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

These amendments have been grouped together as they all relate to similar matters, mainly the incorporation of cultural interest into the Bill. Regarding prescribed monuments, the parameters for their definition are intentionally narrow. This contrasts to the parameters for registered monuments that are intentionally broad. The rationale for this derives from the intended purpose of each system. A prescribed monument must be easily definable given that corresponding provisions exist relating to the reporting of its discovery and it is an offence not to do so. Any ambiguity associated with the definition could threaten the operation of the provisions relating to prescribed monuments which have been drafted for very specific reasons.

The concept of prescribed monuments is a core element of the Bill that will fundamentally bolster the legal protection afforded to archaeological sites. The extensiveness of the term "cultural interest" could pose serious difficulties when placing obligations on members of the public to report finds of prescribed monuments. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept the addition of cultural interest into the scope of the prescribed monuments system.

Regarding the proposed amendment to section 14, it is unlikely that the addition of cultural interest to the list of matters to be take into consideration when entering something into the register of monuments would achieve what Senator Higgins may wish to achieve. The definition of "relevant interest" does not include things of cultural interest in the first instance. For this reason, the addition of "cultural interest" into section 14(7) will be largely irrelevant as things of solely cultural interest will already have been removed from the scope.

Regarding the addition of "archaeological value" and "historic value", etc., in the absence of any clarity as to how the reference to "value" would differ from "to the interest test" referred to in section 14(7)(a), the amendment would introduce major uncertainty and potentially open the door to legal challenges to entries into the register. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

What I would like to propose, is to take a step back, to carry out a further review of the term "relevant interest" in order to determine what changes might come about if the term included, "cultural interest". While this matter has already been reviewed upon the receipt of the pre-legislative scrutiny report and a decision was made not to include "cultural interest" in the Bill, I am open to exploring this matter again. It is important to note that the possible changes resulting from the addition of "cultural interest" may have unforeseen consequences at an operational level and would in any event require a comprehensive review of the Bill in order to determine what consequential legislative amendments may also be required.If it is determined that the scope of relevant interests can be broadened to include cultural interests, I commit to proposing the required amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil.