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

With regard to amendment No. 71, section 14 provides for the establishment of the register of monuments, which will replace several designation and registration systems under the existing National Monuments Acts. The register will be an electronic database easily accessible to members of the public and, under section 14(2)(b), the register may also be in such other forms as the Minister thinks appropriate. This amendment could be detrimental to the register of monuments. There may be perfectly valid reasons a prescribed monument may not in fact be suitable for inclusion in the register, and this is why certain criteria are listed for consideration under section 14(7) that the Minister, when forming an opinion on a thing's appropriateness, must have regard to when entering particulars on the register. This amendment would remove important operational flexibility that is considered essential for the enacted Bill, as that flexibility has been introduced purposefully to help guard against unforeseen damage to the integrity of the register. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

In relation to amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 79, I point out that the definition of "relevant thing" contained in section 2 includes "(e) any site where an historic event took place" and that section also defines "site" as including location and place. "Relevant interest" is also defined in section 2 and includes historic interest. Accordingly, I am satisfied the provisions of section 14(3)(b) are fully capable of ensuring battlefields can be included in the register of monuments, given that section 14(3) provides for the inclusion of relevant things of relevant interest in the register so long as the Minister is of the opinion they are appropriate to be so entered.

If one particular category of relevant thing of relevant interest were to be referenced specifically in section 14(3), this would beg the question why a whole range of different specific categories of relevant things of relevant interest should not be referenced. If a lengthy list were included, however, this might prove counterproductive by being interpreted as limiting the general scope of the provision.

I would also note that, as drafted, the amendment would appear to allow no discretion as to which particular battlefields or parts of battlefields would be included in the register. While we would all, of course, share the aim that the legislation should be applied appropriately to historic battlefields, practicality requires some element of discretion as to which areas are made subject to the extensive legal protection arising from becoming a registered monument, in particular having regard to the uncertainty as to where some historic battles were in fact located and the very wide extent of at least some battlefields.

While the proposed amendments may, in fairness, make some provision for cases where the location of the battlefield in question is uncertain, the location of battlefields, even those of comparatively recent date, can be the subject of significant debate, and the lack of any provision for discretion on the part of the Minister of the day would make the provision not only unworkable but likely a potential cause of controversy in terms of its implementation. The new legislation will remove the gap in the law that prevents battlefields from being monuments. The national monuments service funded a battlefields project which had a lot of detailed data on pre-1800 battlefields, as Deputy O'Callaghan mentioned. This can be drawn on for the new register. I hope this is of some assurance. I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

I do not believe amendment No. 74 is either necessary or workable. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to prevent anyone, whether individually or as part of a group, from making representations to the Minister asking that an entry be made in the register. Any such representation will naturally be considered and responded to. Furthermore, the Heritage Council, under the provisions of section 7 of the Heritage Act 1995, may make recommendations to the Minister on any matter relating to the council's functions and may make such recommendations public. The Minister of the day is required to respond to any such recommendation within six months. As the functions of the Heritage Council, as set out in section 6 of the Heritage Act 1995, include proposing priorities for, among other matters, the identification and protection of monuments, I am satisfied there is existing scope for the Heritage Council, acting independently and on its own initiative, to make recommendations to the Minister of the day regarding entries in the register.

I also refer to the provisions of section 23 of the Bill which, while focused as they must be on ensuring landowners are afforded fair procedures in respect of proposed decisions affecting their land, will nevertheless enable the attention of the public as a whole to be drawn to the proposed content of the register through the publication of draft general list notices. The proposed amendment contains no safeguards to ensure the petitions referred to would be based on genuine interest in heritage matters nor that any relevant specialist or expert heritage advice or input would be availed of by petitioners before lodging a petition. Accordingly, there would be a danger that petitions could be made which were of little or no merit on heritage grounds but would nonetheless involve the national monuments service of the Department, the National Museum, the Heritage Council and, indeed, An Taisce in extensive work to formally consider and respond to such petitions, thus potentially wasting valuable resources across multiple bodies.

Section 211 includes provision for the Minister of the day to issue a code of practice setting out how she or he proposes to perform a function conferred on her or him under the Bill. This could, of course, include the functions relating to the register of monuments. Before such codes are issued, there will be a requirement for appropriate consultation, and I believe this provision will provide a structured opportunity for stakeholders and the public generally to input into the setting of priorities for the inclusion of relevant things in the register, priorities which can then be implemented in an objective and impartial manner in relation to particular entries.

In summary, normal administrative practice combined with the express provisions of the Heritage Act 1995 and of the Bill as I have outlined will ensure ample opportunity for public input into the content of the register without creating the top-heavy and costly procedure proposed by the Deputies, a procedure which runs the risk of wasting valuable resources considering proposals which are not based on bona fide heritage grounds. I must therefore oppose this amendment.

On amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 78, the "surrounding area", as provided for in section 14(4)(a), is introduced to secure the protection of a monument or thing, including its amenities, or any other monument or thing in its vicinity. Most importantly, the surrounding area as entered into the register will become a part of the monument itself and subject to the same legal protections that are afforded to the monument. Amendment No. 76 is not workable, as the discretionary power to specify a surrounding area may not always be exercisable. I consider the wording used in amendment 78 "the integrity of the monument within its surrounding context" to fall within what is already provided for in the first subparagraph of section 14(4)(a), that being the protection of the monument’s amenities. I do not consider the proposed amendments workable or necessary and, as a result, I am not in a position to accept them.

As regards amendment No. 80, the purpose of section 14(5) is to set out physical features that can be used to determine the surrounding area established under section 14(4). Such physical features include natural or artificial topographical features and other forms of boundaries. The primary purpose of this is to assist landowners or other persons, for example, members of the farming community, to be able to easily identify the limits of a monument. The proposed amendment does not meet the purpose of section 14(5) and, if accepted, could work against what is trying to be achieved here, that is, the easily recognisable boundaries of a monument.

On amendments Nos. 82, 84 and 86, given there are Government amendments introducing both “cultural interest” and “community value” into the scope of the Bill, I ask the Deputies to consider withdrawing these proposed amendments. I note that the "cultural interest” and “community value” give a very broad interpretation of what the Deputies are trying to achieve here.

Did I cover amendment No. 79a?