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

With the indulgence of An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, I will deal with the constituency issues first before I speak to the amendments. On the points raised by Deputy Cronin in respect of the Obelisk, it is a good time for me to advertise some of the grant schemes in our Department and, in particular, the community monuments fund and built heritage grant schemes. They will be coming back into effect over the next couple of months. They have been hugely impactful schemes that have helped communities and custodians of built heritage like that to conserve and put in management plans for their conservation. I also point the Deputy in the direction of the Irish Follies Trust, which does fantastic work. We did some work with the trust on the pyramid mausolea in the graveyard in Naas. I urge the Deputies to see them if they get the chance. They are fantastic. The communities are really proactive and want to take care of the monuments in their care and communities. The community monuments fund is a fantastic vehicle and mechanism for doing that.

I note that a few Deputies, including Deputies Bacik and Cronin, have raised the issue of Castletown House. I received a briefing from the Minister of State Deputy O'Donovan's team on it today, and I know the Minister of State is working proactively in relation to it.

Deputy Daly raised the issue of the court buildings in Tralee. I am familiar with that and have been liaising with the Deputy on that over the last year or more. It is an incredible structure. I urge all parties to see it. It is a fantastic building that I would love to see repurposed and reused.

I ask Deputies Daly and Guirke to send correspondence to me directly in relation to the access issues around Ballyduff round tower and Sliabh na Callaigh, respectively. If they send correspondence to us, we will get a response out to them on those specific issues.

Specifically on these amendments, first of all I should say that Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment is one of the most eloquent amendments I have seen put forward in any piece of legislation. I commend him greatly on it. It probably sits well as a preamble to a Heritage Ireland or heritage policy document. Specifically in relation to the amendments, the primary purpose of section 3 is to provide a set of broad principles that mirror those found within the Valletta and Granada Conventions. While I acknowledge its ambition, statements such as the ones proposed in amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are not considered appropriate for a legal document of this nature, given the legal consequences such statements may have for ownership and access.

On amendment No. 35, many elements of Irish historic heritage are not in the ownership of the State, but may have been acquired lawfully and with an intent to preserve and protect such heritage. It is not possible to provide blanket ownership to all Irish historic heritage in the manner proposed. Extensive provisions already exist in the Bill that relate to the acquisition and ownership of monuments and archaeological objects. These are considered sufficient. Provisions already exist in the Planning and Development Acts in relation to public rights of way over privately-owned land, either by agreement or compulsorily. I intend proposing an amendment on this following our discussions on Committee Stage. It should be noted that section 89 of the Bill provides for the enforcement of an easement providing public access to a national monument and under section 75, the OPW or a relevant local authority will have powers to provide visitor access and facilities at national monuments where it is considered appropriate to do so. That probably addresses some of the queries raised by Deputies. For these reasons, unfortunately, I am unable to accept these amendments.

On amendment No. 39 from Deputy Ó Snodaigh, while I have the greatest regard for the joint Oireachtas committee and welcome its support and ongoing interest in the heritage brief, I have no option other than to oppose amendments conferring statutory decision making or supervisory functions on the joint Oireachtas committee. It is quite clear that substantial provision has already been incorporated into the Bill to ensure that there is independent review and advice on its implementation. I acknowledge the coverage the committee has given to the heritage portfolio and I know it is an incredibly busy committee. With the greatest respect to the committee, which I acknowledge is composed of dedicated Members of the Oireachtas, I find it hard to see how any joint committee could deal with the ongoing workload which could result from these proposals, and which would surely divert the committee from its key functions of legislative and policy review and oversight. Moreover, without in any way impugning the impartiality of the joint committee, it must be obvious that, as a politically constituted body, it could be accused of taking a political approach to particular administrative decisions under the enacted Bill and also of lacking specialist heritage expertise such as is held by, or is directly available to, the Heritage Council and the board of the National Museum. Accordingly, I have no option other than to oppose all such amendments.

Amendment No. 37, in my own name, is an amendment to subsection (1)(d) of section 3 and inserts the word “of” which is missing line 29.

On amendment No. 38, in the name of Deputies Bacik and Duncan Smith, while I of course agree with the general idea expressed in the proposed amendment, I do not believe that this text is appropriate for section 3, which sets out broad general principles to be taken into account by all the statutory bodies charged with implementing the Act, of which there are several. The maintenance and presentation of national monuments, which will be registered monuments of which the Minister or a local authority is owner or guardian under the enacted Bill, is a matter for the Minister availing of the services of the OPW or the relevant local authority as the case may be, as provided for under the Bill, and not any of the other bodies under the Bill. Section 75 of the Bill already sets out powers, functions and guiding principles for the Minister and local authorities in that regard. Insofar as the amendment would seek to set out a principle to be followed for heritage sites other than national monuments, as defined for the purposes of the Bill, I believe that it would be inappropriate to include such a principle in section 3 as it does not link clearly to any powers conferred on any of the statutory bodies charged with implementing the enacted Bill. For very clear reasons relating to what is reasonable in terms of intrusion on the rights of owners and the need to guard against owners coming to see the existence of monuments on their land as a liability rather than a heritage asset, the Bill does not endow the Minister or local authorities with powers to enforce public access other than where monuments have become national monuments within the meaning of the Bill, and I do not propose to depart from that.

Again, I must oppose this amendment.

On the question asked by Deputy Cian O'Callaghan on enactment and the provisions of the Bill, it is likely that the implementation phase will follow full enactment and that the enacted Bill will be commenced at the earliest possible opportunity. A report will have to be issued within three years on the operation of the Bill. The time was reduced on the basis of recommendations on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context