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

Regarding amendments Nos. 184 and 186, it is appropriate to require consultation with the joint Oireachtas committee in matters relating to the acquisition of a registered monument by the Minister of the day or a local authority. It may be the case that such transactions contain confidential or sensitive information and, in any event, these are operational matters that should be left to the relevant stakeholders without any need to consult outside parties. I have introduced new reporting provisions that will produce reports containing information on the acquisition of registered monuments, including where proposed acquisitions do not take place. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

In relation to amendments Nos. 188 to 190, inclusive, section 62 provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the Commissioners of Public Works, transfer ownership of a national monument that is in the ownership or guardianship of the Minister, where the Minister is of the opinion that the transfer is compatible with the proper protection and management of the monument, or is in the public interest. Similarly, a local authority may, after consultation with the Minister, transfer ownership of a national monument that is in the ownership or guardianship of the local authority, where it is of the opinion that the transfer is compatible with the proper protection and management of the monument, or is in the public interest.

As I mentioned in relation to proposed amendments to section 51, for operational matters such as those set out in section 62, I do not think it is appropriate to require consultation with or approval from the joint Oireachtas committee.

Amendment No. 198 seeks consultation with a range of bodies in relation to section 75(2). This section requires that any act resulting in any loss of interest in a national monument can only be done if justified on substantial and appropriate research or substantial public interest grounds.

As the Bill clearly establishes the parameters for such acts to be carried out, I see no reason to introduce requirements for relevant authorities to consult with other bodies. For for this reason, I cannot accept this amendment.

Regarding amendment No. 207, under section 5, every regulation made by the Minister under the Bill must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. I will ask my officials to engage with the OPC in order to determine whether it is possible to apply the same requirements for by-laws made under the enacted legislation, but I would note some reservations about whether the Oireachtas should seek to limit unnecessarily the powers of local authorities to make by-laws under this section or subject local authorities to unnecessary oversight in that regard. My view is that we should be encouraging as much as possible effective action at the level of local democracy. I would ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment pending further consideration between now and Report Stage.

Regarding amendment No. 262, section 156 is an important innovation in heritage law, establishing for the first time an appeals process in respect of all statutory licensing decisions under the Bill. It has long been recognised that this was a major gap in the National Monuments Acts. The new system will provide greater transparency and fairness and maintain and build support for the legislation among all concerned, including professionals engaged in specialist activities regulated under the Bill and members of the wider public, such as farmers and other landowners, who find that they need to engage with the licensing system under the Bill in respect of proposed works to monuments.

While I can see that Deputies might have some concerns arising from the fact that the provision as drafted leaves the decision as to appointment of appeals officers as a purely ministerial one, I do not see the proposed amendment as an appropriate way to address this. The involvement of a political body such as a joint Oireachtas committee in the appointment process seems likely to increase rather than diminish concern on the part of the public as to the independence of the appeals officers. I would also note that subsection (1) provides clear parameters within which the Minister must take decisions regarding appointment of appeals officers. However, I take on board the need for some other input apart from the Minister of the day. I will ask the Department to examine the possibility of providing a consultative role for the Heritage Council and, if this is possible, I will introduce an appropriate amendment on Report Stage. I hope the Deputy might be in a position to withdraw the amendment on that basis. In any event, I cannot support this amendment.