We will recommence Committee Stage of the Bill. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and his officials back. We are on amendment No. 116 in the name of Deputy Ivana Bacik. Amendments Nos. 116 to 119, inclusive, are related. As there is no one here to move the amendment, we will move to amendment No. 117.
Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill 2023: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Amendment No. 116 not moved.
I move amendment No. 117:
In page 45, to delete lines 38 and 39 and substitute the following:
“(a) consult with the National Monuments Advisory Council and the Heritage Council to seek their views (if any) on the action, and
(b) be guided by those views (if any) on taking the action or not.”.
This Bill is not scheduled for Report Stage in the Dáil next week. Will the Minister of State confirm the intention is to schedule it in September?
I think it is probably for September.
That is the intention. The amendment is on the national monuments advisory council. We discussed this last week and earlier this week. The Minister of State has given us assurances that the Heritage Council will be given additional staffing. I have asked how many archaeologists and historians are employed by the Heritage Council. This is our third meeting so maybe at this point the Minister of State will have the numbers.
I have the figures.
Great. With respect, there is a contradiction in what the Minister of State has been saying to us on this. He has been saying the Heritage Council will be given additional staffing and then he told us that its entire budgetary requirement in terms of staffing has been met, so on the one hand he is saying it may not need additional staffing while on the other he is saying that if it needs additional staffing that will be met. Will he clarify what he is thinking of in relation to additional staffing resources? In any case, I do not think that covers this issue.
The idea of a national monuments advisory council is to have, as we had in the past and as exists now in the North, a body on a statutory footing with an independent panel of experts. A key thing in archaeology is there might be someone who knows a particular era very well and will not be well informed on another.
Having that range of expertise is important. Of course, the Heritage Council can look for external expertise, but the problem with the legislation is it is not built in as a safeguard that that must happen. All we are looking for here is the implementation of recommendation No. 3 of the pre-legislative scrutiny report, namely, that a national monuments advisory council as constituted in the original legislation be brought back. It is generally accepted that most of the recognised leading authorities on various elements of archaeology are found outside of the public service and that specialists are key for different periods and types of archaeology. This is a key proposal from our pre-legislative scrutiny and will be key in providing checks and balances for the strong powers the Minister will have under the legislation.
I intend to withdraw amendment No. 118, but we will see how the Minister of State looks at it and reserve the right to bring it forward on Report Stage.
If it is useful, I might give a detailed background to this, given the issue of a national monuments advisory council has arisen in a number of amendments. I will update the committee on the request in respect of the resources of the Heritage Council, and I have information on excavation licences that might be useful for the context of today's session.
The National Monuments Advisory Council, NMAC, was established under the National Monuments Act 1930. At the time of its establishment, the Office of Public Works, which had responsibility at central government level for national monuments, had no professional archaeological staff, although it did have professional architectural staff. As revised under section 15 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1954, the membership of the NMAC comprised an officer of the Department of Education, an officer of the OPW and such numbers of other persons as the Minister nominated from the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland and the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland.
It is clear from the archives of the national monuments service that the NMAC did important work in making recommendations for the imposition of preservation orders under the Act of 1930 at a time when there were no professional archaeologists on the staff of the OPW and limited expertise, with notable exceptions, in architectural heritage conservation. In addition, the NMAC was referenced in the relevant planning regulations from an early date after enactment of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 as a statutory consultee in the planning process.
However, with the growth of a professional archaeological service within the national monuments service beginning in the 1960s and accelerating in the 1980s, combined with rapid growth in planning casework being referred by planning authorities to the NMAC in the 1980s, the model of a part-time, largely voluntary advisory body being led in heritage casework became both unnecessary and impractical. By the early 1990s, while the NMAC was still the body nominally providing archaeological and architectural heritage advice to planning authorities, the responses were prepared by staff of the national monuments service, which had also provided a secretariat to the NMAC. The policy given effect under the Heritage Act 1995 and associated amendments to the planning regulations was that the NMAC would be subsumed into a new independent, multidisciplinary heritage advisory body, the Heritage Council.
This model remains sound. In the years since, despite ongoing resourcing difficulties that are now being sought to be addressed through significant recruitment since 2021, the Heritage Council has continued to develop as a key regulatory body, both for regulating professional archaeological practice and monument protection under the National Monuments Acts and by way of the provision of advice to planning authorities. The Heritage Council's independent mandate is set out in the Heritage Act 1995 and through that, the advisory functions under the National Monuments Acts regarding important matters, which are inherited from the NMAC, can intervene as necessary. As I explained, the function being expressly conferred on the Heritage Council under the Bill, combined with the general powers the council has under the Heritage Act 1995, will ensure this situation is not only continued but strengthened.
An impression has been given during our discussions that deletions from existing registers are a current occurrence, but they are not. The record of monuments and places established in the late 1990s contains something of the order of 130,000 entries. In the quarter-century since its establishment, there has not been a single deletion from it. While further research would be needed to be definitive, my officials are not, as matters stand, aware of any deletions from the 5,000 monuments entered so far onto the register of historic monuments established under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act. The removal of special protection under the Bill is considered to be analogous with the revocation of a preservation order. In recent years, the Department has dealt with only one request to revoke a preservation order and, in accordance with relevant provisions of the National Monuments Acts, consulted the Heritage Council in that regard. The council advised against revocation and the request to revoke was refused by the Department on my behalf. There is only one case of which my officials are aware where provisions for consulting the council regarding possible revocation was triggered, for the simple reason no one can recall a case where a preservation order was revoked or even where consideration of revocation proceeded to the point where consultation with the council had to occur.
Far from in any way weakening the law, the Bill will strengthen it at a fundamental level. For the first time, there will be automatic legal protection for all classes of monuments set out in regulations made under the Bill. Nothing is being lost in terms of consultation; in fact, it is being expanded. Not only will the Minister of the day have to consult the Heritage Council in regard to the removal of special protection, there will have to be consultation with the council regarding any proposed deletion from the new statutory register. This goes much further than the existing National Monuments Acts. Where a licence that would result in the demolition of a registered monument subject to special protection is sought, an environmental impact assessment, EIA, will be required. In real terms, this is a far more comprehensive protection than the approval procedures in the National Monuments Act 1994 and will involve the public as well as statutory consultees.
Based on what experience has shown and given the professionalism and commitment of the strong team at the national monuments service, there will be very few proposals to delete monuments from the register. I cannot see how it would be sustainable or warranted to establish a new statutory body, parallel to both the national monuments service of the Department and the existing independent Heritage Council, to deal with a handful of cases or perhaps even to find no cases at all to deal with. If it is argued a reconstituted NMAC should have a wider consultative role in licensing under the Bill generally or planning advisory casework, I ask Deputies to consider the realities of how a part-time and largely voluntary body would deal with hundreds of licences and thousands of referred planning applications annually. My priority, in tandem with introducing this new and groundbreaking legislation, is to continue to work to better resource expert teams within the national monuments service and the Heritage Council, and I strongly believe this is the correct priority.
In regard to the query about the resources of the Heritage Council, I gave assurances we will have our budgetary discussions with the council regarding its requirements, noting the enactment of the Bill. At present, the Heritage Council has staff - two individuals - with master's qualifications in archaeology, one of whom is a member of the Institute of Archaeologists of Ireland, and a further member of staff is a trained and published historian. The council is currently well resourced but, obviously, if we anticipate any additional demand arising from this legislation, we will have discussions with it in that regard.
Deputy O'Callaghan asked about excavation licences. For the period 2004 to 2023, 15,685 excavation licences were issued. A total of 86% of the excavation licences issued were for monitoring, testing or research purposes and data on monuments discovered as a result of a licensed excavation are not available. Approximately 1,200 monuments are added to the Department’s historic environment viewer annually as a result of new monuments reported to the national monuments service, and they will be transferred to the new register. Since last year, I have funded the INSTAR+ archaeological research programme, at up to €1 million this year.
That has been really useful in making good use of archaeological found material, allowing for additional research and making it available to the public. I visited the UCC school of archaeology in recent weeks to look at some of the projects it has under the INSTAR+ programme. It is really innovative and provides valuable resources and information for the wider public on archaeological finds.
I thank the Minister of State for that detailed answer. It is great that the Heritage Council has two archaeologists and one historian, but that illustrates the very point I was trying to make. This can be contrasted with the range of expertise there would be on a national monuments advisory council with a panel of ten or 15 experts with knowledge of different eras. Crucially, the expert in a particular area might not even be the person to advise on a particular monument, but having that range of expertise allows them to know the best person in Ireland to contact regarding that era.
I thank the Minister of State for the information on the excavation licences. Of the more than 15,000 excavation licences issued, how many have been preserved in situ? Of those that have been preserved in situ, how many have formed part of, for example, the Ireland's Ancient East offering? Based on the response, people might think that all is well with the preservation of monuments. I will give one example of something that happened about 20 years ago. Over the past 150 or 200 years there has been mass destruction of monuments in this country.
I will give one example of a very significant archaeological find which I believe certainly should have been preserved in situ. There was a very significant find at Carrickmines Castle, a very historic site. It should have been preserved in situ. There were very significant findings of the castle structure, the walls and everything else. In Dublin there are not many sites like that from that era, and not with the history of that particular site relating to the defences of Dublin and everything else that went with that. However, rather than preserving that in situ and having it open to the public to visit, everything that was found there is sitting in a warehouse somewhere having been dismantled. There is ongoing destruction and removal of our heritage with stuff not being preserved in situ. I absolutely accept that not everything needs to be preserved in situ, but significant finds do. If we had a national monuments advisory council, I believe it would have advised strongly that this was a significant find and should be kept in place. However, we did not have a national monuments advisory council. We have the current structures and as a result it is not preserved in situ. People are not visiting it today. They are not learning about it. They are not valuing the archaeology. That can never be put back and the damage is done.
There is a significant issue here and we need to put forward a solution to it. Continuing in the same vein is not working.
I support the point Deputy Cian O'Callaghan made. About 15 or 20 years ago the house where Tomás Mac Curtain was assassinated by the Black and Tans in Blackpool was demolished over a weekend. That house was protected and was an historic site for the people of Cork. Tomás Mac Curtain was a Lord Mayor of Cork and a very influential figure both in the republican movement and also in Cork. In the middle of the night, he was shot in his home and that was to be kept for the people of Cork as part of our republican heritage. A developer or the owner of the property came in over the weekend and levelled it. With protected buildings and monuments, there is no recourse.
The argument put up at the time was that it was not fit for the purpose of his business. He claimed it was unsafe, but there was no corroborating evidence that the building was unsafe and it was just knocked down. To add insult to injury with regard to MacCurtain Street, which is only around the corner from Blackpool and not far to walk, a group of business people came together to rename it unofficially the "Victorian Quarter". People going onto Google Maps or TripAdvisor will see MacCurtain Street, which is named after a Lord Mayor of Cork, an Irish republican who was murdered by the Black and Tans. How in the name of God can a couple of businessmen with no authorisation from the local authority rename it the Victorian Quarter after the Famine queen?
I will respond to both Deputies. I hope I can provide assurance further to the note I read out about the National Monuments Advisory Council. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan spoke about Carrickmines. It was an exceptional find and legitimate concerns were raised about it. It is certainly not typical of what happens generally; it was exceptional. There is no doubt that it is an important site. The vast majority of the licences are issued to return a site back to its original condition. Test excavations would avoid the impact of development on archaeological sites rather than cause the removal of sites. Most excavations of sites are not really suitable for preservation. As we said the last day, archaeological excavation is by its nature a destructive process. With the INSTAR+ programme, we have an opportunity to use any of the finds we are getting from these sites to add to our research body of work and to make that available for the public which is highly valuable.
The voluntary model for an advisory body, as was constituted by the NMAC, really would not work in a contemporary situation. What we are doing here with the Heritage Council's role and ability to bring in outside expertise is far more robust. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan is correct that within both the current staffing and board there is additional archaeological experience on the board of the Heritage Council. Even with both of those, they may not have the range of expertise required. It has the ability to consult as required based on the site it is tasked to look at.
In response to Deputy Gould, there are examples across the country. These buildings are an issue for the local authorities under the record of protected structures which is a separate process. I believe that every local authority should have a county archaeologist. We certainly do not have enough of them. It is something we are considering as we try to expand and ask our local authorities to look at expanding their heritage teams and heritage divisions. Having a county archaeologist is a vital piece of the jigsaw to give added protection for our monuments.
I ask the Minister of State to circulate the note he read out if possible. Groups such as An Taisce have been concerned about the points that Deputy Cian O'Callaghan has raised. It would also be helpful for our engagement with those groups.
I am happy to do that.
I accept that many finds will not be preserved in situ. My concern is with the ones of high value and high significance that should be preserved in situ but are not. It is fine to say that something was an exception, but these are the very exceptions that should not have happened.
I accept the Deputy's point.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 118 not moved.
I move amendment No. 119:
In page 45, after line 39 to insert the following:
“(8) The Council may, for the purposes of forming any views referred to in subsection (7)(a), consult with such public authorities or other persons as it thinks fit.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24
I move amendment No. 120:
In page 48, line 28, after “authority” to insert “, with the consent of the Minister,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 25
I move amendment No. 121:
In page 49, line 2, after “include” to insert “, in so far as any requirement for an EIA is concerned”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 122:
In page 50, line 2, to delete “observations.” and substitute “observations;”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 123:
In page 50, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“ “Transboundary Convention” means the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary context, done at Espo (Finland), on 25 of February 1991; “Transboundary State” means any other state party to the Transboundary Convention.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26
There are quite a few amendments here that we will group together. I ask Deputy Gould to move amendment No. 124 and to speak to Nos. 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 144,166 and 167. Then I will come back to the Minister to speak to the remainder in that group, Nos. 131, 134, 139 and 142.
I move amendment No. 124:
In page 50, to delete lines 15 to 29.
Our concerns relate to loopholes in the legislation that could be circumvented. We are looking at works that could be carried out without following the normal channels of authorisation, in other words making unlawful works lawful. The Minister of State waives requirements in section 27, even if works could damage heritage but not the environment. Works including mining and quarrying could continue without the need for a licence if they are recurrent and happened before the monument was given protection. The example we are looking at is the Hill of Allen in County Kildare, home to Fionn mac Cumhaill and the Fianna in Irish mythology, which was a full circle and now resembles a crescent moon due to quarrying by Roadstone. This sort of thing should not be allowed to continue without the need for a licence. Under existing wording, even if they damage the integrity of the monument and the surrounding context of the landscape, they can keep going. Will the Minister of State speak to our amendments and see if our concerns are valid?
On amendment No. 124, there may be some misinterpretation of section 26(2), the purpose of which is to avoid State bodies needing to obtain a licence under Part 7 of the enacted Bill in order for them to issue a licence of their own. Section 26(2)(a) provides that Chapter 6 of the Bill, where the requirement to have a licence arises, will not apply to the issuing of an authorisation by another State body. For example, if a situation arose where works were proposed in the vicinity of a monument that is also in a forested area, for such works to be carried out legally, a felling licence under the Forestry Act 2014 and a licence under Part 7 of the enacted Bill could be required. Section 26(2)(b) makes it explicitly clear that the disapplication applying to the other State body does not apply to the carrying out of works. In the example I mentioned, a person proposing to carry out works, or actually carrying out the works, would require two licences: one from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to authorise the felling of trees and another under Part 7 of the Bill. Without section 26(2), a State body authorising works would need to apply for a licence from my Department first in order to issue their own licence and this is clearly not the intention. I hope this clarifies the purpose of section 26(2) and I ask the Deputies to withdraw the amendment if possible.
On the grouped amendments from Nos. 129 to 144, I intend to introduce two sets of amendments relating to exemptions for certain classes of works from the licensing or notification requirements put in place under sections 27 and 30.
To reiterate part of the discussion that was had in the Seanad on this matter, I will provide some examples where an exemption may be considered necessary. If a farmer has been ploughing the same field for many years and 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 considered necessary.
Similar issues could arise in relation to monuments to which special protection applies. For example, a local authority may wish to re-open existing burial plots in a graveyard that is a registered monument to which special protection applies. Without powers to provide 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 Deputies’ concerns in relation to exemptions for certain classes of works at registered monuments, there are certainly cases where an exemption is considered suitable and where ground disturbance or other forms of damage to the surrounding area may be unavoidable.
I ask the Deputies to consider my proposals in relation to those sections of the Bill relating to exemptions, especially regarding works that restrict public access, with a view to withdrawing their amendments if satisfied my proposals achieve what they believe to be required. If further amendments are required, we can discuss the matter with a view to proposing same on Report Stage.
On amendment No. 166, this is a complex issue that needs to be reviewed in further detail. However, in principle I would not object to elected members of the local authority being invited to make observations to the Minister on exemption requests from EIA-related requirements. I will ask my officials to explore this matter with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, OPC, with a view to seeing whether this can be made a reserved function. I ask the Deputies to withdraw this proposal for the time being and I will seek to propose a corresponding amendment on Report Stage, pending discussions with the OPC.
On amendment No. 167, under the National Monuments Acts, consultation has always been with a statutory advisory council. I believe this is appropriate and should remain the position under the Bill. My understanding of public participation networks, PPNs, is that they have been developed to engage with local authorities on certain decision-making processes that relate to matters within local authority remits. To the best of my knowledge, PPNs do not engage with any central Government Department in the manner suggested. I would not see it as appropriate for them to do so for the purposes of exemptions from EIA-related requirements.
I will speak to the Government amendments. These two sets of amendments make identical changes in respect of exemptions for classes of works to monuments to which general protection applies and exemptions for classes of works to monuments to which special protection applies.
Amendments Nos. 131 and 139 ensure that where classes of works are not likely to have significant effects on the environment or a European site and where they are an established recurrent activity before general protection applies to the monument concerned, that is, before the commencement of the enacted Bill, the Minister will be unable to consider an exemption for such classes of works where, given all circumstances of the case, it is not considered reasonable to do so.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 142 make it expressly clear that no exemption may be granted if the class of works concerned prevents access by members of the public to a monument.
These amendments, while allowing certain classes of works to be exempted from certain licensing or notification processes, strengthen the wording in the current draft and help ensure that exemptions may only be introduced where it is reasonable to do so.
I withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to bring it back on Report Stage if we need to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28
I move amendment No. 127:
In page 55, to delete lines 37 to 41, and in page 56, to delete lines 1 to 14 and substitute the following:
“(b) the recording of the monument as a whole or any part or aspect of it (including its immediate surroundings) or any objects on, in, under or within it or its immediate surroundings including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, recording by way of archaeological excavation, use of detection devices or any form of photographic or geophysical survey equipment or any other appropriate form of survey or inspection;
(c) the carrying out of any form of monitoring (including archaeological monitoring), supervision or inspection;
(d) the salvaging, collection or protection of any part of the monument (including its immediate surroundings) or any object on, in under or within it or its immediate surroundings and, where appropriate, the preparation of such part or object for deposition in an appropriate museum or other site for such deposition;
(e) the specification of the time period when the relevant works are to be carried out;
(f) that the relevant works in respect of which notice was given under section 27(2)(b)(i) and any thing required to be done by paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) be done in a specified manner or be funded or carried out by a specified person or a person falling within a specified category of persons including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, that the doing of those relevant works or any thing referred to in that paragraph be subject to further conditions of any of the type set out in section 151(4) and, for that purpose, any reference in section 151(4) to “the licensable activity” shall be construed as a reference to the relevant works in respect of which notice was given under section 27(2)(b)(i) and any thing required to be done by paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).
(6) A reference in this section to an object on, in, under or within a monument includes a reference to an object found in the course of carrying out any thing referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (5).”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29
I move amendment No. 128:
In page 56, line 26, to delete “subsection (3)” and substitute “subsections (3) and (6)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 129:
In page 57, line 2, after “environment” to insert “, the integrity of a monument within its surrounding context or landscape”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 130:
In page 57, to delete lines 6 to 8.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 131:
In page 57, line 8, after “applies” to insert “and in respect of which it would, in all the circumstances of the case, be reasonable to exercise that power”.
I have issues regarding the phrasing used in the amendment. There is a lack of clarity.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 132:
In page 57, line 8, after “applies” to insert “, unless the continuation of such an activity could negatively impact the environment, the integrity of a monument within its surrounding context or landscape, or a European site”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 133:
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.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 134:
In page 57, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"(6) The Minister shall not exercise his or her power under subsection (2) in respect of a class of relevant works in such a way as to prevent access, by members of the public, to a monument.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 135:
In page 57, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(6) 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.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31
I move amendment No. 136:
In page 57, line 20, to delete “subsection (2)” and substitute “subsections (2) and (4)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 137:
In page 57, line 24, after “environment” to insert “, the integrity of a monument within its surrounding context or landscape,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 138:
In page 57, lines 28 to 30, to delete all words from and including “, or” in line 28, down to and including “applies” in line 30.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 139:
In page 57, line 30, after “applies” to insert “and in respect of which it would, in all the circumstances of the case, be reasonable to exercise that power”.
Is the amendment agreed?
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 140:
In page 57, line 30, after “applies” to insert “, unless the continuation of such an activity could negatively impact the environment, the integrity of a monument within its surrounding context or landscape, or a European site”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 141:
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.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 142:
In page 57, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“(4)The Minister shall not exercise his or her power under subsection (1) in respect of a class of relevant works in such a way as to prevent access, by members of the public, to a monument.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 143:
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.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 144:
In page 57, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
“Relevant works restricting public access for more than 2 years
32. 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.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33
I move amendment No. 145:
In page 60, lines 22 and 23, to delete “, in such form or manner as he or she considers appropriate including publication on the website of the Department” and substitute “on the website of the Department and in such other (if any) form or manner as he or she considers appropriate”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34
Amendments Nos. 146 to 149 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 146:
In page 61, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(3) In respect of the Minister’s determination of a relevant application, the Minister shall demonstrate due regard to the results of the EIA.
(4)In the event of the Minister making a determination which is not consistent with the recommendations or findings of the EIA, the Minister must provide a full and detailed account of the consideration given to each of the recommendations and findings, providing a justification for any deviation and demonstrating that due regard was given in line with subsection (3).”.
These amendments are to ensure that the Minister demonstrates due regard to the results of EIAs and provides a full account of the consideration given to justify any deviations from its recommendations. I will be pressing amendment No. 146.
I ask the Deputies to withdraw amendments Nos. 146 to 149 because the matters they relate to are already provided for elsewhere in the Bill. Under section 37(3), where an EIA has been carried out by the Minister, in deciding whether or not to grant a licence, the Minister must take into account the EIA and its results and findings, as well as the EIA report and any other information submitted to the Minister during the EIA process.
Under section 39, in all cases, whether or not a licence has been granted, following the carrying out of an EIA by the Minister, he or she must publish a wide range of information, including; the main reasons and considerations on which his or her decision is based, including information about the public participation process, an evaluation of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed works on the environment and, where necessary, a description of the main measures to be taken to avoid or offset the significant adverse effects on the environment. All this information will be publicly available on the Department's website and the EIA portal.
In the context of amendment No. 147, there is nothing in the relevant subsection that could undermine or effect the responsibilities of an applicant under the EIA directive. As a result, I do not consider the amendment necessary.
Amendments Nos. 148 and 149, which relate to section 34(10), are not workable. Section 34(10) gives effect to paragraph 3(c) of Article 5 of the EIA directive, permitting the Minister to indicate what information should be contained in an EIA report by way of the various qualitative criteria, for example, descriptions and non-technical summaries listed under Annex IV of the EIA directive.
Some of the information in Annex IV may be required and the current drafting allows the Minister of the day to determine what he or she needs to reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the project on the environment. The amendment as proposed would require all the information under Annex IV to be contained in the EIA report. This is not considered reasonable. As a result, I am unable to accept these amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 147:
In page 62, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(7)Nothing in subsection (6) shall be regarded as undermining the responsibilities of the applicant under the EIA Directive.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 148:
In page 63, line 1, to delete “the extent to which”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 149:
In page 63, line 2, after “Directive” to insert “which”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37
Amendments Nos. 150 to 165, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 168 and they may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 150:
In page 66, line 31, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, informally known as the transboundary convention or the Espoo Convention, sets out the obligations of states parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning and also provides a general obligation on states to notify and consult each other on all major projects under consideration that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across boundaries.
All EU member states are states parties to the transboundary convention. In the context of EIA requirements, the current Bill gives effect to transboundary consultation requirements with specific provision made in relation to works that may affect the environment in other EU member states. In order to strengthen the Espoo Convention, look towards ratifying its second protocol, and to bring additional states into scope that are not EU member states, such as the United Kingdom, the term “Member State” is being replaced with that of “Transboundary State”.
We support the Government's amendments to ensure that, as a result of Brexit, the Six Counties are not left out from being consulted on works affecting the cross-Border environment. However, the proposal requires consultation with the British state in London.
With amendment No. 152, we are trying to ensure the Good Friday Agreement institutions such as the assembly, the executive and local authorities in the Six Counties are consulted. Is the Minister of State willing to examine this on Report Stage?
The Government amendments relating to the transboundary convention have provided what this amendment seeks to achieve, especially using the term "Member State" to replace "Transboundary State". This gives effect to consideration of the UK, which covers the Six Counties, obviously. I ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment.
I would like some clarification. We appreciate the change from "Member State" to "Transboundary State", but we want people in the Six Counties to be included in this by including local authorities, the executive and the assembly. We need to work with people along the Border and people who are affected. With no disrespect to the British Government, it is people in the Six Counties we need to include in this process.
That is a valuable point. The transboundary convention is around that consultation piece with other member states. If it is of use we can certainly look on Report Stage in terms of a specific power to consult, where necessary, Northern Ireland bodies.
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to introduce it again on Report Stage. Having listened to the Minister of State's comments just now, I hope he takes this on board.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 151:
In page 67, line 3, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 152:
In page 67, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
“Relevant works which may affect environment in another Member State
38. (1) Where the Minister considers that the proposed relevant works that is the subject of an EIAR under this Chapter would be likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State or in a part of the island of Ireland not under the jurisdiction of the State, or where another Member State or public authority in a part of Ireland not under the jurisdiction of the State considers that the proposed relevant works would be likely to have such effects and so requests, the Minister shall, as soon as possible, send to that Member State or to the relevant public authority—
(a) a description of the proposed relevant works and any available information on its possible effects on the environment in that Member State or part of the island of Ireland, and
(b) relevant information about the procedure for deciding whether or not to grant the relevant licence concerned,
and shall give to that Member State or relevant public authority a reasonable time to indicate whether it wishes to provide views on those effects.
(2) Where a Member State or relevant public authority which has received information under subsection (1) indicates that it wishes to provide views on the likely effects on the environment of the proposed relevant works, the Minister shall send to that Member State or relevant public authority—
(a) if he or she has not already done so, a copy of the EIAR submitted to the Minister under this Chapter, and
(b) any further relevant information about the procedure for deciding whether or not to grant the relevant licence concerned.
(3) Where a Member State or relevant public authority has, under subsection (2), indicated that it wishes to provide views on the likely effects on the environment of the proposed relevant works, the Minister shall consult with that Member State or relevant public authority regarding the potential effects of the proposed relevant works on the environment in that Member State or part of the island of Ireland and the measures envisaged to reduce or eliminate such effects.
(4) The Minister shall notify a Member State or relevant public authority which was consulted under subsection (3) of his or her decision as to whether or not to grant the relevant licence concerned.
(5) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant public authority” may include the Assembly and Executive established under the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, and any elected local authority on the island of Ireland outside the jurisdiction of the State.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 153
In page 67, to delete lines 36 to 41 and substitute the following:
“Relevant works which may affect environment in another Member State or Northern Ireland
38. (1) Where the Minister considers that the proposed relevant works that is the subject of an EIAR under this Chapter would be likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State or Northern Ireland, or where another Member State or Northern Ireland considers that the proposed works would be likely to have such effects and so requests, the Minister shall, as soon as possible, send to that Member State or Northern Ireland—”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 38
I move amendment No. 154:
In page 67, line 39, to delete “Member State, or where another Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State, or where another Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 155:
In page 67, line 41, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 156:
In page 68, line 2, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 157:
In page 68, line 5, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 158:
In page 68, line 7, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 159:
In page 68, line 9, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 160:
In page 68, line 14, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 161:
In page 68, line 16, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 162:
In page 68, line 17, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 163:
In page 68, line 19, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
There is nobody here to press amendment No. 164.
Amendment No. 164 not moved.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39
I move amendment No. 165:
In page 69, line 8, to delete “Member State” and substitute “Transboundary State”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40
I move amendment No. 166:
In page 69, line 21, after “the”, where it firstly occurs, to insert “elected members of the”.
I withdraw this amendment and reserve the right to reintroduce it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 167:
In page 69, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(b) invite the public-participation network within the local authority in whose functional area the person proposes to carry out the relevant work to make (within such period as the Minister may specify) observations to the Minister in relation to the request,”.
I am doing the same with this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 168:
In page 70, to delete lines 27 to 29.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 41
Amendment Nos. 169 to 172, inclusive, and 174 to 176, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 169:
In page 70, line 31, to delete “section 40(4)” and substitute “40(4)”.
Amendment No. 169 deals with a minor drafting matter. It removes the word "section" as it is a duplicate.
Amendment No. 171 was proposed following discussions in the Seanad where it was requested it be made explicitly clear the questioning of the validity of an act or licence under section 41(2) is to be taken in the context of legal proceedings only.
Our amendment would remove the subsection that prohibits the questioning of the validity of an act done by the Minister or a relevant licence granted except through judicial review and delete the harsh restrictions on applying for judicial reviews relating to the act done by the Minister, which excludes bodies or organisations dedicated to heritage protection, archaeology, history and culture. Rather than banning the questioning of act done by the Minister, a perhaps better wording than proposed under amendment No. 171 would be that the validity of an act done by the Minister under this chapter or a relevant licence granted may be challenged in law by way of an application for judicial review. Having spoken with Deputies Ó Broin and Ó Snodaigh, has the Minister of State comments to make on those concerns?
The Minister of State gave a short explanation of amendment No. 171. It has caused much concern outside this room. Many people have read it and come up with different views on it. They are concerned about the effect of it and I and I am going to talk through some of those. Some have taken the view it is trying to prevent the capacity to take a judicial review in part on the grounds that an EIA be undertaken. Accordingly, it would be helpful if the Minister of State could give a detailed explanation of exactly what amendment No. 171 seeks to do. There is concern the wording only refers to acts done and not to decisions or omissions. An act done might extend to decisions, but for example, section 50 of the Planning and Development Act refers to "any decision made or other act done". Will the Minister of State set out the rationale from the deviation from the formulation in the aforementioned Act, which refers to both acts and decisions, whereas the current Bill only refers to acts?
Will he explain why omissions are not explicitly referred to, as including them would also serve to improve the transposition of Articles 9.2 and 9.3 of the Aarhus Convention and Article 11 of the EU EIA directive, as amended? Surely he is not intending to limit Aarhus or incorrectly transpose the EIA directive?
Will the Minister of State set out the options a person would have should he or she wish to challenge some other action of the Minister or public authority that does not relate to an EIA or an appropriate assessment?
Will he identify the sections where Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention has been transposed? In particular, there does not seem to be anything equivalent to section 160 of the Planning and Development Act, which allows for members of the public to take action with respect to a private individual or authority for a breach of law relating to the environment, with protection and quality of review required under Article 9.4 of the Aarhus Convention such as, for example, cost protection.
Will the Minister of State set out the effect of the inclusion in section 42(6)(b) of Part 2 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 and any limitations argued by the State on the effective cost protection arising, especially given this Bill, when enacted, will not be in the list in section 44 of the 2011 Act? Will he accept or bring forward an amendment that explicitly excludes the requirement of Part 2 of the 2011 Act to prove environmental damage, at least in the instances being advanced under the Bill, given the EU Court of Justice indicated as far back as March 2018 in judgment C-470/16 that the environmental damage test in section 42 of the 2011 Act was entirely unlawful? Paragraphs 59 to 65 of that judgment refer to it. I remind the Minister of State that Ireland was found to be in breach of the EIA directive by the EU Court of Justice in C-50/09 and the new directive actually requires much more. I will keep this under review between now and Report Stage.
If the Minister of State is not able to answer all that now, perhaps he would be able to give a further written note on any of the aspects I have raised. It would be appreciated.
I reiterate that amendment No. 171 is in the context of legal proceedings only. The senior counsel in the Attorney General's office has checked all this from a legal perspective and it is completely Aarhus-compliant.
The ability of the public to participate under the Aarhus Convention is not in any way compromised by this. In fact, Article 9 is expressly catered for by the provision that cost of protection rules under section 50B of the Planning and Development Act and the Environment Act 2000 are catered for.
If it is of use to the Deputy, we can get a more detailed note to him in the next few days because there is quite a lot of detail in the question. Again, this has been checked from a legal perspective by senior counsel and we are confident it is legally compliant in terms of Aarhus.
I request a written note on the questions I have put.
Could we have a copy of the questions the Deputy has put so we can compare that with the information from the Minister of State?
That is no problem. It would be useful.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 170:
In page 70, to delete line 39, and in page 71, to delete lines 1 to 7.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 171:
In page 70, line 39, after “not” to insert “in legal proceedings”.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 172:
In page 71, to delete lines 8 to 19.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 173 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 173 not moved.
I move amendment No. 174:
In page 71, line 28, to delete “, with all necessary modifications,”.
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 175:
In page 71, line 33, to delete “8 weeks” and substitute “12 weeks”.
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 176:
In page 71, line 36, to delete “8 weeks” and substitute “12 weeks”.
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 177:
In page 73, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
“Board oversight to protect monuments at risk of destruction
43. (1) A registered monument or a prescribed monument, or any part of a monument or its surrounding context or landscape, shall not be destroyed by a person except in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (6), where the Board is of the opinion that a monument is not, or has ceased to be, of sufficient archaeological, historic, cultural or scientific interest to justify its continued protection, the Board may consent to the destruction of the monument in such manner as may be specified in the consent.
(3) (a) Subsection (2) shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for, any authorisation of any other person that is necessary to make lawful the destruction of the monument concerned.
(b) In paragraph (a), “authorisation of any other person” includes the giving or granting of a licence, consent, approval, permission or direction, whether under an enactment or otherwise.
(4) The Board shall not consent to its destruction other than—
(a) with the consent of the Minister, and
(b) with the approval of An Chomhairle Oidhreachta and following consultation with An Taisce, and (c) either—
(i) in conformity with any conditions to which such order is subject, or (ii) with the leave of the court which made the order.”.
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 43 agreed to.
Sections 44 and 45 agreed to.
SECTION 46
I move amendment No. 178:
In page 74, lines 31 and 32, to delete “the Property Registration Authority” and substitute “Tailte Éireann”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 46, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 47
Amendments Nos. 179 to 181, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 179:
In page 75, line 12, after “Minister”, where it firstly occurs to insert “, the Board, An Chomhairle Oidhreachta and An Taisce”.
Our concern is to ensure that local authorities inform the public when they intend to transfer ownership or interest in registered monuments and that they give the public a chance to voice their views and to leave the final decision with the elected representatives of the local authority. That ensures people know what is happening, it gives the public a voice and it also gives local representatives the final decision. I ask the Minister of State to comment.
While I am not in a position currently to agree to these amendments as proposed, I see merit in what is being proposed here. I make a commitment to consult with the Heritage Council and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to determine if similar provisions can be brought forward on Report Stage regarding, first, a mandatory consultation where a public or local authority intends to dispose of, or otherwise transfer, its ownership of a registered monument; second, a requirement to place a notice in a local and national newspaper regarding the proposed transfer of a registered monument; and, third, if such transfer can be subject to consultation with elected members of the relevant local authority. Accordingly, I ask the Deputies to consider withdrawing these amendments for the time being with a view to discussing this further on Report Stage.
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 180:
In page 75, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:
“(4) On the same day as notice is given to the Minister in line with subsection (3)(a), the authority shall place a notice in at least a national newspaper and in local media through a local newspaper and/or local radio station where they exist, outlining its intention to transfer its ownership of, or other interest in, a registered monument.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 181:
In page 75, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(5) A local authority shall only transfer ownership of, or interest in, a registered monument under this section following the agreement of its elected members.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 47 agreed to.
SECTION 48
Amendments Nos. 182 and 183 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 182:
. In page 76, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(5) Nothing in this section shall operate to prevent any provision of this Act having effect in relation to a prescribed monument notwithstanding that a relevant date has not been specified in respect of the geographical area of the State in which the monument is situated.”.
Section 48 allows the Minister to publish a notice in Iris Oifigiúil specifying a date from which the register of monuments supersedes the register of historic monuments established under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1987 or the record of monuments and places established under the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994. Amendment No. 182 is introduced to make it explicitly clear that in a situation where the register of monuments has yet to be established, if they are commenced in the meantime, the provisions relating to prescribed monuments will have effect in relation to monuments in the record of monuments and places and the register of historic monuments. In effect, this will mean that general protection will apply to the vast majority of, if not all, such monuments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 183:
In page 76, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken to reduce the protection of a monument or place.
(6) Any monument on the Register of Historic Monuments or the record of monuments and places in respect of a geographical area of the State shall be included in the Register, unless by vote of the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of an individual monument.”.
I will withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 48, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 49 and 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51
Amendments Nos. 184, 186, 188 to 190, inclusive, 198, 207 and 262 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 184:
In page 77, line 31, after “be” to insert “, and following consultation with the Joint Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for heritage”.
The transfer of a national monument by the Minister to a person should only take place following consultation with the relevant Oireachtas joint committee, as well as with the local community, and should not be at the whim of the Minister of the day alone. We have real concerns about this.
Regarding amendments Nos. 184 and 186, it is appropriate to require consultation with the joint Oireachtas committee in matters relating to the acquisition of a registered monument by the Minister of the day or a local authority. It may be the case that such transactions contain confidential or sensitive information and, in any event, these are operational matters that should be left to the relevant stakeholders without any need to consult outside parties. I have introduced new reporting provisions that will produce reports containing information on the acquisition of registered monuments, including where proposed acquisitions do not take place. For these reasons, I am not in a position to accept these amendments.
In relation to amendments Nos. 188 to 190, inclusive, section 62 provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the Commissioners of Public Works, transfer ownership of a national monument that is in the ownership or guardianship of the Minister, where the Minister is of the opinion that the transfer is compatible with the proper protection and management of the monument, or is in the public interest. Similarly, a local authority may, after consultation with the Minister, transfer ownership of a national monument that is in the ownership or guardianship of the local authority, where it is of the opinion that the transfer is compatible with the proper protection and management of the monument, or is in the public interest.
As I mentioned in relation to proposed amendments to section 51, for operational matters such as those set out in section 62, I do not think it is appropriate to require consultation with or approval from the joint Oireachtas committee.
Amendment No. 198 seeks consultation with a range of bodies in relation to section 75(2). This section requires that any act resulting in any loss of interest in a national monument can only be done if justified on substantial and appropriate research or substantial public interest grounds.
As the Bill clearly establishes the parameters for such acts to be carried out, I see no reason to introduce requirements for relevant authorities to consult with other bodies. For for this reason, I cannot accept this amendment.
Regarding amendment No. 207, under section 5, every regulation made by the Minister under the Bill must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. I will ask my officials to engage with the OPC in order to determine whether it is possible to apply the same requirements for by-laws made under the enacted legislation, but I would note some reservations about whether the Oireachtas should seek to limit unnecessarily the powers of local authorities to make by-laws under this section or subject local authorities to unnecessary oversight in that regard. My view is that we should be encouraging as much as possible effective action at the level of local democracy. I would ask the Deputy to withdraw this amendment pending further consideration between now and Report Stage.
Regarding amendment No. 262, section 156 is an important innovation in heritage law, establishing for the first time an appeals process in respect of all statutory licensing decisions under the Bill. It has long been recognised that this was a major gap in the National Monuments Acts. The new system will provide greater transparency and fairness and maintain and build support for the legislation among all concerned, including professionals engaged in specialist activities regulated under the Bill and members of the wider public, such as farmers and other landowners, who find that they need to engage with the licensing system under the Bill in respect of proposed works to monuments.
While I can see that Deputies might have some concerns arising from the fact that the provision as drafted leaves the decision as to appointment of appeals officers as a purely ministerial one, I do not see the proposed amendment as an appropriate way to address this. The involvement of a political body such as a joint Oireachtas committee in the appointment process seems likely to increase rather than diminish concern on the part of the public as to the independence of the appeals officers. I would also note that subsection (1) provides clear parameters within which the Minister must take decisions regarding appointment of appeals officers. However, I take on board the need for some other input apart from the Minister of the day. I will ask the Department to examine the possibility of providing a consultative role for the Heritage Council and, if this is possible, I will introduce an appropriate amendment on Report Stage. I hope the Deputy might be in a position to withdraw the amendment on that basis. In any event, I cannot support this amendment.
How does amendment No. 184 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 185:
In page 77, line 39, to delete “under this section”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 186:
In page 78, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(9) Any decision made under this section to acquire or decline to acquire a registered monument shall be brought to the attention of the Joint Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for heritage.”.
How does amendment No. 186 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 52 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 57
I move amendment No. 187:
In page 81, lines 1 and 2, to delete “council of the county in which” and substitute “local authority in whose jurisdiction”.
There seems to be a simple drafting issue. "Local authority" is the term used in law, not "council of the county". Perhaps the Minister of State might take this point on board.
Section 57 relates to an ancient monument or a national monument within the meaning of the Irish Land Act 1903. The terminology in the Bill as drafted needs to be retained, as it is a direct reference to orders made under section 14(3) of the 1903 Act. For this reason, I would ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
How does amendment No. 187 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 57 agreed to.
Sections 58 to 61, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 62
I move amendment No. 188:
In page 84, line 4, after “may,” to insert “and following consultation with the Joint Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for heritage and the local community,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 189:
In page 84, line 4, after “with” to insert “the Joint Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for heritage, the local community and”.
How does amendment No. 189 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 190:
In page 84, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(3) Any decision by the Minister or a local authority under this section must receive the approval of the Joint Oireachtas Committee responsible for heritage before it may take place.”.
How does amendment No. 190 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 62 agreed to.
SECTION 63
I move amendment No. 191:
In page 84, line 32, to delete “ground;” and substitute the following:
“ground, or
(c) any other burial ground that is discovered;”.
How does amendment No. 191 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 63 agreed to.
Sections 64 to 71, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 72
I move amendment No. 192:
In page 90, to delete lines 17 to 21.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 72 agreed to.
Sections 73 and 74 agreed to.
SECTION 75
Amendments Nos. 193 to 197, inclusive, and 199 will be discussed together, as they are related.
I move amendment No. 193:
In page 91, lines 24 and 25, to delete “in so far as may be practicable” and substitute “in so far as possible”.
This is about the maintenance and presentation of national monuments. The wording in the Bill about the duty placed on the local authority in terms of the maintenance of national monuments is set at a low level. This is a low legal bar, and there are carve-outs in the rest of the section that lower the bar further. With that in mind, I am seeking a decent standard. Why should we go for the lowest possible standard when we could go for a decent one? "In so far as possible" is a better wording and balance.
I will be withdrawing my amendments in this grouping.
Regarding amendment No. 193, sometimes an action may be within the realms of possibility but cannot be taken for practicable reasons, for example, due to a lack of resources, materials or funding. It may be possible to do a great many things in respect of a national monument, but it is not realistic to impose a legal obligation that all things possible shall be done. I cannot accept this amendment, as it is not workable.
Amendment No. 195 follows the commitment I made in the Seanad to review the possibility of broadening the scope of the term “relevant interest” to include “cultural interest”. As this integration of “cultural interest” into the Bill has been deemed possible, and since the terms “artistic interest” and “traditional interest” were already in use within the text of the Bill, these have been grouped together under a new definition of “cultural interest” that also includes “literary interest”. A new definition to provide for “traditional interest” is also proposed. This is another consequential amendment being proposed so that the relevant terms appear appropriately throughout the Bill, in this instance regarding the maintenance and presentation of national monuments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 194:
In page 91, lines 24 and 25, to delete “may be practicable” and substitute “possible”.
Is the Deputy withdrawing amendment No. 194?
I reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 195:
In page 91, lines 25 and 26, to delete “artistic, historic and traditional” and substitute “historic and cultural”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 196:
In page 91, line 25, after “artistic,” to insert “cultural, including intangible culture, linguistic,”.
How does amendment No. 196 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 197:
In page 91, line 26, after “monument” to insert “, as well as the integrity of a monument within its surrounding context”.
How does amendment No. 197 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 198:
In page 91, line 29, after “authority” to insert “, following consultation with the Joint Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for heritage, and Ard-Mhusaem na hÉireann”.
How does amendment No. 198 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 199:
In page 91, to delete lines 32 and 33 and substitute the following:
“(3) The relevant authority shall protect the monument, and may do all or any of the following in respect of a national monument:”.
How does amendment No. 199 stand?
I will withdraw it and reserve the right to table it again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 200 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 200 not moved.
Section 75, as amended, agreed to.
Section 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77
Amendments Nos. 201, 250 to 254, inclusive, 257 to 261, inclusive, and 283 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 201:
In page 93, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(3) Such licences described in subsection (1) and (2) may not be granted where the granting of such a licence is likely to lead to the destruction or damage to the physical, historical, cultural, or contextual integrity of a national monument.".
Amendment No. 215 is a Government amendment and we are looking to amend the amendment.
Sorry, Deputy Gould is correct. There is an amendment to amendment No. 215. We are on amendment No. 201.
Will we go through them?
We are not up to amendment No. 215 yet. We are only on amendment No. 201 at this stage.
I will withdraw that and reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 250 and 254 are grouped with this. Amendments No. 250 to 254, inclusive, are in the name of the Minister, if the Minster of State wishes to speak to them.
As Deputies will of course have noted, the Bill establishes a wide range of licensing requirements, not only in respect of works to monuments but in relation to activities impacting on archaeological objects and historic wrecks and restricting the carrying out of certain activities, even where not immediately directed at known elements of historic heritage, for example, archaeological excavation and monitoring and the use of detection devices for archaeological purposes.
Section 151 is a crucial provision which sets out how the relevant licensing authority, in most cases, the Minister, may respond to an application to carry out such licensable activities. It is essential that it address what happens when a licence application is made comprehensively, and following further review by my Department, a number of important improvements are proposed, focusing in particular on the kinds of conditions which are expressly provided for under the section as capable of being imposed on licences granted under the section.
Provision is made to ensuring conditions may specify the categories of persons who may conduct the particular activity authorised under the licence. It is also provided for that conditions may be imposed requiring the carrying out of other licensable activities or other actions to protect historic heritage. This would, for example, make clear that works to a monument could only proceed if archaeological excavation took place in advance or that such works had to be supervised by a conservation architect.
Complete clarity is provided that the conditions in question may be applied to elements of historic heritage in the underwater environment and that where permitted works are subject to a condition requiring, for example, professional supervision, the latter may itself be subject to conditions as to how it is conducted. Clarity is provided that a further licensable activity required to be carried out as condition of a licence will not itself be exempted from needing a licence other than to the extent provided for in the licence.
Greater clarity is also provided that reasons for refusing to grant a licence may include that any supervision or mitigation proposed to be carried out in relation to the proposed works are not under the control of the applicant. Also, it is made clear that previous non-compliance with licences may result in refusal of a licence application. Taken together, the amendments represent a substantial further strengthening of the licensing regime to be established under the Bill.
On amendments Nos. 257 and 258, section 152 is another major addition to the legal mechanisms for ensuring works and activities regulated under the legislation are carried out to the appropriate standard. As currently drafted, it enables the licensing authority to require an applicant for a licensable activity, or a person who will be acting on behalf of the applicant, to have her or his competence assessed through procedures set out in regulations. This is especially relevant to ensuring specialist activities such as archaeological excavation are only carried out by properly skilled practitioners. This measure is now proposed to be strengthened to be applicable to persons who are going to be undertaking, for example, professional supervision of licensed works to a monument, even where such supervision is not, of itself, a licensable activity under the Bill. Clarity is also provided that the Minister, in setting out in regulations who will carry out the assessments of competence, may do so by reference to categories of person who may do the assessments.
On amendment No. 259, section 153 requires the Minister to consult the board of the National Museum of Ireland before granting a licence and to consider the views, if any, submitted by the museum on the licence application. While the default consultation period will remain 21 days, this amendment will allow for different consultation periods to be prescribed for different licensable activities. For example, the consultation on an application for the use of a detection device may require less time to complete then a consultation on an application to dive on a historic wreck.
On amendments Nos. 260 and 261, under section 154, a licensing authority, subject to certain conditions, may revoke or suspend a licence. In the interests of procedural fairness, a licensing authority must give the licensee an opportunity to make representations in writing in relation to a proposed revocation or suspension. However, in urgent situations, for example, where irreparable damage to a monument is being carried out, there may be an urgent need to suspend a licence with immediate effect. While it is anticipated such a situation would only occur very rarely, it is important the Bill is revised to take account of such a situation. Where an urgent suspension may occur, the notice affecting the suspension must state the reason for the urgent suspension.
On amendment No. 283, chapters 4 and 5 of Part 10 endow officers and agents of the relevant authorities under the Bill with a range of powers, for example, in relation to the carrying out of inspections and archaeological excavations. The proposed provision will make clear that the fact that something is done under those powers will not exempt it from the licensing requirements established under the Bill. This is an important clarification which should provide reassurance that the relevant authorities will operate to the same high standards as will be required of others undertaking licensable activities under the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 77 agreed to.
Sections 78 and 79 agreed to.
SECTION 80
I move amendment No. 202.
In page 94, line 34, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 203:
In page 95, line 2, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 204:
In page 95, line 4, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 205.
In page 95, line 8, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 206:
In page 95, line 10, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 80, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 81
I move amendment No. 207:
In page 95, after line 40, to insert the following:
"(4) Bye-laws made in line with subsections (1) and (2) shall be laid before the Joint Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for heritage.”.
I withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to bring it back again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
We move on to amendments Nos. 208, 209, 211 and 212.
I move amendment No. 208:
In page 95, after line 40, to insert the following:
"(4) Bye-laws made in line with this section shall be proportionate.".
Similarly, I withdraw these and reserve the right to table them again on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 81 agreed to.
SECTION 82
I move amendment No. 209:
In page 96, line 5, after “monuments” to insert “, to ensure such an activity or event does not put at risk the physical, cultural, or historical integrity of the monument”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 210 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 210 not moved.
I move amendment No. 211:
In page 96, line 19, after “obstruction” to insert “as defined by the Minister by regulation”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 212
In page 97, line 1, to delete “(h) the granting” and substitute “(vi) the granting”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 82 agreed to.
Sections 83 to 88, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 89
I move amendment No. 213:
In page 101, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(2) The Minister, the Commissioners or a local authority, as appropriate, may enforce an easement where the easement relates to, or has the effect of, whether in whole or in part, providing access to a Registered Monument.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 214:
In page 101, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
“(2) The Minister or the Commissioners may request the relevant local authority to initiate the process of establishing a public right of way to ensure public access to a monument of significant historic or archaeological interest.
(3) A local authority which receives a request under subsection (2) shall consider the request and present a report to the elected members of the local authority within 10 weeks of receiving the request.”.
I withdraw the amendment. I reserve the right to resubmit it. The Minister of State said he will look at that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 89 agreed to.
Section 90 agreed to.
SECTION 91
I move amendment No. 215:
In page 102, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“World Heritage Property in State
91. A property included in the World Heritage List under Article 11 of the Convention, and which is situated in the State, shall be known as “World Heritage Property”.”.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 215:
To delete “World Heritage Property” and substitute “Maoin Oidhreachta Domhanda”.
"World Heritage Property" should be in line with the State commitment, under section 9D(1) of the Official Languages (Amendment) Act 2021, to use Irish language for new titles. Existing world heritage sites already use Irish titles primarily.
Amendment No. 215 is in the name of the Minister and Deputy Gould has tabled an amendment to the amendment.
We oppose the amendment to the amendment but we can give it consideration on Report Stage.
Question, "That the amendment to the amendment be made" put and declared lost.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 91, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 92
I move amendment No. 216:
In page 102, lines 34 and 35, to delete "property, situated in the State, that is included, or" and substitute "World Heritage Property or property"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 217:
In page 102, line 36, to delete "included," and substitute "included"
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 218:
In page 102, after line 36, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall carry out such consultation with such persons or communities most affected by the decision of a Minister relating to property, situated inside the State, that is included, or in respect of which the Minister is satisfied that is has the potential to become included, in the World Heritage List under Article 11 of the Convention.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 219:
In page 102, after line 36, to insert the following:
"(3) In carrying out functions under this section, a Minister shall act in a manner consistent with the principles of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, in particular the provision of Article 15 of said Convention.".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 220:
In page 102, after line 36, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall include in the inventory to be submitted under Article 11 of the Convention the following properties at a minimum, including the integrity of their surrounding contexts and landscapes, alongside any others that they consider suitable:
(a) Brú na Bóinne;
(b) Sceilig Mhichíl;
(c) Clochán an Aifir agus Cósta an Chlocháin;
(d) Tuamaí Pasáiste Shligigh;
(e) Tionól Cábla Trasatlantach;
(f) Láithreáin ríoga na hÉireann ársa;
(g) An Bhoirin;
(h) Inis Cealtra;
(i) Gleann an Dá Loch;
(j) Dúin ársa an Iarthair;
(k) Cluain Mhic Nóis;
(l) Láithreáin na Mainistreacha ársa;
(m) Achaidh Chéide agus Portaigh Thuaisceart Mhaigh Eo; and
(n) Cathair Stairiúil Bhaile Átha Cliath agus Láithreáin na Réabhlóide Frithchoilíneach."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 92, as amended, agreed to.
Section 93 deleted.
Section 94 agreed to.
SECTION 95
Amendments Nos. 221 to 228, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 221 to 228, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 229:
In page 103, to delete line 17.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 95 agreed to.
Sections 96 and 97 agreed to.
SECTION 98
I move amendment No. 230:
In page 105, line 3, after "Expenditure" to insert ", National Development Plan Delivery".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 231:
In page 105, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(6) Where an archaeological object is the subject of an auction, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, personally or through an authorised representative, intervene following the conclusion of the auction but prior to the transaction being finalised with the final bidder, to acquire the object for the State in place of the final bidder at the same value as they had agreed.
(7) Nothing in subsection (6) shall preclude the ability of the Minister, an authorised representative, or other public bodies where it is considered appropriate, from participating in an auction for an archaeological object, or from acquiring an archaeological object compulsorily in line with Schedule 4 of this Act.".
We are looking for the Minister of State, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, to intervene through a representative at the conclusion of an auction, prior to the transaction being finalised, to acquire the object for the State in place of the final bidder, at the value agreed. A similar mechanism exists in France. It allows the State on behalf of the people to take priority in an auction above that of normal participants if it considers the market value worth paying. It is a protection for the State. Will the Minister of State consider including it on Report Stage?
Under section 98, the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sports and Media has discretionary powers to acquire archaeological objects by agreement or compulsorily. As the circumstances set out in this amendment are already provided for under the Bill, I am not able to accept it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 99
I move amendment No. 232:
In page 105, line 25, to delete "and (6)" and substitute ", (6) and (7)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 233 and 242 will be discussed together as they are related.
I move amendment No. 233:
In page 106, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(7) Where the Board is minded to give consent under subsection (2) to the disposal of an archaeological object which was found during the course of carrying out a licensable activity, it shall—
(a) consult with the Minister to seek his or her views (if any) on the proposed disposal, and
(b) if those views (if any) are received within the period prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph or, if no such period is prescribed, within 21 days from the date of consultation, have regard to those views in deciding whether or not to give such consent.".
The introduction of a new subsection (7) in the section will provide that where the board of the National Museum intends to dispose of an archaeological object found during an activity licensable under the Bill, the board must first consult with the Minister before making its decision. A 21-day consultation period is provided for, with an option to prescribe alternative periods.
I will withdraw amendment No. 242 and reserve the right to bring it back on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 99, as amended, agreed to.
Section 100 agreed to.
SECTION 101
Amendments Nos. 234, 235 and 279 to 281, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 234:
In page 108, to delete lines 20 and 21 and substitute the following:
"(c) the inspection would pose a risk to the health or safety of the person who would otherwise carry out the inspection on behalf of the Board,
(d) the inspection is not merited or is otherwise unnecessary, or
(e) the return is trivial or vexatious.".
These amendments mirror those I proposed in the first session relating to discoveries of prescribed monuments. The section provides for the procedures that must be followed when the discovery of an archaeological object is reported. Under section 101(6), an inspection of the object, or the site where it was discovered, may need to take place. The amendment intends to remove a requirement to carry out an inspection of a site if there is a risk to the health or safety of the inspector.
Amendment No. 235 is to make it clear that the general powers provided under the Bill to carry out inspections applies in situations relating to reports of discoveries of archaeological objects.
The amendments I have tabled are very similar. They relate to sections 184 to 186, inclusive, and are about a reasonable person. My first concern is with regard to what is reasonable person. What is the definition of a "reasonable person"? I may think the Minister of State is a reasonable person and he may not think I am a reasonable person. Who knows? This type of language seems very arbitrary. Will this not lead to endless involvement of the courts with regard to definitions? Is this not a weakness?
More importantly, I am very concerned that this being in the legislation allows ignorance of legal responsibilities as a defence against prosecution. Outside of the Bill we are all aware of legislation and court cases where it has been emphasised time and again that a defence of not knowing something was breaking the law is not accepted, and rightly so. We could not operate as a society if ignorance of the law or ignorance of legal responsibilities were a defence. How would things operate or work? This seems to write in ignorance of legal responsibilities as a defence against prosecution. I am very concerned as to how this will end up working. Will it not just nullify a lot of the protection that is otherwise in the Bill?
We have to consider bad faith actors. Good faith actors will not try to exercise this. What about bad faith actors who may well have been aware of their responsibilities but will now be able to say they did not know and nobody told them? A bad faith actor will be protected by this. I am more than willing to withdraw the amendment but if the Minister of State gives an undertaking to at least look at this wording between now and Report Stage it would be very helpful.
I do consider the Deputy to be a reasonable person and it is a reasonable proposal. In each case, the proposed amendment appears to be based on a failure to appreciate that prescribed monuments and archaeological objects are legally protected automatically and not by way of entry in any register. It is already clear under sections 184 and 185 that the defence is not available where the prescribed monument in question has become a registered monument through being entered in the register of monuments.
The introduction of a system of automatic protection for discoveries of archaeological sites and structures, and possibly other classes of relevant things, which is modelled on the existing system of automatic protection of finds of archaeological objects, is a major strengthening of the law.
However, the legal advice I have is that it must be balanced by the provision of a defence that a reasonable person would not have recognised the existence of the prescribed monument or archaeological object. "Reasonable person" is a standard legal term and it is up to the courts to judge it when it comes to prosecution. It is necessary to ensure public support for the legislation. I emphasise again that the defences are not available in respect of prescribed monuments entered in the register or where a person has otherwise been made aware of the existence of the monument or object. I must therefore oppose these amendments.
I will withdraw those amendments when we reach them, and reserve the right to resubmit them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 235:
In page 108, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(11) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prejudice the generality of section 189.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 101, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 102 to 106, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 107
Amendments Nos. 236 to 239, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 236:
In page 111, line 2, after “authority” to insert “or public body”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 107 agreed to.
SECTION 108
I move amendment No. 237:
In page 111, line 24, after “interest,” to insert “or that it would improve access by the public to their archaeological heritage, or advance a more balanced regional distribution of such heritage,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 238:
In page 111, to delete lines 31 to 33.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendments No. 239:
In page 111, to delete line 36.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 108 agreed to.
Sections 109 to 111, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 112
I move amendment No. 240:
In page 113, line 16, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 241:
In page 113, line 21, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 112, as amended, agreed to.
Section 113 agreed to.
SECTION 114
I move amendment No. 242:
In page 117, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
“(5) A person shall not destroy an archaeological object.”
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 114 to 134, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 243:
In page 126, between lines 14 and 15 to insert the following:
“Special protection to be applied to relevant wrecks, etc.
135. Section 30 shall be deemed to apply to—
(a) a wreck 100 or more years old, and
(b) a registered monument, or a prescribed monument, that is situated on, in or under land covered by water.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 135 deleted.
SECTION 136
I move amendment No. 244:
In page 126, line 24, after “following” to insert “(in this section referred to as a “relevant activity”)”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 245:
In page 126, after line 32, to insert the following:
“(3) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), this section (apart from this subsection) does not apply to—
(i) the authorisation of a proposal for the carrying out of a relevant activity, or
(ii) the authorisation of the carrying out of a relevant activity,
where such authorisation (whether a licence, consent, approval, permission, or other authorisation) is granted, issued or given under an enactment (other than this Act) only for the purpose of making lawful the doing of an act as part of, or pertaining to, such activity which would otherwise, in the absence of such authorisation, be unlawful under that enactment.
(b) The disapplication, effected by paragraph (a), of this section to an authorisation referred to in that paragraph shall not be construed to also disapply this section to—
(i) the proposal for the carrying out of the relevant activity, or
(ii) the carrying out of the relevant activity, to which that authorisation relates.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 136, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 137 to 147, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 148
I move amendment No. 246:
In page 133, line 22, after “above” to insert “, or within the immediate surroundings of,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 247:
In page 133, line 34, after “specify” to insert “in both official languages, with the Irish text no less prominent or legible than the English text”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 148, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 149 and 150 agreed to.
SECTION 151
I move amendment No. 248:
In page 137, lines 10 and 11, to delete “, historic, artistic or traditional” and substitute “or historic”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 249:
In page 137, line 24, after “architectural or” to insert “other”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 250:
In page 138, line 7, after “persons” to insert “or categories of persons”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 251:
In page 138, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(b) conditions requiring the carrying out (whether prior to, during the course of, or subsequent to, the carrying out of the licensable activity the subject of the licence) of any other licensable activity, a related activity or any action or activity relating to the protection or recording of any element of historic heritage including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the doing of anything referred to in section 28(5)(a) to (d);”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 252:
In page 139, to delete lines 14 to 16 and substitute the following:
“(5) (a) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (4), a reference to “monument” in section 28(5) includes a reference to any thing to which section 136(2) applies.
(b) A reference in subsection (4) to “licensable activity” includes a reference to any activity (and whether or not the activity is a licensable activity) required to be carried out by reason of a condition under paragraph (b) of that subsection.
(c) A reference in subsection (4) to “applicant” includes a reference to any person engaged by or acting on behalf of the applicant including a person who is or will be in charge or responsible for any activity (and whether or not the activity is a licensable activity) required to be carried out by reason of a condition under paragraph (b) of that subsection.
(6) (a) A licence shall not operate to make lawful a licensable activity other than—
(i) a licensable activity specified by the applicant in his or her application and which is authorised under the licence, or
(ii) another licensable activity required to be carried out by reason of a condition under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) if, and only if, that condition specifies that such activity may be carried out without a licence that is in addition to the licence in which that condition is specified.
(b) A specification under paragraph (a)(ii) may be subject to such limitations as the licensing authority determines.”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 253:
In page 139, line 19, after “concerned” to insert “(including any activity, whether or not the activity is a licensable activity, required to be carried out by reason of a condition under paragraph (b)* of subsection (4))”.
[*This is a reference to a paragraph proposed to be inserted by amendment No. 251.]
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 254:
In page 139, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)(b), the licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence if the authority is satisfied that the non-compliance referred to in section 150(2)(b) by the applicant or persons acting on his or her behalf, whether alone or in conjunction with other matters that the authority shall or may take into account, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in determining the application, warrants such refusal.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 151, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 152
I move amendment No. 255:
In page 140, line 21, to delete “licensable” and substitute “relevant”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 256:
In page 140, line 24, to delete “licensable” and substitute “relevant”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 257:
In page 140, lines 29 and 30, to delete “prescribed person who has competence in the licensable activity” and substitute “person who falls within a prescribed category of persons, being persons who have competence in the licensable activity (whether by reason of qualifications attained or practical experience or a combination of both)”."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 258:
In page 140, after line 36 to insert the following:
“(5) In this section, “relevant activity” means—
(a) a licensable activity,
(b) a related activity or any activity (whether or not the activity is a licensable activity) required to be carried out by reason of a condition under paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section 151, or
(c) an activity (whether or not the activity is a licensable activity) required to be carried out by reason of a condition under section 28(2)(a) or (4).”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 152, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 153
I move amendments No. 259:
In page 141, to delete lines 8 to 10 and substitute the following:
“the Minister—
(a) within the period prescribed for the purposes of this subsection for the class of licences (which may be identified by reference to a class of licensable activities) into which that licence falls, or
(b) if no such period is prescribed, not later than 21 days from the date of consultation or such longer period as may, in any particular case, be agreed between the Minister and the Board.”
Amendment agreed to.
Section 153, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 154
I move amendment No. 260:
In page 141, line 36, to delete “The licensing authority” and substitute “Subject to subsection (5), the licensing authority".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 261:
In page 142, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“(5) The licensing authority need not comply with subsection (4) in the case of the suspension of a licence if—
(a) the authority is satisfied that the end for which such suspension is sought is a matter of such urgency that the delay entailed in complying with that subsection may defeat that end, and
(b) the notice under subsection (1) effecting such suspension is accompanied by a notice stating—
(i) the end referred to in paragraph (a) and the authority’s reason for such suspension, and
(ii) that the licensee may make representation in writing to the authority on that end and that reason.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 154, as amended, agreed to.
Section 155 agreed to.
SECTION 156
I move amendment No. 262:
In page 143, line 6, after “practitioners,” to insert “with the consent of the Joint Oireachtas Committee with responsibility for cultural heritage,”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 263:
In page 143, line 10, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 156, as amended, agreed to.
Section 157 agreed to.
SECTION 158
I move amendment No. 264:
In page 144, line 17, after “Minister” to insert “or Ard Mhusaem na hÉireann”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 158 agreed to.
Sections 159 to 166, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 167
I move amendment No. 265:
In page 148, line 21, after “heritage” to insert “(including, without prejudice to the generality of section 28 of the Act of 2000, in relation to such dealings with objectives which fall within section 10(2)(c) of that Act in so far as such objectives relate to the conservation and protection of archaeological heritage)”.
Following discussions in the Seanad, I made a commitment to bring forward an amendment to provide for the issuing of guidelines to local authorities relating to county development plans. Section 167 already permits the Minister to issue guidelines to local authorities relating to their dealings with historic heritage or world heritage property, and a local authority must have regard to such guidelines in the course of the performance of its functions. Amendment No. 265 broadens section 167 by making provision for guidelines to be issued regarding development plan objectives that relate to the conservation and protection of archaeological heritage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 167, as amended, agreed to.
Section 168 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 266:
In page 148, 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 and 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,
(d) the need to prevent and reduce the release of embodied carbon and the role of natural, built and cultural heritage in climate action,
(e) obligations under international law and conventions relating to heritage, and
(f) obligations under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 267:
In page 148, after line 39, to insert the following:
“Report on consistency with international and climate obligations
169. The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas outlining a review of the provisions of this Act and their consistency with—
(a) the Valletta Convention,
(b) the European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe,
(c) the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Herita(d) the Aarhus Convention,
(e) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and
(f) the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.”
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 268:
In page 148, after line 39, to insert the following:
“Report on consistency with international and climate obligations
169. The Minister shall, in carrying out his or her functions under this Act, ensure that they act in a manner consistent with the following:
(a) the Valletta Convention;
(b) the European Landscape Convention of the Council of Europe;
(c) the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage;
(d) the Aarhus Convention;
(e) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; and
(f) the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.”
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 169 to 174, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 175
Amendments Nos. 269 to 271, inclusive, 276 and 277 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 269:
In page 150, line 25, to delete “5 years” and substitute “7 years”.
Sinn Féin believes that stronger penalties should be put in place for violation of our heritage legislation. The current enforcement is already inadequate. Even with the penalties in the legislation, prosecutions are very rare. There have only been six in the last ten years under the National Monuments Act. We saw an example last week in Rome where someone who put graffiti on a block in the Coliseum is facing a possible five-year prison sentence. If someone was to demolish Newgrange tomorrow, they would get a similar sentence. The stiff penalty shows the attitudes of Romans and other Europeans to their heritage and their monuments. We believe the proposed fines of €10,000 and €50,000 will not deter large developers or corporations who want to ignore the legislation.
Our amendments would allow courts more leeway to increase the deterrents. We propose increasing the maximum sentences from three and five years to five and seven years, respectively. The maximum fines should be increased to €10 million, or €5 million in the case of fines for each stage of the violation. We ask the Minister of State to look at this on Report Stage. It comes down to the fact that we need a proper deterrent. We need something that gets the attention of the large developers and corporations.
Parliamentary counsel was requested to set out penalties for offences in line with what is currently on the Statute Book. Careful consideration has gone into penalties under sections 175 and 178. As it is not reasonable or proportionate to impose severe penalties on minor offences, or indeed to set out disproportionate penalties in respect of more serious ones, I am not in a position to a accept these amendments. The Bill, as it stands, provides strong and dissuasive measures in relation to contraventions of its provision, while maintaining a reasonable and proportionate approach such as to retain public support.
Will the Minister of State give a commitment to look at these amendments on Report Stage?
In terms of general offences, the legislation already provides for a conviction or an indictment for a fine not exceeding €10 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. Strong penalties already exist for serious offences on indictment.
Will the Minister of State consider increasing the deterrent? We know the maximum sentence can go from three to five years. We are seeking to increase that from five years to seven years.
Yes. We will consider the matter on Report Stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 270:
In page 150, line 31, to delete “€10,000” and substitute “€10,000,000”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 271:
In page 150, line 32, to delete “3 years” and substitute “5 years”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 272:
In page 150, line 33, after “43(1),” to insert “82(2),”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 273:
In page 151, line 18, after “suspected” to insert “, or should have known or suspected,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 274:
In page 151, line 37, after “suspected” to insert “, or should have known or suspected,”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 275:
In page 152, line 17, to delete “referred to in subsection (11)” and substitute “for a contravention of section 27(1) or 30”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 175, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 176 and 177 agreed to.
SECTION 178
I move amendment No. 276:
In page 153, line 7, to delete “€50,000” and substitute “€5,000,000”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 277:
In page 153, line 14, to delete “€10,000” and substitute “€5,000,000”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 178 agreed to.
Section 179 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 278:
In page 153, after line 34 to insert the following:
“Inferences from failure or refusal to account for detection device
180. (1) (a) Paragraph (b) applies where, in any proceedings against a person for the relevant offence, evidence is given that the accused—
(i) at any time before he or she was charged with the offence, on being questioned by a member in relation to the offence, or
(ii) when being charged with the offence or informed by a member that he or she might be prosecuted for it, was requested by the member to account for any detection device that was—
(I) on his or her person,
(II) in or on his or her clothing or footwear,
(III) otherwise in his or her possession, or
(IV) in any place in which he or she was during any specified period, and which the member reasonably believes may be attributable to the
participation of the accused in the commission of the offence and the member informed the accused that the member so believes, and the accused failed or refused to give such account, being an account which, in the circumstances at the time, clearly called for an explanation from the accused when so questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be.
(b) The court, in determining whether the charge should be dismissed under Part 1A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 or whether there is a case to answer and the court (or, subject to the judge’s directions, the jury), in determining whether the accused is guilty of the relevant offence, may draw such inferences from the failure or refusal referred to in paragraph (a) as appear proper; and such failure or refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence in relation to which that failure or refusal is material.
(2) A person shall not be convicted of the relevant offence solely or mainly on an inference drawn from a failure or refusal to account for a matter to which subsection (1) applies.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not have effect unless—
(a) the accused was told in ordinary language when being questioned, charged or informed, as the case may be, what the effect of the failure or refusal to account for a matter to which that subsection applies might be, and
(b) the accused was afforded a reasonable opportunity to consult a solicitor before such failure or refusal occurred.
(4) Nothing in this section shall, in any proceedings—
(a) prejudice the admissibility in evidence of the silence or other reaction of the accused in the face of anything said in his or her presence relating to the conduct in respect of which he or she is charged in so far as evidence thereof would be admissible apart from this section,
(b) be taken to preclude the drawing of any inference from the silence or other reaction of the accused which could properly be drawn apart from this section, or
(c) be taken to preclude the drawing of any inference from a failure or refusal to account for the presence of any detection device which could properly be drawn apart from this section.
(5) The court (or, subject to the judge’s directions, the jury) shall, for the purposes of drawing an inference under this section, have regard to whenever, if appropriate, the account of the matter concerned was first given by the accused.
(6) This section shall not apply in relation to the questioning of a person by a member unless it is recorded by electronic or similar means or the person consents in writing to it not being so recorded.
(7) References in subsection (1) to evidence shall, in relation to the hearing of an application under Part IA of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967 for the dismissal of a charge, be taken to include a statement of the evidence to be given by a witness at the trial.
(8) In this section—
“member” means a member of the Garda Síochána;
“relevant offence” means a contravention of section 148(1)(f).”.
Consultation with An Garda Síochána in relation to this section is ongoing. If it is accepted by members, I will withdraw the amendment and move it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 180 to 183 agreed to.
SECTION 184
I move amendment No. 279:
In page 155, lines 31 and 32, to delete “a reasonable person would not, in all the circumstances,” and substitute “a personally notified or informed person, which they were not, would”.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Section 184 agreed to.
SECTION 185
I move amendment No. 280:
In page 156, line 7, to delete “a reasonable person would not, in all the circumstances,” and substitute “a personally notified or informed person, which they were not, would”.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 185 agreed to.
SECTION 186
I move amendment No. 281:
In page 156, lines 16 and 17, to delete “a reasonable person would not, in all the circumstances,” and substitute “a personally notified or informed person, which they were not, would”
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Section 186 agreed to.
SECTION 187
I move amendment No. 282:
In page 157, line 6, after “or”, where it secondly occurs, to insert “other”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 187, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 188 and 189 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 283:
In page 158, after line 33, to insert the following:
“CHAPTER 6
Provision supplementary to Chapters 4 and 5
Construction of Chapters 4 and 5
190. Neither Chapter 4 nor 5 shall be construed in such a way as to relieve a person performing a function under that Chapter, being a function which consists of, or entails, the doing of a licensable activity, from the requirement, as specified in this Act, to have a licence in respect of such activity.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 190 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 284:
In page 158, after line 33, to insert the following:
“Signage
191. (1) The Minister may cause a sign to be placed at, or adjacent to, a monument for the purposes of providing guidance to members of the public, who are in the immediate vicinity of the monument, as to—
(a) their responsibilities as regards the monument whilst in such vicinity,
(b) the nature of the archaeological, architectural, artistic, historic or traditional interest of the monument, or
(c) both such responsibilities and such interest.
(2) The Minister may cause a sign referred to in subsection (1) to be removed or removed and replaced.
(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act relating to a monument, it shall not be a defence for the person charged with the offence to prove that, at the time the offence was committed, the monument was not the subject of a sign referred to in subsection (1).”.
This amendment provides for the erection and removal of signs at monuments. These signs may be to inform members of the public of their responsibilities at monuments or to provide explanatory and interpretive information for a given monument. An important part of this provision makes it clear that if a person is charged with an offence under the enacted Bill, it will not be a defence for a person to prove that at the time the offence was committed, the monument was not the subject of a sign under this proposed section.
We support the Minister of State but we ask that he ensure the signage is in both Irish and English and that he would consider that on Report Stage.
Certainly. It is always the case but I accept the Deputy's suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 191 to 208, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 209
I move amendment No. 285:
In page 169, line 36, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 209, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 210 to 214, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 215
I move amendment No. 286:
In page 173, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
“(g) Tailte Éireann,”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 215, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 216 and 217 agreed to.
SECTION 218
I move amendment No. 287:
In page 175, line 27, after “one” to insert “(or more than one)”.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 218, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 219 to 221, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 288:
In page 177, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“Review of operation of Act
222. (1) The Minister shall, not later than five years after the enactment of this Act, carry out a review of the operation of this Act and thereafter carry out further such reviews so that the interval between any two successive reviews is not greater than five years.
(2) The Minister may consult with such persons as he or she considers appropriate in carrying out a review.
(3) The Minister shall, upon the completion of the carrying out of a review, make a report thereon and—
(a) lay the report before each House of the Oireachtas, and
(b) publish the report in such manner as he or she considers appropriate.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 222 to 238, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 289:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“PART 13
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS
CHAPTER 1
Amendment of Foreshore Act 1933
Amendment of section 1E of Foreshore Act 1933
239. Section 1E of the Foreshore Act 1933, as amended by section 175 of the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, is amended—
(a) in subsection (5)(a), by the substitution of “Subject to subsection (3), the relevant Minister” for “The relevant Minister”,
(b) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (5):
“(5A) (a) Subject to paragraph (c), the MARA may, at its discretion and whether of its own initiative or at the request of the relevant Minister or the applicant under section 3 concerned, treat a relevant application (F) as a relevant application (M) if it is satisfied that it has received all the information that would be required under the Act of 2021 if the relevant application (F) were a relevant application (M) and, in any such case, the provisions of the Act of 2021 (including section 117(3) of that Act) shall, with all necessary modifications, apply to the relevant application (F) so treated.
(b) Where, pursuant to paragraph (a), the MARA is treating a relevant application (F) as a relevant application (M), the MARA may adopt any determination that has been made, before that treatment, under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477 of 2011) in respect of the relevant application (F).
(c) Paragraph (a) shall not apply to a relevant application (F) made before the applicable date where the MARA is satisfied that—
(i) a material change is being sought to the application by the applicant, or
(ii) material information provided in, or accompanying, the application was submitted more than 2 years before the applicable date.
(5B) The MARA may, if it thinks it appropriate to do so, give reasons for any decision by it to decline to treat a relevant application (F) as a relevant application (M) and, in any such case, those reasons may form the basis of consultations between the relevant Minister and the applicant under section 3 concerned as to the appropriate course of action to be taken with regard to the relevant application (F).”, and
(c) in subsection (6), by the insertion of the following definitions:
“ ‘applicable date’ means the date of commencement of section 239 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023;
‘relevant application (F)’ means an application under section 3 for the grant of a licence;
‘relevant application (M)’ means a licence application within the meaning of the Act of 2021.”.”
This amendment proposes to amend section 1E of the Foreshore Act 1933, as inserted by section 175 of the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021.
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of State. I want to check -----
This relates to Part 13 - miscellaneous amendments.
Thank you.
This amendment is intended to provide a pathway for existing foreshore applications received by the Minister under the Foreshore Act 1933 to move to the new regulatory system in the interest of maximising the opportunities available in the more modern consenting structures provided in the 2021 Act.
Under the new provisions proposed in this amendment, MARA may, at the request of the Minister or the applicant or on its own initiative, take over a licence application made under the Foreshore Act 1933. If MARA does so, any determination that has already been made in relation to that application under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 can be adopted by MARA to avoid duplication of effort and delay in handling the application.
The ability to transfer applications on hand to MARA will help to limit the period where a dual consenting structure remains in place and will assist in expediting the winding down of the existing foreshore consenting regime. The benefit to the applicant is that his or her existing application can be treated more expeditiously under a more modern, streamlined legislative system.
An application cannot be transferred to MARA if a material change is being made to the application, as that will then constitute a new application that must be made afresh. Similarly, if information provided in the application is more than two years out of date, it cannot be transferred. If MARA is unable to accept an application, it will continue to be dealt with under the existing foreshore consenting regime.
Apologies but in layman's terms, the Minister of State has outlined that this applies if there is a material change or if the information is two years out of date, but what will these changes actually mean? What are the key differences between the MARA processes on these applications and those of the foreshore unit?
The significant difference is that it is a much more streamlined process. The prioritisation of certain applications as agreed by the Government has meant that other applications on hand have had to be paused. The amendment provides a pathway for paused applications to move to MARA to be dealt with more efficiently as the foreshore system continues to wind down. The advantage to the applicant is that he or she will, if the application is granted, obtain a more modern maritime area consent rather than a lease or a licence.
How do the timeframes differ?
I would imagine it is a much more streamlined process. It is intended to give certainty to the applicant and to move to a much more streamlined consenting regime.
What about public participation and judicial reviews? It shortens the window for judicial reviews from three months to eight weeks -----
No, there is no change there.
There is no change.
No change there.
Okay. We are concerned about the risk of exemptions under the 2021 Act being used in conjunction with the provision which will result in less regulatory oversight on activities which previously would have had much more extensive assessment under the foreshore regime. Can the Minister of State address these concerns and give an assurance that safeguards are in place on this?
Absolutely. There will be no diminution of that. It will still be the case that the legislative obligations around the environmental impact assessment, EIA, and appropriate assessment, AA, will remain unchanged. The amendment seeks to provide that where a licence has already been issued in respect of a proposed development, additional consent under the provision introduced in the 2021 Act is not required as long as an EIA or an AA has already been carried out. No changes are being made to EIA or AA provisions themselves. I want to give an assurance that there is no change in that regard.
With respect to the public being notified of an offshore application transfer to MARA, so people know who is handling it and the timeframes involved for public participation and decision making, on what basis would the Minister request the transfer? This is about the notification of applications moving from MARA from the foreshore application.
There is no change in that. Public notifications would be in place in relation to that.
On what basis would the Minister request MARA to do the transfer? Who will be consulted in this?
It is the intention that there will be public consultation in relation to it - absolutely - and under the principles of the Aarhus Convention too.
That would be included.
Okay. Where are decisions made by the Minister or MARA to transfer an offshore application to be published? Where would people see that?
Again, we can get clarification on that particular question if that is okay.
I should have said at the start that this is not the way to bring forward these amendments. They are being tagged on at the end of a very comprehensive piece of legislation that we have just gone through and on which hours have been spent. We are looking at proper pre-legislative scrutiny. We believe that bringing amendments forward like this is bad legislating.
There may be things here we have not had the time to scrutinise properly at this committee. What we are doing now is at the last minute. Just before a recess, we are bringing forward these complex amendments to a number of different Acts. I am looking here now and we have engaged with people and looked at it ourselves. We want to ensure the legislation gets the proper scrutiny it deserves. Does the Minister of State recognise that bringing amendments forward in this way is not the way to do things? Some of these Bills are only months old. It is very new legislation we are very quickly bringing in changes to.
For the record, there was a comprehensive briefing for committee members where these proposed amendments under Part 13 were gone through line by line. There was a good briefing on it. The Minister of State to respond.
To clarify, there was a briefing but these amendments have not gone through the proper pre-legislative scrutiny. They should have been included in the original Bill or, if not, there should be stand-alone legislation. We are tacking it on at the end. I appreciate what the Chair said in that there was a line-by-line brief. No disrespect, but this was really complex stuff. Am I not wrong there?
Amendments do not go through pre-legislative scrutiny. Amendments get discussed-----
If they were included in the original legislation-----
That would be in the heads.
-----they would have gone through pre-legislative scrutiny.
We are making good progress. We have a couple more amendments to go through. I will let the Minister of State respond and then I will put the question.
I note the concerns the Deputy raised but given the difficulties that arose in enabling a smooth transition from the existing foreshore consent process to the new regime under the Maritime Area Planning Act, I took the earliest opportunity to bring forward amendments to enable applications already under way to be dealt with in the most appropriate way. MARA becomes operational on 17 July and clarity on the transition of applications on hand and part-consented applications from the foreshore regime will be welcome to facilitate MARA in giving a full effect to its functions. Waiting for a separate Bill later in the year with MARA already established and the board in a position to accept applications for permission would not be in the interest of the State, given the urgency of the climate crisis we are in. We have shown before that we are not afraid to move things forward when required to do so.
I wish give additional assurance around statutory consultation. Consultation is encouraged through the various legislative and consultation mechanisms. This includes consultation on the national marine planning framework, representations made on the marine planning policy statement, consultations facilitated through the public participation statement and requirements on designated maritime area plans, DMAPs, right through the project level consultation with An Bord Pleanála or the coastal planning authorities on specific projects. There is a wide range of opportunity there for the public to consult. Again, all of this is Aarhus-compliant. That is just to give assurance to the Deputy in that regard.
We know we need to act. We know the climate crisis is an emergency that has to be tackled. We want to support the Government. I spoke to the Chairman yesterday - you were there yourself. We want to have action. We know offshore is a vital cog in that but we also have the maritime area protection. I am nervous about rushing stuff like this. We want to support the Government when it comes to climate change, renewable energy and trying to meet our targets. We want to support the Minister of State on that and we know he is genuine on it. We recognise that.
I have a few other questions and one is in plain English. Will the Minister of State explain why there appears to be a dual requirement under both the Foreshore Act and the Maritime Area Planning Act and what distinctions there are between the two different consents?
To address the first point the Deputy raised, he is correct in saying the scale of the crisis we are facing requires us to act urgently but appropriately as well. I recognise the leadership shown by Sinn Féin during the vote yesterday on the nature restoration regulations. That is acknowledged. Similarly, with regard to this, the public consultation the Deputy mentioned is critically important, and all of that right the way through is significant.
The type of development that is subject to a licence under the Maritime Area Planning Act differs from the licence under the Foreshore Act. Schedule 7 of the Maritime Area Planning Act specifies that maritime usages that may be undertaken pursuant to a licence include marine environmental surveys for the purposes of scientific discovery or research, marine environmental surveys for the purpose of site investigation, installation of navigational markings, and the installation of non-permanent platforms, pontoons or slipways. A licence under the Foreshore Act is generally issued for a development that does not require exclusive occupation of the foreshore. Examples would include repair work, some coastal protection work, undersea pipelines, cables, site investigation works, dredging works and harvesting of wild seaweed. It may include development that requires an environmental impact assessment, EIA. As a result, it applied to a broader range of development than what is licensable under the Maritime Area Planning Act. A licence under the Maritime Area Planning Act cannot be granted for development or maritime usages that require an environmental impact assessment. Therefore, all maritime usages that require an EIA must apply for planning permission.
The Deputy also mentioned the upcoming legislation on marine protected areas. We have consistently stated that both are not mutually exclusive. We have put in place for the first time a planning and regulatory regime for the maritime area that is comprehensive. Similarly, with the marine protected area legislation, we are building in a robustness around marine protected areas and public consultation. They are not, effectively, lines on maps. It is an iterative process. I refer to the opportunity for this committee to discuss. We have had good feedback from it on that. We are confident the offshore ambition can be in harmony with our ambition around marine protected areas as well.
I think that is what everyone wants to see. Everyone wants to see the maritime areas protected but at the same time be able to deliver offshore wind and protect our fishers. I think we all want to make sure we can all work together to come up with the best way forward that it is hoped will protect everyone and ensure delivery.
I have another question. It is in respect of what is meant by the following. There is a section that states, “The section further provides that an environmental impact assessment and/or an appropriate assessment must have been carried out before the issue of the licence and that [this is the part] the provisions of the licence shall be deemed to apply to the development as a whole.” I am asking about “the provisions of the licence shall be deemed to apply to the development as a whole”.
What line is that, Deputy Gould?
Section 6, is it? There is a legal issue there in relation to a case-----
If it is a live case now, please do not mention it. If it is sub judice, do not mention it, please.
I will go back to the line “the provisions of the licence shall be deemed to apply to the development” and so forth.
In accordance with EU and Irish case law, where an EIA directive is carried out, it must encompass the entire project. If the original EIA has not considered the entirety of the project, notwithstanding that the consent may have only been for part of the project, then the disapplication provided for in these amendments simply cannot apply. If an EIA is carried out at all in the original consent and one was required, then this amendment would not apply. Safeguards have been built in to ensure compliance with the EIA directive.
There is also a reference to consent of the landowner, being the land in the maritime area, but what about the consent in respect of the money in itself, and how the State and public's interests will be properly addressed?
Again, this is all governed under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. We mentioned the marine protected areas specifically, that legislation is still to come. There is governance around designated sites, around special protected areas for birds or SACs, so the regulatory regime and legal basis for that is already in place.
I thank the Minister of State.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS
I move amendment No. 290:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“CHAPTER 2
Amendment of Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945
Amendment of Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 – insertion of sections 16A and 16B
240. The Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 is amended by the insertion of the following sections after section 16:
“Certain powers of Board of Trustees
16A. (1) The Board of Trustees has power to acquire, hold, manage, maintain, mortgage, charge, lease, licence and dispose of land or an interest in land.
(2) The Board of Trustees may prepare a scheme for the establishment of a system of tolls, quayage, wharfage and licensing in relation to the Navigation.
(3) The Board of Trustees may delegate the performance of any of their functions (other than their functions under subsection (1) or (2)) to the
chief executive of—
(a) Galway City Council,
(b) Galway County Council, or
(c) Mayo County Council.
Power of Board of Trustees to carry out works in relation to Navigation and to enter land
16B. (1) (a) The Board of Trustees may for the purposes of the performance of their functions—
(i) enter on any land and carry out on the land work in relation to the Navigation or property held by them for the purpose of the Navigation,
(ii) enter on any land and occupy it or otherwise make use of it for the purpose of carrying out work on other land in relation to the Navigation or property referred to in subparagraph (i), or
(iii) enter on any land for the purpose of gaining access to,inspecting or surveying the Navigation, property referred to in subparagraph (i) or other land referred to in subparagraph (ii),
and do on any such land all such other things as are, in their opinion, ancillary or reasonably necessary for the performance of their functions.
(b) Subject to subsection (2), not less than 14 days before exercising any power under paragraph (a) (other than subparagraph (iii) of that paragraph), the Board of Trustees shall give to any owner or
occupier of the land concerned whose identity and whereabouts can be ascertained by the Board of Trustees by the taking of reasonable steps a notice in writing stating their intention to enter on the land
and the purposes for which the entry is intended to be made and specifying the other powers of the Board of Trustees proposed to be exercised.
(c) A person to whom a notice has been given under this subsection may, not later than 14 days after the giving of the notice, apply, on
notice to the Board of Trustees, to the judge of the District Court having jurisdiction in the District Court district in which the land the subject of the notice is situated for an order prohibiting the entry and, upon the hearing of the application, the judge may, if he or she so thinks proper, prohibit the entry or specify conditions to be complied with by the person making the entry.
(d) Where a judge of the District Court prohibits under this subsection a proposed entry on land, it shall not be lawful for any person to enter on the land under paragraph (a).
(e) Where a judge of the District Court specifies under this subsection conditions to be complied with by a person entering on land under paragraph (a), every person who enters on the land under that paragraph shall comply with the conditions so specified.
(2) (a) Where, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees—
(i) the exercise of a power conferred on them by subsection (1) is urgently required for the purpose of preventing or minimising injury, loss or damage to persons or property, and
(ii) it is not reasonably practicable to comply, in relation to such exercise, with paragraph (b) of that subsection, the Board of Trustees may exercise the power without having complied, in relation to such exercise, with that paragraph.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c), before exercising a power by virtue of paragraph (a), the Board of Trustees shall give to any owner or occupier of the land whose identity and whereabouts can be ascertained by the Board of Trustees by the taking of reasonable steps a notice in writing of their intention to enter on the land, of the purposes for which the entry is intended to be made and of the other powers of the Board of Trustees proposed to be exercised.
(c) Where, in the opinion of the Board of Trustees, it is not reasonably practicable to comply with paragraph (b), the Board of Trustees may exercise a power by the virtue of paragraph (a) without having complied therewith and, as soon as may be thereafter, shall give to any owner or occupier of the land concerned whose identity and whereabouts can be ascertained by the Board of Trustees by the taking of reasonable steps a notice in writing specifying the powers of the Board of Trustees exercised and the purposes of such exercise.
(3) (a) Where a person suffers loss, injury or damage or incurs expenditure in consequence of the exercise by the Board of Trustees of a power conferred on them by this section, the Board of Trustees shall pay to him or her compensation in respect of the loss, injury, damage or expenditure and the amount of the compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined by arbitration under and in accordance with the Lands Clauses Acts and, for the purposes of those Acts, the Board of Trustees shall be deemed to be the promoter of the undertaking; and, for the purposes of such determination, those Acts shall apply with any other necessary modifications and are incorporated (except in so far as they are inconsistent with and subject to any amendments or modifications, express or implied, thereof effected by this Act) with this Act.
(b) In assessing the compensation payable to a person under paragraph (a), regard shall be had to any benefit to any property of the person that arises or may reasonably be expected to arise from the exercise of the power concerned or any other power under this section by the Board of Trustees and, in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, shall, in the case of a claim for compensation in relation to water rights, have regard to the extent of the exercise of the water rights during the period of 20 years immediately before the exercise of the power concerned by the Board of Trustees and to any alternative water supply provided for the person by the Board of Trustees.”.”.
What amendment are we on now, Chair? Is it amendment No. 290?
It is amendment No. 290 which refers to the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945.
This amendment is for the purpose of amending the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 by the insertion of two new sections into that Act that relate to the Lough Corrib Navigation Trustees. The Lough Corrib Navigation Trustees were established under the Drainage of Ireland Act 1856, for the purpose of managing the Lough Corrib navigation. The trustees consist of councillors drawn from Galway County Council, Galway City Council, and Mayo County Council and are supported by those councils in their work. They are responsible for the maintenance of navigation aids and some piers on the Corrib system, Eglinton canal system, and associated walkways, towpaths, loch gates and boundary walls. The purpose of these amendments is to address a legal anomaly that has come to light that is caused by the repeal of some of the Drainage of Ireland Act1856, under which the trustees were established. Subsequent to the 1956 Act, another Act, the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945, reconstituted the board of trustees but did not amend, vary, or restate the functions of the trustees as provided for in the 1856 Act. Since the matter was raised, my Department sought and received legal advice on the implications of the repeal of the 1856 Act. This advice indicated that where the trustees continue to exist by virtue of the 1945 Act, the legal basis to carry out the functions previously conferred on it by the 1856 Act needs to be reinstated at the earliest opportunity.
The amendments of the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 now before the committee do just that. They reinstate the powers and functions of the trustees, albeit in a modern way, and are akin to the functions of Waterways Ireland under the Shannon Navigation Act 1990, by which that body manages the Shannon navigation. In summary, those functions include the power to: (a) Manage and hold land; (b) Prepare schemes for tows and licensing; and (c) Delegate some functions to the three relevant councils, namely those of Galway City, Galway County, and Mayo County Councils.
In addition, for the purpose of managing and maintaining the navigation, they reinstate the power to enter on lands for the purposes of: (a) Carrying out work on the navigation; (b) Using or occupying lands for the purpose of undertaking such work; and (c) Undertaking inspections and surveys on the navigation. They also set out the arrangements to apply when notifying landowners regarding the need to access lands for these purposes, and arrangements for compensation for loss or damage that may arise related to the trustees carrying out their functions in this regard.
To reiterate, these amendments are simply reinstating the functions previously conferred on the trustees by the 1856 Act. Committee members will note from the amendments to section 1 of the Bill relating to the commencement provisions that it is proposed that this amendment will come into operation on enactment of the Bill. I hope members will support this necessary amendment.
What additional checks will we seek to ensure this type of mistake does not happen again when we are dealing with legislation? I am not looking to point the finger at anyone but it was definitely an omission or error and we do not want to be back here again having to deal with the same issue with future legislation.
I appreciate that but the Deputy can appreciate that there will consistently be issues around legislation to the enactment of a Bill that can have implications on the previous Bill. I do note the points Deputy Gould has raised.
On that, are there any legal consequences or implications? Obviously, decisions were taken under the Bill even though this section was not included. Now that things are being reinstated, decisions had been taken so is there a legal implication because of that?
The trustees are fully aware of the legal issues around their powers and functions and have been kept informed of the work under way to resolve matters via these amendments by Galway City Council. They are keen to have this done at the earliest time and I think any works carried out during that time would always be in compliance anyway.
Do the trustees envisage any legal implications as a result of the change or as a result of that being omitted from the pervious legislation?
No, not that I am aware of.
We are reinstating the original legislation that was there. Is that fully intact? Are there any changes to it or is it just being reinstated to where it was?
Yes, it is just to ensure the functions, the power, and the roles the trust would have carried out would be able to continue. There is no change in regard to that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 291 is a new section. Amendment Nos. 291 to 298 inclusive and are all in the Minister's name, and may be discussed together. Does the Minister of State wish to move Amendment No. 291 and speak to it?
I move amendment No. 291:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“CHAPTER 3
Amendment of Planning and Development Act 2000
Amendment of section 182A of Act of 2000
241. Section 182A of the Act of 2000 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “Subject to subsection (1B) and section 182AA, where” for “Where”,
(b) in subsection (1A)(b) and (c), by the insertion of “in the maritime area” after “owner of the land”, and
(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1A):
“(1B) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the proposed development shall not include any development (which may be all or part of such proposed development and which is referred to in this subsection as the ‘development concerned’) in the maritime area where a licence (referred to in this subsection as the ‘licence concerned’) under section 3 of the Act of 1933 has been granted, on or before the commencement of section 241 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023, in respect of the development concerned.
(b) Where the proposed development required, as appropriate—
(i) an environmental impact assessment,
(ii) an appropriate assessment, or
(iii) both an environmental impact assessment and an appropriate assessment,to be carried out, paragraph (a) shall not apply to the development concerned unless that assessment was, or those assessments were, as the case may be, carried out before the grant of the licence concerned.
(c) Where paragraph (a) applies to the development concerned, the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 1933 relevant to the licence concerned shall be deemed to apply to the carrying out of the proposed development.”.
These are amendments to the Planning and Development Act 2000. On amendments Nos. 291 and 292, following commencement of Part 8 and Schedule 12 of the Maritime Area Planning, MAP, Act 2021, on 1 October 2022, a potential technical requirement has arisen for additional planning permission for projects in the maritime area that already have previously required consents in place, both in Ireland and in other jurisdictions, in the case of certain cables. These amendments address this issue. In brief, Part 11 of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 2021 sets out that certain types of development in the maritime area require planning permission and it does not contain any specific exemptions that may already have other consents, particularly in the outer maritime area beyond the foreshore. Consequently, notwithstanding the foreshore consents that have already been obtained in addition to an overarching project of common interest approval, an additional planning permission requirement emerges for certain types of projects, most notably cables, including interconnection ones.
Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 address these potential additional consent requirements. They are limited in their application to those developments that: (a) already have foreshore consents in place; and (b) in the case of larger-scale developments in the maritime have has an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment, or both, carried out for the entire project. This will ensure the State remains in compliance with EU environmental law and that the amendments cannot be used to circumvent such obligations where they arise. Section 182A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 deals specifically with electricity transmission developments being carried out by statutory undertakers, transmission being high-voltage cables.
Amendment No. 291 inserts a new section, section 241, which amends section 182A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, providing that where proposed development for electricity transmission infrastructure is licenced under the Foreshore Act 1933, before the commencement of this section, it does not require an additional consent under Section 182A. The section further provides that an environmental impact assessment, and-or an appropriate assessment, must have been carried out before the issue of the licence and where provisions of the licence shall be deemed to apply to the development as a whole.
The section also makes a technical amendment to section 182A, to clarify that the requirement for landowner consent prior to the application under section 182A for the development in the maritime area refers to land in the maritime area. This is in order to avoid any conflict with provisions dealing with land in the area of terrestrial planning.
Amendment No. 292 is a linked amendment that will insert a new section 182AA in the Planning and Development Act 2000. Section 182AA will provide that an application under section 182A of the Planning and Development Act 2000 will not be necessary where an application has been made to An Bord Pleanála under section 291 of that Act in respect of a development in the maritime area for the purposes of electricity transmission. This is a clarifying amendment that will remove the anomaly where consent may be required under both section 291 and section 182A.
Amendment No. 293 deals with a transitional matter and will provide a new section 243, which inserts a new section 278A into the Planning and Development Act 2000. Section 278A will disapply the requirement for a maritime area consent, MAC, for strategic infrastructure development where the prospective applicant entered into pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála before 1 October 2022. This is to ensure projects that entered the planning system under section 37B of the Act prior to the commencement of Part XXI of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which introduced the requirement for a MAC, can continue in that consent process notwithstanding the introduction of a new marine planning regime. This exemption is applicable only to strategic infrastructure development where the subsequent application for development consent has been made before 1 October 2024. This will ensure that where the development has not been completed within the required timeframes, the obligations under the new maritime planning regime will apply.
Amendment No. 294 will insert a new section 244, which amends section 280 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The amendment is intended to further address transition issues in the move from the system operating under the Foreshore Act 1933 to the new marine planning system provided for in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. These provisions deal with the situation of projects under way at the time of the commencement of Part 8 of the Maritime Area Planning Act on 1 October 2022. Part 8 inserted Part XXI in the Planning and Development Act 2000, bringing the new maritime planning regime into operation. This amendment will clarify that the new provisions in Part XXI applying to development in the nearshore area will not apply to projects that have been fully consented but have not yet commenced construction, projects that are under construction but have not been completed, and projects that have been completed, as long as the development in question is the subject of either a lease or a licence made or granted before 1 October 2017. This will ensure such projects are not subject to the revised legislative requirements introduced after they had completed the consenting process in place at that time. However, this disapplication will apply only where the development in question has been completed within five years of the commencement of the section. Outside of that, the process will need to be restarted as a new application and an application for a MAC will need to be made.
Amendment No. 296 will insert a new section 246 amending section 285 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. This is a mirror provision to that in section 244. It addresses the same transition issues arising in respect of the move from the existing regime operating under the Foreshore Act 1933 to the new marine planning system provided in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, but deals with development in the maritime area other than the nearshore. Similar to section 244, this amendment will clarify that the new provisions in Part XXI applying to development in the maritime area will not apply to projects that have been fully consented but have not yet commenced construction, projects that are under construction but have not been completed, and projects that have been completed, as long as the development in question is the subject of either a lease or a licence made or granted before 1 October 2017. This will ensure such projects are not subject to the revised legislative requirements introduced after they had completed the consenting process in place at that time. The disapplication will apply only where the development in question has been completed within five years of the commencement of the section. Outside of that, the process will need to be restarted as a new application and an application for a MAC will need to be made.
This provision differs from section 244 in that it goes on to specify that any provisions of the lease or licence in place shall be deemed to apply to the development as a whole. This is included as a result of the fact that from 1 October 2022, the maritime area in which authorisation is required has been extended to encompass the entire exclusive economic zone. Accordingly, any provisions attached to a lease or licence made or granted under the Foreshore Act 1933 are now to be considered as extending to the development generally. This is principally relevant to development such as cabling or pipelines.
Amendments Nos. 295 and 297 will insert sections 245 and 247, which amend section 281(2) and section 286 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. They provide technical amendments required as a result of the amendment of section 287 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and, as in section 242, to ensure that "land” in sections 281(2)(b) and (d) and section 286 will be clarified as meaning “land in the maritime area”. This is to avoid any conflict with provisions dealing with land in the area of terrestrial planning.
Amendment No. 298 will insert a new subsection in section 287 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to provide that applications for offshore renewable energy-related port infrastructure can enter pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála in the absence of a maritime area consent. Applicants for any such development will, however, be required to have a MAC to proceed with submitting a full planning application in accordance with section 291. This provision will shorten the overall consenting timelines for ports by enabling the MAC process and the pre-planning process to run concurrently. It will ensure that, from a consenting perspective, the port infrastructure necessary for offshore energy development can be in place in time to meet the State’s 2030 target.
These are complex amendments, with an awful lot in them. I am disappointed we are trying to get them all done today, although we want to get this legislation done. I am getting mixed up with the questions and the amendments because a lot of them are related and refer to different sections. What is the rationale for the change that appears to remove requirements from planning oversight for a much less Aarhus-compliant regime under the Foreshore Act 1933?
It is certainly not less compliant with Aarhus, and I stated that generally in respect of the public consultation in regard to all levels of planning. The amendments have been designed to be in compliance with the EIA directive and in accordance with EU and Irish case law. Where an EIA is carried out, it must encompass the entire project. I assure the Deputy the amendments are no less compliant with Aarhus. No changes are being made to EIA or appropriate assessment provisions in respect of this.
We are being asked to allow for other matters such as foreshore applications to be transferred away from the Foreshore Act to a more streamlined process under MARA, but we are also being asked to do exactly the opposite and remove provisions from the planning Act to be in line with the Foreshore Act. Is that not the case?
No, the streamlined process is to give certainty to applicants but also to ensure those who wish to make observations will have the right to do so. We are transitioning from an archaic consenting system under the Foreshore Act to a much more streamlined consenting regime, which has been legislated for by the Maritime Area Planning Act. It is streamlined. It will still allow for public consultation and engagement but will also give certainty. It will avoid the duplication of assessments and the proposed amendments will create a pathway to move from the foreshore system to the new planning system. The benefit of the approach proposed in these amendments is that there will be an expedited and orderly closure of the foreshore consenting system and a move to more modern consenting structures provided for under the Maritime Area Planning Act.
I have a number of questions but I am conscious there is an awful lot in this, so I will ask just one final one.
There are issues with the internal numbering of paragraphs (b) and (c), which makes it very confusing and unclear. Can this be corrected and clarified?
Certainly, if the Deputy wishes us to provide a further note or briefing on that. I appreciate what he is saying. It is a lot, and I appreciate that. We can certainly facilitate further notes or briefing on that if required.
I thank Deputy Gould.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 292:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Disapplication of section 182A
242. The Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 182A:
“182AA. Section 182A shall not apply to development comprising or for the purposes of electricity transmission where such development is the subject of an application for permission made to the Board under section 291.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 293:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Disapplication of Chapters II and III
243. The Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 278:
“278A. (1) Subject to subsection (2), Chapters II and III shall not apply to strategic infrastructure development in respect of which—
(a) development permission has not been granted, and
(b) the prospective applicant concerned has, on or before 1 October 2022, entered into consultations with the Board under section 37B.
(2) Subsection (1) shall only apply to strategic infrastructure development the subject of an application for permission for such development made to the Board, before 1 October 2024, under section 37E.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 294:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 280 of Act of 2000
244. Section 280 of the Act of 2000 is amended—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (b), by the deletion of “or” last occurring,
(ii) in paragraph (c)(ii), by the substitution of “1933, or” for “1933.”, and
(iii) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (c):
“(d) subject to subsection (3), on the commencement of section 244 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023—
(i) that was the subject of either—
(I) a lease made, on or after 1 October 2017, under section 2 of the Act of 1933 authorising the lessee to do, for the purposes of the development, one or more than one of the acts referred to in that section, or
(II) a licence granted, on or after 1 October 2017, under section 3 of the Act of 1933 authorising the licensee to do, for the purposes of the development, one or more than one of the acts referred to in that section,
(ii) for which permission under Part III was not required, and
(iii) that—
(I) has been completed,
(II) has commenced but has not been completed, or
(III) has not commenced.”,
and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):
“(3) Subsection (2) shall cease to apply to any development referred to in paragraph (d) of that subsection which has not been completed on or before the 5th anniversary of the date of commencement of section 244 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 295:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 281 of Act of 2000
245. Section 281(2)(b) and (d) of the Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of “in the maritime area” after “owner of land”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 296:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 285 of Act of 2000
246. Section 285 of the Act of 2000 is amended—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (b), by the deletion of “or” last occurring,
(ii) in paragraph (b)(ii), by the substitution of “1933, or” for “1933.”,
and
(b) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (b):
“(c) subject to subsection (3), on the commencement of section 246 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023—
(i) that was the subject of either—
(I) a lease made, on or after 1 October 2017, under section 2 of the Act of 1933 authorising the lessee to do, for the purposes of the development, one or more than one of the acts referred to in that section, or
(II) a licence granted, on or after 1 October 2017, under section 3 of the Act of 1933 authorising the licensee to do, for the purposes of the development, one or more than one of the acts referred to in that section,
(ii) for which permission under Part III was not required, and
(iii) that—
(I) has been completed,
(II) has commenced but has not been completed, or
(III) has not commenced.”,
and
(c) by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (2):
“(3) Subsection (2) shall cease to apply to any development referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection which has not been completed on or before the 5th anniversary of the date of commencement of section 246 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023.
(4) (a) Subject to paragraph (c) where subsection (2) applies to any development referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection and the development is the subject of a lease referred to in subparagraph (ii)(I) of that paragraph, the provisions of section 2 of the Act of 1933 relevant to the lease shall be deemed to apply to the carrying out of the development.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c) where subsection (2) applies to any development referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection and the development is the subject of a licence referred to in subparagraph (ii)(II) of that paragraph, the provisions of section 3 of the Act of 1933 relevant to the licence shall be deemed to apply to the carrying out of the development.
(c) Where subsection (2) applies to any development referred to in paragraph (c) of that subsection but the development required, as appropriate—
(i) an environmental impact assessment,
(ii) an appropriate assessment,
(iii) both an environmental impact assessment and an appropriate assessment,
to be carried out, paragraph (a) or (b), as the case may be, shall not apply to the development unless the assessment was, or those assessments were, as the case may be, carried out before, as appropriate, the making of the lease or the granting of the licence concerned.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 297:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 286 of Act of 2000
247. Section 286 of the Act of 2000 is amended—
(a) in subsection (3)—
(i) by the substitution of “sections 287(4) and 304” for “section 304”, and
(ii) in paragraphs (b) and (d), by the insertion of “in the maritime area” after “owner of the land”, and
(b) in subsection (4)(b) and (d), by the insertion of “in the maritime area” after “owner of land”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 298:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 287 of Act of 2000
248. Section 287 of the Act of 2000 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “Subject to subsection (4), a person” for “A person”, and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3):
“(4) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), a prospective applicant for permission to carry out development consisting of port infrastructure to facilitate the deployment, maintenance or operation of offshore renewable energy infrastructure may consult with the Board in accordance with subsection (1) notwithstanding that the prospective applicant is not the holder of a maritime area consent granted for the occupation of a maritime site for the purposes of such proposed development.
(b) Paragraph (a) shall not be construed to entitle the prospective applicant referred to in that paragraph to make an application under section 291 for permission for the development referred to in that paragraph without being the holder of the maritime area consent referred to in that paragraph.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 299 to 303, inclusive, are related and will be taken together.
I move amendment No. 299:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“CHAPTER 4
Amendment of Valuation Act 2001
Definition
249. In this Chapter, “Act of 2001” means the Valuation Act 2001.”.
Amendment No. 299 is a technical amendment to provide for the reference to the Act of 2001 in the chapter, viz. the Valuation Act 2001. Amendment No. 300 removes the terms "making a rate" and "rate made", and replaces those terms with "levying a rate" and "rate levied", which conform with the wording of section 4 of the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019.
Amendment No. 301 provides that amendments to the valuation list have full force from the relevant date during the year, and that potential consequential overpayments or underpayments of rates are dealt with by the rating authority. This amendment of section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001, which deals with decisions of the valuation tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court, allows for decisions from those bodies having full force from the appropriate dates and allow that rating authority to deal with the consequential overpayment or underpayment of rates. This would be consistent with the actions to be undertaken by the rating authority on foot of notification of the outcome of provisions of valuation during the year. This already happens in practice, and this amendment intends to provide a legal basis for doing so.
Amendment No. 302 reinstates the temporal link that was inadvertently moved from the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019, such that Tailte Éireann issues a notice from section 53(12) of the Act of 2001 at the same time as the copy of the global valuation certificate. In amendment No. 303, rate limitation orders are legally required to be made in October and November of this year as part of the revaluation programme being undertaken by Tailte Éireann.
The Valuation Acts, 2001 to 2015, provide a comprehensive valuation of all commercial and industrial property in the State. The Valuation Office has been undertaking this process for some years and revaluations have been completed in 23 of the 31 local authorities to date. Tailte Éireann has confirmed that revaluations for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, DLR, which is a third revaluation, Clare, Donegal, Galway, Kerry and Mayo county councils, as well as Galway City Council, which are first revaluations for these six west coast authorities, are due to be completed this year and will be effective from 2024. Rate limitation orders are required to be made for each of these seven local authorities in the second half of the year.
The amendment to section 56 is a transitional provision required to cater for the fact that the seven local authorities to which the rate limitation orders will apply will not have determined their annual rates on valuation, ARVs for the preceding year, which is this year, 2023, pursuant to section 3. Those local authorities determine their ARVs for this year pursuant to section 103(7) of the Local Government Act 2001. The situation will only arise this year and will not impact rate limitation orders being made in future years.
What does this do, in layman's terms, if I am going back to my local authority? I remember being on Cork City Council, and one of the biggest issues that we had with rates on valuations at the time was the time it took. I remember when we were trying to balance budgets and cut services, we were waiting months, if not years, to get valuations done. I remember a number of big developments in Cork on which we were waiting on valuations to be done. That had a direct impact on the local authority's budgets. I understand the work that was done on the valuations. It needed to be upgraded, but what will these amendments do, in layman's terms?
They are largely technical amendments, but they also give certainty to the local authorities around the Valuation Acts, and in particular for the seven local authorities I listed with regard to rate limitation orders. The Deputy is correct on the revaluation for all local authorities in that it is much anticipated. It is going to be useful with regard to rate collection, but also their revenue streams. With these amendments, what we are doing is just trying to clear that up and clarify it. They are largely technical amendments but they are time sensitive in the sense that they need to be in effect for this year to give certainty to the local authorities concerned.
There are a few other issues we could go through on this, but I am conscious that the Minister of State is trying to move this along, and we will accept that.
We appreciate the Deputy's co-operation. It is really helpful because we are just coming to a close and I think we will finish this out.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 300:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 28 of Act of 2001
250. Section 28 of the Act of 2001 is amended by the substitution of the following subsections for subsection (14)—
“(14) An amendment of a valuation list made under subsection (10), (11) or (12) shall have full force, from the date of its making, for the purposes of the rating authority concerned levying a rate in relation to the property concerned by reference to that list as so amended.
(15) Where—
(a) an amount of monies is paid on account of a rate levied in respect of a property, and
(b) it appears, consequent on an amendment of the value of the property made pursuant to an exercise of the powers under this section, that that payment involved an overpayment or an underpayment of the amount due in respect of such a rate,
then the balance owing or owed, as the case may be, to or by the person concerned may be paid or recovered, as appropriate—
(i) in the case of an overpayment, by making a refund to the person concerned of an amount equal to that balance or allowing an amount equal to that balance as a credit against the amount owed by the person concerned on account of a rate levied in respect of that or any other property, and
(ii) in the case of an underpayment, by recovering from the person concerned an amount equal to that balance as arrears of the rate concerned (and, accordingly, any of the means provided under any enactment for the recovery of a rate may be employed for that purpose).”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 301:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 38 of Act of 2001
251. Section 38 of the Act of 2001 is amended—
(a) by renumbering it as subsection (1), and
(b) by inserting the following subsections after subsection (1):
“(2) An amendment of a valuation list made under this section shall have full force, from the date of its making, for the purposes of the rating authority concerned levying a rate in relation to the property concerned by reference to that list as so amended.
(3) Where—
(a) an amount of monies is paid on account of a rate levied in respect of a property, and
(b) it appears, consequent on an amendment of the value of the property made pursuant to an exercise of the powers under this section, that that payment involved an overpayment or an underpayment of the amount due in respect of such a rate, then the balance owing or owed, as the case may be, to or by the person concerned may be paid or recovered, as appropriate—
(i) in the case of an overpayment, by making a refund to the person concerned of an amount equal to that balance or allowing an amount equal to that balance as a credit against the amount owed by the person concerned on account of a rate levied in respect of that or any other property, and
(ii) in the case of an underpayment, by recovering from the person concerned an amount equal to that balance as arrears of the rate concerned (and, accordingly, any of the means provided under any enactment for the recovery of a rate may be employed for that purpose).”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 302:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 53 of Act of 2001
252. Section 53(11) of the Act of 2001 is amended by the substitution of “together with issuing” for “and Tailte Éireann shall issue”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 303:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 56 of Act of 2001
253. Section 56 of the Act of 2001 is amended—
(a) in subsection 2(A), by the substitution of “D is, subject to subsection 2(A),” for “D is” in both places where it occurs, and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):
(2A) Where the annual rate on valuation that was levied by a rating authority for the proceeding year 2023 was done pursuant to section 103(7) of the Local Government Act 2001 and not pursuant to section 3 of the Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019, the two references to “section 3 of the Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019” in subsection (2) shall, in relation to that rating authority only and that proceeding year only, be read as references to “section 103(7) of the Local Government Act 2001” and notwithstanding the Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 304:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“CHAPTER 5
Amendment of Local Government Act 2001
Amendment of section 19A of Act of 2001
254. Section 19A of the Act of 2001 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1)(b), by the insertion of “to perform the member’s functions during the absence” after “temporary substitute”, and
(b) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (9): “(9A) The member causing the temporary absence shall not perform any functions as a member unless and until he or she returns to office.”.”.
The amendment makes precise amendments to section 19A of the Local Government Act 2001, as inserted by the Local Government (Maternity Protection and Other Measures for Members of Local Authorities) Act 2022. Section 19A of the 2001 Act provides for the possibility of the appointment, by co-option, of an individual as a temporary substitute for an elected member, who either takes a period of maternity leave or is absent due to illness, in good faith, or another reason. Following the enactment of the Local Government (Maternity Protection and Other Measures for Members of Local Authorities) Act 2022, the question was raised about its implications for the exercise of functions of a member of a local authority, specifically around voting in Seanad elections, by either or both the temporary substitute, and-or the member causing the absence.
Legal advice was sought and provided on the matter by the Attorney General. The Attorney General advised that no constitutional difficulties arise in this matter regarding the 2022 Act. It was his view that while the councillor on leave and the temporary substitute may both be described as members of the local authority, the functions of the member can only be performed by the temporary substitute. The Attorney General also suggested that consideration may be given to whether it is appropriate to amend the 2022 Act to make express provision dealing with the exercise of the functions of a member during the temporary absence caused by a member taking maternity leave, illness or good-faith absence.
While such an amendment would not, in the Attorney General's view, be considered necessary, it was suggested as a means of avoiding future difficulties arising with regard to the 2022 Act. The objective of this very precise amendment is, therefore, to reinforce the policy intention in providing for a temporary substitute for elected members who take maternity leave or those facing a long-term absence due to illness, in good faith for another reason, and that the temporary substitute will fulfil the functions of the member causing the temporary absence for the period of that absence. The amendment clarifies that a member who has caused the temporary absence and sought a temporary substitute could not continue to exercise the roles and functions of a member in voting in elections to Seanad Éireann, or any other matter, during the period of their absence.
While the amendment relates to the exercise of all functions of an elected member, the effect, in this case, of voting in Seanad elections is that there would only be one vote exercised.
In layman's terms, the substitute would have the vote in the Seanad and not the councillor who is on either paternity or maternity leave.
Exactly. That is it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 305 to 317, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. They relate to the local government rates Act.
I move amendment No. 305:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“CHAPTER 6
Amendment of Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019
Definition
255. In this Chapter, “Act of 2019” means the Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019.”.
Amendments Nos. 305 to 317, inclusive, are taken together. They relate to the following matters. Amendment No. 305 is a technical amendment to provide for the reference to the “Act of 2019” to be the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019.
Amendment No. 306 substitutes section 4 of the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019 and contains a number of technical amendments. There is an amendment to include reference to an existing valuation list under section 4(1). An “existing valuation list” refers to valuations carried out prior to revaluations under the Valuation Act 2001. To date, 23 local authorities have been revalued under Part 5 of the Valuation Act 2001 and a further six local authorities are being revalued this year. These local authorities are subject to valuation lists caused to be published by Tailte Éireann under section 23 of that Act. The remaining local authorities are subject to an “existing valuation list” and would not be able to levy rates under the Act without this amendment.
Also in respect of amendment No. 306, there is an amendment to the formula calculating the amount of rates to be levied under section 4(2) to include reference to a date on which such calculation is made. There is currently ambiguity in that the section does not identify the valuation list, on a specific date, to be used in the levying of this rate. The rate is to be calculated on the last day of the previous local financial year, that is, 31 December. There is an amendment to section 4(3) to provide that the rate is due and payable on the first day of the financial year rather than explicitly stating 1 January as there is a provision in legislation to enable the Minister to change the start of the local financial year to another date. The use of the terms “owner” and “occupier” in section 4 is considered to be problematic and legal advice received by the Department confirms the need to consider the appropriateness of the use of the terms. Section 4(4) has been amended to refer to a “liable person” where appropriate.
There is an amendment to section 4(5) to include that a rates bill shall be given by a rating authority to a liable person in four circumstances: at the beginning of the year when the local authority imposes the rates; where a valuation of a relevant property is amended pursuant to section 28 of the Valuation Act 2001, that is, where there is a revision of a valuation during the year; where a valuation of a relevant property is amended on foot of the outcome of an appeal pursuant to section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001; or where there is a subsequent liable person during the year, that is, a person who was not the liable person who received the original rates bill at the beginning of the year. All circumstances exist currently, but there is no legal basis for the final three circumstances I outlined. Reference to section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001 is being included in section 4(9). Section 38 of the Valuation Act 2001 provides for amendment of the valuation list following a decision of the Valuation Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court. The power to amend the rate levied during the year on foot of the outcome of an appeal was omitted by oversight in the original Act and is being remedied now.
Amendment No. 307 is intended to provide that a rate book prepared by a local authority, which may be stored electronically under section 5 of the 2019 Act, will satisfy the requirements under section 65 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838. This will effectively remove the antiquated requirement from the 1838 Act of making a physical rate book.
Amendment No. 308 removes the requirement of the local authority in section 9 of the 2019 Act to inform an applicant in writing within three months of the outcome of their vacancy abatement application. This is necessary as local authorities will not make a vacancy abatement determination, in many cases, until the end of the financial year.
Amendment No. 309 clarifies that the reference to a database, singular, in section 10 of the 2019 Act does not preclude local authorities from using other databases, for example, customer and billing databases ordinarily used in the rates function. It also allows a field to be inserted into the database for the name of the person entitled to occupy an unoccupied relevant property, that is, if vacant, where there is no occupier. It also provides that the rating authority is notified by the liable person, when that person becomes aware that any particular entered in the database in relation to themselves or the relevant property is incorrect, or has ceased to be correct, and provides for a sanction on a liable person for failing to notify without reasonable excuse. Such sanction would be that the person is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine.
Amendment No. 310 amends section 11 of the 2019 Act and provides that a person who ceases to be a liable person, becomes a liable person, or changes their status as a liable person, shall give notice in writing of that fact to the local authority. A person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine. The sanctions proposed for sections 10 and 11 are intended to replace the complex penalty originally provided for in section 11 for not informing the local authority of a change in relation to a liable person or relevant property, with a simpler, more commonly understood sanction.
Amendment No. 311 provides in section 12 of the 2019 Act for the prescribing by the Minister of the rate of interest on overdue rates, in case the interest rate specified in the Act is to be changed in the future.
Amendment No. 312 clarifies in section 13 of the 2019 Act that the liable person who owns a relevant property and proposes to sell the property shall, before the sale, pay to the local authority any rates and interest imposed under this Act, which is due and payable by that liable person only and not due and payable by a previous occupier. It also provides for a sanction to be imposed on a liable person should that person sell a relevant property without first discharging the requirement to pay any rates and accrued interest due and payable to the local authority. Such sanction is to be that the person is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both.
Amendment No. 313 refers to "the owner's capacity as a liable person" rather than an "owner" in section 14 of the 2019 Act to keep consistency of terms in the Act. It also provides that a charge on a property under section 14 does not remain a charge post sale, meaning that a charge from a previous owner’s unpaid rates does not remain on the property post sale.
Amendment No. 314 is to clarify in section 17 of the 2019 Act that a warrant issued by a judge of the District Court is not required to enter a relevant property that does not contain a dwelling within. The policy intention is that an authorised officer may, for the purposes of assessing an application under section 9, that is, an application for abatement of rates in respect of a vacant property, enter at all reasonable times a relevant property and inspect the property. Also, the authorised officer may not enter a dwelling, or a property other than a relevant property, other than with either the consent of the occupier or pursuant to a warrant issued by the District Court.
Amendment No. 315 ensures that commencement of this Act will not adversely impact sections 65 and 106 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838. This new section is deemed to be required as section 61 of 1838, which currently provides for the levying of rates, is to be repealed and has consequential impact on sections 65 and 106. Section 65 of the 1838 Act provides for the making of a rates book. While section 5 of this Act provides that a rate book prepared by a local authority, which may be stored electronically, will satisfy the requirements under section 65 of 1838 and remove the requirement to make a physical rate book, it is not intended to repeal the original provision. Section 106 of the 1838 Act provides for the right to appeal the rate. It is not intended to repeal this right. Ratepayers generally avail of the appeal process under Part 7 of the Valuation Acts 2001 to 2015. If a ratepayer is unhappy with the amount of rates being levied in respect of his or her property, he or she may avail of the valuation appeal process to have the valuation reassessed. Rates are only payable in respect of properties that are valued and appear in the valuation list. Accordingly, it is understood that the right of appeal against the rate itself under the 1838 Act is rarely exercised. However, it was not the intention to remove the right to appeal the making of the rate under the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838. Section 19A ensures that the right of appeal is not inadvertently removed.
Amendment No. 316 is a technical amendment to delete paragraph (a) of section 21 of the 2019 Act, as this amendment is now included in amendments to the Valuation Act 2001 proposed in this Act.
Amendment No. 317 is a technical amendment to repeal section 29 of the Local Government Act 1946 and is required, as this appeal was inadvertently omitted from the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019. This section provides for the making of the rate as one rate for the whole year and provides that the rate shall be collected every year in two equal moieties. It was intended to repeal that section as the provision was in conflict with, and intended to be replaced by, sections 4(8), 4(9) and 5 of the Act of 2019.
There is an awful lot there.
I appreciate that.
I would love to have time to go through it. There are interesting points to be made on the sections on vacancy, getting access and evaluation for rates.
There was a briefing on this. A briefing document should be made available to all the committee members for Report Stage, and it should also be made available to the Seanad. Does the Minister of State agree to that?
Absolutely.
Does that satisfy Deputy Gould?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 305:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"CHAPTER 6
Amendment of Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019
Definition
255. In this Chapter, "Act of 2019" means the Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 306:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Rate to be levied on occupiers of relevant property
256. The Act of 2019 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 4:
"4. (1) Subject to this section, in each local financial year, each rating authority shall, in accordance with the provisions of this section,
impose and collect a charge (in this Act referred to as ‘a rate’) levied in respect of a relevant property included in—
(a) an existing valuation list for the rating authority’s area, or
(b) the valuation list caused to be published by Tailte Éireann under section 23 of the Act of 2001 in the rating authority area of that authority.
(2) The amount of the rate so levied shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula:
A × B on C
where—
A is the rateable valuation of the relevant property,
B is the annual rate on valuation determined by the rating authority concerned under section 3 for that year, and
C is the last day of the local financial year immediately preceding the local financial year to which the calculation relates.
(3) The rate calculated under this section shall be due and payable on the first day of the local financial year to which the rate applies.
(4) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the following persons (in this Act referred to as a ‘liable person’) are liable to pay the rate levied under this section:
(i) the occupier of the relevant property on the day specified in subsection (3);
(ii) if the relevant property is unoccupied on that day, the person who is for the time being entitled to occupy the property on that day.
(b) Where a rate has been levied in respect of a relevant property in any local financial year and the liable person to whom a rates bill has been given under this section ceases to be the liable person in respect of the relevant property before the end of that year and has not paid the rate so levied, such liable person shall be liable to pay that portion of the rate levied in respect of that part of that year during which he or she remained the liable person and the remaining portion of the rate shall be levied on any subsequent liable persons on a pro-rata basis in respect of that part of that year in respect of which they were such liable persons.
(5)(a) A rates bill stating the rate levied under this section shall be given by the rating authority concerned to a liable person—
(i) where sections 3 and 4(1) and (2) apply,
(ii) where a valuation of a relevant property is amended pursuant to section 28 or 38 of the Act of 2001,
(iii) who is a subsequent liable person, or
(iv) in accordance with subsection (6).
(b) The rates bill shall include the following information:
(i) the amount of the rate payable by the person to whom the rates person is addressed;
(ii) the date by which the rate is due and payable and the manner in which it is to be paid;
(iii) the address of the relevant property;
(iv) the rateable valuation of the relevant property;
(v) any other information considered necessary by the rating authority.
(6) A rates bill under this section shall be addressed to the liable person or subsequent liable person concerned by name and may be so served on or given to the person in one of the following ways:
(a) by delivering it to the person;
(b) by leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, at that address;
(c) by sending it by post to the address at which the person ordinarily resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been furnished, to that address;
(d) by electronic means, in a case in which the person has given notice in writing to the person serving or giving the notice or document concerned of his or her consent to the notice or document (or notices or documents of a class to which the notice or document belongs) being served on, or given to, him or her in that manner;
(e) in such other way as may be prescribed.
(7) Where the name of the liable person or subsequent liable person concerned cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, a rates bill under this section may be addressed—
(a) to ‘the occupier’, ‘the owner’ or ‘the person liable to pay the rates bill’, as appropriate, or
(b) in such other way as may be prescribed.
(8) A rate levied under this section shall be payable by a liable person or subsequent liable person in such manner and in respect of such period or periods as the rating authority concerned shall determine.
(9) Where—
(a) the valuation of a relevant property on the existing valuation list or the valuation list is amended pursuant to section 28 or 38 of the Act of 2001,
(b) a new relevant property is included on the existing valuation list or the valuation list on foot of a valuation carried out pursuant to section 28 or 38 of the Act of 2001, or
(c) a relevant property is excluded from the existing valuation list or the valuation list pursuant to section 28 or 38 of the Act 2001, the rating authority may amend the amount of the rate calculated under subsection (2) or levy a rate, or both, as appropriate, in respect of the relevant properties and specify the date (determined as prescribed) on and after which such amendment shall take effect.
(10) For the purposes of this section, a company registered under the Companies Act 2014, or an existing company within the meaning of that Act, shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its registered office, and every other body corporate and every unincorporated body shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident at its principal office or place of business.
(11) In this section—
‘Act of 2001’ means the Valuation Act 2001;
‘existing valuation list’ has the same meaning as it has in the Act 2001;
‘subsequent liable person’ means a subsequent liable person referred to in subsection (4)(b);
‘valuation list’ has the same meaning as it has in the Act of 2001.".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 307:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Rate book
257. The Act of 2019 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 5:
"5. (1) The contents of a rate book prepared by a local authority may be stored electronically.
(2) A book referred to in section 65 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 shall be deemed to be a rate book referred to in subsection (1) (in this subsection referred to as a ‘deemed rate book’) and, where the deemed rate book is stored electronically, that shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of that section in respect of the deemed rate book and notwithstanding any specific such requirements.".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 308:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 9 of Act of 2019
258. Section 9 of the Act of 2019 is amended by the deletion of subsection (10).".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 309:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 10 of Act of 2019
259. Section 10 of the Act of 2019 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of "(which may consist of more than one database)" after "database of information",
(b) in subsection (2)—
(i) by the insertion of the following paragraph after paragraph (a):
"(aa) if of the relevant property is unoccupied, if known, the name of the person who is for the time being entitled to occupy the relevant property;", and
(ii) in paragraph (d), by the insertion of "to the extent known," before "the nature", and
(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):
"(2A) (a) A liable person in respect of a relevant property shall, upon becoming aware that any particular entered in the database in respect of him or her or the relevant property is incorrect or has ceased to be correct, not later than 10 working days after becoming so aware, give notice in writing of that incorrection or cessation of correction, as the case may be, to the local authority together with such other (as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case) information in respect thereof as will enable the local authority to perform its function under subsection (3) in respect of that particular.
(b) A liable person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes paragraph (a) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine.".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 310:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Duty on person to notify local authority of ceasing to be or becoming liable person, etc.
260. The Act of 2019 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 11:
"11. (1) Where a person (in this subsection referred to as the ‘person concerned’)—
(a) ceases to be a liable person in respect of a relevant property,
(b) becomes a liable person in respect of a relevant property, or
(c) changes his or her status as a liable person in respect of a relevant property by virtue of—
(i) ceasing to fall within paragraph (a)(i) of subsection (4) of section 4 but falling within paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection in respect of such property, or
(ii) ceasing to fall within paragraph (a)(ii) of subsection (4) of section 4 but falling within paragraph (a)(i) of that subsection in respect of such property, the person concerned (or such other person as the person concerned has authorised in writing to act on his or her behalf for the purposes of this subsection) shall, not later than 10 working days after the date on which the person concerned falls within paragraph (a), (b) or (c), as the case may be, give notice in writing of that fact (and, where the person concerned falls within paragraph (a), particulars known (if any) to the person concerned of the name and address of any person who has become a liable person in respect of the relevant property upon the person concerned ceasing to be a liable person in respect of the relevant property) to the rating authority concerned and in the notice specify that date and the relevant property.
(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine.
(3) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of specifying the information or documents (or copies of documents) which shall accompany a notice under subsection (1) or a notice under that subsection which falls within a class of such notices specified in the regulations.".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 311:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 12 of Act of 2019
261. Section 12(2) of the Act of 2019 is amended by the substitution of "the prescribed rate or, if no rate is prescribed, the rate of 0.0219 per cent" for "the rate of 0.0219 per cent".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 312:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Payment of rates on sale of property
262. The Act of 2019 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 13:
"13. (1) The liable person in respect of a relevant property who proposes to sell the property shall, before the completion of the sale, pay to the local authority concerned any rates imposed under this Act and accrued interest which is due and payable in respect of that property—
(a) for the period up to and including the day immediately before such completion, and
(b) for which the person is liable in the person’s capacity as a liable person.
(2) The local authority concerned shall, not later than 10 working days after an application in writing being made to it for the purpose by a liable person referred to in subsection (1) or a person acting on behalf of the liable person in connection with the sale of the relevant property referred to in that subsection, provide, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, the applicant with, as appropriate—
(a) confirmation of any unpaid rates and accrued interest referred to in that subsection at the expected date of the completion of the sale of the property, or
(b) confirmation that there are no outstanding amounts payable by that liable person.
(3) A liable person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both.
(4) In this section, ‘sale’ includes, in relation to a relevant property, the transfer of the property by its owner or any trustee or personal representative of the owner to another person—
(a) in consequence of—
(i) the exercise of a power under any enactment to compulsorily acquire land, or
(ii) the giving of notice of intention to exercise such power, or
(b) for no consideration or consideration which is significantly less than the market value of the property at the time of its transfer.".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 313:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 14 of Act of 2019
263. Section 14 of the Act of 2019 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) by the substitution of "Subject to subsection (2A), any" for "Any", and
(ii) by the insertion of "in the owner’s capacity as a liable person" after "owner of the relevant property",
(b) in subsection (2), by the substitution of "Subject to subsection (2A), notwithstanding" for "Notwithstanding", and
(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):
"(2A) Subsection (1) shall cease to apply to a relevant property where the property is sold such that the liable person referred to in that subsection ceases to be the owner of the property.".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 314:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 17 of Act of 2019
264. Section 17 of the Act of 2019 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1)(a), by the substitution of "subsection (2)" for "subsection (3)",
(b) in subsection (2), by the insertion of "or property other than a relevant property" after "dwelling", and (c) in subsection (3)—
(i) by the insertion of ", or property other than a relevant property," after "held at any dwelling,",
(ii) by the insertion of ", or such property, as the case may be," after "the dwelling", and
(iii) by the insertion of "as if such dwelling (if it is not a relevant property) or property were a relevant property" after "under this section".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 315:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Construction of sections 65 and 106 of Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838
265. The Act of 2019 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 19:
"19A. With effect on and after the commencement of section 265 of the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Act 2023—
(a) the reference to ‘such rate’ in section 65 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 shall be construed not as a reference to a rate made under that Act but as a reference to a rate within the meaning of this Act and the other provisions of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 shall, with all necessary modifications, be construed accordingly, and
(b) the reference to ‘this Act’ in section 106 of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 shall be construed not as a reference to that Act but as a reference to this Act and the other provisions of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act 1838 shall, with all necessary modifications, be construed accordingly.".".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 316:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Amendment of section 21 of Act of 2019
266. Section 21 of the Act of 2019 is amended by the deletion of paragraph (a).".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 317:
317. In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"Amendment of Schedule to Act of 2019
267. The Schedule to the Act of 2019 is amended by the insertion of the following reference after reference number 9:
"
|
9A. |
No. 24 of 1946 |
Local Government Act 1946 |
Section 29 |
".".
Amendment agreed to.
We shall move on to the last grouping of amendments, Nos. 318 to 323, which relate to the Maritime Area Planning Act.
I move amendment No. 318:
318. In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
"CHAPTER 7
Amendment of Maritime Area Planning Act 2021
Definition
268. In this Chapter, "Act of 2021" means the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021.".
These amendments amend provisions of the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. Amendment No. 319 amends section 75 of the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 to disapply the requirement in section 75 to hold a maritime area consent, MAC, before applying for development consent. This applies where a prospective applicant has entered into pre-application consultations with An Bord Pleanála before 1 October 2022. The provision is intended to ensure that projects that entered the planning system under section 37B of the Act prior to the commencement of Part XXI of the Planning and Development Act, which introduced the requirement for a MAC, can continue in that consent process notwithstanding the introduction of a new marine planning regime. It is a partner provision to the amendment at section 243. However, an application for a MAC must be made within two years of the granting of planning consent.
Similarly, amendment No. 321 inserts a new section 76A into the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 disapplying the provisions of sections 75 and 76 where a lease is made or a licence is granted before 1 October 2022, ensuring there is no requirement for a MAC in such circumstances.
Amendments Nos. 318 and 320 are technical amendments providing a definition and a required cross-reference.
Amendment No. 323 is intended to address concerns that arose in the context of the MACs issued under the Maritime Area Planning Act to a first batch of offshore renewable energy projects, the phase 1 projects, in December 2022. The Act provides, at section 144(1)(b), that if the holder of a MAC becomes subject to a winding-up order, or if a receiver or examiner is appointed, the MAC automatically terminates.
In the drafting of these phase 1 MACs, it became apparent that the wording of section 144, as it stands, has the unintended consequence of preventing the holder of a MAC from identifying a suitable replacement holder from taking control of the project in the event that a termination occurs as per section 144 of the Act. The automatic termination provision is problematic for investors and financial institutions in the context of providing project finance and may pose a significant obstacle to financing and developing an offshore renewable energy project.
The issue that the amendment seeks to address is that, currently, if an offshore wind farm gets into financial difficulty and becomes insolvent, the right to develop the project, the relevant authorisation, automatically terminates without those lending money to facilitate the development of the project having an opportunity to remedy or rescue the project. The amendment provides for a short suspension of the automatic termination provisions, which would potentially facilitate the identification of a suitable replacement entity, thus allowing an offshore renewable energy project to continue. Under the proposed approach, MARA would have the right to suspend the automatic termination provisions and require a defaulting offshore wind farm developer to submit a proposal for assignment to a new holder under the existing assignment provisions of the Maritime Area Planning Act, namely those in section 85.
It is envisaged that, on foot of these amendments, the Department and MARA will produce guidance on the factors that the authority will or will not consider in reviewing and approving or refusing an assignment request under new sections 144A(4), 144A(5) or 144A(6).
Amendment No. 322 is a minor technical amendment.
Again, a briefing note on this would be very helpful to Members.
Yes. I have just a couple of questions for the Minister of State. Could he elaborate on the rationale for amendment No. 319? There seems to be extraordinary latitude in allowing someone not to have to apply for a MAC until the second anniversary of the date of the granting of the permission concerned. This is referred to in paragraph (c) of the amendment. It is hard to see how such a delay in obtaining clarity on the developer's capacity to deliver via a MAC is consistent with the drive to achieve our targets for 2030 and not to waste the resources of the State in respect of the focus on an unviable development.
Would it be of use if I responded to that by way of a briefing note?
Deputy Thomas Gould: Yes.
I have another question; in fact, I have pages of questions. Amendments Nos. 320 and 321 should really have been taken together as they concern exemptions from the normal requirements under the 2021 Act in respect of cable infrastructure. What is the rationale for this? It is confusing as a briefing note refers to where applicants have engaged in preplanning consultation with An Bord Pleanála on or before 1 October 2022. However, the actual amendment refers to leases or licences granted on or before 1 October 2022. The Chair has said the Minister of State is going to send a briefing note.
Given that what I have described allows for a window in which to find a new operator, is it not clear where liability will arise in respect of issues and damage that may arise in the interim. Can the Department elaborate on how such issues will be managed and by whom? I am referring to amendments Nos. 322 and 323. I would certainly appreciate a briefing note.
In our consideration of the Bill, we have been discussing the Foreshore Act 1933, the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, and we have also been discussing the Government's amendments to the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945 and briefing notes for amendments on the Valuation Act 2001. We have discussed the local government legislation of 2022 and the Local Government Rates and Other Matters Act 2019. This is no way to be doing business. All these issues are really important. For this reason, Sinn Féin has co-operated with the Chair and the Minister of State today. We are not opposing the amendments and realise that very important work needs to be done but we have major concerns and questions that we would like to have been addressed. I am disappointed with how we are doing things here today; however, we are not going to be obstructive or attempt to hold up the legislation. We are here for well over three hours at this stage and are trying to be as constructive as we can while also trying to get information from the Minister of State and the Department.
That briefing document would be helpful. Deputy Gould has raised a number of questions that were not raised at our briefing, so the Minister of State might supply him and the other members of the committee with a more detailed briefing taking them into account. There will be Report Stage and a Stage to debate amendments proposed by the Seanad, and a lot of those questions could be addressed before then.
I note the concerns Deputy Gould has raised. We will provide a detailed briefing, if required, on the specific questions he has put. I thank him, the Cathaoirleach and the rest of the committee for their co-operation on this, which has been very important. We note and appreciate the concerns that have been raised.
I thank the Minister of State.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 319:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 75 of Act of 2021
269. Section 75 of the Act of 2021 is amended—
(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of “and section 76A” after “subsection (4)”, and
(b) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (4):
“(4) (a) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any proposed maritime usage specified in Schedule 3.
(b) Subject to paragraph (c), subsection (1) shall not apply where—
(i) a prospective applicant for the development permission referred to in that subsection has, on or before 1 October 2022, entered into consultations with the Board (P) under section 37B of the Act of 2000, and
(ii) an application for such permission is made, on or before 1 October 2024, pursuant to Part III of the Act of 2000.
(c) Where a person is for the time being not required to be the holder of a MAC by virtue of the operation of paragraph (b), the person shall make the MAC application concerned before the 2nd anniversary of the date of the grant of the permission concerned pursuant to Part III of the Act of 2000.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 320:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 76 of Act of 2021
270. Section 76(1) of the Act of 2021 is amended by the insertion of “and section 76A” after “subsection (4)”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 321:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“When MAC is not required
271. The Act of 2021 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 76:
“76A. Neither section 75 nor section 76 shall apply for a maritime usage in a part of the maritime area consisting of development (including the laying of cables or pipelines or both) authorised by—
(a) a lease made, on or before 1 October 2022, under section 2 of the Act of 1933, or
(b) a licence granted, on or before 1 October 2022, under section 3 of the Act of 1933.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 322:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Amendment of section 144 of Act of 2021
272. Section 144(1) of the Act of 2021 is amended by the insertion of “section 144A and” after “Subject to”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 323:
In page 181, after line 29 to insert the following:
“Disapplication of section 144(1)(a) or (b) in specified circumstances
273. The Act of 2021 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 144:
“144A. (1) Subject to subsections (4), (6), (8) and (9), the relevant event shall not terminate the relevant authorisation until the expiration of the
relevant period.
(2) The MARA may, at any time during the relevant period, by notice in writing given to the relevant person, require the person to submit a return, in the specified form and within such period as is specified in the notice (being a period reasonable in all the circumstances of the case), to the MARA on the person’s prospects of finding a proposed assignee within the relevant period.
(3) The relevant person who is given a notice under subsection (2) shall comply with the notice.
(4) Where—
(a) the relevant person who was given a notice under subsection (2) fails to comply with the notice, or
(b) the MARA, having considered a return submitted to it by the relevant person pursuant to a notice under subsection (2), is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the person finding a proposed assignee within the relevant period,
the MARA shall, by notice published on its website, disapply subsection (1) to the relevant authorisation (and subsection (5) of section 144 applies accordingly in respect of the termination of the authorisation).
(5) The relevant person may, by notice in the specified form, request the MARA to extend or further extend the relevant period on the grounds specified in the notice.
(6) The MARA, after having considered a notice given to it by the relevant person pursuant to subsection (5), shall—
(a) if it is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the person finding a proposed assignee within the relevant period as extended or further extended for such period as the MARA thinks reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, by notice in writing given to the person, extend or further extend the relevant period for such period as is specified in the notice, or
(b) if not so satisfied, by notice in writing given to the person refuse to extend or further extend the relevant period.
(7) For the purposes of this section, the references to ‘holder’ and ‘proposed assigner’ in section 85 may be construed as references to the relevant person.
(8) Where, before the expiration of the relevant period, an application is made under section 85 for the assignment of the relevant authorisation, the relevant period shall not expire until the determination of the application.
(9) Where the relevant authorisation is assigned to the proposed assignee pursuant to the determination of an application under section 85, the relevant event shall not apply to the authorisation but without prejudice to any future application of section 144 to the authorisation.
(10) In this section—
‘proposed assignee’ shall be construed in accordance with section 85;
‘relevant authorisation’ means a relevant authorisation which is a MAC in respect of which an event which falls within section 144(1)(a) or (b) has occurred in respect of the holder of the authorisation;
‘relevant event’, in relation to the relevant authorisation, means the event referred to in the definition of ‘relevant authorisation’;
‘relevant person’, in relation to the relevant authorisation, means—
(a) the holder of the authorisation,
(b) a secured party, or
(c) both the holder and such party;
‘relevant period’, in relation to the relevant authorisation, means the following:
(a) subject to paragraph (b), the period of 90 days commencing on the day immediately following the day on which the relevant event occurs;
(b) that 90 days as extended or further extended by virtue of subsection (6)(a) or (8);
‘security interest’ means any mortgage, charge, pledge, lien or other security interest securing any obligation of any person or any agreement or other arrangement having a similar effect;
‘secured party’, in relation to a relevant authorisation, means a person—
(a) in whose favour a security interest has been created over—
(i) the maritime usage the subject of the authorisation, or
(ii) the shares (if any) of the holder of the authorisation, or
(b) who has, pursuant to an agreement in writing, been afforded rights to step in to the interest that the holder of the authorisation has in the maritime usage the subject of the authorisation,
and whether or not the person is acting for the person’s own benefit or as agent, security agent, security trustee or otherwise for the first-mentioned person or another person, and includes any transferee of, or purchaser from, the first-mentioned person or nominee or novatee of the holder of the authorisation or of the first-mentioned person.”.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2
I move amendment No. 324:
In page 184, line 33, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 325:
In page 185, line 42, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 326:
In page 188, line 11, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 327:
In page 189, line 23, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 4
I move amendment No. 328:
In page 202, line 28, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 329:
In page 203, line 31, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 330:
In page 203, line 39, after “Expenditure” to insert “, National Development Plan Delivery”.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
TITLE
I move amendment No. 331:
In page 17, line 13, after “enactments;” to insert the following:
“to make miscellaneous amendments to the Foreshore Act 1933, the Lough Corrib Navigation Act 1945, the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Valuation Act 2001, the Local Government Act 2001, the Local Government Rates and other Matters Act 2019 and the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021;”.
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.