Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to speak briefly on amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12. It makes complete sense. The National Museum of Ireland has an amazing track record and would have been a consultee in all of this in the past or up to now. I note that the Minister of State has done a great deal of reform in the Heritage Council. This council was on its knees a number of years ago but the Minister of State got it up and running again. There were parties in government which wanted it abolished or scrapped, or certainly to have its powers wound down. I give great credit to the Minister of State. It goes back to the personal drive and commitment which he has for the Heritage Council. It is a very different Heritage Council from the one it was three years ago. It is very fit for purpose. I have no doubt about its expertise but I believe we need more than that.

I am very happy that the Heritage Council should be the key player here, but I believe the National Museum of Ireland should be a consultee. It would be a disgrace to get up in the morning and read in the paper that the National Museum of Ireland was somehow excluded. Members and former employees of the National Museum of Ireland were in attendance here when we discussed this Bill most recently. They are watching this clearly and very closely. I am a great supporter of the museum. Clearly, we cannot be consulting everybody but surely we should be consulting it. We are giving substantial funding to the work of the National Museum of Ireland. It has a meaningful and a very professional role and should be a consultee. I am long enough around to remember Carrickmines Castle and all of the controversies around that. Where is all of that now? Is it sitting in boxes down in the OPW somewhere? In any event, the museum made a very significant contribution there.

As An Taisce is a prescribed body in law, it receives many referrals in respect of applications. The Minister of State was very engaged with it in respect of Kilkenny, as I outlined previously. Therefore, he knows that it does important work on the ground, particularly in the great city of Kilkenny. It has done enormous work and has been greatly involved there. It was not always successful in opposing things but perhaps it got things modified. The ring road in Kilkenny today is very much a modified version of what was originally proposed. The impact on the medieval city could potentially have been profound if that scheme had not been ameliorated in some way. Therefore, the Minister of State knows personally of the success of An Taisce in these areas. As I have said, it is a prescribed body in law in any event. I cannot see why the Minister of State would not refer these matters to it.

The public participation networks, PPNs, are very important but I am not 100% sure about them in this context. I believe there has to be engagement but I would have liked this to be more specific in respect of a planning authority like Dublin City Council or Kilkenny County Council, which operate and work closely with the PPNs. I believe the planning authority in each jurisdiction is critically important. It is the eyes and ears and it co-ordinates planning strategically. I believe the focus could be where the planning authority could work through the PPN, but there has to be a role for the planning authority. I am conscious that this provision is not in the amendment. It may be a matter that the Minister of State will consider when he brings this Bill to the Dáil. Anything I am saying here relates to what I have already been talking about with independent Deputies. The Minister of State will see some of these amendments coming back in the Dáil in any event. I am supportive of these three amendments.