Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment related to amendment No. 10. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are similar. The Minister is correct to acknowledge that there is some protection in section 17(5) of the Bill in respect of the Heritage Council, which is one brake there. I was perhaps overly zealous in saying that it was solely the Minister. He or she will consult the council and have regard to their views. However, I believe that it is a significant thing to de-designate or remove a registered monument so that it ceases to be a registered monument. This set of amendments suggests another set of parties individually - it is not tied to accepting the advice of all of them - who perhaps the Minister could and should consult in this regard.

Amendment No. 10 would insert a requirement in this respect. It echoes the same language that is used around the Heritage Council in the Bill itself, which states: "Where the Minister is minded to take a Register action which, if taken, will cause a registered monument to cease to be a registered monument, he or she shall...". My amendment, then, would require the Minister to consult the National Museum of Ireland. Again, this is a relatively simple amendment but one which would be of great value. The National Museum of Ireland is a body which may be able to offer very important and useful input on the decision around a registered monument.

In many cases, the movable objects associated with a registered monument will be held with the National Museum of Ireland, which has a very particular relationship and contact with that specific registered monument in that it provides the context which goes with the objects which may be in the care of the National Museum of Ireland.

Amendment No. 11 is again around consultation with An Taisce, which is a body which makes a very important contribution and has a specific aim. The Heritage Council has the expertise but An Taisce has a link with civil society and has a separate voice which comes from something. It is not in any way a State body but is an independent civil society expertise body. An Taisce would be given the opportunity to offer its views to the Minister around that action.

I would like to go back to something the Minister of State acknowledged when he spoke about the issue of community value and what matters. Amendment No. 12 suggests that the public participation network in a local authority may be given the opportunity to offer its views in respect of an action. This goes back to a principle which the Government is acknowledging elsewhere in the Bill, which is that a local community may have a very strong sense of the value of a particular historic monument. Its sense of the monument may be different from that of the Heritage Council or others, which may be asking if the monument is in their top 20 examples of chapels, or top ten dolmens, or whatever it might be. This may stand in contrast with the value that the local community might place on it.

Later in the Bill, the Minister of State has indicated his intent to acknowledge the question of community value. This is another way to give practical effect to that. It may be a different or senior Minister who may be deciding whether to de-designate a site. It could be coming from a discussion which has nothing to do with heritage. It could be a question of weighing heritage up against a development proposal or other proposals. In that context, the Heritage Council can bring something general to the discussion, whereas a public participation network in a local authority can bring something very specific to the decision-making process.

That is why I am proposing three examples here. I am sure there could be many other examples. I believe a very particular and valuable perspective could be added to the Minister's decision-making process in respect of deciding that something will no longer be a registered monument.