Seanad debates

Wednesday, 1 March 2023

Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

10:30 am

Photo of Victor BoyhanVictor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I hear what the Minister of State is saying. He used the phrase "additional reporting" but there cannot be too much reporting in relation to this. This is too important. As I said earlier, the amendment provides that within 12 months of the passing of the Act, the Minister would lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is the Oireachtas, the national Parliament to which the public elects its representatives. We are also guardians and custodians of our archaeology and that is really important. The public places great trust in us. We are only passing through, as I have said previously, and when we are putting legislation in place, we are talking about a legacy, protection and layers. I do not consider it too much to have additional reporting, as this amendment provides for. It provides that the Minister, within 12 months, would lay these plans before the Oireachtas with the following in mind:

"(a) the protection and conservation of built archaeological heritage, including ringforts and their surroundings;

(b) the protection and conservation of natural archaeological heritage;

(c) the protection and conservation of national monuments and prescribed monuments, and

(d) the need to prevent the release of embodied carbon and the role of natural and built heritage in climate action.”

All of that sits very comfortably with the Minister of State, as both a green parliamentarian and a very active member of the Green Party. That goes without saying and that is why I am somewhat surprised. I would not be surprised if I was dealing with a different Minister of State from another political party.

What is the rationale for departmental officials telling the Minister of State that this amendment is not worthy of inclusion as a key objective in terms of the primary legislation? I ask the Minister of State to explain further why he is not accepting this amendment. To just suggest that it is additional reporting is not a strong enough case for rejecting the amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.