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

Yes. I refer to the rejection of Seanad amendment No. 2, to the Bill, as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 56. While I appreciate the intention behind this amendment and fully recognise the need to ensure that notices regarding register actions are disseminated as widely as possible, it would not be prudent to do so as proposed. Volatility in the media sector and the changes which are likely to take place in the coming years require the Minister of the day to have flexibility as to which newspapers are used to publish notices with regard to register lists. The aim is to reach as wide an audience as possible and therefore the discretionary power set out in subsection 10 of section 19 is sufficient. Where local newspapers exist they will in practice be availed of. On that basis I am afraid I could not accept the amendment, though I would again acknowledge the constructive intention behind it.

I refer to Seanad amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 11. The proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 61 is not necessary and it could also prove to be problematic. The power of the council to consult with other public authorities or persons before advising the Minister, as provided for in section 22(8), is a formal statutory one and would be documented by the council as part of its general recording of its business. The proposed amendment would open up the possibility of legal challenges based on a claim of breach of the provision but at the same time would give the council no guidance as to what form such records should take, so introducing uncertainty and confusion into the process. I cannot accept this amendment.

On Dáil amendment No. 62, the core provision in section 24 is that the registered monuments owned by or in the guardianship of the Minister or a local authority are deemed to have special protection. In other words they will, as a matter of law, be automatically assigned the higher level of protection under the Bill without the administrative process for assigning such protection being gone through. This is an important strengthening of the protection afforded under the legislation and will ensure that the portfolio of important monuments in the care of the Minister and local authorities, which form a key heritage asset for communities, have the protection afforded them under the current legislation not only maintained but increased. This core provision is supplemented by a power on the part of the Minister or local authorities to publish lists of the monuments so deemed to have special protection. The amendment made in the Dáil introduced an important safeguard whereby a local authority will not be able to give a definitive statement regarding the extent of any particular such monument without the consent of the Minister. This will ensure that the expertise of the National Monuments Service is availed of before any such definitive statement is made, so protecting the monuments in question. In summary, Dáil amendment No. 62 is about strengthening the protection of monuments. On that basis, I cannot see any reason why it should be opposed and, having listened to my explanation, I hope that the Senators might consider withdrawing their proposed amendment.

As regards the proposed amendment to the Bill as it stands following Dáil amendment No. 115, I would like to note that the functions of elected members of a local authority are provided for in part 14 of the Local Government Act 2001. I do not consider this amendment to be necessary as the matter that it provides for is already a right that exists. There is no need to legislate for this and to do so could potentially jeopardise other rights and powers of elected members that are not inscribed in primary legislation.For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment.