Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 17, line 18, to delete "Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023" and substitute "Historic and Archaeological Heritage, and Monuments Act 2023".

I welcome the Minister of State. I acknowledge the presence of Senator Seery Kearney, who is a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where we discussed the Bill at great length. There are a lot of amendments and I will speak briefly on each one. I will set out the rationale for each amendment as I see it. I have been asked by Senator Higgins to also move and deal with her amendments. I think the Seanad office has been notified of that.

The rationale for amendment No. 1 is that what is proposed is a more appropriate name for the legislation and that it should be called the Historic and Archaeological Heritage, and Monuments Act. That is something Senator Kyne, a former Minister of State with responsibility in this area, suggested. That makes sense when one looks at the extent of the use of the word "monument" in the legislation. Senator Seery Kearney also indicated to me that it is a very good amendment. I took the advice, and I ran with it.

I will not speak on the issue at great length. We have an entire section devoted to the register of monuments and related provisions. There is special protection for certain registered monuments and provisions relating to works carried out on registered monuments, among others. The list would be a lot longer if we were to list all the various references to monuments in the Bill. I think the case stands. I look forward to the response of the Minister of State.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Boyhan for tabling this amendment. I raised this matter last week. I know the Minister of State said that it was not in his mind to change it. For continuity's sake the word "monuments" would be important. The original National Monuments Act was in 1930 so it would be right to have that continuity. Whoever is here in 2070 or 2080 when it might be time to amend things again would appreciate such continuity. The Title is something that has been with us for a long time. Growing up we talked about protected national monuments and protecting our national monuments and I think it would be fitting that the word "monuments" be included in the Title of the Bill.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The current Title of the Bill is advised by and agreed with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. It has been drafted to accurately reflect the broad content and scope of the Bill. Many elements of archaeological heritage such as monuments, archaeological objects and underwater cultural heritage are clearly provided for under the various parts of the Bill. The selection of one of these items for incorporation into the Title of the Bill might be construed as somehow lowering the relevance of the other, equally important elements of the archaeological heritage, notwithstanding the contributions from both Senators and I take on board the points they have made. I believe the new Title of the Bill better reflects the important and welcome innovations contained therein, moving us away from old terminology and setting out a new context for implementation. I do not consider it appropriate to specify any individual element or archaeological heritage and for this reason I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the Minister of State's response and given the amount of work we have to do here I will put the amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 19, to delete lines 13 and 14 and substitute the following:

“ “archaeological heritage” shall include structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objects, monuments of other kinds as well as their context, whether situated on land or under water;”

The rationale of the amendment is that the definition of our archaeological heritage that exists in the Bill is quite lacking. It defines archaeological heritage as "relevant things of archaeological interest and archeological objects". The new definition that I am proposing is what appears in the Valletta Convention on page 2. We will talk about this convention in some detail later on. Ireland is a signatory to the Valletta Convention. There is no controversy about it and therefore we are obliged to incorporate and embrace the ideals and aspirations of the convention, where possible. I do not think this is a big jump forward. It should be an easy win. Listing underwater structures and monuments is particularly significant because it will allow the Bill to have an effect on maritime law. I know this is an issue of great importance to the Minister of State.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The term "archaeological heritage" as drafted in the Bill and by making reference to the term "relevant things" provides for an extensive set of structures, sites, objects, deposits, constructions, features and wrecks. While acknowledging the importance of linking the Bill to the Valletta Convention, in this instance, using the term "archaeological heritage" as defined in Valletta would create several problems. For example, the version used in the Bill specifies that sites and structures, etc., must be of archaeological interest in order to be considered archaeological heritage. This condition is missing from the term used in the convention. I am satisfied that the items listed in the proposed amendment are all provided for under the definition used in this Bill and for this reason the proposed amendment is not considered necessary. I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that the Minister of State is telling the House that all of this is covered in the Valletta Convention. The alternative response I would have is for the Minister of State to come back with a Government amendment. The Minister of State does not believe a Government amendment is required. I thank the Minister of State.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 19, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“ “archaeological interest” means objects, sites, structures and other items associated with historic and cultural heritage;”.

The rationale behind this amendment is that the term "archaeological interest" appears frequently in the Bill but there is no clear definition of what this means. The term appears far more often than the word "Valletta", which only appears three times in the Bill. Article 5 of the Valletta Convention does make reference to "archaeological interest" so I feel it is necessary that this is defined.

This amendment aims to give greater clarity as to what is meant by "archaeological interest". We will talk about Valletta quite a bit throughout this process. One thing is very clear from reading the pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, and from the deliberations of the joint Oireachtas committee when we teased all of this out. There was a very heavy endorsement from the witnesses telling us of the significance of Valletta and if that was a preamble to this legislation it would cover an awful lot of it but that is not the case. That is somewhat disappointing. It is covered in our PLS report as well. I think there is some merit in this but again, if the Minister of State can convince me that this is all covered somewhere else and does not require a further amendment I have to accept that.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The term "archaeological heritage" is already provided for as part of the definition of archaeology in section 2. The existing definition is considered a more complete and comprehensive version for the purpose of this Bill than the version proposed under this amendment and for that reason I am not in a position to accept this amendment. While I note the Senator's points about Valletta it is the case that Valletta is given effect through this Bill. The number of times Valletta is referenced in the Bill does not mean that it is not given effect therein.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 to 9, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 26, line 27, after “artistic,” to insert “cultural,”.

The term "archaeological interest" appears frequently in the Bill but there is no clear definition of what this means. It is very obvious what the amendment is seeking to do so I await the Minister of State's response.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These amendments have been grouped together as they all relate to similar matters, mainly the incorporation of cultural interest into the Bill. Regarding prescribed monuments, the parameters for their definition are intentionally narrow. This contrasts to the parameters for registered monuments that are intentionally broad. The rationale for this derives from the intended purpose of each system. A prescribed monument must be easily definable given that corresponding provisions exist relating to the reporting of its discovery and it is an offence not to do so. Any ambiguity associated with the definition could threaten the operation of the provisions relating to prescribed monuments which have been drafted for very specific reasons.

The concept of prescribed monuments is a core element of the Bill that will fundamentally bolster the legal protection afforded to archaeological sites. The extensiveness of the term "cultural interest" could pose serious difficulties when placing obligations on members of the public to report finds of prescribed monuments. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept the addition of cultural interest into the scope of the prescribed monuments system.

Regarding the proposed amendment to section 14, it is unlikely that the addition of cultural interest to the list of matters to be take into consideration when entering something into the register of monuments would achieve what Senator Higgins may wish to achieve. The definition of "relevant interest" does not include things of cultural interest in the first instance. For this reason, the addition of "cultural interest" into section 14(7) will be largely irrelevant as things of solely cultural interest will already have been removed from the scope.

Regarding the addition of "archaeological value" and "historic value", etc., in the absence of any clarity as to how the reference to "value" would differ from "to the interest test" referred to in section 14(7)(a), the amendment would introduce major uncertainty and potentially open the door to legal challenges to entries into the register. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

What I would like to propose, is to take a step back, to carry out a further review of the term "relevant interest" in order to determine what changes might come about if the term included, "cultural interest". While this matter has already been reviewed upon the receipt of the pre-legislative scrutiny report and a decision was made not to include "cultural interest" in the Bill, I am open to exploring this matter again. It is important to note that the possible changes resulting from the addition of "cultural interest" may have unforeseen consequences at an operational level and would in any event require a comprehensive review of the Bill in order to determine what consequential legislative amendments may also be required.If it is determined that the scope of relevant interests can be broadened to include cultural interests, I commit to proposing the required amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair response. I would like to reference the Faro Convention. I think we discussed this before. It deals with cultural heritage. I do not think we are signatories to the Faro Convention. There will be a lot of issues around that, and there will be cost factors and legal and other obligations. However, I ask the Minister of State to take that on board and ask his officials to look at the Faro Convention. The only reason I know about the Faro Convention is that last week I was stopped, just a few doors down from this building, by people who were with the Minister of State at the launch of his heritage plan. When I told them I did not know about the Faro Convention, they suggested I take a look at it. They told me of its significance. These are people who sit on the Heritage Council, and who are involved in national policy. These are academics, and they told me what a really important document it is. It should be a future aspiration of this country to be a signatory to it, as with the Barcelona declaration and the Valletta declaration. I presume the Faro Convention is from Portugal. I respectfully ask, even though the Minister of State said it lies beyond the parameters of this legislation, that he acknowledge its significance and importance, as I do. I ask that his officials look at it so we might bring forward a parallel discussion in the future about cultural heritage.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 29, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“Valletta Convention

3. (1) Nothing in this Act shall violate the definitions, principles and requirements outlined in the Valletta Convention of which Ireland is signatory.

(2) The Minister shall be required to ensure the Valletta Convention is adhered to when implementing the Act.”.

This is one of the most important amendments in my name. This relates to the Valletta Convention. Ireland is a signatory to the Valletta Convention, yet there is very little mention of the Valletta Convention in this Bill. It is not about mentioning a word and doing a tick box exercise. However, it should both permeate and be central to this important legislation. We heard about the importance of this Bill at its pre-legislative scrutiny. I mentioned this to a number of people, including Dr. Mark Clinton, who worked in the National Museum, and other renowned experts in this area. They told me that if we could do only one thing we should have the principles of the Valletta Convention embedded at the heart of this legislation. It will save writing reams and books about the Valletta Convention. It is there for everyone to see. One can Google it and see it for oneself. Ireland is a signatory and is fully supportive of it. It is very significant. That is the reason I am pushing Valletta. The Bill contains comprehensive definitions and we spoke about that. An Taisce was in the Oireachtas recently and spoke about the importance and significance of the Valletta Convention. It said it should be incorporated and implemented into the proposed legislation, so that the enhanced legal protection and potential penalties could be seriously offset and largely avoid the notification of relevant parties. It went on to say that the benefits would be enormous. Valletta clearly sets out the scope and obligations and one imagines it would definitely form part of the central piece of legislation.

We should have the Valletta Convention in this Bill. I will insist upon it. The Minister of State might not agree with it, and there will be other days to discuss this, but I want to hear his initial response.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the Minister responds, I welcome the students from Mercy Secondary School, Kilbeggan, County Westmeath, who are guests of the Minister for State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Peter Burke. I welcome the students and their teachers to Leinster House. Tá fíor-fháilte roimh gach duine.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh na daltaí agus na múinteoirí freisin.

It is difficult to see the necessity of this proposed amendment. The Bill has been purposely designed to ensure the relevant aspects of Valletta are given effect. These are supporting finds of archaeological heritage, protection of monuments or the prevention of illicit excavations. Following the pre-legislative scrutiny the Long Title of the Bill has been amended to state that one of the purposes of the Bill is to give further effect to the Valletta Convention. In addition, the Bill specifically requires licensing authorities to adhere to Valletta when granting or refusing to grant a licence under the Bill. I am of the view that it is self-evident that nothing in the Bill violates the Valletta Convention. For this reason, I do not consider the proposed amendment to be necessary and I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said before, we are very lucky at this juncture to have Deputy Noonan as our Minister of State with responsibility for heritage. Nobody doubts his commitment and his capacity in that area. However, he will not always be Minister of State. This is a legacy issue. It is a really important piece that needs to be bedded down. I say this respectfully to the Minister of State. I have great admiration for his commitment to heritage. However, what is this amendment saying? It is saying nothing in this Act shall violate the definitions, principles and requirements outlined in the Valletta Convention, of which Ireland is a signatory. He has accepted that Ireland is a signatory. That is all this amendment is seeking to do. Therefore, when I hear a Minister stand up and say it is sort of there or it is in it, I think we need to have double guarantees. Let us be sure that nobody can undermine the principles of the Valletta Convention at any future time. That is what I am seeking to do.

The second part of that amendment states that, "the Minister shall be required to ensure the Valletta Convention is adhered to when implementing the Act." That applies to whoever the Minister happens to be at any particular time. That is very simple. I really have a difficulty with a Minister of State saying he has a difficulty with those two simple asks. An alarm bell is ringing that there may be a case where we have to deviate from Valletta. I do not believe we should be deviating from something to which we are absolute signatories. This is huge across the European Union. One of the things we have in common is that every member of the Union is signed up to the Valletta Convention.

I would like for this to be resolved, if not today, then on the next Stage. The Minister of State might go away and think about it, or see if there is any way we can strengthen the Valletta Convention. It does not need to be in the way I am suggesting. There may be a better way. However, all of the professional people with whom I have spoken told me loud and clear that if we were to do nothing else today but solidly embed the Valletta Convention and its principles and objectives into this Bill, it would be a really good day's work. I would like to be able to go away and say we have done that. I think we can do it.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that the Senator has given such consideration to this. That is really important. However, I have been clear in my response that I am absolutely certain the Bill will require licensing authorities to adhere to Valletta. There is nothing in this Bill that violates the objectives of the Valletta Convention. That is its strength. The Bill is strong enough to adhere to that, regardless of who is in the Minister of State position in future Governments. The Bill has strength in relation to the Valletta Convention. I hope I can give the Senator my assurance in that regard.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State can give me his assurances, but I will not be here in a few years' time. The Minister of State may not be here. The issue is that this is about legacy and legislation. There were Ministers in the Custom House in the past who were not great friends of heritage. Of course, we have the rollout of the national development plan. I do not want to impede our national development plan, because I believe there are clear principles set down in Valletta to deal with all of those unforeseen circumstances. We live in an economy and we live in a society. There are many facets to our country and our world. However, this is a really important one. I am happy to withdraw this amendment with the right to resubmit it on the next Stage. At that stage I will clearly have a lot more work to do to garner support from external bodies and get them to engage with the Minister of State's Department. However, I ask him to reread and look again at the rationale, reasoning and resistance to this from his officials. I think that is where he might find the answer.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

During the debate on the Bill, we raised an issue about using newspapers as the format for notifications. Is that the most, or the only, appropriate means of flagging it with the public, given the changing nature of things and the prevalence of social media? I want clarity on that point, if the Minister of State would not mind providing it.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back to the Senator on that point. However, I think it is the appropriate format. I can come back to her with a more comprehensive answer.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 34, line 18, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

This amendment seeks to amend section 12(1) by deleting that there "may" be a class of relevant things which falls into the definition of "relevant things" and replacing it with the word "shall". This amendment seeks to ensure there is absolute certainty that the powers regarding prescribed monuments will be used.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The use of the word "may" here is intentional and is considered necessary from a drafting point of view. Using the word "shall" could jeopardise the proposed system of prescribed monuments by way of an interpretation that all possible classes of relevant things must be prescribed. This could lead to legal challenges to the regulations made on the basis that the Minister had not gone far enough in terms of the classes to be prescribed. The concept of prescribed monuments is a fundamental element of the Bill and provides a major strengthening of the legal protection afforded to archaeological sites whereby such sites are protected without the need for formal designation or registration. It would not be possible to commence Part 2 without introducing prescribed monuments regulations. The Senator can rest assured that officials in my Department have already commenced work on the preparation of draft regulations for submission to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister of State clarify a point? If this amendment were to be accepted, what impediment would it cause the Bill? The Minister of State said something I did not catch.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said, the use of the word "shall" could jeopardise the proposed system of prescribed monuments by way of an interpretation that all possible classes of relevant things must be prescribed. It could lead to legal challenges to the regulations made on the basis that the Minister may not have gone far enough in terms of the classes of monuments prescribed.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 34, line 24, after “archaeological” to insert “or cultural”.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two points to make on the section that the Minister of State may be able to clarify. I will give him a chance to put a response on the record, and if we are not happy with the explanation, we might submit amendments in the Dáil. The first is a matter I raised on Second Stage about local authorities not being given the powers to prescribe monuments. We gave the example of The O'Rahilly House, which Dublin City Council unanimously wanted to protect and yet that decision was overruled. Why are local authorities not being given the powers to prescribe monuments?

The second issue is around wrecks. Any wrecks, defined as vessels, ships, aeroplanes etc., once they over 100 years old are worthy of automatic protection. Why does that protection not extend to buildings? What is the rationale for protecting vessels that are over 100 years old but not protecting buildings of that age?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On buildings specifically, there is a mechanism within local authorities, using the record of protected structures, to protect buildings. It is a different basis for protection and the power lies as a reserved function of local authority members. Usually, those building protections come about as recommendations from the national inventory of architectural heritage. That is the mechanism. Local authority members have the power to add or remove buildings from the record of protected structures.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do local authorities have the power to add to those records? The Minister of State said they have the powers to remove them.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They also have the power to add to the records.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the situation in respect of vessels?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A different sort of protection applies to wrecks. This Bill forms a separate basis for protection. For local authorities and the record of protected structures, there are different mechanisms to prescribe protection.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure if we are at cross purposes. My question is why the figure of 100 years is used to protect vessels. Once ships or aeroplanes are 100 years old, they are worthy of protection but buildings of the same age are not.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Buildings are worthy of protection. Buildings that are over 100 years old are routinely put onto the record of protected structures by local authorities.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That does not happen automatically.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pardon?

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking why there is automatic protection for vessels in the Bill when there is not automatic protection for buildings over 100 years old.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is probably confusing the terms of this Bill and the powers of local authorities and elected members to place buildings on a record of protected structures. That is a reserved function of elected members. It is a completely different process.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I raised this matter last week. Is the Minister of State happy with the terms of the definition of the word "thing" as it relates to a number of sections, including section 13. For example, section 13(10) states:

Subsection (6)shall not place the Minister under any obligation to cause a thing the subject of a return referred to in subsection (4)(a), or the site of the thing, to be inspected if the Minister is of the opinion that— (a) the thing is not a thing to which this section applies...

The meaning of "relevant things" is clarified on page 26 of the Bill but the definition of "thing" is not unless I just cannot see it. For legal clarity, is the Minister of State happy there is an understanding of what "thing" means?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am. It is clearly defined in the Bill. We discussed the matter on Second Stage. We are satisfied.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 38, line 28, after “historic” to insert “, cultural”.

In light of what the Minister of State said earlier, I will withdraw the amendment with the right to re-enter.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 38, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: “(b) the archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic, cultural or traditional value of the monument or thing;”.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 40, line 20, after “subsection (2)” to insert “and (3)”.

This amendment has been tabled to ensure drafting consistency if amendment No. 11 is accepted.

Amendment No. 11 seeks to provide in section 17 that where the Minister seeks to delete particulars entered into the register under subsection (1), he or she must first seek the approval of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Throughout the pre-legislative process, there was much discussion of the powers given to the Minister of State or the Minister under this Bill. Later amendments seek to provide consultation with civil society. Obviously, there should be provision for consultation with local authorities but the Oireachtas must also have some role in these discussions. There must be engagement with the Oireachtas. That is where the amendments are coming from.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am uncertain as to the suitability of drawing an Oireachtas joint committee directly into the implementation of the enacted Bill. There may be a misinterpretation here regarding the deletion of particulars from the register of monuments. Examples of the particulars referred to in section 17 could include landowners' information, geographical areas, technical details or descriptions of monuments.Given that there could be in excess of 180,000 registered monuments, a requirement to seek approval from the joint committee every time a particular monument in the register is deleted is not considered workable. Having to do so would seriously affect the ability to maintain and update a register of monuments. For this reason, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 40, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following: "(3) Where the Minister seeks to delete particulars entered in the Register under subsection (1), he or she must first seek the approval of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.".

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 12 to 14, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 40, line 34, to delete "and".

Amendment No. 12 is a technical amendment to make the text of the Bill grammatically consistent in the event that either amendment No. 13 or amendment No. 14 is accepted. Amendment No. 13 seeks to insert a requirement in section 17(5) that where the Minister is minded to take action which would cause a registered monument to cease to be a registered monument the Minister would be required to consult with the National Museum of Ireland. This amendment is relatively simple but it would be of major value to the legal process in the context of the protection of our archaeological heritage.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to insert a requirement in section 17(5) that were the Minister of the day minded to take an action that would cause a registered monument to cease to be a registered monument, he or she would be required to consult with An Taisce. We know that An Taisce will be a prescribed body anyway. As with amendment No. 13, the change proposed is minor but it would be of enormous benefit in terms of ensuring there is appropriate oversight in this regard.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to extend the consultation requirements beyond what is being introduced in the aftermath of the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations. Under the National Monuments Act, consultation has always been with a statutory advisory council and this should remain the position under the Bill. If the requirement to do so arises, and that is certainly not a given, I have every confidence in the Heritage Council and its ability to carry out its role in this regard effectively. If Senator Boyhan considers it necessary, I can commit to reviewing the operation of the provision, perhaps after a period of three to five years, and to report on its operation and effectiveness.

Senator Boylan referred to the need to publish a section 9 notice in a national newspaper. This will only apply where landowners cannot be identified or located. It only applies in the context of the application of special protection to a monument.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 40, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

"(b) consult with the National Museum of Ireland to seek its views (if any) on the action,".

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 40, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

"(b) consult with An Taisce to seek its views (if any) on the action,".

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take this opportunity to welcome the second group from the Mercy Secondary School who are with us in the Gallery.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 41, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: "Planning Authority’s Record of Protected Structures

19.(1) It will be a requirement to include the register of monuments in the city and county development plans in an appendix.

(2) Councils or local authorities shall be required to include an index of the register of monuments in city and county development plans.

(3) Any record should be subject to all the same terms outlined in sections 17 and 18.

I made an error in the wording. I am not too sure whether the Minister of State will agree to the amendment, which should refer to the planning authority's record of monuments rather than its record of protected structures. That is governed under the Planning and Development Acts and the local authorities.

The amendment proposes a requirement to include the register of protected monuments in an appendix of the city and county development plans. To illustrate, I have in my hand the appendix of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. It is not in the main written statement but in the appendix. This is because it can change. Every county development plan contains an appendix; it is no big thing. In separate parts of the appendix are listed the record of protected structures and the record of monuments. This is very helpful. It sets out the list of protected monuments and places. It also sets out the map number in the county development plan and the location. It further sets out the record of monuments and places reference numbers and the classification.

In many cases, these monuments are also protected structures. This means that they have dual protection. I do not know if the Minister of State has a long-term plan to separate them. There is a lot of merit in a national monument also being a protected structure. I am thinking of some of the little castles and forts in places such as Skibbereen. There is one in Waterford, on a corner opposite a certain hotel. Many of these structures are functional buildings. They are monuments but they are also protected structures. There are also the cathedrals in Dublin. Many of them are functional, which is fantastic.

I put forward the amendment because there is no onus on local authorities to include the information to which I refer. It is way beyond their capacity and expertise. This is a specific area of archaeology. Every county development plan contains these lists. There are several merits to this. One is that the lists are definitive and another is that the codes are listed in the development plan map. What is a city and county development plan map? It is a legitimate expectation of how the county will develop over a period of five to six years, and possibly ten years if this change is introduced. A member of the public can look at the 16 or 17 maps on which these monuments are identified as being of archaeological interest. That is very important.

Inclusion of the relevant information on these maps would be particularly informative for the farming community and people seeking to buy land because they would be able to identify monuments on said land. Some archaeological sites are not visible to the eye. This way of operating has served local authorities for years. If the Minister of State cannot accept this amendment to the primary legislation but agrees with the principle of it, which I believe he does, then perhaps what I am suggesting could be done by way of regulation instead of. It is important to do this. There are 31 local authorities and 31 development plans. It is important that sites of archaeological interest are included on the maps. It is also important to have a definitive list for the public. Who is the greatest guardian of our archaeology and heritage? It is the public. It is important that people see things, but they have to know that they are there in the first place.

We have had much discussion on the planning and development legislation, heritage and protected cultural structures. We need to build up layers of data in order to inform both our national development plan and conservation practices. We have many local authorities and State organisations doing different things. We need to bring everything together. With new technology, we should be able to layer down. Recently, I went through the layers of information relating to an 1860s property I am involved with . It was quite interesting to see the evolution of its development.

This is an important amendment. The city and county managers have no difficulty with it. Sitting local authority members think it is important. Archaeological societies and historical societies think it is wonderful. It would make it real for local communities if they could see these important structures and places on maps and in inventories or indexes relating to them.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under section 167, guidelines can be issued to local authorities in respect of their dealings with historic heritage in the course of the performance of their functions. Many local authorities already list monuments on the maps attached to their development plans, as Senator Boyhan has shown. I can offer a commitment today that guidelines issued to local authorities will include a recommendation that registered monuments are to feature on development plan maps. I will also request that the departmental officials continue their good engagement with local authorities to help ensure that the necessary data is made available in order that registered monuments can be featured on development plan maps. Senator Boyhan is correct that the data is vital. Being able to layer the maps and have the data, be it from natural or archaeological heritage, is very important.

It is important to note and welcome the specific references to the National Monuments Acts in the forthcoming planning and development Bill. My intention would be to update these references to registered monuments in the Bill before the House if it is enacted before the planning and development Bill. These two measures will address Senator Boyhan's wish to see development maps updated to include information on registered monuments. I hope he will consider this to be a suitable way to progress the matter. We see it as guidance rather than as part of primary legislation.We see that as much more effective and it offers a degree of flexibility, as the Senator said. If the Planning and Development Bill 2022 is passed, we could see development plans extend to ten years. It should also be noted that technology will change over time in terms of how maps will appear. It is critically important to have that degree of flexibility.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State. What he is offering is great in terms of regulation. I would like to have seen it in primary legislation because that is there forever. I am talking about legacy, not a different Minister coming in in a few years with a different attitude or emphasis. He is offering regulation. He has given a commitment that he will endeavour to do it. It needs to be stronger than recommending. We need to compel them. We should be able to find common ground on it. I am accepting in good faith what the Minister of State is saying, but I ask him to give it some impetus. He may need to engage with the County and City Management Association, CCMA, about facilities and factors. Long term, this is another layer in the data and I accept the Minister of State's commitment to the regulations. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis of his promise. I am not seeking to re-enter it. I accept his response.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 41, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:

“Facilitating Landowners

19. Regulations set up by the Department should facilitate any prospective landowner in complying with any of the sections listed in this Act.”.

This amendment seeks to facilitate landowners because I think they are an important part of this. If we are going to protect our archaeology and historic heritage we must work with everybody. It is as simple as that.I am conscious of regulations. The regulations set up by the Department should facilitate any prospective landowner in complying with any of the sections in this Bill. The rationale for this amendment is outlined in the Bill digest. We have the digest and the Minister of State has gone through it, so I will not quote from it extensively. I thank the Library and Research Service for its amazing work on this Bill. It is fantastic, supportive and of great assistance to parliamentarians when they are navigating legislation. I have found this particular digest from the Library and Research Service exceptionally helpful. I could not have navigated this Bill without its background work and support, which I wish to acknowledge.

The Bill digest states automatic entry into the planning authority's record of protected structures, RPS would place unworkable obligations on landowners given the nature and condition of many structures to be included in the Register of Monuments, such as ruined medieval buildings. Failure to address this issue means that any register is likely to be incomplete. Overall, we would not be protecting our cultural heritage in any way. The Minister of State touched on cultural heritage. That could be an issue as regards refusing to assist landowners. Landowners need assistance to navigate the challenges, potential and importance of their lands. A counter-argument may be that this will be covered by the Planning and Development Bill 2022. I note with interest there is a suggestion in the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023 pre-legislative scrutiny, in which recommendation No. 2 reads: "...That the Bill provide for the automatic entry into a planning authority’s Record of Protected Structures for those prescribed ..." The response from the Library and Research Service Bill digest states:

The Department supports the principal purpose of this recommendation [it supports the principle of the recommendations I am setting out], the incorporation of registered monuments into development plans, however the approach proposed to achieve this purpose is not favoured as it is not compatible with the role of local authorities in the operation of the Record of Protected Structure, RPS. Regarding the maintenance duties arising for owners of structures listed in the RPS, the suggested approach would place unworkable obligations on landowners [which I referred to] given the nature and condition of many structures to be included in the Register of Monuments.

I thought this was interesting and helpful and demonstrates how helpful the Library and Research Service is. It says in its response:

Alternatively an amendment to, or a revision of, Section 10 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as provided for under section 50(2)(d) and (e) of the recently published draft Planning and Development Bill 2022, can be made in order to ensure that the protection of registered monuments is listed as an objective in county development plans. The mandatory objective provisions relating to development plans will be extensively revised ...

That is a suggestion the Minister of State may examine. It is on page 21 of the Bill digest, where it states there is potentially an opportunity in the Planning and Development Act 2022. I suggest the officials take that on board. I too will be proactive. I am not going to drop it. There is the potential to address this issue through the Planning and Development Bill 2022, which I know is also the Minister of State's Department. We could perhaps collaborate and somehow see if that can be facilitated. That is a suggestion, not by me, but in terms of a response to the pre-legislative scrutiny.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with the Senator and thank him for his kind remarks about the Library and Research Service. They are an extraordinary bunch of people who assist us as parliamentarians. I thank the Senator for giving them a well-deserved shout out.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under section 211, provisions have been introduced which enable the Minister to set out the manner in which functions under the Bill are to be performed and to provide practical guidance on how to comply with any provision of the enacted Bill. These codes of practice will be established following consultation and after consideration of representations received as part of that consultation. The codes will be formal documents published inIris Oifigiúiland available on the Department's website. This is a more appropriate, flexible and effective route compared to the introduction of regulations. For these reasons, I am not in a position to support the introduction of regulations to facilitate prospective landowners in complying with the enacted Bill. In response to the Senator, we will ask the official to look into the issue he raised in relation to the Planning and Development Bill 2022.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear what the Minister of State is saying. It was one of the only two issues raised in relation to all of the pre-legislative recommendations. I ask that the Minister of State's Department works with something in mind and keep us informed. We are happy to move them here as well but it would be helpful. It is something I am going to bring back to the committee. There is something in that we may be able to feed in ourselves on the committee. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 50, to delete lines 15 to 29.

I withdraw the amendment with the right to re-enter it on Report Stage..

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 51, to delete lines 25 to 39, and in page 52, to delete lines 1 to 3.

I withdraw the amendment with the right to re-enter it on Report Stage..

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed. The section is opposed by Senator Higgins.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 70, to delete line 39, and in page 71, to delete lines 1 to 7.

I withdraw the amendment with the right to re-enter it on Report Stage.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 71, to delete lines 8 to 17.

I withdraw the amendment with the right to re-enter.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 71, line 33, to delete “8 weeks” and substitute “12 weeks”.

This amendment is relatively simple in that it seeks to extend the period under subsection (7) in which leave for judicial review in respect of the Act referred to may be sought from eight weeks to 12 weeks. The extension is proposed in order to facilitate greater access to justice for members of the public and civil society seeking to protect our historic and archaeological heritage.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sections 41 and 42 are important provisions relating to judicial review and efforts have been made to align the relevant provisions of the Bill to those already in law. Subsection (2) provides that the validity of an act done in performance of a function under Chapter 6 or the validity of a licence granted in relation to a matter in Chapter 6 for which an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required is questioned by way of judicial review. This will not prevent judicial reviews of other provisions.

I consider subsection (3) a standard provision in relation to judicial review . What is provided under the Bill proposedly mirrors the provisions in place under the Planning and Development Act. This is to ensure the Bill is aligned to statutory codes already in operation. Similarly, the timeframes specified under section 41 are purposely aligned to those in place under the Planning and Development Act. The eight-week period seeks to prevent a situation arising where extensive works carried out in advance of the application for judicial review. Importantly, if there is good reason to extend this timeframe, subsection (9) enables the High Court to do so.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I note the Minister of State’s response and will press the amendment.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 71, line 36, to delete “8 weeks” and substitute “12 weeks”.

I withdraw the amendment with the right to re-enter.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment was suggested in observations received from the Minister for Transport, who advised that a harbour authority no longer exists as a statutory entity and the Harbour Acts of 1946 to 2005 were repealed in respect of each of the State commercial port companies upon their establishment as a company.

Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to comment on the section just so I have leave to submit amendments on Report Stage. We are concerned about the language in:

A person shall not question the validity of-

(a) An act done by the Minister[...].

That seems to prohibit opposition. We wanted to put that on the record and reserve the right to introduce amendments on Report Stage.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Chapter 11 of Part 2 of the Bill provides for several transitional provisions relating to the transfer of a wide range of monuments from ownership arrangements under the existing enactments to those established under the Bill. On review, it has been noted that section 62 is not a transitional provision and in order to ensure that its applicability is not somehow limited, it is proposed to move section 62 under its own chapter.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 28 to 31, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendments are introduced to avoid problems relating to monument ownership, and so that the term “ownership” as used in Chapter 15 of Part 2 of the Bill is construed to include any right, title, or interest acquired pursuant to subsection (3) of section 51. This will provide the Minister and local authorities with flexibility about the arrangements they can enter into in order to establish monuments as national monuments in their ownership. It will also remove any risk that the generally applicable definition of “owner” as set out in section 2 of the Bill might limit such flexibility.

The addition of a reference to section 78 in section 74 reflects the proposed amendment to section 78 so as to provide a mechanism for resolving cases where both the Minister and a local authority might claim sufficient legal interest in a monument as to be its owner for the purposes of the Bill. A situation could arise where the Minister and a local authority are both considered owners of a national monument, for example, in circumstances where a national monument owned by the Minister is leased to a local authority.

The ownership of a national monument determines a range of subsequent requirements and obligations. It is important to introduce a mechanism whereby an agreement can be reached as to who has ownership of a national monument, thereby confirming any subsequent matters, such as responsibility for the day-to-day management of the monument.

Finally, the amendment to section 76 is a technical amendment to correct a grammatical error.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek clarity from the Minister of State. This relates to where, in relation to a national monument, a question arises about ownership between the Minister and local authorities. It is where there is conflict "between the Minister and a local authority as to which of them is the relevant authority in relation to that monument". There are issues there. There is reference to consulting the authority and commissioners on the question and having regard to their views. Will the Minister of State tease that out for me? This concerns where there is a dispute over the ownership of a monument between the Minister and the local authority. What is the basis of Government amendment No. 31?

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been put into the Bill in case a situation arises where a Minister and local authority are both considered owners of a monument.There might be circumstances where a monument owned by the Minister is leased to a local authority. That is where the issue of ownership could arise. It is unlikely, but it is important to have a provision in the Bill for that eventuality. The ownership issue then determines a range of subsequent requirements and obligations in terms of maintenance and day-to-day management of a monument. It is important to reflect that in the Bill.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To follow on, there may be a dispute. There could be circumstances where there might be a joint ownership arrangement or agreement in place but then, of course, there are financial implications of that and associated requirements. It will not all be dealt with in regulations or something else. It is an important issue.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can think of six or seven of these historic monuments in my own locality within five minutes of my house. No one seems to be taking responsibility unless somebody rings up and complains. The OPW sometimes steps in. The local authority does it. It is not obliged to do it and it might not have any status, but it does it because it is in the heart of a community. It is an area that we may need to look at another time. Let us not waste too much time. However, there is a concern around these monuments where, shall we say, there is no great certainty. Historically, someone cleans them and maintains them, but that does not necessarily mean they are the owner. Sometimes the local authorities do not know of their responsibilities either. I just want to flag that to the Minister of State.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would agree in the sense that it is important to have better clarity around that. Generally, local agreements on maintenance and upkeep of day-to-day management issues can be resolved at a local level. I note and take on board the points the Senator made on that issue.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Bill provides for consultation with members of the public regarding the nomination of world heritage property in the State. Current best practice, as set out in the strategic objectives of the World Heritage Committee and the 2021 operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, calls for the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders in the management and protection of world heritage properties. This amendment provides for consultation on existing world heritage properties. This will enable the Minister to consult with members of the public and such other persons as considered appropriate when considering matters relating to world heritage property.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the world heritage properties and the list, that is clearly prestigious. It is something we all want to be on and support in terms of our heritage, monuments and places. I know there are always applicants and a process to go through to get on it. It can take a long time. If it is possible at some stage, could we get a copy of the world heritage list and the applicants – the people waiting – to go on that list? Perhaps at some stage the Minister of State could do that. That would be helpful.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. We would be more than happy to provide a briefing document to Members on the tentative list. Absolutely.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and may discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under section 104 of the Bill, the board of the National Museum may designate a site where an archaeological object may be placed for safekeeping. While the period that an object could be stored was originally set at 12 months, it has been determined that there are practical reasons why certain objects may need to remain in storage for a longer period. For example, waterlogged wood from the sea or inland waterways usually needs to remain fully submerged pending conservation works and these works may take longer than 12 months to be completed. In addition, the capacity for conservation of the National Museum is, of course, limited by the number of skilled staff available to carry out this specialised work. It is essential that adequate time be provided to ensure an orderly reception and conservation of important artefacts. A three-year period for temporary safekeeping is considered a more appropriate timeframe and, in many cases, will result in better preserved and documented collections that can ultimately be of greater value to the public who access archaeological knowledge derived from the National Museum’s collections.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 37 to 39, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Pre-existing internal safeguards within the museum control the approval of reward amounts to finders of archaeological objects. Rewards are proposed by a relevant curator and the archaeologist dealing with the acquisition of the object. The awards are then subject to approval by the keeper of Irish antiquities. For rewards valued above €10,000, the keeper must in turn seek approval from the head of collections or from the director of the museum. In each instance, a written justification of the amount of the finder’s reward must be presented and this is generally benchmarked relative to recent rewards for similar object types. The curator must consider other factors, including criteria specified in the National Monuments Acts, which are replicated under the Bill.

An analysis of recent data showed that 84% of rewards processed by the museum are less than €1,000, while 12% of awards fall between €1,000 and €25,000. Just 4% of awards are over €25,000. An ability to be responsive to members of the public regarding their cultural heritage is an important element of growing goodwill and engagement with local communities.

It is not the intention of the Bill to impose significant time delays on relatively minor awards. Therefore, this amendment proposes to increase, from €1,000 to €25,000, the discretion permitted to the board of the museum regarding the payment of rewards before the approval of the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media and the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform is required.

Over time, the baseline figure of €25,000 may need to be adjusted upwards and provision is made to permit the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to increase that amount by way of regulations made under the enacted Bill.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 40 to 42, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment updates the list of objects the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media must have regard to when prescribing classes of objects for the purposes of the 1970 UNESCO convention. This is to ensure that the most recent European legislation relating to the cultural goods is taken into consideration.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This relates to cultural objects. We had a problem earlier in the context of how broadly we consider culture. What we are discussing here is clearly an EU regulation. We have to be very grateful to the EU, particularly in the context of heritage protection and environmental protection. Clearly, it is EU Regulation No. 2019/880 that is being transposed in the legislation. I welcome that; it is important. So many times we have had to go outside our own country, although Ireland is a member of the Union anyway. Those are the benefits of being in the Union. I want to make the point that this is why I put such emphasis on the Valletta Convention, to which all EU members states are signatories. I just wanted to make that point, and to thank the Minister of State.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 43 to 45, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment to subsection (1)(d) is proposed in order to clarify that conducting underwater searches for a relevant thing of archaeological interest that is not a prescribed monument is a licensable activity. This is to avoid a situation where a person might argue that unauthorised underwater searches for relevant things of archaeological interest that are not prescribed monuments are permitted under law. Similarly, the purpose of the amendment to subsection (1)(f) is to avoid a situation where a person might argue that the unauthorised use of a detection device for searching for relevant things of archaeological interest that are not prescribed monuments is permitted under law.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 44 and 48 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These technical amendments provide that contraventions of all offences relating to archaeological objects under Part 4 can be subject to enforcement notices issued by the National Museum of Ireland. They also correct a drafting issue in section 159 whereby a reference to “subsection 3” is updated to read “this subsection”.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 47:

In page 147, after line 39, to insert the following:

“Report on alignment of development with protection and conservation

169.The Minister shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining a review of the proposals/objectives within the National Development Plan and their consistency with-

(a) the protection and conservation of built archaeological heritage, including ringforts and their surroundings,

(b) the protection and conservation of natural archaeological heritage,

(c) the protection and conservation of national monuments and prescribed monuments, and

(d) the need to prevent the release of embodied carbon and the role of natural and built heritage in climate action.”.

I am moving this amendment on behalf of Senator Higgins. The amendment is fairly self-explanatory. The rationale is that we know from the 2004 amendment to the National Monuments Act that there was a large amount of destruction of our archaeological heritage and we have seen the impact that development can have when not cognisant of the protection and conservation of our built and natural heritage. For example, the most recent survey on the destruction of archaeological sites carried out by the Heritage Council in 2001, which surveyed 1.4% of all known monuments in the State, found that 34% of ringforts had been destroyed since the first record of the ordnance surveys beginning in the 1820s. The rate of destruction increased over decades, reaching 6.5% in the late 1990s. We need to ensure that such destruction is halted and the objectives of the national development plan are aligned with archaeological conservation, which we touched on earlier. Both issues are important, which I acknowledge.

The point on embodied carbon comes back to our archaeological heritage yet again, and I know the Minister of State is fully aware of and committed to all of this area. The paper by Andrew Potts, published by ICOMOS, warned that climate change is one of the most significant threats to people and their living environment, including, and importantly, our cultural heritage worldwide. The paper recommends that the continuous maintenance and sensitive adaptive reuse of existing and historic buildings avoids energy-intensive new construction and land use, promotes waste avoidance and preserves embodied carbon that would be released from demolition. We are looking at how we can utilise our cultural and architectural heritage for climate action in line with sustainable development. That is the rationale behind this amendment.