Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 41, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“Facilitating Landowners

19. Regulations set up by the Department should facilitate any prospective landowner in complying with any of the sections listed in this Act.”.

This amendment seeks to facilitate landowners because I think they are an important part of this. If we are going to protect our archaeology and historic heritage we must work with everybody. It is as simple as that.I am conscious of regulations. The regulations set up by the Department should facilitate any prospective landowner in complying with any of the sections in this Bill. The rationale for this amendment is outlined in the Bill digest. We have the digest and the Minister of State has gone through it, so I will not quote from it extensively. I thank the Library and Research Service for its amazing work on this Bill. It is fantastic, supportive and of great assistance to parliamentarians when they are navigating legislation. I have found this particular digest from the Library and Research Service exceptionally helpful. I could not have navigated this Bill without its background work and support, which I wish to acknowledge.

The Bill digest states automatic entry into the planning authority's record of protected structures, RPS would place unworkable obligations on landowners given the nature and condition of many structures to be included in the Register of Monuments, such as ruined medieval buildings. Failure to address this issue means that any register is likely to be incomplete. Overall, we would not be protecting our cultural heritage in any way. The Minister of State touched on cultural heritage. That could be an issue as regards refusing to assist landowners. Landowners need assistance to navigate the challenges, potential and importance of their lands. A counter-argument may be that this will be covered by the Planning and Development Bill 2022. I note with interest there is a suggestion in the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023 pre-legislative scrutiny, in which recommendation No. 2 reads: "...That the Bill provide for the automatic entry into a planning authority’s Record of Protected Structures for those prescribed ..." The response from the Library and Research Service Bill digest states:

The Department supports the principal purpose of this recommendation [it supports the principle of the recommendations I am setting out], the incorporation of registered monuments into development plans, however the approach proposed to achieve this purpose is not favoured as it is not compatible with the role of local authorities in the operation of the Record of Protected Structure, RPS. Regarding the maintenance duties arising for owners of structures listed in the RPS, the suggested approach would place unworkable obligations on landowners [which I referred to] given the nature and condition of many structures to be included in the Register of Monuments.

I thought this was interesting and helpful and demonstrates how helpful the Library and Research Service is. It says in its response:

Alternatively an amendment to, or a revision of, Section 10 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as provided for under section 50(2)(d) and (e) of the recently published draft Planning and Development Bill 2022, can be made in order to ensure that the protection of registered monuments is listed as an objective in county development plans. The mandatory objective provisions relating to development plans will be extensively revised ...

That is a suggestion the Minister of State may examine. It is on page 21 of the Bill digest, where it states there is potentially an opportunity in the Planning and Development Act 2022. I suggest the officials take that on board. I too will be proactive. I am not going to drop it. There is the potential to address this issue through the Planning and Development Bill 2022, which I know is also the Minister of State's Department. We could perhaps collaborate and somehow see if that can be facilitated. That is a suggestion, not by me, but in terms of a response to the pre-legislative scrutiny.