Constitution.

I believe the proposed involvement of the joint committee in the administration of the enacted Bill in the form of particular administrative decisions, as opposed to the review of secondary legislation, would, in practical terms, be unnecessary and unworkable.

I have already ensured that decisions with the potential to be of particular significance under the enacted Bill, such as the removal of special protection from a monument, will require consultation with the Heritage Council. The Minister of the day will also have to consult with the National Museum of Ireland before issuing any licences. It is quite clear that substantial provision has already been incorporated into the Bill to ensure that there is independent review and advice in relation to its implementation. With the greatest respect to the joint committee, which I acknowledge is composed of dedicated Members of the Oireachtas, I find it hard to see how any committee could deal with the ongoing workload which could result from these proposals and would surely divert the joint committee from its key functions of legislative and policy review and oversight. I know this is already a very busy committee. Moreover, without in any way impugning the impartiality of the joint committee, it must be obvious that, as a politically-constituted body, it could be accused of taking a political approach to particular administrative decisions under the enacted Bill and of lacking specialist heritage expertise such as is held by, or is directly available to, the Heritage Council and the board of the National Museum of Ireland. I have no option but to oppose these amendments.