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

On amendment No. 124, there may be some misinterpretation of section 26(2), the purpose of which is to avoid State bodies needing to obtain a licence under Part 7 of the enacted Bill in order for them to issue a licence of their own. Section 26(2)(a) provides that Chapter 6 of the Bill, where the requirement to have a licence arises, will not apply to the issuing of an authorisation by another State body. For example, if a situation arose where works were proposed in the vicinity of a monument that is also in a forested area, for such works to be carried out legally, a felling licence under the Forestry Act 2014 and a licence under Part 7 of the enacted Bill could be required. Section 26(2)(b) makes it explicitly clear that the disapplication applying to the other State body does not apply to the carrying out of works. In the example I mentioned, a person proposing to carry out works, or actually carrying out the works, would require two licences: one from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to authorise the felling of trees and another under Part 7 of the Bill. Without section 26(2), a State body authorising works would need to apply for a licence from my Department first in order to issue their own licence and this is clearly not the intention. I hope this clarifies the purpose of section 26(2) and I ask the Deputies to withdraw the amendment if possible.

On the grouped amendments from Nos. 129 to 144, I intend to introduce two sets of amendments relating to exemptions for certain classes of works from the licensing or notification requirements put in place under sections 27 and 30.

To reiterate part of the discussion that was had in the Seanad on this matter, I will provide some examples where an exemption may be considered necessary. If a farmer has been ploughing the same field for many years and makes a report of the discovery of a crop mark that may indicate the presence of an archaeological site, perhaps after a particularly dry summer, that farmer would be prevented from continuing to plough that field unless the recurrent activity was exempted, in this case the ploughing of the field. The approach that should be taken in circumstances where the ploughing should cease would be to enter the relevant particulars in the register of monuments and assign special protection if considered necessary.

Similar issues could arise in relation to monuments to which special protection applies. For example, a local authority may wish to re-open existing burial plots in a graveyard that is a registered monument to which special protection applies. Without powers to provide suitable exemption, every time a plot was reopened - and some of these plots may have long since had any material of archaeological interest removed from them - a licence would be required.

While I appreciate the Deputies’ concerns in relation to exemptions for certain classes of works at registered monuments, there are certainly cases where an exemption is considered suitable and where ground disturbance or other forms of damage to the surrounding area may be unavoidable.

I ask the Deputies to consider my proposals in relation to those sections of the Bill relating to exemptions, especially regarding works that restrict public access, with a view to withdrawing their amendments if satisfied my proposals achieve what they believe to be required. If further amendments are required, we can discuss the matter with a view to proposing same on Report Stage.

On amendment No. 166, this is a complex issue that needs to be reviewed in further detail. However, in principle I would not object to elected members of the local authority being invited to make observations to the Minister on exemption requests from EIA-related requirements. I will ask my officials to explore this matter with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, OPC, with a view to seeing whether this can be made a reserved function. I ask the Deputies to withdraw this proposal for the time being and I will seek to propose a corresponding amendment on Report Stage, pending discussions with the OPC.

On amendment No. 167, under the National Monuments Acts, consultation has always been with a statutory advisory council. I believe this is appropriate and should remain the position under the Bill. My understanding of public participation networks, PPNs, is that they have been developed to engage with local authorities on certain decision-making processes that relate to matters within local authority remits. To the best of my knowledge, PPNs do not engage with any central Government Department in the manner suggested. I would not see it as appropriate for them to do so for the purposes of exemptions from EIA-related requirements.

I will speak to the Government amendments. These two sets of amendments make identical changes in respect of exemptions for classes of works to monuments to which general protection applies and exemptions for classes of works to monuments to which special protection applies.

Amendments Nos. 131 and 139 ensure that where classes of works are not likely to have significant effects on the environment or a European site and where they are an established recurrent activity before general protection applies to the monument concerned, that is, before the commencement of the enacted Bill, the Minister will be unable to consider an exemption for such classes of works where, given all circumstances of the case, it is not considered reasonable to do so.

Amendments Nos. 134 and 142 make it expressly clear that no exemption may be granted if the class of works concerned prevents access by members of the public to a monument.

These amendments, while allowing certain classes of works to be exempted from certain licensing or notification processes, strengthen the wording in the current draft and help ensure that exemptions may only be introduced where it is reasonable to do so.