Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response on the discussion we had last week. I am glad there will be references to the Valletta Convention. The Minister of State mentioned a number of placings. I only acquired a pen halfway through his speech so I have not seen some of the locations. As the debate continues, I am sure he will be able to identify again where the proposed amendments will come in.

I welcome the references to Valletta and to other relevant conventions. I will have amendments coming later which refer for example, to the convention on intangible cultural heritage. I assume that is envisaged as being a convention of relevance to this legislation. I specifically list a number of other conventions. They are evolving. Ireland may well end up signing future conventions on shared cultural and archaeological heritage.

I understand the Minister of State’s concern about changing the Bill by regulations. However, it is important that within legislation we build the capacity to ensure inadvertent consequences or applications are addressed. We will come later to amendments I have tabled in relation to reports. While the Minister of State may not want to embed the power to act by regulation in primary legislation, reviews of such legislation could and should be accommodated to ensure the legislation is reviewed at a certain point to check it is fulfilling the goal the Minister of State has set out for it, which we all share.

I reference a small thing which will be significant. There is something different between "amenity value" and "community value". "Amenity value" is fine but "community value" is a good thing to have referenced, and to be referred to as “value”. It is not just of interest, but of value. That is positive and I welcome that.

As the Minister of State is bringing amendments to improve and strengthen the Bill in the Dáil, I hope we come back to the question of archaeological and cultural heritage. That needs to be properly recognised and named in the Bill. I appreciate the table on the Valletta Convention and all those articles and how they are transposed, but slightly disagree on Article 1 of the Valletta Convention. There is space on the cultural aspect in that article. In the Valletta Convention, there are three places the cultural aspect comes in, which we have not reinforced in the Bill. First, the convention is explicit around anything having regard to the European Cultural Convention, signed in Paris in December 1954, particularly Articles 1 to 5. The Valletta Convention requires consideration of the European Cultural Convention. These are arguments for why culture should be reflected in this Bill if it is reflecting Valletta. There is also reference to affirming the importance of archaeological heritage in cultural development policies. Crucially, Article 1 of the Valletta Convention refers to "any traces of mankind from past epochs ... the preservation and study of which help to retrace the history of mankind and its relation with the natural environment". Article 1(3) refers not only to the "structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objects” and so forth, but also to their “context, whether situated on land or under water”. There is a physical and cultural context and reference to the history of mankind and its relationship. Those are cultural elements. That is a good mandate within Valletta. I do not think Valletta is exclusive. I appreciate the Minister of State has said he can go beyond it and I think it is great that we go beyond and add to it but I want to make sure the cultural component is not left behind simply because we have a wider list of what we might call "relevant things". That list can still leave out that context and that relationship piece where culture comes in. That is what gives the feeling to the Valletta Convention. As the Minister of State identified, this is not the only convention we have signed up to. That is why other relevant conventions are referenced. I urge the Minister of State, in making these improvements, to ensure the cultural piece is recognised alongside the archaeological piece. We will come to that again.

On this amendment, I see the Minister of State is not involving the Oireachtas joint committee. We will get to amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive. There are many people I think the Minister of State should consult. The key point is the Minister should consult with some outside body with a different perspective and expertise. This is particularly the case because the Minister is not necessarily the current Minister of State with responsibility for heritage. It is in fact the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The Minister for the purposes of this Bill, though this is not about individuals, is the senior Minister - currently Deputy Darragh O’Brien – who may have many other considerations at play around planning, development and so forth. It is not necessarily a reserved function, except where that Minister delegates it, of the Minister of State, who may have expertise and interest in heritage. I would hope it would always be a delegated function but we cannot assume that. It is important we are assured those with expertise and interest in heritage are inputting into that decision to take things away from the prescribed protection register.

We will disagree on amendment No. 8. I will come back to the same points in the next group of amendments.