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

I thank Senator Higgins for proposing these amendments.I take on board the spirit behind them and I appreciate the intangible aspect. In our interpretation of heritage it is important to give effect to that and to ensure we take account of collective memory - the Senator mentioned Traveller heritage - and human creativity. Acknowledging all that is something we do across our work in heritage. Heritage Ireland 2030 and the Heritage Council's recently launched strategic plan give support and validity to celebrating the intangible cultural heritage the Senator talked about. It is separate and distinct and that is to be acknowledged.

As discussed on Committee Stage, the use of the term "cultural interest" may have unforeseen consequences that interfere with the successful implementation of the Bill, such as problems relating to the obligation that members of the public report finds of prescribed monuments. I stress the system of prescribed monuments is intended to apply to monuments of archaeological interest and it would not be workable or necessary to have it extend further beyond that. However, it should also be stressed that the register of monuments will be available to secure the protection of a wide range of other types of monuments. I have proposed to undertake a further review of the possible incorporation of the term "cultural interest" into the definition of "relevant interest". As this would broaden the scope of the Bill, perhaps significantly, it is important detailed consideration be given to this matter before any final decision is made. I give a commitment to that. I repeat my commitment that I will propose the necessary amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil if it is determined "cultural interest" can be integrated into the Bill.

There are additional proposed amendments due to be discussed today that further relate to the addition of "intangible heritage" into the Bill, and I will speak to them in detail when we reach them. I am uncertain what is meant by the addition of references to linguistic interest or linguistic value. If the Senator could provide an example of how these might be connected to the monuments provisions under Part 2 of the Bill, it would be really useful. Regarding the addition of the concept of "value" into section 14(7), in the absence of any clarity as to how the inclusion of "value" differs from the existing term "interest" referred to in section 14(7)(a), the amendment would introduce uncertainty and potentially open the door to legal challenges to entries in the register.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept any of these amendments.