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

Again, with regret, I oppose amendment No. 192. It exists to ensure that owners who are successors in title to those who agreed deeds of guardianship under the National Monuments Act 1930 cannot argue that their existing rights under such deeds have been unilaterally rescinded by the State.

I will point out that it would be possible for the Minister of the day to revoke an existing deed of guardianship and proceed to make a guardianship order under the enacted Bill, following consultation with the owner. On foot of that, restrictions on access might be addressed, and I refer the Deputy to section 72(2) in that regard.

I emphasise, however, that in any system the reasonable concerns of private owners would need to be given consideration, and it must be emphasised here that guardianship does not bring a monument into public ownership.

Again, I must oppose this amendment.

I cannot accept amendment No. 213, as it inappropriately extends the scope of the provision well beyond what is intended, as set out in section 89(1). The provision as it stands is intended to provide clear legal support to the Minister and local authorities in cases where they are the owners or guardians of registered monuments, that is, where those monuments are national monuments in the sense used in the Bill, and the Minister or a local authority, as the case may be, seeks to enforce, on behalf of the public, rights of access to monuments which, by their very definition, are in public ownership or management. The proposed amendment would, if accepted, embroil the relevant State authorities in enforcing access to privately owned monuments which are not in public management. The problems arising from that would include that the State authorities would be responsible for having allowed the public access to such a monument without having any powers to ensure that the monument was in a reasonably safe state. It would also potentially embroil the authorities in question in disputes between third parties as to whether such easements in fact existed. While I understand the spirit in which the proposal is made, I must oppose this amendment. As I said, there might be health and safety and other issues on sites that are in private ownership.

As regards amendment No. 214, provisions already exist in the Planning and Development Acts in relation to the creation of public rights of way over privately owned land, either by agreement or compulsorily. If it is okay, we might give this further consideration for Report Stage, if it is of any use.