Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. I know what he has set out. It is interesting that he raised some concerns about the Valetta Convention. He has been the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage for the past two and a half years. I do not what he has done about it. If he had concerns about this international treaty, it warrants further teasing out through a Commencement matter or some other mechanism. A Minister of State with responsibility for heritage is telling the House that he has concerns and talks about the loosely drafted nature of the legislation. I refer to his reference to the courts being called on to vindicate the rights of citizens. He knows that his party and members of it have been involved in litigation concerning environmental issues. I commend them on that. Is the Minister now suggesting that for some obscure reason we have problem with the citizens of this country going to vindicate their rights under international treaties on the environment? If this came from anyone else, it would be somewhat different. However, I know of the Minister of State's commitment, of his involvement in the ring-road in Kilkenny, of his involvement in heritage protection and of his active involvement in planning applications relating to protected structures. I simply want a little consistency with what he espouses and acts upon. He is the prime man. He is the Minister of State with responsibility for heritage with respect to legislation. This is primary legislation. This is the Minister of State's golden opportunity, as it is our golden opportunity in this House to try to influence this legacy and this legislation.

I cannot understand what is happening. I am going to tease it all out again. The amendment states, " Nothing in this Act shall violate the definitions, principles and requirements outlined in the Valletta Convention". How could the Minister of State have a problem with that? I want matters to be clear for the people who are listening to these proceedings. When I go downstairs an hour from now and send out a video clip of the debate, I want matters to be clear in the context of our engagement on the public record. I am asking the Minister of State to explain what is happening. The amendment also states: "The Minister and the Department [that includes the Minister of State] shall be required to ensure that all definitions, principles and requirements laid out in this Act" are complied with.

The Minister of State has said he is happy to stand over the Valetta Convention. He raised concerns - it was very nice of him - about protracted litigation and perhaps the costs. I do not have a problem with protracted litigation. It is the constitutional right of our citizens. He should not hold back in any way. Our citizens are entitled to that. Again, I do not see the consistency. What is the Minister of State saying? Is he against that? He is not prepared to support the fact that the Minister will "ensure that all definitions, principles and requirements laid out in this Act comply with the Valetta Convention". He is here to vindicate that and make a case for it. He is a member of the Government that made the decision to sign up to it. The amendment also states "The Minister shall be empowered to establish regulations". The Minister of State spoke at length a few weeks ago about the fact that he would be bringing a raft of regulations when I asked about the city and county development plans and listing the archeological lists. The Minister of State said that would all be done through regulations. I have even left scope in this amendment where it states "The Minister shall be empowered to establish regulations ... in the event of an unforeseen circumstance". I referred to the regulations. In that context, the amendment states "The Minister shall be empowered to establish regulations".The Minister of State could have stood up here today and said, "Point taken, Senator Boyhan. I will bring all that in by way of regulation." He could not even give that assurance. The blanket response he had to read into the record was not in support of this. Part (4) of my amendment, "The Minister shall be required to ensure the Valletta Convention is adhered to when implementing this Act." is so basic. I do not understand why there is such resistance to it. I believe it is the right thing to do, that is why I am doing it.

I have engaged extensively with people who are involved, including those close to the Minister of State's party. NGOs that are present today and those that are listening in cannot understand why we cannot include the Valletta Convention. Members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage put forward this report. It was a really good, collaborative piece within which we strongly recommended the inclusion of the Valletta Convention. We agreed and released the report. We teased out the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations, as we always do, to be fair to the members of the committee. We did that and we agreed the report. It was based on the evidence from external interested NGOs and people involved in archaeology. They made that ask of us; we did not think it up ourselves. For that reason, I gave a commitment to and contacted the people who appeared before the committee. Not everyone got back to me but those who did said, "Absolutely, it is a clear cut and paste. This is the Valletta Convention. Ireland is a signatory to this convention and it makes sense to embed it in the Bill". My amendment proposes to insert four simple sentences in page 29, between lines 15 and 16.

I rest my case. It will be for other people, perhaps those in the Dáil, to look at this again. I am disappointed for the Minister of State that this is the best he could come up with in terms of his officials. I am now deeply concerned that he, with such credentials in archaeological heritage, cannot give basic guarantees around and basic support of the Valletta Convention. That is exceptionally disappointing. One must speculate as to the reasons he has decided to do so. However, he is the Minister of State. I am always respectful of the Minister and I respect the Minister of State. I wanted to make my case. I have made my case and I rest my case. It is important that we are accountable to the public and, therefore, I will exercise my option to call for a vote on this amendment, because this issue is not going to go away.