Seanad debates

Tuesday, 6 July 2004

National Monuments (Amendment) Bill 2004: Committee Stage.

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

I appreciate that. We could not move on if section 5 was not accepted. Section 6 is opposed, but it amends the provision under section 23 of the principal Act relating to the discovery or archaeological objects by removing the requirement to report such objects found by a person in pursuance of a consent granted or of directions issued by the Minister under section 14 or in connection with an approved road development. In other words, there will already be in place procedures for dealing with finds of archaeological objects in such circumstances.

The intent of section 6 is to prevent overlap in reporting requirements by removing the necessity to report each discovery of an archaeological object where there is already a system of mitigation in place. It was not possible to accept amendment No. 5 as it would have undone the effort to make the procedure as uncomplicated as possible. To put it simply, with reference to section 23 of the principal Act, one who finds an artefact by chance in the course of a development must report it to the director of the National Museum within three days. However, there is an exemption to the requirement under section 26 for those who apply for a licence to excavate. This extends to those applicants following the ministerial direction or conditions of consent. If section 6 were deleted it would result in overlapping in respect of finds. If an application for excavation is submitted and approved, all the finds can be reported when the excavation is complete. Otherwise, if one were to report finds every three days it would add greatly to the volume of work. It might deter one from reporting fines although there is a statutory obligation on one to do so. Therefore, there is no necessity for the removal of this section.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.