Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials back to the House. I do not think much has changed since we last spoke. I am pursuing this amendment. However, I first welcome the people in the Public Gallery. There are some experts here from this area. I am sure they are also known to the Minister of State. I have again studied the responses in relation to Valletta. There are a number of facets to amendment No. 1. It has four subsections. I will once more read them into the record. The first states "Nothing in this Act shall violate the definitions, principles and requirements outlined in the Valletta Convention to which Ireland is a signatory." One would think it was pretty basic given that we are a signatory to this Convention. I have studied in great detail some of the engagement with various Ministers in relation to it. The Government's commitment to support the Valletta Convention was as clear as day. The second aspect to this amendment is that "The Minister and the Department shall be required to ensure that all definitions, principles and requirements laid out in this Act comply with the Valletta Convention upon and during its implementation." Third, "The Minister shall be empowered to establish regulations to ensure that Ireland can adhere to the Valletta Convention in the event of an unforeseen circumstance in which something in this Act contradicts the Valletta Convention." Finally, "The Minister shall be required to ensure the Valletta Convention is adhered to when implementing this Act." We know the Valletta Convention was adopted on 16 January 1992 in Valletta, Malta. It came into force on 25 May 1995, as a result of the Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 143. The Valletta treaty, formally the European Convention for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (Revised) is also known as the Malta convention and is a multilateral treaty of the Council of Europe. This treaty of 1992 aims to protect European archaeological heritage as a source of European collective memory and an instrument for historical and scientific study. All remains and objects and other traces of humankind from past times are considered to be elements of the archaeological heritage.

The Minister of State is aware there was pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, as is the Senator beside me. There will be others coming up later. We had an extensive discussion relating to this meaningful engagement. We completed a report. I want to thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which compiled a digest of the Bill. We set out 14 recommendations in the report, and the Oireachtas Library and Research Service carried out analysis of those. One thing the witnesses who came before the committee clearly stated was that the Valletta Convention should be in the preamble and in the naming of the Bill, which we have done. These were important witnesses with expertise in this area. I think Valletta is mentioned three or four times in the entire Bill. It is a very significant piece. When I studied the Minister of State's response after we last discussed this, I could not quite understand the rationale of the advice given by the Minister of State's officials. I am not privy to all of the advice but there was a resistance to accepting this amendment as it concerns the Valletta Convention. That is why this amendment is before us again in a slightly different format.

I listened to the Minister of State, and I know of his personal commitment to archaeology, to the environment, to the Aarhus Convention, to the rights of our citizens to have a meaningful say and engage on environmental matters, planning matters and archaeology. When one listens to organisations and prescribed bodies that the Minister of State and his party are familiar with, I cannot understand why there was such resistance to this very simple but cogent and clearly thought-out amendment. The Minister of State knows the position from the Library and Research Service documentation on it. I do not know what the Minister of State is going to say today. I do not know if he is going to change his mind. I have had no engagement with him since I last spoke here on this legislation. However, I can say that Ireland is a signatory to the Valletta Convention, and yet there is very little mention of the Valletta Convention in the Bill. Archaeological experts, some of whom are here today or are listening in, have spoken to me and have criticised the Bill for how weak it is on the Valletta Convention. The broad scope of Valletta sets out, in terms of archaeology and protective legislation, its overarching role in the context of Europe. We are signatories to it. While the Bill contains a comprehensive list of definitions, the wording on most of the definitions does not match the Valletta Convention. In a 244-page document, the word "Valletta" only appears four times, as I said earlier. In the previous debate, the Minister of State said that it would not be possible to embrace all of the definitions. My amendment seeks to address this issue for the Minister of State. It requires that the implementation of these definitions complies with the Valletta Convention. NGOs and other groups propose that the Valletta Convention should be incorporated and implemented into the proposed legislation. That was clearly stated at all of our meetings in the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The Minister of State is aware of that. He will have read our report and the strong recommendations the committee, as one, proposed. This is cross-party. One thing is clear from the reading of the pre-legislative scrutiny report and the deliberations of the joint committee when we teased this out was the importance of the Valletta Convention. There was a heavy endorsement from the witnesses telling us of the significance of Valletta and that it was important for it to be covered both in the preamble and within the legislation itself.

I do not want to go on in great detail, except to say that it is important we respond to Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas who engaged. It is important that we respond favourably to the NGOs and that we respond to people who are members of the Minister of State's party - elected members of his party who have expressed solidarity with the import of the Valletta Convention to this legislation. I said earlier that the Deputy is an exceptional Minister of State. I do not say that to flatter him just because he is in the Seanad today. However, we have had other Ministers in the past. We know their record. This is about a legacy. It is about a legacy for the Minister of State within the Department. However, it is also about the legacy we are going to leave for generations of people coming behind us, and for our children. We need to safeguard and secure our archaeology through this legislation. This is primary legislation before the Houses of the Oireachtas. While it was initiated in this House, it will go to the Dáil for further scrutiny, teasing out and amendment. It is important that we embrace the Valletta Convention, to which Ireland and many EU member states have signed up. I can attest to Deputy Noonan as an exceptional Minister of State. However, we do not know who is following in his footsteps. That is an important consideration when we are putting this legislation in place. I will conclude by asking him the following questions. Will he reject the amendment to adhere to an agreement that we have already signed? Is he going to reject that? That is what I am asking. I would like to think that he will embrace this. Otherwise the message being sent from here is that he is rejecting this agreement. He is not supporting it in national legislation. There are ramifications for that down the road. Will he reject an amendment to empower himself, a Minister of State who I believe is committed? He has this opportunity. It is not for officials to say, "I told you so", or hand him notes and say that is not the way to do things. This is a simple requirement and I ask him for that. Furthermore, will he reject the amendment that has incorporated all of the relevant feedback from our last debates? I could go on at length, but I will not. I know he fully understands it, and his officials understand it. I know in the past they have advised him not to. I believe it is important that we embrace this legislation, so much so that if there is not a favourable response I will call for a vote because it is important that we have a record.We cannot have people bellyaching about the environment, heritage and archaeology. As with so many things in this Oireachtas whereby people make all these sound bites and commitments, when it comes to standing up and being counted, they cannot be found. I hope the Minister of State has reflected on the debate we had on the previous occasion and that he will be able to embrace this very simple legislation. There is nothing new from me. It is what Ireland is a signatory to and will strengthen this significant Bill.

I commend the Minister of State and his team for substantive and badly needed reform in this area. The amendment would further cement the latter. That is our function in the Seanad. It is to improve legislation. I believe this amendment will do so.