While I acknowledge the need to review and monitor the functioning of new legislation, measures are already in place that provide for what is set out by the Senator in the proposed amendment. My understanding is that the post-enactment scrutiny process requires a report on the functioning of recently enacted Bills to be laid in the parliamentary library for 12 months after their enactment. Under the built and archaeological heritage climate change sectoral adaptation plan, written reports are to be presented to the national adaptation steering committee for monitoring the progress of the national adaptation framework. We are one of the first countries in Europe to have developed climate change sector adaptation plans and fantastic work is going on across the sector, led by the NMS. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept the additional reporting requirements as proposed in this amendment although I do recognise and see the value in the sentiment behind them. If there are other specific matters in the NDP not covered in the reports I have mentioned, I would be happy to engage with the Senator further to ensure additional information can be provided where necessary.
Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
I hear what the Minister of State is saying. He used the phrase "additional reporting" but there cannot be too much reporting in relation to this. This is too important. As I said earlier, the amendment provides that within 12 months of the passing of the Act, the Minister would lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is the Oireachtas, the national Parliament to which the public elects its representatives. We are also guardians and custodians of our archaeology and that is really important. The public places great trust in us. We are only passing through, as I have said previously, and when we are putting legislation in place, we are talking about a legacy, protection and layers. I do not consider it too much to have additional reporting, as this amendment provides for. It provides that the Minister, within 12 months, would lay these plans before the Oireachtas with the following in mind:
"(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.”
All of that sits very comfortably with the Minister of State, as both a green parliamentarian and a very active member of the Green Party. That goes without saying and that is why I am somewhat surprised. I would not be surprised if I was dealing with a different Minister of State from another political party.
What is the rationale for departmental officials telling the Minister of State that this amendment is not worthy of inclusion as a key objective in terms of the primary legislation? I ask the Minister of State to explain further why he is not accepting this amendment. To just suggest that it is additional reporting is not a strong enough case for rejecting the amendment.
I thank the Senator and I absolutely recognise the aspirations behind this amendment. I referenced the climate change sectoral adaptation plan which is a really excellent plan. I will put a copy of it in the Senator's pigeon hole in the next day or two because it is well worth having a look at. It deals with exactly the issues the Senator has raised here in terms of embodied carbon and the protection and conservation of our natural archaeological heritage. I am familiar with the work of ICOMOS and Mr. Andrew Cox. We have good, robust mechanisms in place in terms of reporting within the sector and to other stakeholders. I also said, in closing, that if there were other matters not covered in the reports I have mentioned, we would be happy to engage on the provision of additional information. I will pass on a copy of the plan to the Senator. It is a really excellent piece of work. It is not just a report - the work is ongoing, being led by our Department.
I hear what the Minister of State is saying. I suggest that there is a lot of meat in this amendment and it is important. In that context, I will withdraw it now but reserve the right to resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
This proposed addition to the list of steps that may be specified in an enforcement notice will permit the relevant authority to direct a person to return an archaeological or historic object to a specific place. This will help to contribute to the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO convention preventing the illicit import, export or transfer of ownership of cultural property.
This amendment was suggested in observations received by the Minister for Finance, who has advised that the relevant arrest, search and seizure powers under the Bill extended beyond what will be required by the Revenue Commissioners to carry out the import and export control functions as envisaged. The Revenue Commissioners advised that their existing powers are sufficiently legislated for under the Customs Act 2015 and that they did not need to be specified as a "relevant body" under section 199.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
On an unrelated matter, the visitors from Granada soccer club in Dublin are most welcome. I thank them for coming to Seanad Éireann, the other Chamber in the House. We hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House.