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

Amendment No. 95 will make it explicitly clear that if the Minister consults the Heritage Council regarding the deregistration of a monument, the council may itself consult other public bodies or other persons as it considers appropriate. I flagged this earlier with Deputies.

Amendments Nos. 102 to 107, inclusive, relate to the giving of notices in respect of entries in, amendments to and deletions from the register of monuments. Such notices can take place by way of a general notice to members of the public and are referred to as general list or revised general list notices. The notices contain information on the register action, such as a list of the registered monuments located in the geographical area to which the notice relates. An accompanying map that specifies where the registered monuments are located will specify what level of protection applies to the monuments listed and contain any other relevant information.

As drafted, the Bill does not provide for an end date by which such notices should be displayed and, accordingly, these amendments set an end date for the availability of general list and revised general list notices. A 90-day period is proposed to align with the period within which representations can be made to the Minister following the publication of a consultation notice and to align with the waiting period following the notification of proposed works at a monument to which general protection applies.

In respect of amendments Nos. 90, 92, 93, 96 and 97, I do not propose to extend the consultation requirements beyond what has been introduced following the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations and the additional amendments I intend to bring forward later today. These additional amendments are to make clear that when consulting the Heritage Council in respect of the potential deregistration of a monument, the council will be empowered to consult any public body or any other persons as it considers appropriate. If the Minister of the day intends to deregister a monument, he or she will first have to consult the Heritage Council and have regard to any views of the council in deciding whether to carry out that deregistration. As I mentioned, the Heritage Council is the independent statutory body established to propose policies and priorities for the protection, preservation and enhancement of monuments and archaeological objects, and I have the utmost confidence that the Heritage Council can perform this function effectively if called on to do so.

This system will be reviewed within five years of the Bill’s enactment to assess its use and effectiveness and determine whether any changes are required, be they administrative or legislative. Several amendments require consultation with the National Museum where a register action is proposed but, given that the remit of the board of the National Museum concerns moveable cultural heritage and that the section to be amended relates to immovable cultural heritage, the board is not an appropriate mandatory consultee in this instance. This is in contrast to consultation relating to licensing decisions. I am not in a position to accept the proposed amendments relating to additional consultation requirements for these reasons.

Deputy O'Callaghan asked a question at the previous meeting regarding archaeological licences, and I think he is broadly correct in that there are about 20,000 licences. We are going to get more detailed information for the committee, which we hope to be able to provide on Thursday. The majority of those licences will have been issued for test excavations, for instance, to allow development or avoid archaeological deposits. We will get that detailed information for the committee by Thursday.

Regarding amendment No. 94, under the National Monuments Acts, consultation has always been with a statutory advisory council. This is appropriate and should remain the position under the Bill. My understanding of public participation networks, PPNs, is they have been developed to engage with local authorities and certain decision-making processes that relate to matters within local authority remits. To the best of my knowledge, PPNs do not engage with any Department in the manner suggested and I would not see it as appropriate for them to do so for the purposes outlined in this proposed amendment.