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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 21, to delete line 24 and substitute the following: “ “Act of 2001” means, other than in Chapter 4of Part 13, the Local Government Act 2001;”.

This is a technical amendment to provide for the amendment of the Valuation Act 2001 in Chapter 4 of Part 13 because the "Act of 2001" has a different meaning in that Chapter in comparison with the rest of the Bill.

As regards amendment No. 6, section 2 of the Bill, as it stands, contains a definition of "amenity value", which includes the setting of a monument or thing. "Amenity", however, is not itself defined, although it is used in section 14(4) of the Bill in relation to the delimitation of a "surrounding area" which can be added to an entry in the register and thereby becomes part of the registered monument in question.

Given the importance of ensuring that entries in the register of monuments can include such "surrounding areas" and that such areas will be able to appropriately protect the setting of the site or structure in question, I propose to make the meaning of "amenity" clearer by making it the term which is defined in section 2 of the Bill, with "amenity value" to be construed in accordance with the definition of "amenity". The new definition will make it clear that "amenity", and the plural "amenities" where it is used, includes the setting of a monument or thing. This will, I believe, make it even clearer that the Bill provides for the protection of the setting of sites and structures entered into the register.

Amendment No. 9 relates to the definition of an archaeological object under section 2 of the Bill and follows discussions that took place during Committee Stage and corresponding proposals to further define the meaning of an archaeological object by way of its association with "periods or subjects", in addition to "events or persons", as currently provided in the Bill.

Similarly, amendment No. 19 introduces "linguistic interest" into the definition of "cultural interest", and amendment No. 12 amends the definition of "architectural heritage" by replacing the word "ground" with "grounds". As regards the proposed addition of "context" into the definition of "architectural heritage", and following discussions with senior architects in my Department's built heritage policy unit, this is seen as problematic. The use of "context" has no existence in either planning legislation or any international charters and conventions, and its meaning is unclear.

The report of the church temporalities commission, as defined in section 63 of the Bill, and referenced in section 65 in relation to the vesting of certain burial grounds in Minister or local authority, was published in 1880, and the appendices to the report were subsequently published in 1881.

Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 are to update the years currently referred to in the Bill in order to ensure that the definition of the report is precise.

As regards amendment No. 7, and as discussed during Committee Stage, it is important to note that the term "archaeological heritage", as currently defined in the Bill, covers a very extensive set of structures, sites, objects, etc. It is more comprehensive than what would be provided under the Valletta Convention. Amending the Bill in the manner suggested in the amendment would greatly reduce the scope of what the Bill intends to provide for.

The definition as proposed does not specify that the sites and structures covered in the definition are to be of archaeological interest. While such a requirement could be implied, a more precise level of drafting is required, and this direct transposition of the definition used in the convention is simply not workable. Given that the current definition in the Bill not only covers the items that are set out in the definition found under the Valletta Convention but in fact goes beyond what is covered by the Valletta Convention, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

As regards amendment No. 8, the definition of "archaeology" included in the Bill already makes clear that "archaeological interest" shall be construed in accordance with that definition. It is therefore already entirely clear that any person seeking to determine under the enacted legislation whether something is of archaeological interest must refer to the definition of archaeology. That is the appropriate way to determine whether something is of archaeological interest. The proposed amendment of "archaeological interest" by way of amendment No. 8 is unworkable as drafted. It does not provide guidance as to how to determine interest; it merely states that archaeological interest means certain objects. This is the wrong approach as physical things have an interest or are of a particular interest; they cannot be the particular interest in and of themselves.

As regards amendment No. 10, I have already proposed an amendment to the definition of "archaeological object" which I hope encompasses to a large extent that which is sought by amendment No. 10, so I ask the Deputy to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 11 intends to introduce the definition of an "archaeological reserve" into the Bill. As explained on Committee Stage, this concept is already merged with the register of monuments. The definition of “relevant thing” includes any ritual or ceremonial site, a site where an historic place took place, any site with legendary or mythological associations, and features, deposits or layers of natural origin providing information or evidence relating to the past environment.

If a "relevant thing" is of archaeological, architectural, cultural or historic interest, it can be considered eligible for entry in the register of monuments. No limitations appear in the Bill regarding the size or parameters of sites or locations. The Bill also makes it explicitly clear under section 8(2) that “a reference in this Part to a relevant thing of a relevant interest includes a reference to a site where the Minister reasonably believes that there may be a relevant thing of a relevant interest”.

On amendment No. 13, as I mentioned previously, the definition of “architectural heritage” has been discussed with my Department’s built heritage policy unit and the addition of “context” into the definition of “architectural heritage” is problematic, as the use of “context” has no existence in planning legislation, nor in any international charters or conventions. Again, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment.

On amendment No. 16, as mentioned in discussions on Committee Stage, I see no good reason to delete the definition of the “Church Temporalities Commission”. I intend to update the definition following my earlier proposed amendment. Reference to that commission and its report must be made in the Bill given that Chapter 13 of Part 2 addresses the legal standing of certain historic burial grounds which were once in the ownership of that commission. The definition in Part 2 allows for a somewhat less lengthy title to be used in the Bill when referring to the commission than the legal title it had under the relevant 19th-century legislation, so aiding readers of the Bill.

I will now deal with amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive. On amendment No. 21, as discussed previously, the amendment to the definition of “history”, as proposed, would, first, introduce a lengthy list of terms that is considered to be excessive and overly granular for its intended purpose. While I appreciate the Deputy's intention to ensure the term “history” has a sufficiently broad scope, the amendment is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. Turning to amendment No. 22, the use of the word “includes” in the current definition of “history” also provides for what is being sought by the additions of the words “but is not limited to”.

Finally, the use of the word “and” as suggested in amendment No. 23 would not be acceptable from a drafting perspective. If accepted, it would mean that all the terms used to define “history” would need to be satisfied in order for the definition to be met. The use of the word “or” allows for any one of the terms listed to meet the definition and ensure they are entirely independent of each other. For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.

As discussed previously, amendment No. 24 would overextend the definition of “immediate surroundings” and create uncertainty regarding the exact scope of the corresponding criminal offence, that being the carrying out of works in the immediate surroundings of a monument without a licence or without having given notice. If the scope of the offence is insufficiently clear, it is likely to be unenforceable or even at risk of being ruled as invalid. Again, I cannot support that amendment.

On amendment No. 32, the current definition of “traditional interest” is considered adequate, and I ask the Deputy to note that I have already introduced an amendment to incorporate "linguistic interest" into the term "cultural interest". Information relating to the use and interpretation of the terms "traditional interest" and "cultural interest" will be provided in the codes of practice established under section 213 of the Bill. I would see these codes as setting out the additional detail that seeks to be introduced by way of this amendment.

On amendment No. 133, section 57 relates to an ancient monument or a national monument within the meaning of the Irish Land Act 1903. This goes beyond a drafting matter as the terminology in the Bill needs to be retained, as it is a direct reference to orders made under section 14(3) of the 1903 Act. Again, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment.

Finally, on amendment No. 137, Chapter 12 of Part 2 of the Bill contains transitional provisions that have been introduced specifically for burial grounds, the existence of which has always been known and title to which was held by the then Established Church prior to its disestablishment in 1869. Following its disestablishment, title for the burial grounds was devolved through a complex chain or was otherwise left unclear. The purpose of these transitional provisions is to simplify the chain of title with a view to facilitating effective management and protection under the enacted Bill for the long term. The proposed amendment relates to the defined term for a “relevant burial ground” and is used in section 66, which contains technical provisions to supplement sections 64 and 65. It provides that where the fee simple in a relevant burial ground is vested in the Minister or local authority and that burial ground is a registered monument, the burial ground shall become a registered monument in the ownership of the Minister or local authority for the purposes of the enacted Bill. Newly discovered burial grounds are to be dealt with by the usual provisions relating to the monuments and there is no need to attempt to provide for them within this Chapter. Again, I ask the Deputy to consider withdrawing this amendment.

See this speech in context