Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 32, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following: “Valletta Convention

3. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be understood to violate or undermine the definitions, principles and requirements outlined in the Valletta Convention to which Ireland is a signatory.

(2) The Minister, the Commissioners, the Board, the Council and each local authority, shall be required to ensure the Valletta Convention is adhered to in full when implementing this Act.

(3) The Minister shall establish regulations to ensure full compliance with the Valletta Convention where clarity is needed in the implementation of this Act.”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that nothing in the Bill undermines the convention’s principles. We have discussed how the Bill goes beyond the convention, so my amendment would be superfluous in some ways, but it sets the baseline that nothing in the Bill should be understood to violate or undermine the convention’s definitions or principles. In this way, if there is any contradiction or a legal case or judicial review is taken because the legislation is not clear in its Title or content, people can understand what was the intention. Each local authority would be required to ensure the Valletta Convention was adhered to in full as it implements this Bill. Obviously, local authorities will have to go beyond the convention, given that they will have to implement this legislation once enacted. Under this amendment, the Minister would also establish regulations to ensure full compliance with the convention.

The intention is not to hamper the Bill’s effect, but to ensure that everyone understands the situation fully and there is no excuse, unlike what happened in respect of the demolition of The O’Rahilly’s house when people claimed they did not know they had a duty to protect it. The idea with this legislation is that everyone from the farmer to the developer to a member of the public understands he or she has a duty to protect our heritage and that he or she cannot get away with claiming ignorance as an excuse. The same should be true of those who are in public office and who have a duty of care in accepting planning or other changes to our built and environmental landscapes. They must understand the basic principles behind this Bill.

We have debated this matter, so I will not delay any further.

See this speech in context