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

On amendments Nos. 109 and 112, given the Government amendments that have introduced “cultural interest” and “community value” into the scope of the Bill, I again ask Deputies to reconsider. I acknowledge Deputy Ó Snodaigh is withdrawing amendment No. 112 but, again, we said we would come back on Report Stage as regards the linguistic and those other aspects that were raised, if that is okay.

On amendment No. 113, 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 will bring forward later. It is my hope that section 22 will be widely and frequently used to assign special protection, with this being implemented by my Department on an ongoing and proactive basis with the aim of rapidly achieving a high number of monuments subject to special protection, and progressively increasing that number over time. Regarding the removal of special protection under section 22(7), provision has already been included for consultation by the Minister with the Heritage Council. Again, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 115 is not considered workable as a section 22 consultation notice will issue directly to the owner of the land on which the monument is situated. However, there is nothing whatsoever under the Bill to prevent anyone, whether individually or as part of a group, from making representations to the Minister in respect of a monument where special protection is to be applied. Any such representations will naturally be considered and responded to. I am not in a position to accept this amendment. The Heritage Council, as part of its role, can consult groups and individuals. The Deputy mentioned people with expert views and the Heritage Council has the discretion to consult the relevant people.

On amendment No. 125, section 27 is a key provision relating to proposals for works to be carried out at or on a monument to which general protection applies. A person who wants to carry out such works will not be permitted to do so unless under and in accordance with a licence, or unless a notification procedure has been completed. It will be a substantial strengthening of the law that is currently in force under the National Monuments Acts. As with all aspects of the Bill, the protection of historic heritage is paramount and protection is integral to section 27 in several ways. If a person wishes to carry out works and a notification for those proposed works is received by the Minister of the day, he or she will have to consider whether special protection should be applied to the monument, which would mean that a licence is required to carry out such works legally. For clarification, where special protection applies, the notification option no longer applies and the only way to carry out the proposed works would be under and in accordance with a licence. This consideration of special protection will apply to every notification received. If the assignment of special protection is not considered necessary, the Minister will be able to impose conditions on the works to be carried out. Such conditions may require specific actions or steps to be taken prior to the commencement of works and the recording and protection of the monument for set time periods when the proposed works can be carried out.

There are a number of scenarios where the notification of works option cannot be availed of and these include where an appropriate assessment is required; where a screening determination for an environmental impact assessment, EIA, or an EIA is required; where special protection applies to a monument or where the proposed works would require a licence under Part 6 of the Bill. The proposed amendment seeks to remove the notification option in its entirety and this would fundamentally alter the operation of the Bill, render the different levels of illegal protection irrelevant and go significantly beyond what has always been a core element of the Bill. I consider that notification procedure to be reasonable and fair. It creates further flexibility and options for members of the public, all the while ensuring that protection of historic heritage remains central. For those reasons, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

On amendment No. 126, the purpose of an appropriate assessment, AA, is to assess the impact a proposed activity will have on a European site. If the assessment determines that there will be a negative impact, then permission for the activity cannot be granted except in the case of imperative reasons of overriding public importance and after a special procedure has been completed. I acknowledge what this amendment seeks to achieve but it is not required. By default, if the proposed works are compatible with an AA, they cannot be inconsistent with Part 5 of the habitats regulations. Ireland would be in breach of EU law if that were the case. I cannot accept this amendment.