Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is very welcome. It is a pleasure, as always.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

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

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 7 is a technical amendment which just allows for the placing of amendment No. 8.

Amendment No. 8 seeks to provide that, in section 17 of the Bill, where the Minister seeks to delete particulars which have been entered in the register under subsection (1), and where such a deletion would have the effect that a prescribed monument would cease to be considered as such, the Minister would first have to seek the views of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

Amendment No. 8 reflects the engagement the Minister of State had with me and Senator Boyhan on a Committee Stage amendment of mine. I have accepted the point and the argument the Minister of State made then, that is, that the particulars referred to in section 17 could include landowners' information, geographical areas, technical details or descriptions of monuments. Lots of information might get changed within a register. Amendment No. 8 is specific, clear and unambiguous that, effectively, the subsection applies only where a thing will cease to be a national monument by means of its removal from the register.

Throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny process the point was raised that an awful lot of the powers in this Bill are based on ministerial discretion. I know that this is an area the Minister of State cares a lot about, but a future Minister may not place the same value on our heritage. It is an issue that has been well documented. Amendment No. 8 seeks to strike something of a balance. At the moment there is not that balance in the Bill.

We have read out previously the definitions of intangible cultural heritage in speaking to the wider points. I appreciate the briefing the Minister of State gave me. I am sure we will have the opportunity to debate it. As for the definitions of archaeological heritage, in some areas our legislation goes further than the Valletta Convention but in others it does not go as far as it. We will come back to that later.

The key concern is that we know that rights of way, to give an example I have given before, are more evident in their being quashed and overturned than in new ones being instated. We know there were real concerns about the wildlife legislation previously proposed to these Houses, whereby de-designation was a lot easier and happened a lot quicker than designation. The concern here is that the legislation may provide for prescribed monuments to cease to be considered as such almost by virtue of the Minister's will or pen, without the safeguard of, for example, the Oireachtas joint committee's engagement on that.

People have different interests. It is not just that some Ministers love heritage and some do not. There will be Ministers who are au faitwith architectural heritage but may not have much interest in cultural or environmental heritage. Having input from the Oireachtas joint committee allows for diverse perspectives, not just diverse political perspectives but also diverse expertises, that might be on that committee to offer useful input to a Minister who is thinking of removing protection, effectively, from a monument and removing its status as a prescribed monument. There may be someone on that committee who will bring a historical sense, a cultural sense or even an archaeological sense that might be missing in a particular Minister. That is a useful resource for a Minister when making such an important decision.

I hope the Minister of State will consider inclusion of amendment No. 8. As I said, amendment No. 7 is just technical.

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

With your indulgence, Chair, I will follow up on some issues raised at our last session, on 22 March, by way of assistance, before responding to the proposed amendments.I thank Senators for the useful engagement and worthwhile discussions on some of the important matters the Bill intends to provide for. While the text of the proposed amendments will always provide a good basis for our debate in the Chamber, it is sometimes the discussions themselves on the proposed amendments that can provide the most value. On reflection following last week's discussion, I propose a set of measures that I hope Senators welcome.

I will reaffirm the position that the Valletta Convention is intrinsically enshrined in the Bill and that nothing in the Bill conflicts with the convention. In this regard, I refer Senators to a document the Department has provided. I have a copy and I believe it has been sent out to all Senators. It sets out article by article how each provision of the Valletta Convention is implemented. This is done through the Bill or by other legislation such as the Planning and Development Act that gives effect to the convention. Some matters in the convention do not require legislation to be introduced as they are provided for by administrative means instead.

I will not take time going through the document in detail as it is quite detailed but a number of aspects are worth highlighting in particular. Looking at the definition of "archaeological heritage" contained in the Bill, it is at least as comprehensive as the definition used in the convention, if not more so. The definition in the Bill covers any relevant thing of archaeological interest, "relevant thing" being a term that is itself very widely defined and covers archaeological objects also. This is not to say that I see the convention as in any way problematic but it was drafted more than 30 years ago and in a manner aimed at securing support across a range of states with differing legal systems and policy approaches. It remains an important benchmark but there is no reason we cannot be even more ambitious and comprehensive in protecting our archaeological heritage. We cannot unilaterally amend the Valletta Convention as it is an international treaty but there is nothing to stop us going beyond it. The example regarding the definition of "archaeological heritage" demonstrates that we are doing so.

In terms of key actions that state parties must take under the Valletta Convention, such as protecting discoveries, preparing inventories, designating sites and areas, regulating archaeological work and integrating archaeological heritage protection into the planning process, as has been set out in the document circulated, these are all provided for legislatively under the Bill or by way of other enacted legislation such as the Planning and Development Act. I acknowledge, however, the desire for the presence of the Valletta Convention to be increased in the Bill. I propose that following the conclusion of this debate, I will engage with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in advance of Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann to determine whether the following amendments are considered suitable for inserting into the Bill.

Section 3 is a key provision that establishes a clear set of principles and policies that are to be recognised by any person performing any function under the enacted Bill. I propose including a new paragraph in section 3 confirming that the principles and requirements of the Valletta Convention and any other relevant international treaty are to be adhered to in the performance of the functions under the Bill. This will give clear direction as to the importance of the Valletta Convention and should provide for what Senator Boyhan sought to achieve in subsections (1), (2) and (4) of his proposed amendment.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree to the regulation-making powers under subsection (3) of the Senator's proposal as there would be clear constitutional issues regarding the supremacy of primary legislation over secondary legislation. It is well established that the Oireachtas cannot endow a Minister or anyone else with the power to amend an Act or primary legislation by way of regulations. Not only would such a regulation be open to legal challenge as to its validity but the provision allowing for such regulation would itself be open to challenge as to its validity. In any case, I do not believe there is anything in the Bill that conflicts with the Valletta Convention and so the need to make regulations to address such a conflict is not necessary.

In addition to this amendment to section 3, and in order to safeguard the Valletta Convention's place in relation to any future development of public policy on historic heritage, I also propose to include reference to the convention and any other relevant international treaty in section 168. As this section specifically relates to the co-ordination and development of public policy relating to historic heritage, the amendment will help to ensure that going forward public policy on historic heritage must be developed in accordance with the Valletta Convention.

As I have noted previously, section 151 of the Bill already includes a provision that bodies exercising any licensing function under the Bill must have regard to the provisions of relevant international conventions. I will consult the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to see whether an express reference to the Valletta Convention can be included in section 151 without undermining the standing of other relevant international conventions. I sincerely hope these proposed amendments, if considered acceptable by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, will go some way to meeting the objectives of Senator Boyhan's proposed amendment on the Valletta Convention. Once again, I thank all Senators for their engagement on this important matter last week.

Furthermore, I have also reflected on Senator Higgins's point relating to the high value that communities or groups of people may hold in relation to historic heritage in their local area that may not necessarily be considered of interest more generally among members of the public. Initially I considered that the use of the term "amenity value", as provided for under section 14(7)(c), achieves this when consideration is to be given to proposed entries into the register of monuments. I propose to amend this paragraph so that it will read "amenity and community value". I hope this will make it explicitly clear that historic heritage of great importance to a local community or similar group of people cannot be excluded when consideration is being given to its entry into the register of monuments, especially if it is not necessarily held to be of national or regional interest.

I now want to follow up briefly on Senator Higgins's point relating to audiotapes or similar items relating to linguistic cultural heritage. Such items likely fall under the definition of an "archaeological object". I should emphasise that Part 2 of the Bill relates to immovable cultural heritage, such as sites and structures of archaeological or historic interest, while Part 4 has been specifically introduced to provide for movable cultural heritage.

I will return now to matters of prescribed monuments and registered monuments. The concept behind prescribed monuments is purposely introduced to fill a gap that exists under the existing legislation whereby monuments of archaeological interest are afforded no legal protection whatsoever until they are designated as monuments. This results in an unacceptable risk to a major part of our archaeological heritage. Classes of monuments of archaeological interest are to be prescribed so that works cannot be undertaken to, at or in the immediate vicinity of them unless such proposed works are notified to the Minister or unless a licence has been obtained to carry out such works. The importance of the proposed prescribed monument system cannot be understated and the level of protection that will be introduced for such monuments will be a major achievement if the Bill is enacted.

Separate from the matter of prescribed monuments is the register of monuments. This will allow a much broader set of sites or structures to be afforded a similar, if not greater, level of legal protection to that afforded to prescribed monuments. Most important, the fact that a structure is a prescribed monument does not inhibit the possibility of that structure also becoming a registered monument, and a registered monument that is not a prescribed monument does not suffer any reduction in legal protection. To make this point clear, a registered monument does not have to be a prescribed monument. For this reason, there is no need to broaden the scope of the prescribed monument to include historic interest or any other interest as sites or structures that are of no archaeological interest whatsoever may still be eligible to be designated as a registered monument, thus obtaining the same default level of legal protection. I hope this brings some clarification to last week's discussions. I thank the Senators for their excellent contributions, some of which have contributed to the proposed changes we will bring forward.

I will now speak on amendments Nos. 7 and 8. The complete deletion of a registered monument from the register is possible and such a process is already provided for under subsection (5) of section 17. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, amendments have been made to section 17 so that mandatory consultation with the Heritage Council must be carried out in advance of a registered monument being deleted from the register. I have every confidence in the Heritage Council and its ability to carry out this role effectively and efficiently. I am uncertain as to the appropriateness of drawing an Oireachtas joint committee directly into the implementation of the enacted Bill, and for these reasons I am not in a position to accept the proposed amendments.

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

I would like the guidance of the Acting Chair. I would like to comment on what the Minister of State has said about the Bill. It is not specific to the amendment but it covers it. Is that in order?

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

I thank the Minister of State very much. I have not seen the Department's document and I would like to do so. It will be helpful. I scanned the Bill and the amendments today and I saw that I have two or three more opportunities to discuss the Valletta Convention. I do not want to Valletta myself out of it but I have opportunities to raise yet again the Valletta Convention in the discussions on two amendments. I do not intend to spend the evening speaking about the Valletta Convention again and what the Minister of State has said is great. I have not studied the text of the Department's document in great detail but I do get the gist and the measure of what the Minister of State has said. I thank him for reflecting on it and considering the issue. It is an important aspect.

Subsequent to our previous debate on the Bill, quite a few people from the Irish Environmental Network came to the House. I do not know whether they engaged with the Minister of State but they certainly engaged with me. They will warmly welcome these steps. Let us see the text and context of it. It is beyond us doing anything in the Seanad as such.It will be a matter for the Dáil at this point, I presume. Will the Minister of State clarify that?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

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

I thank both Senators for their comments and their positive response to the proposals. In response to Senator Boyhan, it would be at Dáil stage that we would look at those amendments on Valletta. I welcome his comments on what we propose. It is being brought forward on foot of the conversations we had here at the last session. That is important. I appreciate the contributions of Senators to strengthening the Bill, particularly in relation to the Valletta Convention.

On Senator Higgins's comments, intangible cultural heritage has been brought up again but no aspect of this Bill covers such heritage. Such provisions would fall outside the scope of the Bill. We gave a commitment the last day to review, in advance of Dáil Committee Stage, the issue of cultural interests and the definition of "relevant things", which covers sites giving information about past environments. The cultural context the Senator referred to is critical. All these artefacts, objects and archaeological sites are formed out of a cultural context of a time. It is important to reflect that.

This is the correct approach. The Heritage Council is a statutory body and I have every confidence in its role, regardless of where this Ministry sits in a future government. The Oireachtas joint committee will always be in a position to track the progress of Heritage Ireland 2030 as an overarching policy around Ireland’s heritage but I believe the Heritage Council has sufficient expertise with regard to the register.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

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), and where such a deletion would result in a prescribed monument ceasing to be considered as such, he or she must first seek the views of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.”.

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

I second the amendment.

Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

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

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

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

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

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

Before I speak on the amendments, I wish to make a number of general comments to follow up on the contributions of Senators Higgins and Boyhan. I welcome the proposals to try to strengthen the consultation requirements. I am certain that the approach we are taking is the correct one.

I see valuable roles for the PPNs in many areas of local consultation.The PPN network has, generally, gelled itself to be a very effective local participation tool for communities.

The same is true of An Taisce. Senator Boyhan mentioned the case in Kilkenny, and there are probably sections of road there that, under the Bill, would have been prescribed monuments but, unfortunately, the road went through. I welcome the proposals that have been put forward, although, as I said, I think the approach we are taking is correct. The Senator attended the launch of the strategic plan for the Heritage Council. There is no doubt it is in a much better space than three years ago. Its role and function are now much more embedded in the system than previously. It is not just for built and archaeological heritage but also for nature. The council has a vital role to play and this strengthens its position.

I do not propose to extend the consultation requirements beyond what has been introduced following the pre-legislative scrutiny recommendations. Under the National Monuments Acts, consultation has always been with the statutory advisory council and I believe this is appropriate and should remain the position in the Bill. My understanding of the public participation networks is they have been developed to engage with local authorities and certain decision-making processes that relate to matters within local authority remits. They are called on from time to time to comment on national policies or plans that relate to local authorities as well. To the best of my knowledge, the PPNs do not engage with any Department in the manner suggested and I would not see it as appropriate for them to do so for the purposes outlined in the proposed amendment. I restate that if a requirement for consultation arises due to a proposal to delete a registered monument from the register of monuments - it should be noted this situation may never arise - I have every confidence in the Heritage Council and its ability to carry out this role effectively. As I stated on Committee Stage, if the Senator considers it necessary, I can commit to reviewing the operation of this provision, perhaps after a period of three or five years, and report on its operation and effectiveness.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, and Senator Boyhan for his input. The key issue for me was to communicate the importance of that local perspective. The PPNs are one route, while the local planning authorities are another. As the Minister of State indicated, he believes the Heritage Council will engage with local authorities in the process of its advice to the Minister. I welcome the fact he indicated that in respect of this provision, he might bring forward an amendment seeking a review to ensure there will not be, for example, large-scale deregistration, or the removal of registered status, in respect of monuments. A review clause is a good idea. Perhaps when there is a review, the various bodies that have indicated they could contribute to such a review could give useful input as part of such a review.

The next section refers to public awareness of the register. It is not completely clear to me, although I accept we do not have an opportunity to go back and forth on Report Stage, whether the council, where the Minister of State proposes to take an action and seeks advice from the Heritage Council, may be in a position to recommend a specific action. The Bill seeks only views, if any, on the action and views, if any, in deciding whether to take the action. One action the council may wish to recommend is that there be a public consultation in respect of that action. That is something that could be provided for with a small amendment on Report Stage, such that the Heritage Council will not simply give the input, with the Minister to decide whether to take it. Rather, it might decide on an additional consultation process that might be required. I refer to cases that are identified as sensitive and are not a simple "Yes" or "No" but require more input. Perhaps making clear that that is a potential outcome of advice from the Heritage Council could be done when the Bill goes to the Dáil.

I reiterate that the National Museum of Ireland has a particular input here, as does An Taisce. I will not press forward with my amendment regarding the public-participation network, given the Minister of State is correct in that the Bill is not really constructed in terms of direct engagement. That is one issue where other forms of local authority and local planning authority engagement might be the filter, but I will not press amendment No. 12 on the understanding it is the Minister of State's expectation that the Heritage Council will engage with local authorities where it deems that relevant.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

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 second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

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,”.

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

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 40, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: “(b) consult with the public-participation network in the local authority concerned to seek its views (if any) on the action,”.

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

I second the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

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

“Record of protected monuments 19.(1) It will be a requirement of Planning Authorities to include the register of protected monuments in the appendix of their City/County Development Plans.

(2) It will be a requirement of Planning Authorities to reference protected monuments on their City/County Development Plan maps.”.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

We have discussed this proposal previously. It seeks to introduce a new section relating to protected monuments. It will require planning authorities to refer to the protected monuments in their city or county development plans in both their written statement and their development plan.

This is not new; it reflects the current situation. At our previous debate on the Bill, I brought in copies of a few appendices from various councils and showed them to the Minister of State. I had a look at them again today. I spoke to a number of the directors of planning and local authorities and asked them, independent of me, what they see as the benefit. They said it was very doable now given how technology has moved on. Between various planning levies and schemes, development plans got very cluttered, but there is now technology to resolve that. The appendix is a separate booklet that can be changed, even though it does not change often. It is important to do it with providing a degree of certainty, but more important, it relates to public awareness. A city or county development plan is a legitimate expectation of how a community, town or county is going to be developed over the next six, seven or, more likely, ten years, given how long it will take for the planning and development legislation to go through.

There has to be a degree of certainty, and the plan educates and assists people in identifying where there are monuments. I am thinking of the Dublin Mountains, not far from where I live, and all along the coast. I live near the coast but the mountains are behind us, also within the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county development plan. All the dolmens and so on are clearly marked out. The plan is important for people who are considering purchasing property, be it for commercial or agricultural use, given agriculture runs along the fringe of the mountains there. It gives a degree of certainty whereby these monuments, structures or whatever are clearly detailed on the written statements and in the county development plans. It is not any impediment to planners, they tell me, but is of greater assistance. It gives a degree of certainty but, more important, it empowers and gives information to citizens who are vigilant. If a citizen stumbles across something and sees it has been damaged, even though this does not happen as often as it used to, he or she can research it, look at the plans and see whether it is a protected monument.

I think that in time, data will become very relevant to planning. The more data and information we have in layers, geophysical surveys and all sorts of things, the more that will aid the protection of monuments. Knowledge is power and it aids in the protection of these structures. I hope the Minister of State will be in a position to accept the amendments.

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

I thank the Senators for resubmitting this proposal. As we discussed on Committee Stage, a recommendation made to local authorities by way of guidelines made under section 167 of the enacted Bill is a far more appropriate, effective and practical way to pursue the matter, although I take on board the points made by the Senator in respect of knowledge and information, with which I fully agree. This is especially true given the advancements in mapping technology and similar online resources, and that is the primary reason I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

Moreover, to reiterate, I believe the planning and development Bill would be a more suitable location for any new provision or policies relating to city or county development plans. In respect of that Bill, for the first time, specific reference is made to the National Monuments Acts in the context of development plans. If the Bill before us is enacted before the proposed planning and development Bill, I will see those references to the National Monuments Acts replaced with references to registered monuments as provided for under section 14 of this Bill.

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

I am not happy with that. The Minister of State is not telling us, for example, that he is committed to driving that through. He could have said I made an excellent point and that he, as Minister of State with responsibility for heritage, will drive that through in the planning and development Bill, but he did not say that. We have to be pragmatic. Today, we are debating the History and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023. If this provision were enshrined in this primary legislation, it would have to be considered in the context of the next planning and development Bill. That is a fact. It would be better and prudent to make the provision today. Therefore, I will press the amendment, which is an important one that makes absolute sense. I cannot understand the logic the Minister of State is suggesting. This issue is happening now, in Kilkenny, but he is somehow giving the impression this is not the way to do business, or at least that is what his officials or someone else is telling him.

The amendment is important. We should endeavour to make the provision in this primary legislation. Doing so will strengthen my hand and his hand, assuming he is committed. Is he committed, as Minister of State with responsibility for heritage, to ensuring what I propose will be enshrined? Will he personally undertake to promote that in the planning and development Bill?

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

Again, I am of the view that the planning and development Bill is a much more suitable location for this. I think that would be a better approach and I have given a commitment that any reference to the National Monuments Acts, whether in the planning and development Bill or in this Bill, or whichever is enacted first, will be provided for under section 14 of this Bill. The commitment is there and the reference will be embedded, I am sure, in the planning and development Bill as well once that is enacted.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

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

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

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment seeks the deletion of section 27(2). This subsection would exempt, from the protective provisions of the chapter, the authorisation of a proposal to carry out relevant works. Will the Minister of State clarify how the subsection will operate? A great deal of caution is necessary in respect of how our historic and archaeological heritage has been treated in the past and the lack of appropriate protections. I am going to speak to this in more detail in respect of amendments Nos. 15 to 19, inclusive, but I am concerned about anything that seems to allow for an exemption from the protective elements of the chapter.Will the Minister of State clarify how he sees this section? The lines I am seeking to delete are lines 25 to 39 on page 51 and lines 1 to 3 on page 52, which is basically the whole of section 27(2).

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

Before I respond, I will address the issue of the Heritage Council's role in consultation. Perhaps the Senator will give consideration to an option, by way of regulation, to enable the Heritage Council to consult with others. The Senator proposed this and it is a good suggestion that could be done by way of regulation in terms of how the Heritage Council gives consideration around the record.

Specifically on amendment No. 14, the notification of works procedure, as set out under section 27, provides a substantial strengthening of the law that is currently in force under the National Monuments Acts. As with all aspects of the Bill, the protection of historic heritage is paramount. If a person wishes to carry out works and a notification for those proposed works is received by the Minster, he or she will be able to apply special protection to the monument, which will mean that a licence will be required to carry out those works legally. If the assignment of special protection is not considered necessary, the Minister will be able to impose conditions on the works to be carried out. For clarity, the notification of works option cannot be availed of where an appropriate assessment, a screening determination for environmental impact assessment or an environmental impact assessment is required where a special protection applies to a monument or where the proposed works require a licence under Part 6.

The Senator’s proposed amendment removes the notification option in its entirety. This would fundamentally alter the operation of the Bill, render the different levels of legal protection irrelevant and go significantly beyond what has always been a core element of this Bill. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will deal with this in more detail in the following sections. As I see it, section 27(1) is the protective piece. I understand the concerns regarding some of the deletions. However, section 27(2)(b) was the particular concern I was addressing. Perhaps my amendment is too broad, although I note it does not actually remove all of section 27(2). I misspoke when I said the amendment would delete all of section 27(2) because it proposes only to remove section 27(2)(b), which basically provides that it would not be a contravention of section 27(1) in these various circumstances.

I am trying to keep some of that protective architecture the Minister of State outlined while trying to remove some of the exemptions. It seems that simply giving notice to the Minister of a relevant number of days around the carrying out of the works is one of the things that will allow evasion of the requirements of section 27(1). I apologise as this is a little convoluted. I have phrased this point clearer in amendment No. 15. Basically, I am a little concerned about a scenario whereby there would be a protective architecture, but persons who want to carry out works would write to the Minister and the Minister would say that is okay. This may become a get-out mechanism in what is envisaged to be proper, protective legislation. I am a little worried that a notice would issue to the Minister who would effectively decide that the relevant work should not be subject to conditions. I am worried that will become an overused opt-out clause or byway.

I know this cannot apply with respect to European legislation in cases where there are environmental impact assessments, etc. However, the Bill does not solely deal with environmental heritage. It deals with the wider spectrum of heritage, some of which will not be protected in the same way by European legislation. I am a little concerned about that this mechanism will become automated or will be overused. It comes back to a point on which the Minister of State responded favourably when he agreed to insert a review clause in relation to how the de-designation or de-registration mechanisms were being used. I am concerned about how this mechanism may be used or overused. If this direct permission mechanism is not removed from the Bill, it will need to have some review built in to ensure it is not overused.

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

I appreciate the Senator's concerns. She will also appreciate that this proposed amendment would remove the notification option entirely, which would have the wrong impact. Again, I appreciate where the Senator is coming from in relation to this.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will press the amendment, even though I know it will not succeed. I appreciate that a more nuanced approach could be taken.

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

Amendments Nos. 15 to 19, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 57, to delete lines 6 to 8.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 15 seeks to delete section 29(3)(b), which provides that the Minister may include in his or her prescription of a class of relevant works, works which comprise "an established recurrent activity before the monuments concerned became monuments to which general protection applies." This is a regressive and wide provision which gives carte blanche power to a Minister to classify a category of works as relevant works if they were previously recurrent. Basically, anything that happened previously can continue to happen. We need to change how we do things all the time, especially in the area of heritage. Things are constantly changing and need to be evolved. Having business as usual as a provision to justify business as usual is almost a tautological circle. I do not agree that simply because these were previously recurrent activities, that should necessarily be a sufficient basis to designate them as relevant works which can take place regardless of the existence of a national monument.

This section does not specify or place any conditionality on what the works are. It simply states that they have to had taken place prior to the application of protection. Surely, the entire point of creating protections is to protect monuments. If recurrent works or kinds of activities create damaging, corrosive, erosive or undermining effects on a national monument that should be protected, why would we allow them to continue, simply because they happened before? It is not sufficient to say something happened previously. This is too wide a space. It is not a matter that heritage should have to creep in and get designated but absolutely nothing else will change. That seems to be the tone. There has been too much of that dynamic in the area of natural heritage. There are also other areas of heritage that are meant to exist on the fringes of business as usual.It should not be the case that activity that we had been ignoring in the normal course of business should not have to change or in any way accommodate this heritage. Protecting heritage means giving space and consideration to heritage. I am concerned about how widely and loosely framed this "recurrent activity" is. With regard to amendment No. 15, it is the old case of "stop digging". If you have been digging a long time and in the wrong direction, the simple fact you have been digging should not justify continuing to dig.

Amendment No. 16 follows the point made on amendment No. 15. It seeks to insert a new subsection in section 29 to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii), the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a monument to which general protection applies. Amendment No. 15 simply removes this version of recurrent activity. Amendment No. 16 states that if the Minister of State wants to keep it, let us at least put in a caveat that it should not include recurrent activities that will damage or destroy the monument.

Amendment No. 17 is an alternative version of amendment No. 16 that includes the phrase "cultural integrity" as well as "physical integrity". An example is an activity taking place, even if it is a recurrent activity, that prevents access to a national monument. We know such things happen. We know there are sites where a car park has been built around a national monument or there has been development or commercial activities taking place in part of it. We have had this discussion in a different context. It is important to ensure that people are able to culturally engage with our national monuments and that, for example, the monuments do not simply exist hemmed in on all sides by a particular commercial activity. There should be routes of access. This is an example of ensuring we have cultural activity. This goes back to the provision in the Valletta Convention on context. We must ensure we have routes of approach to, for example, a sacred landscape or an historic landscape. The amendment is proposed to ensure there is no damage from recurrent activity.

Amendment No. 18 is similar to amendments Nos. 16 and 17. It also deals with section 31(2)(b), which provides the Minister may specify a class of relevant works as exempt from the protections of section 30 where they were recurring before the thing was prescribed as a monument. This would allow the Minister of State to say that certain types of recurrent works will not be allowed to be designated as relevant works. If there are particular types of activity that we know to be very damaging, they would not become relevant works.

Amendment No. 19 is another alternative to amendment No. 18. It refers to physical integrity and cultural integrity. It has the same principles that I have indicated.

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

I thank the Senator for these proposals. Regarding the proposed amendments to section 27, I cannot accept these due to the limitations they would introduce. I will give an example. If a farmer has been ploughing the same field for decades and he or she makes a report of the discovery of a crop mark that may indicate the presence of an archaeological site, perhaps after a particularly dry summer, that farmer would be prevented from continuing to plough that field unless the recurrent activity was exempted, in this case the ploughing of the field. The approach that should be taken in circumstances where the ploughing should cease would be to enter the relevant particulars in the register of monuments and assign special protection if necessary.

Similar issues could arise in relation to monuments to which special protection applies. For example, a local authority may wish to reopen existing burial plots in a graveyard that is a registered monument to which special protection applies. Without powers to provide a suitable exemption, every time a plot was reopened, and some of these plots may have long since had any material of archaeological interest removed from them, a licence would be required.

While I appreciate the Senator's concerns about exemptions for certain classes of works at registered monuments, there are examples where exemptions are considered suitable and where ground disturbance or other forms of damage may be unavoidable. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the proposed amendments. I hope the Senator has a clearer understanding of the circumstances under which an exemption may or may not be considered.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State makes the case that there may be certain situations where an activity was happening but the point is that there should not be caveats. This is not being weighed up. It is not necessarily that every time there is a recurrent activity, it should automatically be prohibited. This is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that relevant works should meet the standard in the Bill. I will probably press amendment No. 16 in particular. We should not establish a recurrent activity as a class of relevant works where it will lead to the destruction or damage to the integrity of a monument. Frankly, the cases of farming around a monument or adjoining graves that may be upgraded would meet the classes of relevant works that are discussed elsewhere. They would fall under relevant works anyway rather than simply being recurrent activities. They probably would not lean on the "recurrent activity" definition.

I am concerned that if we recognise something and designate it as a protected structure and then let something happen that we know will just destroy it, we will end up with a register of things that were briefly protected but were not actually protected. We are supposed to be dealing with the idea of protected monuments. The fact is that an activity that was taking place previously may have to be slightly adjusted. Farming may have to adjust if a significant site is discovered. It does not mean that farming cannot happen. It means it may have to happen in a way that is less damaging to that site. That is okay; things have to adapt all the time. We are adapting to the climate imperative and health and safety imperatives. Practices change all the time because of various factors.

There may be a perverse incentive whereby if it becomes easier to protect something because it is a recurrent activity, we may end up set in old ways of doing things because they were the previous and recurrent activity, rather than having new approaches that might be better adapted to co-exist with the protected monument but which would not fall into the "relevant works" definition in the same way.

I will probably have to press amendment No. 16 strongly. Works should not be classed as relevant where they are likely to lead to the destruction of or damage to the integrity of a monument. I will also probably push the amendment on physical integrity. I would like there to be a reference in the Bill to physical or cultural integrity. Perhaps a way to consider this in the Dáil is to see how the Minister of State can add better caveats to the idea of the category of relevant works and the idea of recurrent activity. It certainly should not be a situation where the concept of recurrent activity precludes the adaptation of a previously common activity so as to be more sensitive.

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

If it is of any benefit to Senator Higgins, I can give a commitment to review subsection (2)(b) in order to determine whether additional commitments can be added. Our objective is to ensure that monument protection remains paramount. I can certainly give that commitment if it is of any use.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In light of the Minister of State's indication, I will not call a vote on amendment No. 16.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 57, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: "(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii), the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 57, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b)(ii), the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical or cultural integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 57, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(b), the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 57, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(b), the Minister may not prescribe an established recurrent activity as a class of relevant works if such activity is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical or cultural integrity of a monument to which general protection applies, regardless of when such protection was granted.".

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 57, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(4) This section shall not apply to a class of relevant works which would restrict public access to a national monument for a period of more than 2 years.”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 20 inserts a new subsection (4) into section 31, which provides that said section shall not apply to a class of relevant works which would restrict public access to a national monument for a period of more than two years. This is important because our heritage belongs to all of us collectively, as we discussed previously. The relationship with heritage is something we should all be able to enjoy. This is recognising that there may be classes of relevant works that might need to take place for extended periods. The Minister of State mentioned refurbishment and building works and so forth. We do not want a situation whereby a class of relevant works effectively acts as a long-term obstacle to access. If this is occurs, it diminishes the public relationship with the protected structure or monument and the cultural amenity, community and enjoyment of it, which, as the Minister of State said himself, he values so highly. I tried to be reasonable in that amendment by saying I recognise there may be situations where there are relevant works, which will restrict public access to a national monument for certain periods. However, there needs to be a limit set on that period, and I have suggested the period of 24 months, which I believe to be reasonable.

Amendment 21 is an alternative to amendment 20, which inserts a new subsection (4) into section 31. It provides that where a class of relevant works has restricted public access to a national monument for a period of more than two years, the Minister shall review his or her prescription of such a class of relevant works and their impact on public access to national monuments. Even if the Minister is not in a position to put in place a prohibition, this is an automatic review mechanism. It will ensure that we do not have a particular kind of relevant works prescribed. It will prevent a particular activity being prescribed around a protected monument or site becoming wide open and allowing 15 or 20 years pass in which there is no public access to the national monument without the decision being reviewed. I have tried to be really reasonable in these amendments. Looking at the two of them alongside each other and especially amendment No. 21, I am acknowledging that in some cases, the works may take longer than two years. They may take four years or six years or in the case of the national children's hospital, however many years that takes. However, there still should be a review. It should not be simply the fact that because one Minister at one point said a particular activity was okay that we are signed up forever to that kind of activity being okay around that monument. In the balancing and ensuring that our heritage is paramount, it is important that the balancing is checked on again. If we are looking at a situation with a ten-year loss of access, then suddenly the argument that made sense for a brief period no longer stands up regarding the balance of considerations between heritage and another activity. This is a situation where it is not a matter of reviewing how the clauses are used, which I have mentioned before, but where the review mechanism should be built into the legislation. In this case, I suggest that a Minister would have to choose to extend the designation but at a minimum, I think a Minister should be able to revoke a designation of a class of relevant works.

John Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 21 is an admission that amendment No. 20 is an exceptionally blunt suggestion being made in relation to a period of two years. It is a fact that many works, particularly in the archaeological and heritage space, require painstaking work undertaken by people with much experience. If the State or whomever is undertaking significant works, what will a review achieve? Say a contract was put in place and it was supposed to take two years but is now running to three years, the Minister is not going to revoke something because it is taking longer to carry out a piece of remediation on a very significant piece of historical, archaeological heritage. I think these proposals are unnecessary. If they are there in the first place they are there for a reason, and it is to bring that back into productive use for everyone for the benefit of everyone.

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

I thank Senators again for their contributions. I do not consider this amendment necessary. I find it difficult, notwithstanding the comments made by other Senators, to envisage the circumstances that would lead to a situation where this amendment would be required. Major works to national monuments, which are monuments in the ownership or guardianship of the Minister or a local authority, would not be the type of works that would be considered for an exemption under section 31. I refer back to my previous examples in this regard relating to routine agricultural works or works at a burial ground in the ownership of a local authority. The works that Senators have referred to would not fall under sections 31(2)(a) or 31(2)(b) so again I am not in a position to accept this amendment.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the other Senators for their contributions, including Senator Cassells. The principle of access is an important one and the Minister of State has acknowledged community value in one other part of the Bill but this is important as well. The reference to "class of relevant works" is not simply around classes of relevant works and we have the exemptions. We have discussed this previously and "the classes of relevant works" can be quite wide, if not necessarily works that are related to the integrity of the site, the improvement of the monument or supporting the monument. It can be a completely different category of relevant works which is simply there because it used to happen previously. It could be a long-term project of building a completely different public development that happens nearby, so it may not be Tara but it might be the wall next to Tara. There are things like that and it may be that the wall is the thing that is blocking access to Tara. It is not necessarily about enhancing, as was mentioned, or painstakingly and carefully enhancing, the monument.

In other cases there are categories of relevant works, which was mentioned, which are much wider than that and that is why there needs to be some time limit put on those. The Minister of State might not like the two-year limit. The two-year limit with the potential for renewal was reasonable so that a new decision and justification for renewal would be needed, as per amendment No. 21, so I will press that amendment because it is relevant. We must bear in mind again that in some cases there may be long-delayed activities around the improvement of sites and in other cases there might be other classes of activity that have fallen under this category. As I have said, "relevant works" is not solely relevant works in the service of heritage; there are a lot of other relevant works that come under the exemptions as well. There needs to be some limit and it is not sufficient for the Minister of State to simply say he does not envisage the circumstances that would lead to it being required.

We have examples of where these things have happened and of where something gets started and then put on the long finger for years. We only need to look at the bandstand in St. Stephen's Green. How desperately pathetic is it to have a bandstand in St. Stephen's Green with safety barriers around it, in the centre of our city, that is closed for use and not available to the public? People used to do dancing there on Saturdays but now there is just this closed off bandstand sitting there and looking derelict with protective barriers around it for who knows how long. That is one small example. It is one I pass and it makes me sad every time I pass it because it used to be a location where, during Covid for example when people had nowhere to go, people could do little performances and where things would happen and people would bring it to life. Now it is simply closed off and on the long list, awaiting something to maybe happen to it eventually, some time. What is more likely to happen is that it will become derelict out of misuse and maybe get replaced. As that is what happens, we have to look to that danger.

If the Minister of State cannot accept the proposals I am making, I urge him to come back and look at what the time limit and review mechanism on relevant works is. As Senator Cassells said, sometimes having some form of clock ticking can at least create an urgency on those relevant works and can create some pressure to ensure they do not become a de facto mechanism of closing off public access.

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

I have nothing more to add. The Minister can amend or revoke regulations. That option is there and I am satisfied with that.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 57, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(4) Where a class of relevant works has restricted public access to a national monument for a period of more than 2 years, the Minister shall review his or her prescription of such a class of relevant works and their impact on public access to national

monuments.”.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment.

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

When is it proposed to sit again?

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.