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

On amendment No. 89, section 17 as it stands permits the amendment or deletion of any particulars entered onto the register of monuments. Such particulars may be wide-ranging and include information such as statements relating to the type of monument or site entered, cartographic information and information on the extent and boundary of a monument, as well as the relevant level of legal protection afforded to a monument. Although it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many monuments will be entered onto the register, it is estimated there will be in excess of 180,000 individual entries. Compared with existing systems, it is anticipated the register will be continually maintained and updated. It would be entirely detrimental to the administration of the register if consultation with a range of bodies would be required each time a particular was to be amended or deleted. Such a level of oversight is not considered in any way reasonable or necessary. It is envisaged that a dedicated team of archaeologists and administrators will be formed to manage and maintain the register and I am confident this system will work as intended. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept the amendment and hope the Deputy will reflect on the very large number of monuments that will be in scope here and consider withdrawing it.

On amendment No. 177, I must oppose this proposal as completely unworkable. The Bill establishes the Minister as the licensing authority in respect of proposed works to prescribed and registered monuments, subject to a requirement to consult the board of the National Museum of Ireland in respect of any licence applications, as well as consultation with the Heritage Council in respect of certain key decisions concerning monuments. Where demolition of a monument subject to special protection is proposed, an environmental impact assessment will have to be conducted and regard had to its outcome. The proposed amendment appears to envisage a parallel system whereby the board of the National Museum of Ireland would also become a licensing authority for monuments under the Bill. This would impose a major additional burden on the National Museum of Ireland and duplicate, in an unnecessary and wasteful manner, the work of the national monuments service in my Department. It is entirely unrealistic to think the National Museum of Ireland could take on such a role.

Leaving aside the drafting problems in the amendment which have not dealt with the fact that the provision, as drafted, would duplicate the ministerial licensing role, the intention was presumably to remove the Minister of the day from decisions regarding destruction of monuments. Even so, this is not realistic or practical and would require the State to duplicate the expertise and resources of the national monuments service within the National Museum of Ireland. In legal terms, if the provision was sought to be made workable by excluding cases of destruction from the remit of the Minister so as to avoid overlap with the ministerial licensing system, the provision would likely result in considerable confusion. For example, Deputies should note that the introduction of the new prescribed monuments provisions will mean that many new discoveries of fragmentary and rapidly deteriorating archaeological sites, such as hitherto undiscovered archaeological features found by farmers while ploughing or found eroding out of sand dunes, will be legally protected for the first time in legislation. Long-term preservation, however, is often simply impossible - the sea, wind and rain are powerful forces, as we all know - and the only practical step is for the national monuments service of my Department to arrange for a rescue archaeological excavation as rapidly as possible. Should this important function be taken out of the hands of my Department, which would have received the legally required report of discovery of the site, and given to another body, with the inevitable confusion and delay that would ensue? That would result in only one thing, namely, the loss of important scientific and cultural information through the unmitigated decay of the archaeological site in question. Before the Deputy comes back to say that such excavation of monuments was not what he had in mind when he used the word “destruction”, I must point out that all archaeologists will always refer to archaeological excavation as a destructive process as, once excavated, the site is gone.

As noted, the Bill already contains a requirement that all licence applications be referred to the National Museum of Ireland for its view. Moreover, where a monument subject to special protection is proposed to be demolished, the Minister of the day must also conduct an environmental impact assessment, which involves extensive public consultation.

As has been noted to the House, it is also a requirement of the Minister of the day to consider assigning special protection to any monument for the time subject to general protection once a person gives notice of proposed works relating to such a monument.

The new legislation enables a proactive approach to be taken to the assignment of special protection. This is in contrast to the current legislation, under which preservation orders can only be made where national importance is evident regarding the monument and the monument is in danger. The criteria for assigning special protection will be much more flexible. It is my hope that we will move as soon as possible to a situation where a large number of the approximately 180,000 entries, which preliminary examination indicated the new register would contain, will have special protection, thereby triggering an EIA requirement for any proposed demolition. As such, I must oppose the amendment.

Regarding amendment No. 264, and if it is okay, I will ask my officials to consult with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, OPC, further on this matter, but I do not see any operational problems associated with the proposal. If the Deputy will consider withdrawing this amendment, my intention will be to table a similar amendment on Report Stage, pending discussions with the OPC.