Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

In amendment No. 192, I am seeking to delete wording on page 90 of the Bill, in section 72(1)(c). It would be useful to hear from the Minister of State what the rationale is for this wording and why he feels it is necessary to have this in the Bill. I am concerned that this wording could tie the hands of a local authority. I do not see why we necessarily want to specify that local authorities should not be able to promote public access to a monument, especially key monuments of significance, except under the conditions laid out in terms of the consent of the owner. An owner may not object to promotion of public access to the monument, but may not necessarily want to give full written consent either. While they may not have an objection to it, it means a local authority cannot do this.

For example, it means that if a local authority were to produce a map, even perhaps a map online showing where key archaeological and historic sites in the local authority area are, including key monuments of significance, that local authority could not do this without the express consent of the owner. What is the rationale for that?

Related to that and to the other amendments in this grouping is that I think many people are surprised when they find out that the term "national monument" refers only to monuments that are in public ownership. There are key, highly significant archaeological monuments that are not in public ownership and that are not national monuments. It does not mean that they are not as significant as national monuments in public ownership. This wording specifically includes key and significant monuments that could be of the same standing as a national monument. I am somewhat at a loss as to why we would want to tie the hands of local authorities on this.

Amendment No. 213 relates to easements on monuments. This wording would mean that the Minister, the commissioners or a local authority could, as appropriate, enforce an easement when it relates to access to a registered monument. That relates to the point that access should not be confined solely to national monuments. There can be very significant monuments that are not national monuments. I will give an example of that, and I use this just as an example. It is an example from my constituency but it is as relevant to other highly significant monuments around the country. In my constituency, in my local community, is Aideen's Grave. It is a megalithic tomb on the grounds of Howth Castle. There has been considerable anxiety in the local community since a local guided walking tour company was told that it can no longer bring people to visit Aideen's Grave. People have been visiting Aideen's Grave for generations. This happened when the new owners of Howth Castle wrote to the walking tour company and told it that its licence would not be renewed after a change of policy on access to the estate, including for those who offer walking and cycling tours. It is not clear what that change of policy is. There is no clarity or transparency on it and there is absolutely no obligation on the new owners to publish their policy on this. It is important to clarify that the public still have access to Aideen's Grave, as does another walking tour company. Nonetheless there is considerable concern about public access in the local community and that the access may be eroded or withdrawn over time. When I raised this in the Dáil with the Tánaiste, he agreed that the public should be able to have access to monuments of particular significance like Aideen's Grave, as long as there are proper measures in place. It is my strong view that we should not be in a situation where access to monuments of this significance could be changed without notice or consultation by private companies and the public could have access withdrawn at any moment. Yet that is the very situation we are in.

My amendment No. 214 is related to that, in that it seeks to give the Minister an explicit role, where he or she sees fit, to ask a local authority to initiate the process of establishing a public right of way to a monument he or she thinks is significant. Local authorities have power to initiate the process around public rights of way currently; however, they do not use it. I think there is a variety of reasons for that. One is that local authorities have a lot of things on their plate and a lot of responsibilities, not least in the housing crisis, with every other function they have. Trying to initiate public rights of way is probably down their list of things they want to take on. This amendment would give the Minister the power to ask a local authority to consider initiating this. While there is nothing to prohibit the Minister from doing that at the moment, I think having a statutory power whereby explicitly that could be done means that in the case of a significant monument - it may not be a national monument - it would give the Minister the ability to do that. I think that would be used sparingly but could be very helpful, including to local authorities and local authority members where they have an interest in pursuing this. Where communities and local authority members want to do this, if they were able to get the Minister on board with them, it would create a bit of momentum on it.

The three amendments are therefore related, though they are three separate things. I would like to hear from the Minister of State on the wording I am seeking to delete in my first amendment in this grouping. What is the rationale for that wording? Why is it needed, and could it not tie the hands of local authorities in ways that are just not helpful?